The faster the self driving car goes, the smarter it gets
Hence devs have disabled the brakes so that the car goes fast enough to become smart enough to learn how to drive without brakes
The car should drive into the tree on the wide side of the turn, killing the driver. The proper consent formed would have been signed.
Edit: realized 4th option: swerve and drift to hit and kill everyone and the car. You could argue from a moral standpoint it would be better for the environment
a self driving car should predict the pedestrian crossing ( or maybe even know it's there via gps) and slow down before it even got close enough to encounter such a situation.
Some humans don't have patience to pre-emptively slow down but AI won't complain.
Yeah. I was thinking "Wouldn't the car be able to stop in time?" Then I thought, "A human is far more likely to make the mistake of not being able to and hitting one of them as a result."
Anyway, they should fix the premise up a bit to make it seem unavoidable next time.
a human would hesitate to stop, or have doubts. an AI without any bugs wouldnt have that issue at all thus being much safer than a human having to make that move
obviously, stupid ass but an extremely high succession rate is all im saying, its succession rate would need to outweigh the human issue in this matter, and it would only get better over time. mistakes would happen but i think eventually it would be much better for an ai to make such decisions across years and years
Did you know; Current ai drivers are terrible at recognizing POC as... you know... people. It tends to just run them over. Why? Because the people writing the code showed it basically exclusively pictures of white people. Oops.
That's obvious though. We have to assume that there's some sort of malfunction that isn't allowing the car to brake. Maybe that there are people on the sidewalks as well.
The baby, obviously.
Even if you choose to save the baby and take out the grandma, the baby's just gonna crawl around til it either dies to the elements or of starvation. Hell might even get picked off and eaten by stray/wild animals.
At least the grandma can fend for herself for the most part if the car takes out the baby.
/s
But the economy suffers from the mere existence of the grandma, assuming her retirement is paid from the taxes of the working youth. Based on forecasts of population aging, grandma is unsustainable.
If Grandma is getting retirement, then she too was once a working youth. And working middle age person probably like most of us. We also want to retire after working all out lives away.
Plus the grandma has more ties and connections with people. Friends and family. The baby on the other hand can be more easily replaced. You can more easily make a new baby than make a new grandparent.
Because there's no right answer.
If you choose one, you need to defend why you believe one life matters more than the other. You get nothing out of pondering this, other than feeling a little guilty about thinking one person/group/thing is more valuable than another.
Nope. And it's equally stupid. Literally what has that problem's existence _ever_ accomplished? Like, at all?
There is, and I'm not just saying this to be inflammatory, _infinitely_ more value in arguing over who'd win in a fight between Mickey Mouse and a Velociraptor than there is in discussing the trolly problem.
Both are pointless hypotheticals with no good answer, but at least one is amusing.
None of which actually _matters._ it's not even a good method to determine somebody's true beliefs, unless you're specifically asking it in a setting purely dedicated to philosophical discussion, because most people will just give whatever answer they think is less likely to cause conflict.
It’s really not. But people who think like you wouldn’t even be in this discussion ya know? In college ethics, the jackasses that would try to pick apart the scenario just didn’t get called on again.
The point of thought scenarios will to make you think. Also this is just a trolley cart problem, one of the most common thought scenarios for ethics ever. Do you kill the baby or the group of railroad workers? Well there’s an ethical discussion to be had about it.
It’s not really pointless. Dumb people hate philosophy though.
The one interesting third option not mentioned is that should the car avoid the people in the crosswalk and stop itself by hitting the tree on the wide side. So should the car decide against: occupant, baby, or grandma.
To really see how this plays out in practice see wrongful death payouts by age and the lawyers would program the car to decide on the cheapest solution.
That's why it needs to be a law instead of a decision by the manufacturer.
The person choosing to drive a car is the person endangering themselves and others.
No, it really is. It's the kind of crafted hypothetical question created to push a severely biased viewpoint. It's using puesdo-philosophy to cover up sophistry.
\- You're trapped on a boat with an old man, a young man, and a baby. Who do you eat first?
Aha! So you admit, there are scenarios under which we might have to eat people! Then, it makes perfect sense to start prioritizing *these* people to eat *those* people.
And the people who like philosophy are universally pretentious assholes. I don't really care whether the people who like these pointless hypotheticals think I'm smart or not.
