4 ms·

I believe for the insurance purposes, this difference is irrelevant. The point is under the current condition, Waymo driverless cars are safer than human contro

I believe for the insurance purposes, this difference is irrelevant. The point is under the current condition, Waymo driverless cars are safer than human controlled cars, thus the question of liability and permit to operate should be cleared. The question whether humans are truly inferior to robots in term of controlling cars is rather a question of ego than a practical one.

acchow 3y ago
If you had insurance for a human whose vehicle could only operate between 9pm to 6am, would it still be more expensive than Waymo's?
- aaron425 3y ago
  Probably, because Waymo runs 24/7 in San Francisco and has been for a while.
- n2d4 3y ago
  Fatalities are significantly more likely if you're driving at night than during the day, so probably yes.
RandomLensman 3y ago
Not sure that can be concluded easily as you would need to synthetically create a human driver profile with the same restrictions as Waymo. It does not say that in the linked article.
- karamanolev 3y ago
  If the accident data for humans contains information about weather, location, additional complications, then it should be possible to only filter out accidents that are within Waymo's restriction. You'll similarly need to filter the human-driven miles, but a statistical approach doesn't seem to hard. So ... possible, but TFA doesn't say, of course.
  - mattmanser 3y ago
    Of course insurance data doesn't contain that. Have you worked in the real world?
    - dang 3y ago
      You've unfortunately gotten back in the habit of breaking the site guidelines regularly - not just in this comment but in many others. Examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37110814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37110814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36874717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36874717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36633867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36633867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36624768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36624768 I had the impression that you'd largely fixed this for quite a long time, which was great, but this is not acceptable. We have to rate-limit and eventually ban accounts that post like this. I don't want to ban you so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick properly to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    You need the driving data to contain that, too, not just the accident data to create similar driving profiles. Might not be so easy.
noja 3y ago
> I believe for the insurance purposes, this difference is irrelevant. Can you explain this some more? My understanding is that an insurance policy is valid in a certain set of circumstances.
- raincole 3y ago
  They can argue that if you drive in in unintended conditions, it's your fault and they won't pay? (But if it's true, it just make me want a self-drive car even less)
- bluGill 3y ago
  My insurance covers me driving any road in the US. I can't drive in Mexico but if it is a legal road in the US I can drive it any time. They assume i'm mostly driving near my house, but I can drive elsewhere.

acchow 3y ago

If you had insurance for a human whose vehicle could only operate between 9pm to 6am, would it still be more expensive than Waymo's?

aaron425 3y ago
Probably, because Waymo runs 24/7 in San Francisco and has been for a while.
n2d4 3y ago
Fatalities are significantly more likely if you're driving at night than during the day, so probably yes.

RandomLensman 3y ago

Not sure that can be concluded easily as you would need to synthetically create a human driver profile with the same restrictions as Waymo. It does not say that in the linked article.

karamanolev 3y ago
If the accident data for humans contains information about weather, location, additional complications, then it should be possible to only filter out accidents that are within Waymo's restriction. You'll similarly need to filter the human-driven miles, but a statistical approach doesn't seem to hard. So ... possible, but TFA doesn't say, of course.
- mattmanser 3y ago
  Of course insurance data doesn't contain that. Have you worked in the real world?
  - dang 3y ago
    You've unfortunately gotten back in the habit of breaking the site guidelines regularly - not just in this comment but in many others. Examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37110814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37110814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36874717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36874717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36633867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36633867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36624768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36624768 I had the impression that you'd largely fixed this for quite a long time, which was great, but this is not acceptable. We have to rate-limit and eventually ban accounts that post like this. I don't want to ban you so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick properly to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  You need the driving data to contain that, too, not just the accident data to create similar driving profiles. Might not be so easy.

noja 3y ago

> I believe for the insurance purposes, this difference is irrelevant. Can you explain this some more? My understanding is that an insurance policy is valid in a certain set of circumstances.

raincole 3y ago
They can argue that if you drive in in unintended conditions, it's your fault and they won't pay? (But if it's true, it just make me want a self-drive car even less)
bluGill 3y ago
My insurance covers me driving any road in the US. I can't drive in Mexico but if it is a legal road in the US I can drive it any time. They assume i'm mostly driving near my house, but I can drive elsewhere.