3 ms·

I predict that in 10-15 years, no major car company will offer self driving features (besides auto breaking and maybe "beep when out of lane"). When you get hit

by dvh 6y ago

I predict that in 10-15 years, no major car company will offer self driving features (besides auto breaking and maybe "beep when out of lane"). When you get hit by random Joe in normal car, he has mortgage and $5000 in the bank. It makes no sense to sue. But when you get hit by self driving car, there's company behind it, you can sue for millions. Everybody and their dog will be doing it till they stop offering self driving features or they go bankrupt, whichever comes first.

ghaff 6y ago
Liability is certainly one issue that will have to be dealt with. Outside of drug side effects, there are very few products sold to consumers that, if used and maintained properly, will still sometimes randomly kill people and we shrug our collective shoulders because "stuff happens."
akmarinov 6y ago
I imagine that before that point insurance costs for non self driving cars would be so expensive that random Joe won’t be able to afford a “normal” car.
- ghaff 6y ago
  If insurance is a profitable product today (it is), why would it skyrocket in price just because there are safer cars on the road (presumably paying lower rates)?
- perl4ever 6y ago
  It's the people who are currently the highest risks and paying the most who would be the first to switch to a self-driving car if they can afford it. The people with DWIs, etc. Therefore the pool of people who drive for themselves would be getting less risky and their insurance premiums would go down. Also, consider that right now, we have a minority of people who drive classic cars, which haven't got safety equipment, and their insurance is cheaper, not more expensive. Same with motorcycles, which have much higher accident rates than modern cars. So clearly a vehicle being more dangerous doesn't mean it's uninsurable or more expensive. I'd really like to know if you or anyone can articulate what specific logic leads to your assumption, because people have been saying it for years. Obviously it's something people like to say. I feel like it might have something to do with a misguided analogy to health insurance.

by dvh 6y ago

ghaff 6y ago

Liability is certainly one issue that will have to be dealt with. Outside of drug side effects, there are very few products sold to consumers that, if used and maintained properly, will still sometimes randomly kill people and we shrug our collective shoulders because "stuff happens."

akmarinov 6y ago

I imagine that before that point insurance costs for non self driving cars would be so expensive that random Joe won’t be able to afford a “normal” car.

ghaff 6y ago
If insurance is a profitable product today (it is), why would it skyrocket in price just because there are safer cars on the road (presumably paying lower rates)?
perl4ever 6y ago
It's the people who are currently the highest risks and paying the most who would be the first to switch to a self-driving car if they can afford it. The people with DWIs, etc. Therefore the pool of people who drive for themselves would be getting less risky and their insurance premiums would go down. Also, consider that right now, we have a minority of people who drive classic cars, which haven't got safety equipment, and their insurance is cheaper, not more expensive. Same with motorcycles, which have much higher accident rates than modern cars. So clearly a vehicle being more dangerous doesn't mean it's uninsurable or more expensive. I'd really like to know if you or anyone can articulate what specific logic leads to your assumption, because people have been saying it for years. Obviously it's something people like to say. I feel like it might have something to do with a misguided analogy to health insurance.