On 2015-11-13, Opinicus > wrote:

> The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
> example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
> driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
> oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
> two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
> kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
> it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
> dump track immediately behind it?

Yer right.

While yer example seems a bit far-fetched --specially when you take
into consideration that most sober responsible drivers would have an
equally hard time making such choices-- it is the basis of whether or
not this technology is valid. Can you imagine thousands of attorneys
arguing who was at fault, the car or the driver? It's a losing
proposition.

> Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.

I think the only reason it is even being explored is, the insurance
companies think they will save $$$$, and the creators/producers of
"smart" cars will reap huge profits.

I will NEVER buy a car with IoT technology embedded.

nb