4 ms·
There should be laws put in place to ensure drivers will always be able to drive their cars, if they choose, and also prevent insurance companies from skyrocket
by jjordan 25d ago
There should be laws put in place to ensure drivers will always be able to drive their cars, if they choose, and also prevent insurance companies from skyrocketing your rates for doing so. This is IMO past due.
- matchbok3 25d agoHow selfish. Why should I, someone who wants a safer AV, subsidize those who are riskier drivers? Extremely selfish.
- gottorf 25d agoThis happens in insurance all the time. Healthy people who eat right and exercise subsidize people with poor habits. It appears to some degree that we as a society do not want risk priced optimally to each individual.
- linkregister 25d agoIt is understandable that you think this is the case as someone who is not above the age of 50. You will see that health and life insurance premiums rise precipitously once you reach certain milestones. Once you reach 90 years old, you will find that car insurance companies will discontinue your policy based on a single traffic ticket. We replaced preexisting condition coverage with age-based tiered pricing. If you doubt me it's trivial to validate this using your state's ACA marketplace.
- uuddlrlrbaba 25d agoIs this your first introduction to an insurance pool?
- matchbok3 25d agoNot the same at all.
- jedberg 25d agoWhy? Insurance companies use detailed risk data. If they discover that letting you drive your own car is a much higher risk than an auto-drive, why should they not be allowed to account for that? Insurance companies aren't political -- they charge for whatever costs more.
- jjordan 25d agoYes, I definitely trust insurance companies to do the right thing here.
- jedberg 25d agoCar insurance companies have their problems, but pricing risk is not one of them. We saw this before -- they used to charge people who lived in high crime areas more money. They had to stop because it turned out that those high crime areas also had a lot of poor people, so the government stepped in and stopped allowing pricing by zip code. But the insurance companies weren't wrong about the risk -- those customers cost them more. So instead they had to raise everyone's rates to account for the fact that they (rightly) could not discriminate. I suspect the same would happen here. That poorer people could not afford self driving, and they same anti-discrimination rules would apply.
- tredre3 25d ago> Car insurance companies have their problems, but pricing risk is not one of them. If pricing risk was an exact science, you'd get the same quote from all providers (given similar coverage). Yet if you try that, you'll find that the quotes could vary as much as 2-3x. Therefore no, we shouldn't blindly trust "the algorithm".
- salawat 25d ago>Insurance companies aren't political -- they charge for whatever costs more. Insurance companies you are required to interact with by law are absolutely political.
- iknowstuff 25d agoNo there should not. Human drivers kill a million people every year. WW1 killed 15-22M.
- deleted 25d ago[deleted]
- intrasight 25d agoI agree with your first statement but certainly not with the second. Rates for human drivers should and will skyrocket. Individual states may try to push back with regulation but it won't succeed in the long-term
- lefra 25d agoRates for human drivers are currently at the correct level for insurance companies to pay for damage and make some profit. If autonomous cars result in less damage than humans, their insurance price will be cheaper than human drivers, but there's no reason to raise the human rate at the same time, their accident rate should stay the same.
- mossTechnician 25d agoThey have a reason: profit.
- FeloniousHam 25d agoThis is testable. The profits of car insurance companies should rise (let’s say substantially) in real dollars as accident payouts decrease as a result of the inevitable dominance of autonomous vehicles.
- intrasight 25d agoI don't think you're seeing the future trajectory. Autonomous cars and trucks will be able to do their thing with a much smaller margin for error - because they don't make errors. So for example instead of two seconds distance to the car in front of you it will be 0.1 second. The vast majority of humans would have an accident as soon as they got on the road. We need that increase volume and reduced accident count in order to grow without having to build more roads.
- structural 25d agoGreat, so when a deer jumps into the middle of the highway the size of the ensuing pileup is twenty times larger. I don't particularly think we should use technology to push efficiency to the point where a mechanical failure, a material failure, or an unexpected object cause much larger scale catastrophes than exist today. Why not aim for the same distance between cars and twenty times more safety instead?
- linkregister 25d agoIncumbent rent-seekers want regulatory capture to insulate them from externalities. Dog bites man.
- pessimizer 25d agoThe law put into place would be that the people who put autonomous cars on the road would risk their freedom and safety just as much as a driver if that car causes an accident through their neglect. This will never happen, because the entire purpose of the corporate structure is to avoid responsibility.
- raincole 25d agoThere should be laws taxing people who insist on driving themselves. And the money should be used to subsidize people who switch to self-driving or install automatic assisted systems on their old cars. That'd partially mitigate the externality generated by human drivers.
- bluGill 25d agoHow about prison for attempted murder? I've lost enough friends to drivers who made a mistake. If self driving is better in just that, but worse every other way: I'm for it. That might be a big if above, but of true them I support it. Drive on a private track or a video game if you must. Leave the real world to safe.