6 ms·
Once the machines are better than humans at a macro level, insurance companies will notice, and I think this will cause widespread adoption pretty quickly.
by jason_pomerleau 9y ago
Once the machines are better than humans at a macro level, insurance companies will notice, and I think this will cause widespread adoption pretty quickly.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lern_too_spel 9y agoCalifornia allows drivers to self-insure. The existing auto insurers are going to lose that business to automated taxi fleets.
- strebler 9y agoThis has already started - look up the discount some insurers give to owners of Subarus that are equipped with EyeSight. The numbers show their collision avoidance is making roads safer. Also, interesting fact: Subaru is achieving these impressive stats using stereo vision, not lidar.
- dboreham 9y agoI recently bought a Subaru, and I agree. However, this is in no way at all related to "self driving cars" (which don't actually exist and therefore nobody knows how the insurance companies and general public will react to the liability/safety/skin-in-the-game issues).
- tspike 9y agoFolks are glossing over this quote too easily: > “Historically human beings have shown zero tolerance for injury or death caused by flaws in a machine,” It doesn't matter if it's objectively safer; people have no issue doing dangerous things so long as they can maintain the illusion of control.
- Retric 9y agoI don' think that's true in terms of transportation systems. In terms of cars: Streets where built for people or animals walking on them and cars quickly started killing large numbers of people. The response was not to make cars safer by say physically limiting them to 10 MPH, but to remove people from streets. A fairly high fraction of early aviators where killed, that did little to slow adoption of aircraft. Astronaut deaths where sadly common, but also expected and did little to slow progress.
- zip1234 9y agoCost/benefit--if the rewards are judged to outweigh the risks and there is a clear benefit, people will adopt it. If money/time can be saved, it will be very popular.
- vertex-four 9y ago> The response was not to make cars safer by say physically limiting them to 10 MPH Umm, reasonably sure that implementing a legal speed limit was an initial response, in the UK at least. It took a number of years (and likely a lot of propaganda, though I haven't looked that closely into it and history is, of course, written by the victors) to allow motorcars to use roads at anything close to a reasonable speed. Check wikipedia out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#History
- Retric 9y agoI am referring to a governor which would prevent cars from being capable of 10MPH even on empty roads. Actual in town speed limits would presumably be lower. Now, with our infrastructure that seems like a huge issue, but cites used to be built for walking and even small towns simply had vastly higher density. Watch this and suddenly those mentioned speed limits are completely reasonable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=954L9MpfCEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=954L9MpfCEo Note, 10MPH would allow for 2-3x the speed of a horse over long distances. So, in this alternate history cars would still have been very useful.
- brudgers 9y agoThe scenario in which insurance companies drive adoption of self driving cars depends upon insurance companies accepting the risk of system failure due to manufacturing defects or limitations that generate the wrong response in particular conditions.
- gaius 9y agoIndeed. You aren't insuring one driver anymore, you're insuring a million instances of the same algo.