10 ms·

There is no explosion. The cost of collisions today is reflected in the car insurance, so about $100/mo. If the manufacturer were to absorb this liability at cu

by DenisM 11y ago

There is no explosion. The cost of collisions today is reflected in the car insurance, so about $100/mo. If the manufacturer were to absorb this liability at current incident rates, it would make cars about 30% more expensive (assuming $300/mo loan payments). If Google reduces the (incidence * impact) of collision by 10x, the cost will come down to $10/mo, or about 3% of the total car cost. And in return for the modest price increase you get a self-driving car!

abalone 11y ago
You're forgetting about tort damages. Insurance does not typically cover the cost of killing or seriously injuring someone. Those damages go into the millions, far exceeding the maximum coverage. Cases of serious injury and death often end up bankrupting the responsible individual. Also consider that there are more people who can sue per accident, because humans aren't responsible anymore. Today if you're driving the car and get in a accident and it's your fault, you can't sue anyone. Now you can. That's one more party per accident, and a whole category of single-vehicle accidents than now result in lawsuits.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  The solution is to cap the level of damages as already happens in the airline industry.
  - abalone 11y ago
    That's wishful thinking. 1. Airplanes have highly trained trained human pilots who are highly vigilant and often in semi-manual control during takeoff and landing. Not a valid comparison. 2. Typical auto insurance policies have liability limits of around $100K. In cases of serious injury or death, tort damages often exceed that tremendously and bankrupt the responsible person. The solution is to get the legislature to cap tort damages for killing someone at ~$100K? Not going to happen.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      I am not too sure it won’t happen (most legislators are rather fond of large donations). There is plenty of potential to play states off against each other to get the cap through. I do agree with you that until the manufacturers liability is solved there won’t be autonomous cars sold.
- philrapo 11y ago
  Commercial planes and cruise ships buy insurance to deal with these issues.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > You're forgetting about tort damages. Insurance does not typically cover the cost of killing or seriously injuring someone. Those damages go into the millions, far exceeding the maximum coverage. Cases of serious injury and death often end up bankrupting the responsible individual. And you're forgetting that, to the extent that such injuries can be laid at the food of manufacturers' defects, manufacturers are already liable for them, and since plaintiffs are unlikely to be able to fully collect from drivers, will often be sued now, so self-driving cars don't actually change things that much. > Also consider that there are more people who can sue per accident, because humans aren't responsible anymore. Incorrect. > Today if you're driving the car and get in a accident and it's your fault, you can't sue anyone. Incorrect. If you get in an accident and suffer damages and you allege that this is due to a manufacturer's defect, this is a basis for suit against the manufacturer. Now, you won't win if the manufacturer can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident was your fault rather than theirs. [0] Similarly, quite likely, in a self-driving car regime, if your car crashes you can sue the manufacturer and claim a defect was responsible, but if they can prove its the fault of something else (such as your own failure to properly maintain the vehicle), they won't be liable to you. [0] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/product-liability-claims-defective-cars-29648.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/product-liability-cla...
  - tanker 11y ago
    I think your logic is correct, but your implied outcome is probably wrong. >"If you get in an accident and suffer damages and you allege that this is due to a manufacturer's defect, this is a basis for suit against the manufacturer." Right now, this is an edge case. The self driving car may cause it to become common.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > The self driving car may cause it to become common. Yes, because exactly those cases where the driver (as operator, as distinct from the -- often the same person's role as -- owner-as-maintainer) is responsible now become the manufacturer's responsibility. But, again, that's exactly what insurance covers. But, again, we know the cost of that liability is -- its the cost of driver's insurance.
- patmcc 11y ago
  >>>Those damages go into the millions, far exceeding the maximum coverage. I have $2 million liability coverage (in BC Canada) and it's not that unusual or that expensive - is that very uncommon in the US?
  - greglindahl 11y ago
