Taken to its logical limit, this would lead to a "race to the bottom" by rewarding defenselessness: lighter vehicles, cyclists without helmets, maybe always carrying a baby. (Baby rentals at street corners?) Philip K. Dick could have done a lot with this…

A bright young objectivist named Stuart Hayashi posted an essay on "The Argument from Metaphysical Impossibility". This could be a subset of that, as it assumes that a crash is the only choice. Seeing an imminent collision, would the car not just stop??

As I recall, we did this problem in physics. To avoid a collision, should you swerve, stop, or both? It turns out that you cannot do both more efficiently than just one or the other. Also, depending on the parameters of course, as I recall, stopping is more effective that trying to swerve.

We also have had these ethical challenges tossed out before: the runaway train and the fat person and all that… Interesting mind games, perhaps, but not real life.

Discussion on "Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics" here on Objectivist Living
http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/...

Discussion on "Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics" here on Rebirth of Reason
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/General...

There will have to be separate roads for "autonomous" vehicle. Preferably privately owned. And the roads supporting "autonomous" cars will have to have overrides, from the software controlling access. I doubt there would be any motorcycles on such roads (none of the riders I've known these last several decades would give up control like that). Probably be best to tunnel such roads under the ones with people controlling their private vehicles, so deer and other stray vermin can't get there, No scenery, but so what? If you plan to nap during the drive you don't need it.