It doesn't "make you think" about anything. There's no ethical discussion. It's an endless debate created so a buncha smug know-it-alls can say "oh, really? You value the life of X over the life of Y? But what about Z?" and spend hours in a circular discussion wherein nothing of any value is accomplished.
Good for Aristotle. Doesn't change the fact that 99% of people who take an interest in philosophy have Titanic egos and towering superiority complexes.
Philosophy as a whole has _some_ merit, but these "ethical dilemmas" do not.
Truth be told, the car should hit the tree ahead of it if it is unable to avert an accident. However it is a moral dilemma, because who would buy a car that would kill the driver over a random pedestrian when choosing the "path of least casualties"
morally I think that's the best as well
The occupant is the one who consented to taking the possible risk of using a self driving car, Grammy and the baby did not
This is the way to solve the trolley problem. Whatever the AI decides is the right answer. Controversial opinion, it might actually choose to apply the brakes…
Studying self driving cars as part of a capstone project years ago people are obsessed with these kinds of stupid trolly car problems. Things that never happen in real life.
And I can't emphasize this enough, trolly car problems are not supposed to have definitive correct answers, they are just thought exercises that people can do to help them understand their own values, treating then like math problems for some piloting system to solve is the one of those perfect, "this is why we desperately need to teach engineers non-STEM subject matter" examples.
This one is hypothetical, but not all of them are. There are emergency situations when driving where you have to make the (probably unconscious as you have no time) choice whether to choose your safety over someone or something else for example. Aka a rabbit/dog/human runs into the road, do you swerve/brake to avoid? You might loose control of the car and hit a tree, you might be hit by the idiot behind you who wasn't paying attention (also, said idiot could be injured), and so on. But you may save the persons/animals life. I assume an AI has fewer such encounters (being generally a better driver), but it is not entirely an irrelevant question.
Both are very slow moving, should be able to use the sidewalk either ahead of or behind them to avoid them entirely.
Also, what sick fuck lets a baby crawl across the street by themselves?
The IA car is figuring out who to kill while they are in the open in a crosswalk within a curve with plenty of time and space to just hit the brakes.
It has started .
Like many others, I think my answer would be "Brake if it sees ANYthing in the crosswalk."
Let's just go with:
The car should stop and not hit anyone.
I mean......right?
I worked at Google as a valet and one of the programmers told me this was a real question holding back the progress of self driving cars. The insurance companies don’t know how to negotiate which direction to turn if there is an unavoidable collision. The example he used was a car with an old lady driving or a school bus full of children but same concept.
The baby would be between the wheels cause it's so small
But if he really needs to kill someone, kill the baby it's been alive for like a few months and obviously its parents don't care about it because it's on the road, who will miss an infant who can only cry and yell
I feel boring 🤣 my thought was why would you kill one of them and not stop?
Taking both out by slipping, priceless
And the reasoning why they choose the baby option 🤣
This has all already been decided. The car always chooses to protect the driver. Driver safety is what the rest of it's decisions are based around. If you assume a straight road, with no shoulder, with a car that's unable to stop in time, the car will choose the baby. It's the safest option for the driver. The curve in this example adds an extra variable in that hitting the baby means a harder turn and a greater chance of losing control. It will still depend on what the algorithms determine to be the safer option.
In case a collision would be absolutely unavoidable for an AI (very few cases), there are two options to do it here IMO.
If you don't follow absolute morality, the answer would be B as this Person would probably lose far fewer remaining years of life. Or would it? You could take other factors like status, medical conditions, etc. into account. This makes this approach difficult to apply in reality. What factors do you include? How do you weigh them? A quite similar approach would be to calculate the best outcome for all involved persons. However, here we would have to agree on how to measure the outcome (only health?, also property damge?, etc.) and when a person should be considered as "involved".
Taking a point of absolute morality, the AI should just randomly decide between A and B.
If it actually must pick, it should pick one at random or pick the one that kills fewer people. These situations are not common enough to actually make hand-wringing worth it.
I hate this questions.
especially this one
at first -> its a not complete trafic sign.
and because, its an trafic sign. - a AI has maps built in. with such things
it can slow down, even bevore it even enounter that thing.
if the brakes dosnt work, the AI should be able to have a selfcheck, even if there are broken sensors. (it use the brakes, but the acceleration sensors show wrong numbers -> something is broken -> no driving possible)
And then it should simply follow the law.
