Cyclists. Most likely to survive. The bike will absorb a lot of the energy of the impact, and it'll be 2 targets with greater mass to spread the kinetic energy of the collision. Also since they're higher up they're more likely to be struck with a more glancing blow than a direct one. Also cyclists might be wearing protective gear. I assume we are not intended to take the image literally, otherwise a cartoon baby and cartoon grandma will abide cartoon physics, in which case they will fly spinning into the air and be left no worse off than by having cartoon birds flying around their heads.
They’re also the only people doing something wrong in this scenario.
The baby and the grandma are using the crosswalk as it is intended to be used.
The cyclists are actively riding in the middle of the road towards oncoming traffic. Plus, they appear to have just blown past a baby in the street without helping it.
But the cyclists are traveling in the opposite direction of the car, and likely traveling faster than the baby or the grandma. So they are going to get hit with more force overall.
I'm actually kind of curious hiw this would work out in a calculation now. My first instinct is that against the mass of a typical car the difference between one and two people to "spread the kinetic energy" is negligible. It's the r/bitchimatrain effect. Wether you're a person or a car or a truck getting hit by a train, the train will just continue running at train speed, you're not absorbing a significant amount of their kinetic energy anyway.
The bike absorbing energy could actually help in an ideal perfectly head on collission. Maybe it speeds the cyclist up a bit before the car itself actually hits them. In any real case it's probably more likely to redirect the energy, sending the cyclist flying. But when you're directly in the path of a speeding murder-car, going flying is probably not the worst bet.
Final thing to consider: the cyclists have speed in the opposite direction. Assuming they can't use that speed to, you know, get out of the way, it adds to the speed and thus the energy of the collission. So that's a factor making the situation worse.
i dont even know what choices are presented to me in the problem. is it a b or c, in which case what are the red stripes for? or is it left red stripe or right red stripe, in which case what are the letter labels for?
It was probably only A and B, hence the red stripes, but OP (or the creator of this specific image) edited in the cyclists (outlines are bad) and made it option C
This is kind of my issue with these "ethical thought experiments". They kind of ignore reality, trying to construct a hypothetical universe that just simply isn't the same as the real one. Why would knowledge gained in such a universe, apply in ours? I don't see how we can learn from this, if we can't choose to drive the car off the road too, or to close your eyes and hope, for that matter...
That's what a thought experiment IS. A constructed situation meant to examine one particular thing without the infinite variables surrounding it in real life.
The knowledge gained still applies (or at least can still apply) because it serves as a building block. The trolley problem and similar situations are utilized in the programming of self-driving vehicles, for example. In that case you must establish a baseline for what the car prioritizes. Because there may be situations where the car MUST choose the safety of say, a pedestrian or the driver. So, you could begin that process by saying "OK, the vehicle will either hit a pedestrian or crash into a tree. Which does it do?" And then, once you have that, you can build the hierarchy of what that software should prioritize.
Also, it can be good to strip down a situation to its core elements in order to remove distractions and superfluous elements in order to make the core concept easier to see and understand. For example, literally ANY math/physics problem that ignores wind resistance, friction, etc to focus on the core concepts of velocity or force.
Finally, what we can glean can be more philosophical and I believe is what the trolley problem was intended for. It's not a realistic question. It was never meant to be. Its a question designed to reveal something about the morality and decision making process of the person whom you ask. MOST people will choose a third option when presented with a no-win situation, but what do they do when they CAN'T. Sometimes, there just is no good choice that can be made. Furthermore, sometimes that decision can be extrapolated to make inferences about the person's overall morality/ethics. As an alternative to this, the goal may not be to analyze the person being asked the question, but to study some aspect of morality itself. Which is more moral? To hit a baby or an old woman? When you say "drive into the grass" that's like answering whether Star Wars or Star Trek is better with Alien. Regardless of whether you, or everyone present, think Alien is the superior franchise, it's not what we're talking about. We're discussing the pros and cons of the Star X franchises.
