Driverless Car in Florida Road Rage Incident

[MineralMan]

http://www.newsyoushouldnotbelieve.com

Driverless Car in Tampa Area Road Rage Shootout

Tampa - July 30, 2019
by Uneda Breik

The increasing number of driverless cars on area expressways has recently led to frustration and problems for drivers of traditional vehicles. Yesterday afternoon, that frustration led to a road rage incident on the busy Selmon Expressway, involving three driverless cars and one 2001 Chrysler Town and Country minivan driven by "a Florida Man." According to police reports, the three driverless cars had taken up all lanes of the expressway, and were driving at exactly the posted speed limit.

The driver of the minivan, "a Florida Man," apparently annoyed by being delayed on his drive to Walmart, fired a semi-automatic pistol at one of the driverless cars. In response, all three driverless cars fired back, severely damaging the radiator of the Chrysler, causing it to overheat and stall. The driver of the minivan was not injured in the gunfire.

Driverless cars are restricted to firing only at other vehicles below the windshield line by the recently-passed Florida Driverless Vehicle Self-Protection Act.

A Florida State Patrol spokesmen, when asked about this incident, cited the "Stand Your Ground" clause of that law in defense of the driverless cars, which were apparently justified in returning the fire of "a Florida Man," who was arrested after a brief struggle near his vehicle. He is charged with felonious assault on a computer-controlled vehicle, and may face a prison term of up to 5 years, if convicted.

More at link...perhaps

[RKP5637]

1. I couldn't get the link to work. Wow, at first I thought it was The Onion ... it's for real? n/t

[DetlefK]

4. Robotic cars shooting at humans?

[RKP5637]

8. LOL, yep, that's when I started to wonder ... n/t

[Journeyman]

5. The link itself is your clue . . .

[RKP5637]

9. I'm running at 1/2 speed this morning! Got it now! Thanks! n/t

[MineralMan]

6. Read the link URL carefully, and look at the dateline.

[RKP5637]

7. Oops, got it! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. .

You had me until the second paragraph.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Ha! I suppose it could come to that someday.

Armed driverless cars - there's a concept.

Very clever. I expect you'll hook a few believers, too.

[RKP5637]

10. Given what seems to happen anymore, just about anything seems plausible!

[JaneyVee]

11. FLORIDA MAN strikes again!

[rjj621]

12. Funny

I read the date and knew it wasn't real but still rather thought provoking. While I would break out a gun and start shooting I can see me as that frustrated driver getting stuck behind cars taking all lanes doing the posted speed limit exactly. Actually, 'frustrated' would be a nice way of putting it.

[LiberalEsto]

13. Was anyone or anything naked?

Nothing's permitted to happen in Florida unless someone is naked, armed and in a rage,
.

[MineralMan]

14. THIS IS NOT A NAKED SEX THREAD, DAMMIT!

[NV Whino]

15. Zimmerman was driving the minivan, wasn't he?

Or, will have been driving the minivan?

[MineralMan]

16. A "Florida Man" was or will have been driving, according to the article.

They're all the same, you know. All the same.

[NV Whino]

17. You are correct

I missed the subtlety.

[Hugabear]

18. I've already heard wingnuts claim that driverless cars will kill people

The argument goes like this: Suppose you're in a driverless car, and another car with a mother and child is driving directly towards you for a head-on collision. There's a rock wall on one side of the road, and a steep cliff on the other side. There's no room to maneuver around. The wingnut argument claims that all driverless cars are programmed to sacrifice the lives of its occupants in order to avoid potentially injuring someone in another vehicle.

[MineralMan]

19. Ah...Asimov's Laws of Robotics do create conflicts.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Your unsolvable problem, as described, clearly would lead to a automatic shutdown of the robotic driver, to avoid conflict with the three laws. The cars would collide and kill all occupants, since the robotic driver would no longer be operating. A divide by zero error would cause a fatal crash in the robot's system.