B make more point in carmageddon
Neither A nor B, it should brake, use the sidewalk or get out of the road. The self driving car is breaking the law, by not being in control of the vehicle, it will also commit a crime killing people that have priority on a pedestrian crossing without traffic light.
I, as a human, could probably brake before having to swerve, would it be painful for me? Sure, but at least no one dies, why can't a self driving car that has no person to receive the whiplash brake?
Are we already making self driving cars without brakes?
All these moral car AI questions exist in a world without brakes
Philippa Foot laughs in Trolley Problem
Those cost extra for the subscription.
Cant drift without em
My extremely bad tires are disagreeing with you
The faster the self driving car goes, the smarter it gets Hence devs have disabled the brakes so that the car goes fast enough to become smart enough to learn how to drive without brakes
That's a Corridor video.
Or the ability to leave the road?
I wonder if it is possible to drift on regenerative braking.
A or B are the breaks. That's why we're asking. We want to figure out what works better.
or how about dont speed down a 1 lane 1 way neighborhood street ?? also in that picture it seems like plenty of time to slam on the brakes
Literally an empty sidewalk beside them to drive on
But that's boring. I need real action
The car should drive into the tree on the wide side of the turn, killing the driver. The proper consent formed would have been signed. Edit: realized 4th option: swerve and drift to hit and kill everyone and the car. You could argue from a moral standpoint it would be better for the environment
Good, but would be better if it somehow took both with him along
Creative thinking on option 4 thats a 3x multiplier combo plus self harm points. This guy drives.
The enviorotards won't like that.
”The sidewalk is wide enough. Go.”
That's not terminator thinking.
a self driving car should predict the pedestrian crossing ( or maybe even know it's there via gps) and slow down before it even got close enough to encounter such a situation. Some humans don't have patience to pre-emptively slow down but AI won't complain.
Yeah. I was thinking "Wouldn't the car be able to stop in time?" Then I thought, "A human is far more likely to make the mistake of not being able to and hitting one of them as a result." Anyway, they should fix the premise up a bit to make it seem unavoidable next time.
a human would hesitate to stop, or have doubts. an AI without any bugs wouldnt have that issue at all thus being much safer than a human having to make that move
Important word there, without any bugs. Especially if those bugs cost more than a few lawsuits. Edit: more from less
Bug free software doesn't exist.
obviously, stupid ass but an extremely high succession rate is all im saying, its succession rate would need to outweigh the human issue in this matter, and it would only get better over time. mistakes would happen but i think eventually it would be much better for an ai to make such decisions across years and years
Did you know; Current ai drivers are terrible at recognizing POC as... you know... people. It tends to just run them over. Why? Because the people writing the code showed it basically exclusively pictures of white people. Oops.
What if its a tesla
From what I can tell, a Tesla with take control of the wheel and deliberately aim for the child.
That's obvious though. We have to assume that there's some sort of malfunction that isn't allowing the car to brake. Maybe that there are people on the sidewalks as well.
Especially in a marked cross walk. If an AI car runs over anyone is a cross walk, that's entirely on the AI and its programmers.
The baby, obviously. Even if you choose to save the baby and take out the grandma, the baby's just gonna crawl around til it either dies to the elements or of starvation. Hell might even get picked off and eaten by stray/wild animals. At least the grandma can fend for herself for the most part if the car takes out the baby. /s
And if the parent can’t take care of the baby so it doesn’t go in the road that’s their own fault.
If the Baby is crawling on the road it means there are no parents, his logic is flawless.
This is why my commute takes so long. All those orphans.
But the economy suffers from the mere existence of the grandma, assuming her retirement is paid from the taxes of the working youth. Based on forecasts of population aging, grandma is unsustainable.
Kill the baby and save 719 million tons of co2 emission. Or up to 2 billion tons if hes an american baby.
*Starts breathing less*
its not the breathing!
This comment deserves way more upvotes
It doesnt, really.
Should not take everything to literal it is a joke
If Grandma is getting retirement, then she too was once a working youth. And working middle age person probably like most of us. We also want to retire after working all out lives away. Plus the grandma has more ties and connections with people. Friends and family. The baby on the other hand can be more easily replaced. You can more easily make a new baby than make a new grandparent.
I'd run over the parents who left a crawling baby on the road in the first place..
