8 ms·
So one day my car insurance company will tell me: "you have to pay us more because you are driving yourself".
by wiz21c 2y ago
So one day my car insurance company will tell me: "you have to pay us more because you are driving yourself".
- tcfhgj 2y agoMakes sense
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> one day my car insurance company will tell me: "you have to pay us more because you are driving yourself" As it should. You’re objectively higher risk, particularly if you’ve ever been at fault for a crash or gotten a ticket.
- palata 2y agoYou're "objectively" higher risk, based on a study by the company building the autopilot, right? How objective is that?
- fxwin 2y agoObviously the assumption is that "one day" we have systems that outperform human drivers + reliable data on said systems.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kolinko 2y agoThat's ad hominem. The only question is whether the research is correct, and the data is true. Having said that, with time we will have more independent studies.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- khazhoux 2y agoLike the Borg, every Waymo is the same driver. So in column A, the insurance company has a meta-driver with many millions of miles of statistics. In column B, we have slow-reaction and non-lidar-equipped you, who had a fender-bender last year and a speeding ticket 3 years ago.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- meiraleal 2y agoColumn A might have a few kills in their numbers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- wccrawford 2y agoThat's initially true, but as the car ages, and maintenance is done (or not done, or done improperly) the car's aspects will change. And as new cars are developed, obviously there are more "drivers". Essentially every year there'll be new drivers for every company that makes autonomous cars, possibly multiple. Yeah, it's still a lot fewer than the individual humans, but it's definitely not just "one driver".
- jazzyjackson 2y agoI'm imagining insurance rates fluctuating with semver...
- palata 2y ago> you, who had a fender-bender last year and a speeding ticket 3 years ago This is factually wrong: I did not.
- khazhoux 2y agoI apologize if I gave the impression that I had personal knowledge of your driving record and traffic violations spanning over the last 36 months. I assure you, my intent in using the word "you" was merely to illustrate a general situation in which an individual (though surely not yourself, palata, specifically), will find themselves being penalized for a prior incident. As my comment was surely read by thousands of HN readers, one imagines that as each of them read the word "you", they pondered their own driving history in their lived experience. Now that we have established the fact that you, palata, did not have a speeding ticket 3 years ago, I would encourage you to think about the application of my statement, to your actual situation. That is, you may substitute the words "speeding ticket 3 years ago" with any traffic violation or insurance claim where you were determined to be at fault, over any time period which might not be 3 years. Then the question is raised of whether you, palata, would incur higher insurance costs than Waymo.
- paganel 2y agoThey should also ask for more money from sick people when it comes to health insurance, as they’re more prone to getting sick again and again and hence consume resources, after all how many Luigis can there be? Which is to say that naked capitalism works until it doesn’t, and when it stops working big chances are that it won’t do it gracefully, see how present-day health insurance CEOs are now scared shitless of Big City streets.
- anal_reactor 2y agoIf self-driving cars are widely available, and they can drive everywhere a normal car can go, then you're not driving manually because you need to do so, you're driving manually because you like it, and the society isn't there to pay for your hobbies.
- paganel 2y ago> If self-driving cars are widely available They won't be "widely available" because of the higher prices, just look at the EV market right now. You won't get a self-driving $2,000 clunker, and when you drive a $2,000 clunker you don't do it because you "like it", but because that's all that you can afford.
- anal_reactor 2y agoAh yes. Technological progress will never happen.
- paganel 2y agoDid it happen for EVs in the here and now? Where can I find a SH EV clunker for $2,000? I'm talking about an EV with performances similar to those of a gasoline-based $2,000 clunker. Otherwise, believing in "technological progress" as a potential solution is just just that, an irrational belief.
- anal_reactor 2y ago
- s1artibartfast 2y ago"More" is the critical word here. I don't see any reason why insurance premiums should increase. Insurance premiums aren't sin taxes or some governmental incentive, they are offered by private firms. I would expect premium levels to continue to be driven by liability pool payouts plus a profit margin. Autonomous vehicles don't increase driver risk or liability pool payouts. IF anything, they reduce them due to safer driving conditions for the humans.
- likpok 2y agoInsurance always balances between cost pooling and making people pay for their increased risk. Car insurance has always been more expensive for riskier drivers: young men pay more, driving “high risk” cars pay more. If the overall liability pool goes down but the human drivers become an outsized part of it, the insurance company will likely shift that cost to them. If they don’t, someone could set up an autonomous-only insurance company (or google could just insure itself) to take advantage of the lower risk, making the human insurance more expensive (even more so that the liability since the overall pool will be much smaller).
- s1artibartfast 2y agoYes, that is implicit in what I am saying. We have human only insurance pools today. I dont see a good reason why a human only insurance pool in the future would be more expensive than today. Human driving wont be more risky than today.
- speerer 2y agoThis would be excellent! I expect it also costs more to insure a hydrogen-powered zeppellin compared to more modern and stable technologies.
- MaxikCZ 2y agoThe best part isnt that you would pay the same and less if a bot does it, you will pay the same when bot drives and extra when you do.
- chollida1 2y agoThat's the dream. As a cyclist I would hope that day comes very soon.
- suddenclarity 2y agoI assume such a change would heavily impact you as well? 40% of all seriously injured in the traffic are single-bike accidents. Here in Sweden that is.
- rytis 2y agoOr even as a pedestrian. I'm sure AI will be fine to slow down if it sees a massive puddle and avoid soaking everyone in 3m radius just for lolz.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Or even as a pedestrian Or even as anyone who is ever on the road. Despite the law, driving in America is a necessity for many. That means our bar for taking it away is high. Quantify the safety delta and have an available alternative, and we can start lowering the bar for taking dangerous drivers off the road. (Frankly either >1 DUI or >1 at-fault crash should result in license revocation. We should also delay license issuance until 18 years old and have restrictions on the license until 20 [1].) [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3343314 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3343314
- viraptor 2y ago> Quantify the safety delta and have an available alternative I would love it if these comparisons included "bus stats / average passengers". There are ways to just reduce the miles driven and the chances of collisions at the same time, without new tech improvements.