    No, it's not uncommon in the US. Almost everyone who owns a house has a $1mm+ umbrella policy as part of the standard homeowner's policy. Edit: And I rent, so I bought an explicit $2mm umbrella policy, it's $267/year. That's a lot less than my car insurance, and a bit more than my renter's insurance.
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  > Insurance does not typically cover the cost of killing or seriously injuring someone. Umm... That's pretty much exactly what liability insurance covers. Even with maximums, insurance companies frequently have to pay the whole amount regardless of what the policy says. Anyone who is collectible (i.e, who can't just declare bankruptcy in the case of a multi-million dollar settlement) should carry umbrella coverage, though, because the insurance company may try to come back to you to collect. It's cheap compared to car insurance, and it can cover into the millions. >and a whole category of single-vehicle accidents than now result in lawsuits. If you're talking about single-vehicle accidents where the human is at fault, then I wouldn't be surprised if those dropped to almost zero for self-driving cars. The place where self-driving cars have the most trouble is in complex situations involving multiple moving objects; most situations where the car just runs into something, harming its occupants, would rightfully be considered a defect. And as others have mentioned, manufacturers already factor in the cost of defects into the total cost of producing a car.
snowwrestler 11y ago
> The cost of collisions today is reflected in the car insurance, so about $100/mo. Not true--consumer auto insurance premiums do not encompass the cost of consumer lawsuits against manufacturers, because of course manufacturers do not buy consumer auto insurance. For example Toyota settled their unintended acceleration lawsuits for $1.2 billion dollars or so. GM's ignition switch problems cost them $900 million to settle. How much will Volkswagon's diesel fraud cost them? None of these costs are covered by consumer auto insurance. Instead they're covered by the capital of the corporation, which ultimately comes from investors or customers. Now imagine a self-driving world in which every accident opens up the possibility of such class action settlements. In the absence of legislation to cap damages, companies would have to set aside huge pools of money to defend and settle such lawsuits. That means less investment, lower returns, or higher prices--any of which tend to hurt the long-term viability of a company.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Not true--consumer auto insurance premiums do not encompass the cost of consumer lawsuits against manufacturers, because of course manufacturers do not buy consumer auto insurance. They encompass the cost of the liability that would be transferred from drivers to manufacturers if all liability that drivers have now was transferred. They don't cover the liabilities manufacturers already have, but those liabilities are an existing part of the cost of doing business in the auto industry, not something new with automated vehicles.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    > those liabilities are an existing part of the cost of doing business in the auto industry, not something new with automated vehicles. You've written this in several posts and I think it's wrong. Consumer class actions are typically done on contingency, or with 3rd party financing, which means that cases must be somewhat likely to win before they even get filed. Thus while it's true in theory that anyone can sue an auto manufacturer in any given accident, most accidents do not result in such suits. Consider that the GM ignition switch problem caused a number of deaths over the course of years before a suit was even filed on it. Auto manufacturers self-insure based on the expected rate of such lawsuits, and they obviously have very good data about that, as the movie Fight Club so memorably illustrated. In a fully autonomous car a driver is not making any decisions at all, so how can they be liable? The balance would certainly shift toward more suits against manufacturers.
maratd 11y ago
More than likely, insurance will continue to be mandatory and paid by the vehicle owner ... but seeing it drop to $10/mo would be pretty sweet! Of course, you would then be prohibited from driving the vehicle. Self-driving only if you want to see the savings.
aidenn0 11y ago
> There is no explosion. The cost of collisions today is reflected in the car insurance, so about $100/mo. If the manufacturer were to absorb this liability at current incident rates, it would make cars about 30% more expensive (assuming $300/mo loan payments). Except juries invariably award much larger damages against companies then against individuals; particularly when the individual is dead or permanently disabled by the accident. People will be reluctant to levy a multi-million dollar award against a reckless driver's widow, but will be perfectly happy to award it against a multi-billion dollar corporation.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Carrying liability insurance is a condition of licensure. Large insurance companies are routinely defendants in auto injury lawsuits.