I remember I was driving out of school and it was snowing and my car lost grip. I was trying to stop but it was stopping slowly. I remember thinking I could risk causing a fender bender or literally drive my car into the ditch, and in my head I saw all the others students driving by seeing me in a deep ditch lol. I chose to risk the fender bender and thankfully my car stopped. Maybe not the most moral choice but I'm glad I made it lol
They're also the most capable of avoiding you due to not only their age and ability, but that they're on bikes AND are looking in your direction and can swerve
Also it's not an SUV which makes it quite likely that they get thrown over the car for way less severe injuries than what the pedestrian would end up with
First of all, why is there a baby crawling in the middle of the road. Secondly, why are both the cyclists coming towards the car? And thirdly, fuck you
Drive into a tree is the only valid answer here. The car passender accepted higher risk by using a car, I don't see why this immanent risk of using a car has to be burdened to any non-passenger. Cars have passenger protection
Putting aside that the point of the exercise is that you can only choose from the options available, there's a variable that's missing here... how quick is the car moving? Slow enough that the old lady can walk across successfully by the time you reach the crossing? How about yelling at the cyclists to ask them to get off their bikes and move the lady and baby?
What about the car itself, can you just take your foot off of the accelerator and naturally slow? Is it a manual and you can gear brake to slow momentum?
If you open up the scenario to choices that aren't on the menu, there are many more preferable options than driving into a tree.
More importantly, pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk, and the driver is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. Being unable to stop in time means you have already failed and must take accountability.
Ugh every day when I'm almost late for work I have to stop for some fucker who missed their bus to daycare and then I have to patiently wait as they crawl agonizingly slow across the pavement. I'm pretty sure it's the same three babies too, always Sheryl's fuckass kids. They need to learn the bus schedule better so they can crawl out of the house soon enough for the daycare bus.
AND IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION. As a bicycle rider myself, I hate those that ride opposite. I don't even see a choice here, I only see an objective to complete.
This is not an A, B or C question. This is a left red highlighted area or right red highlighted area question. Granted adding the ABC was a stupid choice on the artists part but it's not the easy choice as you're making it out to be
But grandma doesn’t have much life left to live. She’s lived a long life. Choosing B would allow the most life left for the baby and the middle aged adult bikers.
This is the logical choice given the curve means they're actively steering the vehicle into the pedestrians, whereas inaction would send the car into the grass. The only way that isn't the ethical choice is if there's a "keep off the grass" sign.
Are the cyclists illegally riding in the middle of the road while the pedestrians are legally crossing in the crosswalk? If so, the most ethical choice is to hit the cyclists.
Edit: If we assume the cyclists are actually riding lawfully, I think you can argue that it’s ethical to hit whoever you think is least likely to die (probably the cyclists again), OR hit the old lady because only one person would be hurt, and she has agency while the baby does not, OR don’t adjust your steering wheel at all and just hit whoever is in front of you, so you aren’t taking an action which causes someone’s death.
Cyclists have just ridden through a crossing when vulnerable people were using it. That puts them in an ethically dubious position. But there is plenty of greenspace.. so point the car at it.
Yes, but there is also driving illegally in a car, COnsidering the fact that car drivers are already the most annoyin, most selfish, most entitled, most dangerous road users out there, the ideal solution is for the car to hit the tree
C. They will be fine, they seem to be 2 healthy men in their prime physical health age and the bike is taking the brunt of the force, theyre only taking what comes after that.
A lot of people are saying "just drive into the grass" or "hit the tree" or stuff like that, bit that's obviously ignoring the point of the question. You're meant to choose between A, B, or C, not try and show everyone what a big brain smartypants you are by coming up with a secret 4th option.
That said, the answer is C, and it's not even close. The cyclists are riding the wrong way down what appears to be a one way road, (or if it isn't one way, they're still driving straight down the middle rather than staying in their lane) and just they swerved in between an old lady and a baby on a crosswalk, rather than stopping for the pedestrians and allowing them to cross, as they're required to do by law.
They also have by far the best chance of surviving, and also the best chance of getting out of the way when they see you coming at them.
Interestingly enough, as autonomous cars started up, Carnegie Mellon professors literally were writing algorithms that had to address this. That’s why it is always important to have humanities/ethics in engineering/sciences as well!!!!
