5 ms·

> If they're not willing to [...] buy enough insurance to > pay out the claims [...] they [...] shouldn't be selling > [these] self-driving cars, period

• tablespoon 5y ago
  > The problem with this view is that you're assuming that the current risk created by drivers that society would benefit from moving to self-driving systems is priced into their current driving, or into their insurance. That's neither here nor there. Liability shouldn't be separated from the driver, since that's incentive for them to drive better. However, with self-driving vehicles, the driver is the manufacturer, full stop. > My point upthread is that we're almost certain to end up over-pricing the risk caused by self-driving vehicles, while directly and indirectly subsidizing the continued operation of motor vehicles by even more flawed human beings. 1. You're making the flawed assumption that self-driving vehicles will be better drivers than humans. Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. It's yet to be seen. We'll know once the manufactures can't cherry-pick driving conditions or rely on backup humans to smooth over their defects. 2. If the problem you outline is an issue, the solution of pushing liability onto people who are not actually driving is a bad one.
  • mywittyname 5y ago
    > However, with self-driving vehicles, the driver is the manufacturer, full stop. I don't think this argument has unanimous agreement. If we force manufactures to be responsible, then they are going to find a way to reduce payouts. No country is going to destroy their automotive industry because of self-driving cars. And Too Big To Fail companies are never held responsible for their actions. I'm in the camp of owner-responsibility. Insurance rates for self-driving cars will set a price for the safety of the system. It will happen rather quickly and will be largely accurate. Are you going to even use a self-driving system if it elevates your insurance premiums to $10k a month? Even a person who prefers convenience over personal safety is going to think twice about paying all that money to insure themselves.
    • tablespoon 5y ago
      > If we force manufactures to be responsible, then they are going to find a way to reduce payouts. No country is going to destroy their automotive industry because of self-driving cars. And Too Big To Fail companies are never held responsible for their actions. No country would "destroy their automotive industry because of self-driving cars," by making manufactures liable for their products. Worst case is the shareholders would get wiped out in a bankruptcy, but the manufactures themselves would survive. > I'm in the camp of owner-responsibility. Insurance rates for self-driving cars will set a price for the safety of the system. It will happen rather quickly and will be largely accurate. Are you going to even use a self-driving system if it elevates your insurance premiums to $10k a month? Even a person who prefers convenience over personal safety is going to think twice about paying all that money to insure themselves. That's a ridiculous, Rube-Goldbergian idea. Lets simplify it: the manufacturer has the liability, buys the insurance, and includes the cost into the price of the self-driving feature. Instead of waiting for your insurance bill after you buy the car to find out if you can afford self-driving, it's there in the sticker price.
• HWR_14 5y ago
  > I don't even think that's a bad outcome per-se. Very few people could truthfully report that they've never broken the traffic law in a similar manner even once. I've never run over anyone, no. [Edit: The next paragraph addresses the concept of moral risk raised by the parent. Maybe this was a bad opening line, as it seemed to be the only thing responded to.] It's unclear from your link what the person did. But, in general, hitting and killing three people requires unsafe driving that I've never done. And, to preempt the false analogy, I've certainly broken traffic laws. But I don't think I've ever driven unsafely while doing so. It's also worth noticing that that person never even apologized. That's horrible. > Now, imagine the same outcome, except this time the CEO of Tesla or Mercedes is going to have to answer in court for it. "Mr. Musk, why isn't your company paying out these parents fairly?" Why wouldn't he be able to pay the parents fairly? Either (a) he fundamentally mispriced self-driving cars (in which case he should lose money) (b) his self-driving cars were worse than he expected (in which case he should lose money) or (c) he correctly accounted for risk in pricing, in which case the payouts are already baked in as a cost of doing business. In the event of (c), it's very similar to other insurance products. Everyone pays some extra to cover the inevitable rare but serious failures. Yes, I oppose any set of laws that allows Tesla to walk away from a fatal car accident caused by their self-driving without at the very least an appropriate civil punishment.
  • avar 5y ago
    > I've never run over anyone, no. The point is that you could have if circumstances beyond your control were different. The concept of "moral luck" is about people having drastically different moral outcomes for similar actions, mostly due to getting unlucky. E.g. most people who own a cell phone and drive cars have probably broken the laws stating that you shouldn't operate your cellphone without using the appropriate hands-free equipment. I certainly have at least. I know I shouldn't do it, and I can truthfully say it's not a thing I "do". I know about the dangers involved. But has it happened? Yes, and I'm not proud of it. But nothing's bad has ever happened to me as a result, but there's some person somewhere where the first time they looked at their cellphone beeping the driver's seat they drove over someone and killed them. Can we say that I'm a better person because that hasn't happened to me? I don't think so, I just happen to have good moral luck (so far).