by DenisM 11y ago

abalone 11y ago

You're forgetting about tort damages. Insurance does not typically cover the cost of killing or seriously injuring someone. Those damages go into the millions, far exceeding the maximum coverage. Cases of serious injury and death often end up bankrupting the responsible individual. Also consider that there are more people who can sue per accident, because humans aren't responsible anymore. Today if you're driving the car and get in a accident and it's your fault, you can't sue anyone. Now you can. That's one more party per accident, and a whole category of single-vehicle accidents than now result in lawsuits.

danieltillett 11y ago
The solution is to cap the level of damages as already happens in the airline industry.
- abalone 11y ago
  That's wishful thinking. 1. Airplanes have highly trained trained human pilots who are highly vigilant and often in semi-manual control during takeoff and landing. Not a valid comparison. 2. Typical auto insurance policies have liability limits of around $100K. In cases of serious injury or death, tort damages often exceed that tremendously and bankrupt the responsible person. The solution is to get the legislature to cap tort damages for killing someone at ~$100K? Not going to happen.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I am not too sure it won’t happen (most legislators are rather fond of large donations). There is plenty of potential to play states off against each other to get the cap through. I do agree with you that until the manufacturers liability is solved there won’t be autonomous cars sold.
philrapo 11y ago
Commercial planes and cruise ships buy insurance to deal with these issues.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> You're forgetting about tort damages. Insurance does not typically cover the cost of killing or seriously injuring someone. Those damages go into the millions, far exceeding the maximum coverage. Cases of serious injury and death often end up bankrupting the responsible individual. And you're forgetting that, to the extent that such injuries can be laid at the food of manufacturers' defects, manufacturers are already liable for them, and since plaintiffs are unlikely to be able to fully collect from drivers, will often be sued now, so self-driving cars don't actually change things that much. > Also consider that there are more people who can sue per accident, because humans aren't responsible anymore. Incorrect. > Today if you're driving the car and get in a accident and it's your fault, you can't sue anyone. Incorrect. If you get in an accident and suffer damages and you allege that this is due to a manufacturer's defect, this is a basis for suit against the manufacturer. Now, you won't win if the manufacturer can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident was your fault rather than theirs. [0] Similarly, quite likely, in a self-driving car regime, if your car crashes you can sue the manufacturer and claim a defect was responsible, but if they can prove its the fault of something else (such as your own failure to properly maintain the vehicle), they won't be liable to you. [0] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/product-liability-claims-defective-cars-29648.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/product-liability-cla...
- tanker 11y ago
  I think your logic is correct, but your implied outcome is probably wrong. >"If you get in an accident and suffer damages and you allege that this is due to a manufacturer's defect, this is a basis for suit against the manufacturer." Right now, this is an edge case. The self driving car may cause it to become common.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The self driving car may cause it to become common. Yes, because exactly those cases where the driver (as operator, as distinct from the -- often the same person's role as -- owner-as-maintainer) is responsible now become the manufacturer's responsibility. But, again, that's exactly what insurance covers. But, again, we know the cost of that liability is -- its the cost of driver's insurance.
patmcc 11y ago
>>>Those damages go into the millions, far exceeding the maximum coverage. I have $2 million liability coverage (in BC Canada) and it's not that unusual or that expensive - is that very uncommon in the US?
- greglindahl 11y ago
  No, it's not uncommon in the US. Almost everyone who owns a house has a $1mm+ umbrella policy as part of the standard homeowner's policy. Edit: And I rent, so I bought an explicit $2mm umbrella policy, it's $267/year. That's a lot less than my car insurance, and a bit more than my renter's insurance.
SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
> Insurance does not typically cover the cost of killing or seriously injuring someone. Umm... That's pretty much exactly what liability insurance covers. Even with maximums, insurance companies frequently have to pay the whole amount regardless of what the policy says. Anyone who is collectible (i.e, who can't just declare bankruptcy in the case of a multi-million dollar settlement) should carry umbrella coverage, though, because the insurance company may try to come back to you to collect. It's cheap compared to car insurance, and it can cover into the millions. >and a whole category of single-vehicle accidents than now result in lawsuits. If you're talking about single-vehicle accidents where the human is at fault, then I wouldn't be surprised if those dropped to almost zero for self-driving cars. The place where self-driving cars have the most trouble is in complex situations involving multiple moving objects; most situations where the car just runs into something, harming its occupants, would rightfully be considered a defect. And as others have mentioned, manufacturers already factor in the cost of defects into the total cost of producing a car.

snowwrestler 11y ago

> The cost of collisions today is reflected in the car insurance, so about $100/mo. Not true--consumer auto insurance premiums do not encompass the cost of consumer lawsuits against manufacturers, because of course manufacturers do not buy consumer auto insurance. For example Toyota settled their unintended acceleration lawsuits for $1.2 billion dollars or so. GM's ignition switch problems cost them $900 million to settle. How much will Volkswagon's diesel fraud cost them? None of these costs are covered by consumer auto insurance. Instead they're covered by the capital of the corporation, which ultimately comes from investors or customers. Now imagine a self-driving world in which every accident opens up the possibility of such class action settlements. In the absence of legislation to cap damages, companies would have to set aside huge pools of money to defend and settle such lawsuits. That means less investment, lower returns, or higher prices--any of which tend to hurt the long-term viability of a company.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Not true--consumer auto insurance premiums do not encompass the cost of consumer lawsuits against manufacturers, because of course manufacturers do not buy consumer auto insurance. They encompass the cost of the liability that would be transferred from drivers to manufacturers if all liability that drivers have now was transferred. They don't cover the liabilities manufacturers already have, but those liabilities are an existing part of the cost of doing business in the auto industry, not something new with automated vehicles.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  > those liabilities are an existing part of the cost of doing business in the auto industry, not something new with automated vehicles. You've written this in several posts and I think it's wrong. Consumer class actions are typically done on contingency, or with 3rd party financing, which means that cases must be somewhat likely to win before they even get filed. Thus while it's true in theory that anyone can sue an auto manufacturer in any given accident, most accidents do not result in such suits. Consider that the GM ignition switch problem caused a number of deaths over the course of years before a suit was even filed on it. Auto manufacturers self-insure based on the expected rate of such lawsuits, and they obviously have very good data about that, as the movie Fight Club so memorably illustrated. In a fully autonomous car a driver is not making any decisions at all, so how can they be liable? The balance would certainly shift toward more suits against manufacturers.

maratd 11y ago

More than likely, insurance will continue to be mandatory and paid by the vehicle owner ... but seeing it drop to $10/mo would be pretty sweet! Of course, you would then be prohibited from driving the vehicle. Self-driving only if you want to see the savings.

aidenn0 11y ago

> There is no explosion. The cost of collisions today is reflected in the car insurance, so about $100/mo. If the manufacturer were to absorb this liability at current incident rates, it would make cars about 30% more expensive (assuming $300/mo loan payments). Except juries invariably award much larger damages against companies then against individuals; particularly when the individual is dead or permanently disabled by the accident. People will be reluctant to levy a multi-million dollar award against a reckless driver's widow, but will be perfectly happy to award it against a multi-billion dollar corporation.

jessaustin 11y ago
Carrying liability insurance is a condition of licensure. Large insurance companies are routinely defendants in auto injury lawsuits.