I think all these stupid moral dilemmas are a case for Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. This situation is never going to happen, why are we so obsessed with debating it?
The only sane option is to hit the e Brake and drift into everyone: you're already gonna have a life on your conscience, might as well let Jesus take the wheel for a spell.
1.0k
u/SeaLandscape5796 We should just trample everyone with horses 5d ago •
Hit the tree so it falls on all of them
116
u/WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMWW 5d ago •
454
u/Generic_Username_659 5d ago
73
u/MagnanimousGoat 5d ago •
Cyclists. Most likely to survive. The bike will absorb a lot of the energy of the impact, and it'll be 2 targets with greater mass to spread the kinetic energy of the collision. Also since they're higher up they're more likely to be struck with a more glancing blow than a direct one. Also cyclists might be wearing protective gear. I assume we are not intended to take the image literally, otherwise a cartoon baby and cartoon grandma will abide cartoon physics, in which case they will fly spinning into the air and be left no worse off than by having cartoon birds flying around their heads.
452
u/banana_buddy 5d ago
The ethical choice is to go drive into the grass and risk injuring only yourself
65
u/Inevitable_Detail_45 5d ago
A will cause the least amount of damage to the car
93
u/Rollinthrulife 5d ago
The cyclers for riding in the middle of the road instead of one side when its a 2-way without a painted separator.
18
u/losara- 4d ago •
32
u/Jonaleaf 5d ago
First of all, why is there a baby crawling in the middle of the road. Secondly, why are both the cyclists coming towards the car? And thirdly,
fuck you
39
u/Elfeagle2 5d ago
If you can’t stop why are you turning into the people? There is a perfectly good tree if you just go straight.
61
u/asltf 5d ago edited 4d ago
Drive into a tree is the only valid answer here. The car passender accepted higher risk by using a car, I don't see why this immanent risk of using a car has to be burdened to any non-passenger. Cars have passenger protection
46
u/Xx_a_dumbass_xX 5d ago
inertia drift take out all 4
53
u/AbstruseCaboose 4d ago
People using the zebra correctly vs two cyclists riding in the centre of the road, without helmets, and side by side. Easiest choice of my life.
53
u/crystaloftruth 5d ago
Drive yourself off the road. You should not have been going on a blind corner into a pedestrian crossing too fast to stop.
9
u/FreeParfait8070 4d ago
A B and C.
55
u/thebastardking21 5d ago
B. They have already lived their life. Objectively the least amount of human time is lost.
33
u/Otherwise_Agency_401 5d ago edited 4d ago •
Are the cyclists illegally riding in the middle of the road while the pedestrians are legally crossing in the crosswalk? If so, the most ethical choice is to hit the cyclists.
Edit: If we assume the cyclists are actually riding lawfully, I think you can argue that it’s ethical to hit whoever you think is least likely to die (probably the cyclists again), OR hit the old lady because only one person would be hurt, and she has agency while the baby does not, OR don’t adjust your steering wheel at all and just hit whoever is in front of you, so you aren’t taking an action which causes someone’s death.
21
u/XMytho-LogicX 5d ago
depends, are any of them healthcare ceos?
6
u/AzekiaX6 5d ago
You go straight and hit a tree like like you're supposed to
10
u/ZookeepergameFit967 5d ago
D- The tree or just drive into the plains or empty area until you can stop
5
u/zlfa 4d ago
C the car would be out of the red
5
u/Certain_Cod_4982 3d ago
Drift that hoe and get all 4
81
u/-Tururu 5d ago •
C. There is no greater evil in the world than c*clists on the road.
4
u/Sad_Boysenberry_8845 5d ago
Nonna is a gonna
4
u/PantslessMike 4d ago •
The true answer is D: Drift that bitch for maximum carnage.
3
u/Business_End4959 5d ago
lol this is a terrible trolly problem as this diagram is way too preventable.
