3 ms·

Scale. They won't do it if they can't make it work out financially. And who pays them? There are paralells with the banking industry here. If a banker insures

Scale. They won't do it if they can't make it work out financially. And who pays them? There are paralells with the banking industry here. If a banker insures a derivative, and it goes bad, no big deal. If every banker insures the same type of derivative at the same time, and they all go bad for the same reason, you have economic meltdown. We don't want that to happen with cars.

3pt14159 14y ago
Then that is the market's way of pointing out that driverless cars have more accidents? You need insurance to be on the road. If you insure your driverless car, then it is insured. End of story.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  The total number may not be higher. But you may have one manufacturer that introduces a bug in a firmware update that kills a huge number of people in one go. The next week they issue an update to fix the problem. Does it make sense to increase the driver's insurance premium because they (unknowingly) bought a faulty product?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    so join the manufacturer as a defendent or sue for contribution. Self driving cars would not be the first time in history where a third person was injured by a defective product used by a diffrent person.
  - 3pt14159 14y ago
    If the insurance market trusts it then yes. This isn't a hard concept. The same lines of reasoning govern planes with autopilot, or even automatic fridges. Insurance + engineering standards = alignment of incentives and economic growth.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>Scale. They won't do it if they can't make it work out financially. By all accounts driverless cars are expected to significantly reduce the number of collisions. I don't see how that could be less viable than the existing system. >And who pays them? Who pays them now?
- damoncali 14y ago
  You would hope so. But you cannot deny that the system will have to be different. The interconnected nature of the cars will matter. People may object to insuring the manufacturer of the software responsible for the crash. There is a lot to sort out that makes it a pretty tricky subject for the insurance companies, manufacturers and owners. I'm sure it can be done, but it's a big thing. I'm thinking int he context where every car is driverless. It's probably even more complex when they aren't all driverless.
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    > People may object to insuring the manufacturer of the software responsible for the crash. What people? The manufacturer either self-insures or buys insurance on the open market, just like everyone else that has a civil liability risk, and builds the cost of that insurance into the price they pay to the work. I mean, public opposition could, in theory, lead to a law against third-party insurance for this use (though its hard to see, given the wide range of things for which insurance is marketed -- if public opposition was going to ban insuring industries, there are a lot of existing industries that you'd think would run into problems way before vehicle-control-software manufacturers), but nothing can stop them from self-insuring. There is really nothing special or unusual about this. > I'm thinking int he context where every car is driverless. It's probably even more complex when they aren't all driverless. Its probably not at all that complex in either case. As now, the operator is probably liable for damages resulting from operation outside of the bounds of legal parameters -- including failure to maintain the vehicle in safe operating condition, and the manufacturer is probably liable from harms from manufacturing defects, and these liabilities often overlap. The particular types of manufacturing defects that are possible change, but that doesn't really change the basic equation.

3pt14159 14y ago

Then that is the market's way of pointing out that driverless cars have more accidents? You need insurance to be on the road. If you insure your driverless car, then it is insured. End of story.

jiggy2011 14y ago
The total number may not be higher. But you may have one manufacturer that introduces a bug in a firmware update that kills a huge number of people in one go. The next week they issue an update to fix the problem. Does it make sense to increase the driver's insurance premium because they (unknowingly) bought a faulty product?
- rayiner 14y ago
  so join the manufacturer as a defendent or sue for contribution. Self driving cars would not be the first time in history where a third person was injured by a defective product used by a diffrent person.
- 3pt14159 14y ago
  If the insurance market trusts it then yes. This isn't a hard concept. The same lines of reasoning govern planes with autopilot, or even automatic fridges. Insurance + engineering standards = alignment of incentives and economic growth.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>Scale. They won't do it if they can't make it work out financially. By all accounts driverless cars are expected to significantly reduce the number of collisions. I don't see how that could be less viable than the existing system. >And who pays them? Who pays them now?

damoncali 14y ago
You would hope so. But you cannot deny that the system will have to be different. The interconnected nature of the cars will matter. People may object to insuring the manufacturer of the software responsible for the crash. There is a lot to sort out that makes it a pretty tricky subject for the insurance companies, manufacturers and owners. I'm sure it can be done, but it's a big thing. I'm thinking int he context where every car is driverless. It's probably even more complex when they aren't all driverless.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > People may object to insuring the manufacturer of the software responsible for the crash. What people? The manufacturer either self-insures or buys insurance on the open market, just like everyone else that has a civil liability risk, and builds the cost of that insurance into the price they pay to the work. I mean, public opposition could, in theory, lead to a law against third-party insurance for this use (though its hard to see, given the wide range of things for which insurance is marketed -- if public opposition was going to ban insuring industries, there are a lot of existing industries that you'd think would run into problems way before vehicle-control-software manufacturers), but nothing can stop them from self-insuring. There is really nothing special or unusual about this. > I'm thinking int he context where every car is driverless. It's probably even more complex when they aren't all driverless. Its probably not at all that complex in either case. As now, the operator is probably liable for damages resulting from operation outside of the bounds of legal parameters -- including failure to maintain the vehicle in safe operating condition, and the manufacturer is probably liable from harms from manufacturing defects, and these liabilities often overlap. The particular types of manufacturing defects that are possible change, but that doesn't really change the basic equation.