4 ms·

Fair comment but what about when there are monetary damages that need to be paid. Someone is going to have to pay for the cars and what they crash in to to be r

Fair comment but what about when there are monetary damages that need to be paid. Someone is going to have to pay for the cars and what they crash in to to be repaired. If tesla pushes out an update that causes your car to automatically steer in to another one, are you the owner responsible for paying for both cars to be fixed?

dheera 6y ago
Insurance pays. If it's two autonomous cars, split the bill. The insurance companies should be happy that accidents happen at 1/30 the rate they used to (if we take my numbers above as an example). They can give you an 80% discount on your insurance premium for having an autonomous car, and still net a massive profit when averaged over all their customers over time.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  You haven’t answered the question. Who pays for the insurance?
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    What happens now, when your car breaks in a way that causes an accident? Obviously this is a thing that happens and it is dealt with somehow. It hasn't happened to me, and I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure offhand. At least in my state, there is no fault coverage everyone has to buy, that covers medical bills up to a certain amount. It does not cover fixing your car. If there is nobody responsible for a collision, maybe the repairs would fall under comprehensive coverage. From what I read, if you hit a deer, it's covered under comprehensive. But if you try to avoid hitting a deer and run into a tree, it's covered under collision. So it seems somewhat arbitrary.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      There's at least a magnitude of difference between a driver, who is always in control of the vehicle, suddenly finding that his brakes have failed, and then doing what he can to reduce or minimize the impact of the accident; and a driver who is basically a passenger having to make what is likely to be a last-minute decision to wrench control from an anonymous vehicle. A decision that will be heavily question by the manufacturers' lawyers or insurance companies. If it's not possible to take control, would he have any liability at all?
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        Well, yeah, who knows if the driver of the car that causes the accident would seem responsible. Which is why I wouldn't want to own that kind of car. If they really are that much safer, then I should benefit from them being on the road anyway.
        cgriswald 6y ago
        I though the same way: It's better if everyone else has one. But I don't think it'll play out that way. You'll benefit from the additional safety. On the other hand, if there is an accident involving you and the other car is a self-driving car, the assumption will be (and the manufacturer's lawyers will argue) that you, the human, are at fault. It might even be the case, but I suspect it'll be more of a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation regardless.
        perl4ever 6y ago
        The situation where the human driver is assumed to be guilty without evidence seems self-contradictory. A self-driving car would have abundant telemetry and video. If it didn't, if say the information gathering mysteriously failed then by definition, it's at fault. This fear makes no more sense to me as the sentiment that nobody will be able to afford to insure a non-self-driving car in the future.
      - dheera 6y ago
        On this note, how many human drivers actually know what to do if their brakes fail? Do they know to try to switch the car into lower gear and engine brake, move towards the right lane, coast and then use the parking brake to try to stop the vehicle? How many human drivers might try to shove the vehicle into park, neutral, or downright panic in that situation? I think very few humans actually understand these concepts. Autonomous vehicles don't panic, and they can be programmed with rules to maximize the probability of survival. Autonomous vehicles can also be equipped with backup brakes, separate front/rear brakes with independent controls (humans can't handle that complexity but algorithms can), or other modifications and programmed to simply NOT start driving if there are any failures in the redundant system. Humans often continue to drive cars that show signs of trouble, because it's the only car they have. With an autonomous car, it could, at the first sign of trouble, automatically summon help, and also summon a replacement rental vehicle to show up at your location so you can ditch the problem vehicle for the towers to deal with and continue about your life. How cool would that be?
  - unionpivo 6y ago
    Everybody like today. Drivers/operators/owners for damages they might cause, and will probably still be mandatory "people" so that they can afford medical bills, if they survive the accident (and there are lawsuits going on). Companies that build the cars/AI because they have deep pockets and will get sued anyway.
  - dheera 6y ago
    The owner of the car pays for the insurance, just like they would pay for home insurance, or insurance for their photography gear, or insurance for anything else. They too, should be happy that the probability that their car has an accident is going to be much lower than the probability that they have an accident as a human. If I were an insurance company and told you your premiums would be slashed by a factor of 5 in return for driving in autonomous mode, wouldn't you take it?
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      You've missed the point. Why is the owner of the car paying if the car is driving in autonomous mode? If the driver has no control, is he liable? That's the question. Talking about insurance is just kicking the can down the road. If the driver has the option to take control, is he going to be liable for doing so or not doing so in case of an accident?