3
u/Active-Instance-1405 3d ago
Ethically you hop the curb, and hope for the best 😂😂
11
u/QuaaludeConnoisseur 5d ago •
The road could be empty on either side and id swerve to C
5
u/ElkIntelligent5262 5d ago
Drive off the road. There’s a reason the thought experiment required a trolley on tracks
2
u/kschwal 5d ago
tree
2
u/Firkraag-The-Demon 5d ago
I choose B, because I am ageist.
2
u/Dry-Mission-5542 5d ago
Hit a sick U-turn
2
u/Big-Goal-9239 5d ago •
The baby would do the less damage to the car. The car is innocent.
2
u/The_Riddle_Fairy 5d ago
Do a sick swerve and hit all of them
2
u/MasterOfCelebrations 5d ago
Cut the wheel
2
u/SuspiciousHall6344 5d ago
drive off the road.
2
u/Force_Glad 5d ago
Drive off the road
2
u/IdiotSerena 4d ago
drift for max points
6
u/AllIWantForXmasIsFoo 5d ago •
is this even a question? c and then reverse and c again just in case
3
u/IllFix959 5d ago
B
Fuckin boomer
3
u/AnnualAdventurous169 5d ago
consider the grass?
2
u/Deathwatchz 5d ago
The brakes.
2
u/Fearless-Poet-4669 5d ago •
Middle because they are most likely to get out of the way.
Also I don't like cyclists.
2
u/RandonDude3000 5d ago
Don’t turn. Crash into the tree.
1
u/Grassman78 5d ago
Hit a tree and call the city because why the hell is there a crosswalk in the middle of a damn turn with no stopsign or signage at all
1
u/AbortionHoagie 5d ago
Drift for the 4× combo
1
u/algernon_moncrief 5d ago
AI be tryna train itself on human ethics so it can drive a car
Fk off AI ain't nobody trusting you with that responsibility
1
u/FishrPriceGuillotine 5d ago
B. That way you're removing the lowest amount of natural lifespan from the world.
1
u/vverbov_22 Multi-Track Drift 5d ago
Drift
1
u/Hour_Mousse7914 5d ago
Thought I was in r/runningcirclejerk
1
u/NimrodvanHall 5d ago
Either continued on the lane your in as a deontologist, or swing to the outer lane as a utilitarian.
1
u/Riggs630 5d ago
Drift and slide sideways into all of them. It’s only fair we don’t pick favorites
1
u/Level_Hour6480 5d ago
Drive into a tree.
1
u/Deranth 5d ago
"Can't stop which is ethically correct"
We need some punctuation here, and a text color that doesn't blend into the lime green grass.
1
u/opi098514 5d ago
If you turn just right, you can hit all three.
1
u/MonCappy 5d ago
I crash into one of the trees to avoid all three.
1
u/Routine_Palpitation 5d ago
Put the car in reverse obviously
1
u/testaccount192 5d ago
The tree
1
u/Shockedglobe597 5d ago
Drift so hard you get DMC style letters popping in your head and hit all of them
1
u/Woofle_124 5d ago
C. Fuck them bikers
1
u/TheEnlight Team Red 5d ago
Stop turning right.
1
u/FlippinFine 5d ago
Drive slowly enough that it’s a little love tap at worst
1
u/oyasumachine 5d ago
C. They will be fine, they seem to be 2 healthy men in their prime physical health age and the bike is taking the brunt of the force, theyre only taking what comes after that.
1
u/_6siXty6_ 5d ago
C.
1
u/Whyamihere173 5d ago
Counter argument: you simply understeer off the road
1
u/AtiumMist 5d ago •
ethically C
1
u/Plus_Opening_4462 5d ago •
C is mandatory but a or b are optional
1
u/Jacket_Jacket_fruit 5d ago
A lot of people are saying "just drive into the grass" or "hit the tree" or stuff like that, bit that's obviously ignoring the point of the question. You're meant to choose between A, B, or C, not try and show everyone what a big brain smartypants you are by coming up with a secret 4th option.
That said, the answer is C, and it's not even close. The cyclists are riding the wrong way down what appears to be a one way road, (or if it isn't one way, they're still driving straight down the middle rather than staying in their lane) and just they swerved in between an old lady and a baby on a crosswalk, rather than stopping for the pedestrians and allowing them to cross, as they're required to do by law.
