3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat 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 agoDo 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 agoMoral 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".