Earlier this year Elon Musk of Tesla car fame predicted there would be fully automated cars on our roads within a couple of years. Six month ago his cars are being driven across our own Sydney Harbour bridge completely hands free;

http://www.drive.com.au/new-car-reviews/tesla-model-s-p90d-review-20151025-gkic8a.html

A new future is just around the corner.

I recently participated in a Stanford University online survey (now finished) regarding attitudes to autonomous cars which raised some quite interesting scenarios. For instance if a car in full autonomous mode was to strike and kill a pedestrian who should shoulder the responsibility if that person was not at fault themselves? The driver? The car's manufacturer? The software engineer?

Where things get even more interesting is around decision making within the software. Should we be expecting that ethical decision making be programmed into the vehicle?

For instance should a car swerve to avoid 3 pedestrians on the road to hit one pedestrian on the footpath? This is a classic philosophical quandary called the Trolley Problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw

Let's extend it and say the car is faced with the scenario of being unable to brake in time to avoid one of two obstacles, a pedestrian or a parked truck. Each would potentially kill a human, either the pedestrian or the vehicle occupant. Whose safety is paramount?

Would you purchase a car that was programmed with the sort of software that doesn't place your and your family's well-being at the top of the list?

Steele Redux, surely these cars will have humans in them who will be able to override the car's system in emergencies?

Why would a car need to be hands free anyway?
I am all for cleaner fuels/energy being used to power our vehicles, but I don't see the point in hands free as such.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Interesting questions and I've come across a link
that helps answer the top misconceptions regarding
autonomous cars. No 6 covers the ethical questions:

http://www.driverless-future.com/?page_id=774

The driver will almost always be held responsible.

I prefer the rules applying to navigation at sea where there is no escape for the stupid and irresponsible Master of a vessel (and for the legal owner).

As another possible comparison with the maritime environment, most shipping is identified by certain main characteristics which are read by authorities and by other mariners to advise their decisions (Automatic Identification System). I like it. I can see where privacy concerns could arise where motor vehicles are concerned.

Returning to land, there are so many stupid and wilful drivers that any improvement by engineers - examples being better safety from improved roads and vehicle engineering - is instantly counterbalanced and setback by the dumb-ass, risk-taking and selfish drivers, who take more risks. Every day I drive a heavier vehicle and allow the required vehicle spacing some idiot in a small maneuverable four-banger ducks into the gap, placing him/herself (yep, there is growing equality in stupidity) in the way of a large load that will not be able to stop now that the gap has been halved.

While I applaud the technical advances and 'driverless' cars (really more aids to driving better), if I had my way there would be fewer drivers on the road. -The number lessened by taking the licences from the unethical, unprincipled, risk-taking fools.

Before anyone comes to lecture me about the maritime AIS, I would imagine that any road version would be used for different purposes and we are there already. It is just that the authorities and industry haven't got around as yet to linking the available data. However a GPS tracker would aid/improve the number plate ID and yes, some makers already have that in newer vehicles too (for servicing).

Suseonline : You asked "Why would a car need to be hands free anyway?"

Well of course it doesn't "need" to be hands free, but there are many reasons why it is preferable. Here are some:

There is the moral argument. The Google cars have collectively now driven a vast total distance now and the data is showing that they a better drivers than people. So this leads to the question: If people are worse drivers then computers then isn't it morally better to require that computers replace human drivers since there will be less fatalities, injury and damage?

There is also the economic argument. We can be more productive since we can now work while driving somewhere (similiar to working on planes). Also, transportation costs will dramatically fall since we don't have to pay people to drive trucks and vans. Nor do we have to pay taxis drivers. We can use our collective transportation assets more efficiently with driverless cars. For example, arrangements such as community owned cars that are shared easily: since we don't have to park the car, it can go straight to the next passenger- the ordering system can be computer controlled so that it delivers cars in the most efficient way. As it is at the moment, the majority of cars are parked at any given time- which is a total waste of resources.

Another is also the environmental argument. Since we can enter into new sharing arrangements (instead of the current ones such as taxis and buses,etc) there is less overall need for new cars. Also because we can drive more efficiently due to computer controlled scheduling, it has the potential for less overall kms driven.

Additionally is the less tangible benefits that people may get from them, such as enjoying a stress free ride where you can sit back relax and sitesee or do other stuff such as talk on the phone or read a book etc.