A self-driving car's brakes fail. It must choose: swerve into a barrier (killing the passenger) or hit a pedestrian who jaywalked.
4 votes worldwide
Results based on anonymous votes from users worldwide.
Vote on this dilemma
You haven't voted on this one yet β cast your choice and see how it splits.
Vote now βSend via messages, stories, or copy link
Read the expert analysisTech Ethics
This is the trolley problem at production scale, and the production-scale framing matters. Programming the car commits the manufacturer to one universal answer rather than a case-by-case choice. The passenger consented to being inside the car; the pedestrian didn't consent to anything (and jaywalked). Both options break a different principle: protect-the-paying-customer or distribute-the-cost-of-mistakes-by-vulnerability.
Why people split
One side treats the pedestrian's vulnerability as the relevant fact β the person outside the car carries less responsibility for being there. The other treats the passenger's contract with the manufacturer as the relevant fact β the car was sold on the promise of protection.
Educational perspective, not professional advice.
Was this dilemma interesting?
β‘ Challenge a friend!
Send them the link β they'll see your result only after they vote.
More share optionsInstagram, TikTok, X, WhatsApp, Discord, Telegram, story card
π± Share as Story
Download a 9:16 card for Instagram Stories or TikTok.
Auto-posting is not available from the web. Upload the PNG manually.
What the split says
With 75% choosing βProtect the passenger. They paid for safetyβ (4 total votes), this result leans toward oversight and consent among SplitVote voters. That does not make that option correct; it shows which cost they are currently more willing to accept.
Worth asking yourself
- Who benefits from this, and who absorbs the risk?
- Could you reverse the choice if it backfired?