4 ms·
>The implication is required insurance forces drone operators to be careful where/when they deploy their drones, for fear of increased premiums/dropped coverage
by jaclaz 9y ago
>The implication is required insurance forces drone operators to be careful where/when they deploy their drones, for fear of increased premiums/dropped coverage.
>Similar to automotive safety features. Extra air-bags or ABS systems reduce accident, lowering premiums, driving demand for those features.
Sure, I understand that, but it's not the same thing.
An extra air bag still doesn't prevent at all the crash (it may minimize fatalities and reduce injuries of the people inside the car).
An ABS system may - in some cases - i.e. as an example on slippery roads, prevent incidents.
If a car swerves and hits a cyclist the airbags and ABS won't do anything (for the cyclist), and having a separate, protected cycle lanes (not allowing cars were cyclists are) or not allowing cyclists on trafficked high speed roads seems to me anyway a good idea.
An insurance - as said - may increase safety requirements, and each added safety requirement may (or may not) contribute to less crashes, but it's not like it will directly prevent incidents, that is what sounded "odd" to me.
- mbrameld 9y ago> An insurance - as said - may increase safety requirements, and each added safety requirement may (or may not) contribute to less crashes, but it's not like it will directly prevent incidents, that is what sounded "odd" to me. Did the article say insurance would directly prevent crashes? That's not the way I read it. I read it as one approach to reducing the likelihood of crashes is to require hefty insurance coverage, which shouldn't sound "odd" to you at all unless you misread it.
- jaclaz 9y agoThat's exactly what I found "odd", the sentence says: "Nobody wants to wake up to an autonomous vehicle crashing through their roof, but it's possible to prevent that ..."