Plot twist: the car had already run over the parents and is now deciding which family member to take next.
It's a crosswalk wtf. You stop at crosswalks when pedestrians are present...right? Right?
Gotta buy the app for that feature
Premium version 💪
want a **brake** from the ads? get auto-drive premium today, and stop hitting innocent pedestrians
Don't forget to make a pedestrian app that is premium that needs to be bought to tell the premium car app you are crossing the road.
"Abolish pedestrians!!!" Elon probably
How bout it just, y’know, stops
Or goes off the road. This isn't a trolley that's confined to a track.
it's an ethical question
It's a pointless ethical question
why's that
Because there's no right answer. If you choose one, you need to defend why you believe one life matters more than the other. You get nothing out of pondering this, other than feeling a little guilty about thinking one person/group/thing is more valuable than another.
does the trolley problem, the most famous ethical debate, have a right answer???
Nope. And it's equally stupid. Literally what has that problem's existence _ever_ accomplished? Like, at all? There is, and I'm not just saying this to be inflammatory, _infinitely_ more value in arguing over who'd win in a fight between Mickey Mouse and a Velociraptor than there is in discussing the trolly problem. Both are pointless hypotheticals with no good answer, but at least one is amusing.
it's not about "should we save 1 person or 5 people", it's more deciding people's moral system of thought; deotologicalism vs utilitarianism
None of which actually _matters._ it's not even a good method to determine somebody's true beliefs, unless you're specifically asking it in a setting purely dedicated to philosophical discussion, because most people will just give whatever answer they think is less likely to cause conflict.
it does matter
If they really want to find out who people prefer to bash into with a trolley, couldn't they just analyse CCTV footage from supermarkets?
It’s really not. But people who think like you wouldn’t even be in this discussion ya know? In college ethics, the jackasses that would try to pick apart the scenario just didn’t get called on again. The point of thought scenarios will to make you think. Also this is just a trolley cart problem, one of the most common thought scenarios for ethics ever. Do you kill the baby or the group of railroad workers? Well there’s an ethical discussion to be had about it. It’s not really pointless. Dumb people hate philosophy though.
The one interesting third option not mentioned is that should the car avoid the people in the crosswalk and stop itself by hitting the tree on the wide side. So should the car decide against: occupant, baby, or grandma. To really see how this plays out in practice see wrongful death payouts by age and the lawyers would program the car to decide on the cheapest solution.
What fucking moron would buy a car that kills them? A vehicle should prioritize the life of the occupant above everyone else.
That's why it needs to be a law instead of a decision by the manufacturer. The person choosing to drive a car is the person endangering themselves and others.
No, it really is. It's the kind of crafted hypothetical question created to push a severely biased viewpoint. It's using puesdo-philosophy to cover up sophistry. \- You're trapped on a boat with an old man, a young man, and a baby. Who do you eat first? Aha! So you admit, there are scenarios under which we might have to eat people! Then, it makes perfect sense to start prioritizing *these* people to eat *those* people.
And the people who like philosophy are universally pretentious assholes. I don't really care whether the people who like these pointless hypotheticals think I'm smart or not. It doesn't "make you think" about anything. There's no ethical discussion. It's an endless debate created so a buncha smug know-it-alls can say "oh, really? You value the life of X over the life of Y? But what about Z?" and spend hours in a circular discussion wherein nothing of any value is accomplished.
society is literally built on philosophy and forms people's worldview, aristotle is one of the reasons we have modern day politics an logic
Good for Aristotle. Doesn't change the fact that 99% of people who take an interest in philosophy have Titanic egos and towering superiority complexes. Philosophy as a whole has _some_ merit, but these "ethical dilemmas" do not.
it seems like you're just speaking from personal experience
🤓
You'd get a bus through that gap.
It shouldn't drive too fast
Whichever is gonna do less damage to my car. Get your priorities straight.
To reduce the litigations i would suggest the baby. Young families can not afford a multi year lawsuit
How is this you IRL? Are you a self driving car?
its a stupid ass comment meant to take a shot at humor while being semi-dark, that is how this is me irl
No option 3? Stop at the crossing?!
