If you look at self-driving car technology, you’ll see that possible solutions already exist, built-in and available in many of the cars currently in use. on the other hand, there are ethical questions to consider about who should control the vehicle, the driver behind the wheel or the computer system that senses the danger inherent in human behaviour.

With a wave of attacks using cars and trucks worldwide, many cities are trying hard to protect busy footpaths and essential events.

It is tough to prevent the use of vehicles as a weapon, but technology can help.

For now, city administrations are trying to identify appropriate places to erect statues, nail nets, and other barriers to protect crowds. Police departments are trying to gather better intelligence on potential threats and train police officers on how to respond. At the same time, the general public seeks advice on surviving car attacks.

These solutions are not enough because it is impractical to put up barriers everywhere, and it is impossible to prevent attackers from getting cars.

Electronic Solution (Automated):

A 2017 Consumer Reports Survey showed that three-quarters of the cars and trucks surveyed had
forward-collision detection as an optional or essential feature.

These vehicles can detect obstacles, including pedestrians, and stop or avoid a collision. By 2022, emergency braking will be a prerequisite for all cars sold in the United States.

In-car safety features currently include many systems such as lane departure warning (the vehicle’s lane on the highway), adaptive cruise control (it controls the vehicle’s speed to maintain a safe distance chosen by the driver between him and the car in front of him), and multiple types of collision avoidance systems.

These systems include many sensors. Such as radars and cameras that track and track what’s going on around the car.

These systems often work negatively (without feeling their work). Do not communicate with the driver and do not take control of the vehicle. But when an event happens. Such as a passer-by approach or a barrier, it works effectively and takes the lead.
Warning systems can warn the driver that the vehicle is veering off course towards the opposite lane or off the road.

It can even control the vehicle by adjusting its speed to maintain a safe distance between it and the car in front of it.

Collision avoidance systems have a variety of capabilities. Such as reasonable warnings requiring driver response, automatic emergency braking. And even steering and driving away from danger.

Existing systems can identify and distinguish the risk and determine whether it is heading towards the vehicle (or the car is heading towards it).

Improving these systems can help prevent the diverse patterns (methods) of leadership commonly used in attacks.

Collision Avoidance Technology:


the average driver seeks to avoid obstacles, especially pedestrians, while the person who uses the car as a weapon reverses, targeting people.

Typical collision avoidance systems in cars handle this situation by alerting the driver. Taking control of the vehicle. And operating the brakes at the last minute.

It is challenging to prevent tampering and change in the vehicle’s safety systems. Still, car manufacturers can prevent the car from working or determine the speed. And the distance a car can travel if the vehicle’s systems determine the existence of such manipulation and tampering.

On the other hand, it is relatively easy for the attacking driver to overcome safety features and functions. Many vehicles assume that the car is well controlled as long as the driver constantly steers the steering wheel or uses fuel pedals and brakes.

In such cases, security systems never interfere by pressing brakes.

These sensors and systems can distinguish what’s in front of them. Helping to make better decisions.

The system can remain programmed to take control when people are on the road to protect passers from car attacks. Current technology can do this. But it stands not currently used in this way.

It is possible to imagine a situation where a car can try to enforce safety and safety rules.

For example, an attacking driver goes into a crowd or someone too quickly for the car’s brakes to stop him in time.

The system, specifically designed to stop driver attacks, can be programmed to determine (restrict) the vehicle’s speed without limiting the extent to which the car can remain steered. And brakes were applied effectively. Especially on city streets and where pedestrians remain.

Who’s In Control of Technology?

It begs a difficult question: when the driver and the car have different intentions, who should be in control in the end? For example, a system designed to stop car attacks on crowds can cause problems for drivers at festivals and parades if a passer-by or spectator errs and considers it at risk.

The system can also prevent the car from escaping when surrounded by protesters or attackers. As police, military. And ambulance vehicles often need to be able to operate in similar conditions close to the crowd.

A balance between human and machine control includes more than one policy and joint planning.

Car buyers can refuse to buy vehicles that can exceed their options and decisions (not comply with them).

Many ai developers are also concerned about malfunctions. Especially in systems that operate in the real world and can go beyond human commands.

I am putting any computer system in the position of responsibility for human safety increases concerns about putting humans under the control of the so-called Machine Overlords.

Different scenarios (especially Those beyond the limited state that can stop car attacks) can have additional long-term benefits and damages.