3 ms·

Could be. I personally doubt that policy ever sees the light of day. Companies are legally obligated to be financially responsible on behalf of their sharehol

Could be. I personally doubt that policy ever sees the light of day. Companies are legally obligated to be financially responsible on behalf of their shareholders. A few executives holding the company over the edge of a cliff named "class action lawsuit" doesn't spell responsible to me. However IANAL

Animats 10y ago
Volvo can buy auto insurance for their self-driving cars, and probably will. As they get more driving experience, their premiums should go way down.
- studentrob 10y ago
  Is that insurance affordable for Volvo in America? Liability payouts here can be huge. Volvo putting 100 cars on the road in Sweden in 2017 doesn't necessarily mean they're close to shipping autopilot in the US. Insurers may request more testing to give an affordable price. From what I've read, Tesla isn't insured. My guess is that has either to do with cost or insurers' reluctance to put a value on a brand new feature From a Fortune article [1], > Tesla noted that it does not carry insurance against such events. Were the company to be sued because of a death related to, say, its autopilot feature, it could result in a “substantial monetary award” that would have to be paid from “company funds, not by insurance.” [1] http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/tesla-autopilot-crash-material-ceo-elon-musk/ http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/tesla-autopilot-crash-material...
dragonwriter 10y ago
Some of the textbook cases in the US (which, as I understand, actually has weaker consumer protection than a lot of developed nations) on general product liability concern automobile manufacturers liability for harms resulting from defects; its not like if Volvo kept quiet, attorneys who might otherwise recognize the opportunity for a lawsuit (class action or otherwise) wouldn't notice the opportunity if there were harms resulting from Volvo's self-driving system. It really seems to me that the sales benefit of reassuring customers about Volvo's confidence in their platform is likely to far outweigh any marginal increase in lawsuit risk to Volvo in this kind of statement.
- studentrob 10y ago
  > It really seems to me that the sales benefit of reassuring customers about Volvo's confidence in their platform is likely to far outweigh any marginal increase in lawsuit risk to Volvo in this kind of statement. Oh, don't get me wrong, I think insuring liability at the manufacturer level is the right thing to do. I just have doubts that it will be affordable any time soon. Animats was saying Volvo is close to shipping their autopilot. I doubt it for the reason of the cost of insurance. I could be wrong. You can charge customers a subscription for "Volvo self driving insurance", or charge a lot for the car to cover Volvo's costs. Accidents and lawsuits are more likely to occur at the beginning of self-driving cars' introduction before many people have bought them. Likely, the first companies to do this will either (a) wildly succeed or (b) fail dismally and teach a lesson to the others. I don't see much middle ground. Again, I could be wrong.

Animats 10y ago

Volvo can buy auto insurance for their self-driving cars, and probably will. As they get more driving experience, their premiums should go way down.

studentrob 10y ago
Is that insurance affordable for Volvo in America? Liability payouts here can be huge. Volvo putting 100 cars on the road in Sweden in 2017 doesn't necessarily mean they're close to shipping autopilot in the US. Insurers may request more testing to give an affordable price. From what I've read, Tesla isn't insured. My guess is that has either to do with cost or insurers' reluctance to put a value on a brand new feature From a Fortune article [1], > Tesla noted that it does not carry insurance against such events. Were the company to be sued because of a death related to, say, its autopilot feature, it could result in a “substantial monetary award” that would have to be paid from “company funds, not by insurance.” [1] http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/tesla-autopilot-crash-material-ceo-elon-musk/ http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/tesla-autopilot-crash-material...

dragonwriter 10y ago

Some of the textbook cases in the US (which, as I understand, actually has weaker consumer protection than a lot of developed nations) on general product liability concern automobile manufacturers liability for harms resulting from defects; its not like if Volvo kept quiet, attorneys who might otherwise recognize the opportunity for a lawsuit (class action or otherwise) wouldn't notice the opportunity if there were harms resulting from Volvo's self-driving system. It really seems to me that the sales benefit of reassuring customers about Volvo's confidence in their platform is likely to far outweigh any marginal increase in lawsuit risk to Volvo in this kind of statement.

studentrob 10y ago
> It really seems to me that the sales benefit of reassuring customers about Volvo's confidence in their platform is likely to far outweigh any marginal increase in lawsuit risk to Volvo in this kind of statement. Oh, don't get me wrong, I think insuring liability at the manufacturer level is the right thing to do. I just have doubts that it will be affordable any time soon. Animats was saying Volvo is close to shipping their autopilot. I doubt it for the reason of the cost of insurance. I could be wrong. You can charge customers a subscription for "Volvo self driving insurance", or charge a lot for the car to cover Volvo's costs. Accidents and lawsuits are more likely to occur at the beginning of self-driving cars' introduction before many people have bought them. Likely, the first companies to do this will either (a) wildly succeed or (b) fail dismally and teach a lesson to the others. I don't see much middle ground. Again, I could be wrong.