6 ms·

> Car owners will still need liability insurance Legal liability will shift to the manufacturers, therefore individuals will not require insurance. Insurance p

> Car owners will still need liability insurance Legal liability will shift to the manufacturers, therefore individuals will not require insurance. Insurance policies will be purchased by the manufacturers and will cover the entire fleet under one policy. > coverages should in theory get less expensive if claims drop This is certainly the largest factor, as insured losses are expected to drop by 90%. A secondary factor will be that car manufacturers will be able to negotiate wholesale “group policies” on large fleets and get a better rate. Or they could self-insure and cut out the insurance industry completely. > but profit margin on policies doesn’t necessarily change I have already noted the profit margin pressure arising due to wholesale fleet insurance / self-insurance. But the more important point is that profit margin is not the only relevant measure for an industry. The total amount of revenue is equally important. If profit margins stay the same but revenues decrease, then there is a reduction in net income. Note that prices are expected to fall 90%, which directly impacts revenue.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Legal liability will shift to the manufacturers No, it probably won't. Owners will probably remain liable in the first instance, for maintaining th vehicle in a safe operating condition; manufacturers (and the whole chain of commerce) will be liable, as they are now, for defects that exist at the time of sale, and will be (as they are now) attractive deep-pockets defendants. But, for that reason, they will probably get very good at playing off failures (since drivers aren't in the picture to blame) as maintenance failures rather manufacturing defects.
- riskneutral 8y ago
  No, it probably will. In the same way that you are not liabile for any accidents if you are a passenger in a taxi. It will take some time for legal scholars to work out all the details (e.g. gross negligence, etc), but it is very obvious that passengers in fully autonomous vehicles cannot be legally liable to the same extent that drivers are liable today.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > In the same way that you are not liabile for any accidents if you are a passenger in a taxi. A passenger is neither an owner, an operator, nor a manufacturer of a taxi. Owners, operators, and manufacturers tend to be liable; passengers not under normal circumstances. If I get hit by a bus (to escape the taxi situation where the operator is usually the owner), the bus driver, bus line, and bus manufacturer can all be liable. Replacing the operator with a piece of equipment manufactured by the manufacturer and maintained by the owner takes the driver out of the equation, but there is no logical reason why it would remove liability from the owner.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- taurath 8y ago
  The concept of "Owners" is an interesting one in the context of self-driving, manufacturer-insured vehicles. I'd imagine that self-diagnostics would have to get very very good to the point of not starting when a single sensor is unavailable - nobody would want to ride in "their" car if it has a chance of causing a crash and them being legally liable despite not driving it.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  But, for that reason, they will probably get very good at playing off failures (since drivers aren't in the picture to blame) as maintenance failures rather manufacturing defects. Manufacturers already do that now...Ford was doing that back in the Pinto days. The change to self-driving cars will make maintenance (and maintenance records) more important for drivers for liability purposes, but will also make it more difficult for the manufacturers to avoid liability.
  - markdown 8y ago
    I was recently wondering why new cars don't come with factory fitted dashcams. Perhaps a law should mandate their inclusion, along with other data logging mechanisms.
    - dstroot 8y ago
      Tesla does. Stick a usb stick in my model 3 and it uses the storage to record off the cameras. They just added a mode to record video when the car is “threatened” while parked.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The change to self-driving cars will make maintenance (and maintenance records) more important for drivers for liability purposes For owners. Until we recognize AIs as legal persons, self-driving car drivers don't have liability concerns.
decebalus1 8y ago
> Legal liability will shift to the manufacturers Nah.. Manufacturers will even invest heavily in lobby efforts for this to never happen. Even if consumers will likely not own the car as they currently do (see the growing trend that you're not actually owning the car but you're paying for the license to use it indefinitely) they will be responsible for keeping it running will be the de-facto 'operators' regardless if the car is driving itself. The car will probably not store itself, not maintain/clean itself, will not keep it's radars/cameras active and not blocked by dirt/snow/etc.. Call me a pessimist but the consumers will likely get shafted.
- kardos 8y ago
  > Call me a pessimist but the consumers will likely get shafted. You're a pessimist! Actually I don't see that there would be much difference. The car will perform at some level of skill and have an associated risk, lets say that amounts to $50/mo. The customer could pay the manufacturer to pay the insurance company, or the customer could pay directly -- same thing?
- riskneutral 8y ago
  The end game is that almost no one will own a car, and most people will use fully autonomous taxis for transportation. If and when fully autonomous vehicles become a reality, auto insurance will die along with car ownership and parking lots.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I see little reason to suppose that that will be the end game. Those for whom the total cost of ownership of a car are lower than the cost of taxis will continue to own a car. What fraction of people that currently own cars will that be? Probably depends on where you live. Taxi will probably never be the popular choice in, say, South Dakota. The economics just don't work out.
    - stormbrew 8y ago
      The cost of autonomous cars, especially in terms of maintenance, is likely to be higher. And autonomous taxis will be cheaper to operate because drivers are a very expensive part of them. The number of people for whom owning a car makes sense will definitely go down when prices on cars rise and prices on taxis and public transportation drop. This is ignoring the fact that having an unproductive self driving car sitting in your garage becomes a significant opportunity cost itself.
randyrand 8y ago
> Legal liability will shift to the manufacturers Why? If you're operating a vehicle with known and manufacturer specified risks, thats on you.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  It's basic product liability law. The liability is actually on both the owner and the manufacturer (and the dealer, and anyone else involved in that chain of transactions...). And as the deeper pocket, realistically the liability is all on the manufacturer.
- sadris 8y ago
  You're not operating a vehicle. You're a passenger in a vehicle operated by waymo.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    I thought we were talking about your own vehicles. If you own a self driving vehicle, and it crashes because you neglected maintenance then that's on the owner not manufacturer, just like it is with existing cars.
    - dagw 8y ago
      Sure, but what if I had done all the maintenance I was supposed to and it crashes. Should that still be on me or on Waymo? I wonder self driving car manufacturers are going to try to get around this making the required maintenance and 'pre-flight' check list so onerous that basically nobody is completely in compliance and thus they're never responsible.
      - gambiting 8y ago
        Yes, if you drive around and suddenly your spring coil breaks making you swerve and hit someone else, that's still on you, even if you have followed the maintenance booklet precisely. You can't sue the manufacturer for that, they will just say the part has worn out and you were supposed to spot that(somehow, even though the law requires an annual inspection at best).