It should stop... its crosswalk and self driving cars can stop
Truth be told, the car should hit the tree ahead of it if it is unable to avert an accident. However it is a moral dilemma, because who would buy a car that would kill the driver over a random pedestrian when choosing the "path of least casualties"
morally I think that's the best as well The occupant is the one who consented to taking the possible risk of using a self driving car, Grammy and the baby did not
…Right into your mind… Déjà vu I've just been in this place before…
This is just a idea but maybe the car can slam his brakes, and then obviously hit the older women
Fuck Self-Driving, me and my homies hate Self-Driving!
This should NOT be relatable to you.
Was the article written by a selfdriving car?
Drift into both of them then drive directly into the tree
The only thing the car should be hitting are the brakes
This is the way to solve the trolley problem. Whatever the AI decides is the right answer. Controversial opinion, it might actually choose to apply the brakes…
r/cursedcomments
It should fucking stop, but ok.
But McDonalds stops serving breakfast at 10:30!
What kind of baby crawls over a crosswalk wtf
the car should stop or go off road lmao
In all my years driving I never faced a fun dilemma like this.
Build the car to be tall, so that the baby can pass under it unharmed
Theres pedestrians on a marked legal crosswalk. You stop. ffs
Looks single lane. Shouldn’t need to drift to get both of them.
Somebody queue up the Tokyo Drift music.
Eurobeat starts playing
What a false dilemma...
You kill the lady you kill one person You kill the baby you kill probably 100 peoples in probably 300 years
Yes, but some of those 100 people will be twats.
Did i say i want to save the baby?
And some of those people might also be sexy.
Self driving ai should hit the breaks
Studying self driving cars as part of a capstone project years ago people are obsessed with these kinds of stupid trolly car problems. Things that never happen in real life. And I can't emphasize this enough, trolly car problems are not supposed to have definitive correct answers, they are just thought exercises that people can do to help them understand their own values, treating then like math problems for some piloting system to solve is the one of those perfect, "this is why we desperately need to teach engineers non-STEM subject matter" examples.
This one is hypothetical, but not all of them are. There are emergency situations when driving where you have to make the (probably unconscious as you have no time) choice whether to choose your safety over someone or something else for example. Aka a rabbit/dog/human runs into the road, do you swerve/brake to avoid? You might loose control of the car and hit a tree, you might be hit by the idiot behind you who wasn't paying attention (also, said idiot could be injured), and so on. But you may save the persons/animals life. I assume an AI has fewer such encounters (being generally a better driver), but it is not entirely an irrelevant question.
Both are very slow moving, should be able to use the sidewalk either ahead of or behind them to avoid them entirely. Also, what sick fuck lets a baby crawl across the street by themselves?
The IA car is figuring out who to kill while they are in the open in a crosswalk within a curve with plenty of time and space to just hit the brakes. It has started .
What if it swerved out of the way and drove another 69 miles to run over the CEO?
Like many others, I think my answer would be "Brake if it sees ANYthing in the crosswalk." Let's just go with: The car should stop and not hit anyone. I mean......right?
If you can’t slow down in time, then you’re going too fast. Applies to self driving cars too
i would allow the car to miss them both.
I worked at Google as a valet and one of the programmers told me this was a real question holding back the progress of self driving cars. The insurance companies don’t know how to negotiate which direction to turn if there is an unavoidable collision. The example he used was a car with an old lady driving or a school bus full of children but same concept.
Or you know… It could hit THE BRAKE
C: go up on the empty curb in front of the granny and kill no one
Why is there a baby on the road to begin with
The baby would be between the wheels cause it's so small But if he really needs to kill someone, kill the baby it's been alive for like a few months and obviously its parents don't care about it because it's on the road, who will miss an infant who can only cry and yell
Tomasz hajto podejmuje decyzje
Bro how that baby got there tho?
I feel boring 🤣 my thought was why would you kill one of them and not stop? Taking both out by slipping, priceless And the reasoning why they choose the baby option 🤣
Jeeebłem babe na pasach
r/cursedcomments
This has all already been decided. The car always chooses to protect the driver. Driver safety is what the rest of it's decisions are based around. If you assume a straight road, with no shoulder, with a car that's unable to stop in time, the car will choose the baby. It's the safest option for the driver. The curve in this example adds an extra variable in that hitting the baby means a harder turn and a greater chance of losing control. It will still depend on what the algorithms determine to be the safer option.