- cultofmetatron 2y agoyea I don't particularly trust a for profit corporation to take my safety as a cyclist more than the minimum viable consideration. I used to be really excited about self driving cars until I realized that in US culture, it would basically be used to further prioritize car dependent infrastructure at the expense of proper walkable spaces and alternative transportation. we could have amazing and SAFE cycling infrastructure NOW if american culture wasn't so objectively trash.
- epolanski 2y agoIt's already borderline happening with the satellite supervision. Here in Italy insurance is 20% more expensive at the very least and the gap is widening if you don't put a tracking device on your car which checks position, speed, etc. I have a hard time justifying why one would not want it (besides privacy), all people that complain about it are people that regularly drive above the speed limit or pull dangerous overtaking maneuvers.
- thiagocsf 2y agoAh yes. The old anti-privacy mantra: you have nothing to worry about, if you have nothing to hide.
- sofixa 2y agoIt's a question if you put people's individual "privacy" (quotes because you're driving in public, on public roads paid for by the public, under public laws, and under the public's view - there's not really privacy as to how you're driving, everyone out there can see it) over people's collective right to live? Road deaths are among the leading causes of death in multiple developed countries.
- guappa 2y agoRoads are public but unless you have someone following around you can't know where everyone is at all times. But with tracker now you have mass surveillance! We criticize chinese government but we do much worse.
- epolanski 2y agoI did write "besides privacy" because it is a valid concern indeed. But considering that most people don't give two damns about their privacy (or at least act like it, keeping 24/7 a tracking device on them and sharing all of their lives non stop) what would be their valid reason to not have a tracking device for insurance purposes on their cars?
- 2y ago
- kmarc 2y agoMy favorite brain picker question: What year would the EU* ban human driven cars on public roads? That's it. Million different opinions ranging from "never" to "within a couple decades for sure", weak, strong opinions, and of course many interesting topics to branch out into. *: sometimes I ask with US, or particular countries, it doesn't really matter for the sake of conversation. Fun fact: people working in automotive tend to say within this century, people who like and owned many cars say never :-)
- mulmen 2y agoHave they banned horses yet? My money is on never. This technology doesn’t need a ban to succeed. It just needs to be allowed.
- qnleigh 2y agoHorse accidents aren't a leading cause of death though. Seems like it'll depend on how thoroughly self-driving becomes a thing of the past on its own.
- mulmen 2y ago> Horse accidents aren't a leading cause of death though. Sure, not now. Because cars replaced them. > Seems like it'll depend on how thoroughly self-driving becomes a thing of the past on its own. Based on my experience with Waymo if they come to Seattle in the next two years I won’t buy another car.
- graemep 2y agoThey were a leading cause of death when they were a common mode of transport. Riding a horse is very dangerous. Its just regarded as an acceptable risk (its something many people encourage kids to do) for cultural and social reasons. A British government scientific advisor was fired for pointing out that riding a horse carries about 30 times the risk of a "serious adverse effect" as taking ecstasy.
- 2y ago
- ijidak 2y agoIsn't that what Will Smith's character was told in "I Robot"? I guess this day has arrived for us. Definitely sooner than I expected.
- kentiko 2y agoI can already see the sign "No manual driving allowed" at the entrance of highways.
- jp_nc 2y agoAnd immediately I start singing Red Barchetta in my head…
- eddyg 2y agoYou and me both!
- guappa 2y agoYes, and of course you must pay because the autopilot doesn't work when there's snow or rain or sun on the horizon or it's too dark, or the volcano near you is throwing ash and there's wind so you're now in a sandstorm, or wind is carrying sand from the sahara all over the mediterranean to you. (all of these regularly happen all in the same place)
- lucianbr 2y agoWhat's the place?
- guappa 2y agoThe Catania area of course is one example.
- lucianbr 2y ago> More recently, light snowfalls occurred on 9 February 2015, 6 January 2017 and 5 January 2019, but the last heavy snowfall dates back to 17 December 1988. Says wikipedia. Yeah, I don't know what I expected. Of course there's no actual snow in the meditteranean. It "lightly snowed" 3 times in the last 10 years.
- guappa 2y agoI said the catania area, not the catania city centre. Learn to read perhaps? This is in the catania area https://imgur.com/a/rhnIGNa https://imgur.com/a/rhnIGNa Perhaps you have no clue of what you're talking about? I had snow 2 days ago… but sure, random guy on the internet who's never been here must educate me -_-' how completely unusual… this is in calabria https://www.sullaneve.it/articoli/localita-italiane/calabria/original_lorica.jpg https://www.sullaneve.it/articoli/localita-italiane/calabria...
- CalRobert 2y agoHopefully!
- mulmen 2y agoYes. That’s exactly how insurance works. Another way to phrase this is I will save a fortune on insurance by taking advantage of self driving cars.
- qnleigh 2y agoWell really it would be "you get a discount for the percentage of your mileage driven with a autopilot enabled." You can pay less if you drive in a setting that saves the insurance company money (on average).
- nextworddev 2y agoOne day, you may not even get to own a car for “safety reasons”. See gun control
- HPsquared 2y agoMore than the autonomous cars, but it might not be more then you're paying now - unless the autonomous cars are particularly expensive to crash into.
- zahlman 2y agoYes, more than the owner of the self-driving car. No, not more than you currently pay, because you haven't become more at risk of collision than you are now.