dheera 6y ago

Insurance pays. If it's two autonomous cars, split the bill. The insurance companies should be happy that accidents happen at 1/30 the rate they used to (if we take my numbers above as an example). They can give you an 80% discount on your insurance premium for having an autonomous car, and still net a massive profit when averaged over all their customers over time.

cgriswald 6y ago
You haven’t answered the question. Who pays for the insurance?
- perl4ever 6y ago
  What happens now, when your car breaks in a way that causes an accident? Obviously this is a thing that happens and it is dealt with somehow. It hasn't happened to me, and I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure offhand. At least in my state, there is no fault coverage everyone has to buy, that covers medical bills up to a certain amount. It does not cover fixing your car. If there is nobody responsible for a collision, maybe the repairs would fall under comprehensive coverage. From what I read, if you hit a deer, it's covered under comprehensive. But if you try to avoid hitting a deer and run into a tree, it's covered under collision. So it seems somewhat arbitrary.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    There's at least a magnitude of difference between a driver, who is always in control of the vehicle, suddenly finding that his brakes have failed, and then doing what he can to reduce or minimize the impact of the accident; and a driver who is basically a passenger having to make what is likely to be a last-minute decision to wrench control from an anonymous vehicle. A decision that will be heavily question by the manufacturers' lawyers or insurance companies. If it's not possible to take control, would he have any liability at all?
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      Well, yeah, who knows if the driver of the car that causes the accident would seem responsible. Which is why I wouldn't want to own that kind of car. If they really are that much safer, then I should benefit from them being on the road anyway.
      - cgriswald 6y ago
        I though the same way: It's better if everyone else has one. But I don't think it'll play out that way. You'll benefit from the additional safety. On the other hand, if there is an accident involving you and the other car is a self-driving car, the assumption will be (and the manufacturer's lawyers will argue) that you, the human, are at fault. It might even be the case, but I suspect it'll be more of a guilty-until-proven-innocent situation regardless.
        perl4ever 6y ago
        The situation where the human driver is assumed to be guilty without evidence seems self-contradictory. A self-driving car would have abundant telemetry and video. If it didn't, if say the information gathering mysteriously failed then by definition, it's at fault. This fear makes no more sense to me as the sentiment that nobody will be able to afford to insure a non-self-driving car in the future.
    - dheera 6y ago
      On this note, how many human drivers actually know what to do if their brakes fail? Do they know to try to switch the car into lower gear and engine brake, move towards the right lane, coast and then use the parking brake to try to stop the vehicle? How many human drivers might try to shove the vehicle into park, neutral, or downright panic in that situation? I think very few humans actually understand these concepts. Autonomous vehicles don't panic, and they can be programmed with rules to maximize the probability of survival. Autonomous vehicles can also be equipped with backup brakes, separate front/rear brakes with independent controls (humans can't handle that complexity but algorithms can), or other modifications and programmed to simply NOT start driving if there are any failures in the redundant system. Humans often continue to drive cars that show signs of trouble, because it's the only car they have. With an autonomous car, it could, at the first sign of trouble, automatically summon help, and also summon a replacement rental vehicle to show up at your location so you can ditch the problem vehicle for the towers to deal with and continue about your life. How cool would that be?
- unionpivo 6y ago
  Everybody like today. Drivers/operators/owners for damages they might cause, and will probably still be mandatory "people" so that they can afford medical bills, if they survive the accident (and there are lawsuits going on). Companies that build the cars/AI because they have deep pockets and will get sued anyway.
- dheera 6y ago
  The owner of the car pays for the insurance, just like they would pay for home insurance, or insurance for their photography gear, or insurance for anything else. They too, should be happy that the probability that their car has an accident is going to be much lower than the probability that they have an accident as a human. If I were an insurance company and told you your premiums would be slashed by a factor of 5 in return for driving in autonomous mode, wouldn't you take it?
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    You've missed the point. Why is the owner of the car paying if the car is driving in autonomous mode? If the driver has no control, is he liable? That's the question. Talking about insurance is just kicking the can down the road. If the driver has the option to take control, is he going to be liable for doing so or not doing so in case of an accident?