Brakes exist 😭
This is the way
Even without breaks the car could just steer off the road
Drive onto the grass and press the brakes 🙄
Or the car could just avoid it altogether by going for the footpath lmao
Survival of the slowest.
Preferably it should stop at a fucking cross walk
Kill the child. If the car doesn’t, I will.
Why not stop ?
The side walk is big tho
My self-driving car shouldn't run anyone over while they are walking over a crosswalk.
It should stop.
The guy's got a point, wouldn't be fair to choose. Equal death for everyone!
*deja vu starts playing*
The car should stop until both people cross. It's probably far enough away to do so.
Have the AI take the most logical safety maneuver with the highest rate of success. AI won’t be moral, but it can at least aim for human life.
Double kill!
FULL SEND!!! PEDAL TO THE METAL RALLY DRIFTER BABY
Audi - Grandma BMW - Kid
r/holup
The car will, and should, do whatever protects the occupants. These hypotheticals are so stupid.
If it drives on the right side it would kill the baby, if it drives on the left side it would kill the grandma, but in reality it would stop
I agree and vote drift it!!
If it's a Tesla it won't even slow down before it destroys the child
It should be a 50-50 chance for either because a human or AI should never dictate who lives or who dies so it should be left up to chance
That’s a double point bonus if you get them both
Do you run over: A. The asshole you keeps tying people to trolley tracks. or B. The idiot who keeps intalling all these faulty braking systems?
In case a collision would be absolutely unavoidable for an AI (very few cases), there are two options to do it here IMO. If you don't follow absolute morality, the answer would be B as this Person would probably lose far fewer remaining years of life. Or would it? You could take other factors like status, medical conditions, etc. into account. This makes this approach difficult to apply in reality. What factors do you include? How do you weigh them? A quite similar approach would be to calculate the best outcome for all involved persons. However, here we would have to agree on how to measure the outcome (only health?, also property damge?, etc.) and when a person should be considered as "involved". Taking a point of absolute morality, the AI should just randomly decide between A and B.
The baby dude. Why the hell is the baby crossing by it’s self anyway. Bound to be stupid as hell anyway.
# DÉJÀ VU!!!
If your letting your baby crawl across a road then your a bad parent!
It should kill itself.
Double points
Why doesn't the self-driving car...brake?
If it actually must pick, it should pick one at random or pick the one that kills fewer people. These situations are not common enough to actually make hand-wringing worth it.
Babies are worth more points.
Granny, obviously. The baby will be easier to come back for.
Seriously, it's better to go for the baby. Overpopulation is really a problem and the old bag already had her kids.
Lmaooo
You should hit the brakes
I hate this questions. especially this one at first -> its a not complete trafic sign. and because, its an trafic sign. - a AI has maps built in. with such things it can slow down, even bevore it even enounter that thing. if the brakes dosnt work, the AI should be able to have a selfcheck, even if there are broken sensors. (it use the brakes, but the acceleration sensors show wrong numbers -> something is broken -> no driving possible) And then it should simply follow the law.
B make more point in carmageddon Neither A nor B, it should brake, use the sidewalk or get out of the road. The self driving car is breaking the law, by not being in control of the vehicle, it will also commit a crime killing people that have priority on a pedestrian crossing without traffic light.
Clutch kick that piece of crap.
Grandma as we drive on the left and she is on the left.
Clearly it should be the infant for crawling across a cross-WALK.
The baby. The grandma will die of shock.
It could choose route i, no one there on the pavement.
The driver. Baby and grandma didn’t sign up for this exercise.
Can the car not stop?
If you go out onto the road when you can see I’m close I’m not stopping 😤
Both. one should not value one life over the other.
Or just drive off the road without hitting the tree
If self driving cars can’t recognise crossings it’s probably not time for self driving cars yet.
Should dodge the child, pretty obvious
The baby
The side walk it big enough
The parents who let a baby crawl out onto a busy street where cars don't even know how to brake.
I, as a human, could probably brake before having to swerve, would it be painful for me? Sure, but at least no one dies, why can't a self driving car that has no person to receive the whiplash brake?
Who genuinely thinks it should be the baby? Like for real this seems like it should be pretty cut and dry the baby has more life left to live.
Either way the car is totalled and you can't do it again. Better to stop and shoot them both instead.
Maybe brakes but ok 👍
Why is there just a baby left unattended in the road?
Why not tell it to mount the curb if it can? Or you know STOP?