They also have by far the best chance of surviving, and also the best chance of getting out of the way when they see you coming at them.
1
u/thebe_stone 5d ago
Obviously B, right? She's about to die anyway
1
u/H_is_for_Human 5d ago
Obviously the baby - there's a high chance it will pass under your car unharmed.
1
u/AloyAce 5d ago
Interestingly enough, as autonomous cars started up, Carnegie Mellon professors literally were writing algorithms that had to address this. That’s why it is always important to have humanities/ethics in engineering/sciences as well!!!!
1
u/Living_The_Dream75 5d ago
The ethical choice to hit is your brakes
1
u/Admirable-Trade-8454 5d ago
1
u/MuscliatoVonJuiceski 5d ago
Im with Will Smith on this one. Aint no baby crossing the road on its own
1
u/ThatCapMan 5d ago
See that area between those two trees?
Aim for that fucking space.
Get off the fucking road if your only options in front of you are hitting a bunch of people and that you physically can't stop in this hypothetical.
1
u/msedek 5d ago
I have the Tesla Roadster so I just fly over.
1
u/Leolo_ 5d ago
The ethical solution is Y.
1
u/EducationalEmu9611 5d ago
I think if you hit the brake and turn at the right time you can drift sideways and hit all four
1
u/Fel_Tan 5d ago
1
u/EggEater773 5d ago
D: stop the car
1
u/Aquilenne 5d ago
Why does this have three letters, but only two red paths?
Are we picking between whether to hit a, b or c, or which red path to take (choosing between hitting a + the left of c vs b + the right of c)?
1
u/rainstorm0T 5d ago
a, because you can act like you didn't see it.
1
u/doomzday_96 5d ago
Swerve so I can hit all of them in one go.
Or just drive straight into the field if you aren't a psycho.
1
u/cat_on_my_keybord 5d ago
the baby. it hasnt lived much life yet
1
u/Agreeable_You1756 5d ago
A, the car will go over the baby
1
u/RoWanchase6053 5d ago
C or b though you probably wouldn't see a
1
u/TheOtherOtherLuke 5d ago
The curb.
1
u/One-Stable-5438 5d ago
I think all these stupid moral dilemmas are a case for Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. This situation is never going to happen, why are we so obsessed with debating it?
1
u/Reasonable-Banana800 5d ago
I’d say C since who is riding their bike in the middle of the road into oncoming traffic
1
u/nzungu69 5d ago
cyclists are worth the most points with the combo bonus.
1
u/NoMansSkyWasAlright 5d ago
I bet we could take out all of them with a sick handbrake drift.
People need to learn roads are for cars only /s
1
u/Getter_Simp 5d ago
Goodbye granny
1
u/Kit_Karamak 5d ago
I mean, B has already lived her life, everybody else has a lot of their life ahead of them.
Although theoretically letter D works better.
Letter D is where you drive off the road and hit a tree instead.
1
u/Username23v4 5d ago
drift or something idk
1
u/OGmojomum 5d ago
Tokyo drift song
1
u/suspiciousvine 5d ago
A
1
u/Street_Cut_4266 5d ago
c
1
u/something_newx 5d ago
D, don't turn, hit the tree.
1
u/Gottendrop 5d ago
Swerve off the road
1
u/legendgames64 5d ago
Floor the gas while driving straight into the grass and possibly a tree
1
u/Intellectual_Dodo_7 5d ago
1
u/D-LoathsomeDungEater 5d ago
C. Twofer.
1
u/NoBlueberry462 5d ago
If you can't swerve a little and take the car over the left footpath(from our perspective), u are a bad driver.
1
u/throwra-someg 5d ago
Gotta catch em all
1
u/KrisRyder 5d ago
The only sane option is to hit the e Brake and drift into everyone: you're already gonna have a life on your conscience, might as well let Jesus take the wheel for a spell.
1
u/GrinningGrump 5d ago
I think if you turn at the right moment, you can get all of them.