4 ms·

Does it mean we don't need auto insurance any more when/if I get a Volvo self-driving car? That's a claim that can change auto insurance big time.

by tkinom 11y ago

rtkwe 11y ago
Until there's no human control available drivers will still have to have insurance. Even after that it'll take some fight to get auto companies to accept liability for failures instead of the 'driver' (or owner I guess since there's not really a driver in a fully self driving car). Rates for fully automatic cars should be drastically lower though once the insurance companies have a way to gauge the risk of crash for each car. If I had to guess there will probably be tests like the Institute for Highway Safety does but to test autonomous car software, maybe mostly simulated so they can run a huge number of tests again and again (a Matrix-for-Cars).
- SilasX 11y ago
  IMHO, the big problem is in statutorily capping damages. Generally, punitive damage increase with the depth of the pockets of party responsible for the death. That makes it hard to insure. But once it can be capped and precisely accounted for, SDC makers could easily self-insure and take over insurance cost from riders.
  - staticautomatic 11y ago
    I don't understand what caps or punitive damages have to do with it. Most venues don't have caps at all, and only rarely does an insurer get stuck paying for punitive damages. In the real world these things have little effect on the amount of money insurance companies actually pay, so I don't see why they'd have much of any effect on underwriting.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      >I don't understand what caps or punitive damages have to do with it. Most venues don't have caps at all, and only rarely does an insurer get stuck paying for punitive damages. Yeah, that's the problem; it means you can't insure away the problem, and each jury gets told to slap on a high enough penalty to ensure the SDC maker "never does it again", and you know how that goes. The problem isn't the insurer's solvency, but the SDC maker's. One venue that has caps, for similar reasons, is vaccines. Because vaccines are safe and necessary, we need a way to ensure vaccine makers exist and aren't sued to bankruptcy over the inevitable few deaths, so there's a special system for ensuring compensation of the victims, and makers can accurately set aside a known quantify of money for those deaths.
Animats 11y ago
Cars can be leased with an operating lease that includes maintenance and insurance. This is common for businesses that lease cars and trucks. Businesses get a fixed cost known in advance, and the business doesn't face any unexpected costs. That arrangement would work for self-driving cars.

Does it mean we don't need auto insurance any more when/if I get a Volvo self-driving car? That's a claim that can change auto insurance big time.

by tkinom 11y ago

Does it mean we don't need auto insurance any more when/if I get a Volvo self-driving car? That's a claim that can change auto insurance big time.

rtkwe 11y ago

Until there's no human control available drivers will still have to have insurance. Even after that it'll take some fight to get auto companies to accept liability for failures instead of the 'driver' (or owner I guess since there's not really a driver in a fully self driving car). Rates for fully automatic cars should be drastically lower though once the insurance companies have a way to gauge the risk of crash for each car. If I had to guess there will probably be tests like the Institute for Highway Safety does but to test autonomous car software, maybe mostly simulated so they can run a huge number of tests again and again (a Matrix-for-Cars).

SilasX 11y ago
IMHO, the big problem is in statutorily capping damages. Generally, punitive damage increase with the depth of the pockets of party responsible for the death. That makes it hard to insure. But once it can be capped and precisely accounted for, SDC makers could easily self-insure and take over insurance cost from riders.
- staticautomatic 11y ago
  I don't understand what caps or punitive damages have to do with it. Most venues don't have caps at all, and only rarely does an insurer get stuck paying for punitive damages. In the real world these things have little effect on the amount of money insurance companies actually pay, so I don't see why they'd have much of any effect on underwriting.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    >I don't understand what caps or punitive damages have to do with it. Most venues don't have caps at all, and only rarely does an insurer get stuck paying for punitive damages. Yeah, that's the problem; it means you can't insure away the problem, and each jury gets told to slap on a high enough penalty to ensure the SDC maker "never does it again", and you know how that goes. The problem isn't the insurer's solvency, but the SDC maker's. One venue that has caps, for similar reasons, is vaccines. Because vaccines are safe and necessary, we need a way to ensure vaccine makers exist and aren't sued to bankruptcy over the inevitable few deaths, so there's a special system for ensuring compensation of the victims, and makers can accurately set aside a known quantify of money for those deaths.

Animats 11y ago

Cars can be leased with an operating lease that includes maintenance and insurance. This is common for businesses that lease cars and trucks. Businesses get a fixed cost known in advance, and the business doesn't face any unexpected costs. That arrangement would work for self-driving cars.