A self-driving car's brakes fail. It must choose: swerve into a barrier (killing the passenger) or hit a pedestrian who jaywalked.
1 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 βRead 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.
Send via messages, stories, or copy link
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 100% choosing βHit the barrier. Protect the pedestrianβ (1 total votes), this result leans toward speed and reach 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?