8 ms·

For insurance purposes, universal no-fault is probably the only easily managed way. Some states have that. For criminal liability, the owner or operator of the

by a3n 11y ago

For insurance purposes, universal no-fault is probably the only easily managed way. Some states have that. For criminal liability, the owner or operator of the car is subject. If you are driving an autonomous vehicle, that was your decision, and you're responsible for what it does in traffic, just as you're responsible for the car you drive today. So, no change. If the car itself is shown to be defective, then you sue the manufacturer. Scaling up, there's class actions, and recalls. So, no change. EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>universal no-fault s probably the only easily managed way Easy? Maybe. Best? Absolutely not. I don't like the idea of being punished financially because some jackass on the road won't drive correctly. Insurance companies love it because now they can raise both our rates and not bother with any kind of investigation. This doesn't mean its good for the consumer. Jackass driver loves it because he never has to reform his jackass ways. Your own link details these criticisms: Critics of no-fault argue that dangerous drivers not paying for the damage they cause encourages excessive risky behavior, with only raised premiums and a higher risk rating as the potential consequence, and no jury awards or legal settlements. Detractors of no-fault also point out that legitimate victims with subtle handicaps find it difficult to seek recovery under no-fault. Another criticism is that some no-fault jurisdictions have among the highest automobile-insurance premiums in the country, but this may be more a matter of effect than cause (e.g., the financial savings from no-fault may simply make it more popular in areas with higher automobile-accident risk, or high insurance rates may cause more drivers to go uninsured, increasing the attraction of a no-fault system).
- josefresco 11y ago
  How can one party be a "jackass" if both cars are autonomous?
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    My criticism is of no-fault used today. From a futurist perspective, I imagine there might be scenarios of people taking manual control and causing an accident or manufacturers writing bad software. Imagine if Toyota's newest update causes 10x as many crashes. Why should I subsidize their incompetence via my personal insurance premiums? If autonomy happens, ideally, the car companies should be paying insurance. The same way they pay for warranty. Its all in their control and its an incentive to keep them honest and care about making cars that don't crash.
    - tomjen3 11y ago
      That seems to be the solution. I hate no fault because I trust a stranger only as long as he will suffer consequences of his actions, and under no fault there are none. Even if we have a no fault insurance scheme for only unmodded autonomous cars that means the manufactures have no incentives to make their cars safer.
      - a3n 11y ago
        Do people really drive differently depending on the insurance environment? I don't care what kind of insurance I have, I don't want my neck broken.
        drzaiusapelord 11y ago
        Moral hazards are real things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard I imagine there are many personality types who only behave because it would cost them too much to misbehave. My gut feeling is that this is probably 80% of the population.
    - jerf 11y ago
      "Why should I subsidize their incompetence via my personal insurance premiums?" If you think about that, that hardly even makes sense. "Incompetence" has been a perfectly normal part of the insurance package for a long time. I assure you measurable amounts of what you've paid in insurance have already gone to "incompetence".
jonnycowboy 11y ago
I live in Quebec where we have no-fault insurance for what you would consider "criminal liability". ie: if somebody accidentally or incidentally hits your car, and you can no longer work for the rest of your life, the state (province) pays. Upside is insurance rate are very low. Downside is license plates (state income) are very high (2-300$ for car plates/year and up to 1200$/year in motorcycle plates). For car insurance itself, you can still have at fault but it just determines who's insurance pays and who's insurance rates will go up.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > Downside is license plates (state income) are very high (2-300$ for car plates/year and up to 1200$/year in motorcycle plates). For car insurance itself, you can still have at fault but it just determines who's insurance pays and who's insurance rates will go up. Huh, so costs are properly internalized. Again, well done Canada.

by a3n 11y ago

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>universal no-fault s probably the only easily managed way Easy? Maybe. Best? Absolutely not. I don't like the idea of being punished financially because some jackass on the road won't drive correctly. Insurance companies love it because now they can raise both our rates and not bother with any kind of investigation. This doesn't mean its good for the consumer. Jackass driver loves it because he never has to reform his jackass ways. Your own link details these criticisms: Critics of no-fault argue that dangerous drivers not paying for the damage they cause encourages excessive risky behavior, with only raised premiums and a higher risk rating as the potential consequence, and no jury awards or legal settlements. Detractors of no-fault also point out that legitimate victims with subtle handicaps find it difficult to seek recovery under no-fault. Another criticism is that some no-fault jurisdictions have among the highest automobile-insurance premiums in the country, but this may be more a matter of effect than cause (e.g., the financial savings from no-fault may simply make it more popular in areas with higher automobile-accident risk, or high insurance rates may cause more drivers to go uninsured, increasing the attraction of a no-fault system).

josefresco 11y ago
How can one party be a "jackass" if both cars are autonomous?
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  My criticism is of no-fault used today. From a futurist perspective, I imagine there might be scenarios of people taking manual control and causing an accident or manufacturers writing bad software. Imagine if Toyota's newest update causes 10x as many crashes. Why should I subsidize their incompetence via my personal insurance premiums? If autonomy happens, ideally, the car companies should be paying insurance. The same way they pay for warranty. Its all in their control and its an incentive to keep them honest and care about making cars that don't crash.
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    That seems to be the solution. I hate no fault because I trust a stranger only as long as he will suffer consequences of his actions, and under no fault there are none. Even if we have a no fault insurance scheme for only unmodded autonomous cars that means the manufactures have no incentives to make their cars safer.
    - a3n 11y ago
      Do people really drive differently depending on the insurance environment? I don't care what kind of insurance I have, I don't want my neck broken.
      - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
        Moral hazards are real things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard I imagine there are many personality types who only behave because it would cost them too much to misbehave. My gut feeling is that this is probably 80% of the population.
  - jerf 11y ago
    "Why should I subsidize their incompetence via my personal insurance premiums?" If you think about that, that hardly even makes sense. "Incompetence" has been a perfectly normal part of the insurance package for a long time. I assure you measurable amounts of what you've paid in insurance have already gone to "incompetence".

jonnycowboy 11y ago

I live in Quebec where we have no-fault insurance for what you would consider "criminal liability". ie: if somebody accidentally or incidentally hits your car, and you can no longer work for the rest of your life, the state (province) pays. Upside is insurance rate are very low. Downside is license plates (state income) are very high (2-300$ for car plates/year and up to 1200$/year in motorcycle plates). For car insurance itself, you can still have at fault but it just determines who's insurance pays and who's insurance rates will go up.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> Downside is license plates (state income) are very high (2-300$ for car plates/year and up to 1200$/year in motorcycle plates). For car insurance itself, you can still have at fault but it just determines who's insurance pays and who's insurance rates will go up. Huh, so costs are properly internalized. Again, well done Canada.