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Legal liability will shift to the manufacturers No, it probably won't. Owners will probably remain liable in the first instance, for maintaining th vehicle in a safe operating condition; manufacturers (and the whole chain of commerce) will be liable, as they are now, for defects that exist at the time of sale, and will be (as they are now) attractive deep-pockets defendants. But, for that reason, they will probably get very good at playing off failures (since drivers aren't in the picture to blame) as maintenance failures rather manufacturing defects.

riskneutral 8y ago
No, it probably will. In the same way that you are not liabile for any accidents if you are a passenger in a taxi. It will take some time for legal scholars to work out all the details (e.g. gross negligence, etc), but it is very obvious that passengers in fully autonomous vehicles cannot be legally liable to the same extent that drivers are liable today.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > In the same way that you are not liabile for any accidents if you are a passenger in a taxi. A passenger is neither an owner, an operator, nor a manufacturer of a taxi. Owners, operators, and manufacturers tend to be liable; passengers not under normal circumstances. If I get hit by a bus (to escape the taxi situation where the operator is usually the owner), the bus driver, bus line, and bus manufacturer can all be liable. Replacing the operator with a piece of equipment manufactured by the manufacturer and maintained by the owner takes the driver out of the equation, but there is no logical reason why it would remove liability from the owner.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
taurath 8y ago
The concept of "Owners" is an interesting one in the context of self-driving, manufacturer-insured vehicles. I'd imagine that self-diagnostics would have to get very very good to the point of not starting when a single sensor is unavailable - nobody would want to ride in "their" car if it has a chance of causing a crash and them being legally liable despite not driving it.
gamblor956 8y ago
But, for that reason, they will probably get very good at playing off failures (since drivers aren't in the picture to blame) as maintenance failures rather manufacturing defects. Manufacturers already do that now...Ford was doing that back in the Pinto days. The change to self-driving cars will make maintenance (and maintenance records) more important for drivers for liability purposes, but will also make it more difficult for the manufacturers to avoid liability.
- markdown 8y ago
  I was recently wondering why new cars don't come with factory fitted dashcams. Perhaps a law should mandate their inclusion, along with other data logging mechanisms.
  - dstroot 8y ago
    Tesla does. Stick a usb stick in my model 3 and it uses the storage to record off the cameras. They just added a mode to record video when the car is “threatened” while parked.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The change to self-driving cars will make maintenance (and maintenance records) more important for drivers for liability purposes For owners. Until we recognize AIs as legal persons, self-driving car drivers don't have liability concerns.

