Another thing that's going to take a huge it is police departments. Many of the initial encounters with police are by way of a traffic stop and patrol. With a self-driving car, there's no longer "probable cause" because the car is driving itself. This will cut off a huge source of income from the police and at the same time reduce the need to have so many police, which, in my mind, is a good thing. Expect entire highway patrol and regional agencies to be shuttered.
Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
41–50 of 125 posts
Re: Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
#42Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't "insurance" a criminal activity a mere century ago? If so, why is it bad for it to disappear again? Can't read the full article, since wsj have a competently implemented "To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In" shield.
There are many forms of gambling that were prohibited until they were renamed in a way that appeased influential religious communities. Off the top of my head I can think of insurance products and the futures market. But if you can find citations that will be very helpful for me!
Insurance is used for a fundamentally different purpose, to socialize risk.
A good quote I found: insurance transfers risks that already existed; gambling creates risk for entertainment.
Re: Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
#43Why would they lower prices? The government mandates we MUST have insurance, so they know they've got a continued source of business. They'll simply increase profits. The average American has absolutely no way to correlate the amount they pay for insurance to what it costs the insurance company.
> The government mandates we MUST have insurance, so they know they've got a continued source of business. The average American has absolutely no way to correlate the amount they pay for insurance to what it costs the insurance company. I have a hard time reconciling these two sentences. In the first, you sound like a passionate advocate of the free market. In the second, you act as though you have never heard of suc…
> Personally, I am much happier knowing that (almost) all the people potentially plowing into me on the highway carry insurance.
Where do you live? While most people are legally required to the penalties for not carrying it are so weak where Im at a lot of people do not.
Re: Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
#44Still think there will still be a market for old school non automated cars. For the hobbyist or pleasure drivers on weekends. People still love their cars.
Re: Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
#45Why would they lower prices? The government mandates we MUST have insurance, so they know they've got a continued source of business. They'll simply increase profits. The average American has absolutely no way to correlate the amount they pay for insurance to what it costs the insurance company.
If that is true, why don't they increase profits already? Why wait until self driving cars have arrived?
Re: Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The government mandates we MUST have insurance, so they know they've got a continued source of business. The average American has absolutely no way to correlate the amount they pay for insurance to what it costs the insurance company. I have a hard time reconciling these two sentences. In the first, you sound like a passionate advocate of the free market. In the second, you act as though you have never heard of suc…
Free Market is the US does not contain a well-informed consumer segment. That is the issue of the second sentence. >N.b. Personally, I am much happier knowing that (almost) all the people potentially plowing into me on the highway carry insurance. Do you live in the US? Where 1 in 7 drivers are uninsured?
Exactly, and keep in mind many states have moved to a 'no-fault' model. So they don't actually care who is at fault for the accident anymore. So the question becomes, why doesn't everyone just insure themselves (IE. Their own car/medical bills to the level they are comfortable with) rather than insuring everyone else and praying the guy that hit you does the same.
Re: Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
#47Insurance is a field in need of some disruption, regardless. A few numbers, in case people find it interesting.
The average insurance company only pays out about 50% of its income as loss (heavily dependent on sector, but for auto it's about right). For auto, they all use more or less the same ISO policy docs. They mostly all use the same call centers. Their adjustors are usually shared. Honestly, the only thing that really changes is the marketing.
Which is why 30%+ of every dollar you pay them goes to marketing. For auto, they are in this weird local maxima where 40% is loss, 30% is marketing, and 30% is profit. They expect to keep a customer for about 2-3 years, and then have to repeat the whole process. It is really sad.
Re: Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
#48Other declining industries will be emergency health care and organ transplants.
Re: Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The government mandates we MUST have insurance, so they know they've got a continued source of business. The average American has absolutely no way to correlate the amount they pay for insurance to what it costs the insurance company. I have a hard time reconciling these two sentences. In the first, you sound like a passionate advocate of the free market. In the second, you act as though you have never heard of suc…
Free Market is the US does not contain a well-informed consumer segment. That is the issue of the second sentence. >N.b. Personally, I am much happier knowing that (almost) all the people potentially plowing into me on the highway carry insurance. Do you live in the US? Where 1 in 7 drivers are uninsured?
Citation on the 1 in 7?
That sounds like it comes from the same people who make any speeding offense on par with DUI and having an at fault accident in most points based systems. One in seven people with a license not having insurance I can see (because they might not have a vehicle) but one in seven vehicle/driver pairs on the road not being insured for that combination seems very high without monkeying around with the statistics.
Re: Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free Market is the US does not contain a well-informed consumer segment. That is the issue of the second sentence. >N.b. Personally, I am much happier knowing that (almost) all the people potentially plowing into me on the highway carry insurance. Do you live in the US? Where 1 in 7 drivers are uninsured?
Exactly, and keep in mind many states have moved to a 'no-fault' model. So they don't actually care who is at fault for the accident anymore. So the question becomes, why doesn't everyone just insure themselves (IE. Their own car/medical bills to the level they are comfortable with) rather than insuring everyone else and praying the guy that hit you does the same.
Affordable and accessible medical care is a prerequisite to that. After the injury aspect is taken out of the picture then it would make sense for everyone to insure as much as they want (e.g. homeowners insurance)