decebalus1 8y ago

> Legal liability will shift to the manufacturers Nah.. Manufacturers will even invest heavily in lobby efforts for this to never happen. Even if consumers will likely not own the car as they currently do (see the growing trend that you're not actually owning the car but you're paying for the license to use it indefinitely) they will be responsible for keeping it running will be the de-facto 'operators' regardless if the car is driving itself. The car will probably not store itself, not maintain/clean itself, will not keep it's radars/cameras active and not blocked by dirt/snow/etc.. Call me a pessimist but the consumers will likely get shafted.

kardos 8y ago
> Call me a pessimist but the consumers will likely get shafted. You're a pessimist! Actually I don't see that there would be much difference. The car will perform at some level of skill and have an associated risk, lets say that amounts to $50/mo. The customer could pay the manufacturer to pay the insurance company, or the customer could pay directly -- same thing?
riskneutral 8y ago
The end game is that almost no one will own a car, and most people will use fully autonomous taxis for transportation. If and when fully autonomous vehicles become a reality, auto insurance will die along with car ownership and parking lots.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I see little reason to suppose that that will be the end game. Those for whom the total cost of ownership of a car are lower than the cost of taxis will continue to own a car. What fraction of people that currently own cars will that be? Probably depends on where you live. Taxi will probably never be the popular choice in, say, South Dakota. The economics just don't work out.
  - stormbrew 8y ago
    The cost of autonomous cars, especially in terms of maintenance, is likely to be higher. And autonomous taxis will be cheaper to operate because drivers are a very expensive part of them. The number of people for whom owning a car makes sense will definitely go down when prices on cars rise and prices on taxis and public transportation drop. This is ignoring the fact that having an unproductive self driving car sitting in your garage becomes a significant opportunity cost itself.

randyrand 8y ago

> Legal liability will shift to the manufacturers Why? If you're operating a vehicle with known and manufacturer specified risks, thats on you.

gamblor956 8y ago
It's basic product liability law. The liability is actually on both the owner and the manufacturer (and the dealer, and anyone else involved in that chain of transactions...). And as the deeper pocket, realistically the liability is all on the manufacturer.
sadris 8y ago
You're not operating a vehicle. You're a passenger in a vehicle operated by waymo.
- gambiting 8y ago
  I thought we were talking about your own vehicles. If you own a self driving vehicle, and it crashes because you neglected maintenance then that's on the owner not manufacturer, just like it is with existing cars.
  - dagw 8y ago
    Sure, but what if I had done all the maintenance I was supposed to and it crashes. Should that still be on me or on Waymo? I wonder self driving car manufacturers are going to try to get around this making the required maintenance and 'pre-flight' check list so onerous that basically nobody is completely in compliance and thus they're never responsible.
    - gambiting 8y ago
      Yes, if you drive around and suddenly your spring coil breaks making you swerve and hit someone else, that's still on you, even if you have followed the maintenance booklet precisely. You can't sue the manufacturer for that, they will just say the part has worn out and you were supposed to spot that(somehow, even though the law requires an annual inspection at best).