Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Self Driving Car Insurance

lemonade.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 359 posts

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#101

Post by redanddead »

sabareesh wrote: post #4

Tesla have their own Insurance product which is already very competitive compared to other providers. Not sure if lemonade can beat them . Tesla's insurance product has similar objective in place already where it rewards self driving over manual driving.

You'd be very surprised. Distribution works wonders. You could have a large carrier taking over Tesla's own vehicles in markets they care about. The difference then would be loss ratios on the data collection, like does LIDAR data really beat Progressive Snapshot?

The two are measuring data for different sources of losses for carriers.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#102

Post by arijun »

2III7 wrote: post #67
kjksf wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's the law of the land currently. The product you buy is called "FSD Supervised". It clearly states you're liable and must supervise the system. I don't think there's law that would allow Tesla (or anyone else) to sell a passenger car with unsupervised system. If you take Waymo or Tesla Robotaxi in Austin, you are not liable for accidents, Google or Tesla is. That's because they operate on limited state l…

Without LIDAR and/or additional sensors, Tesla will never be able to provide "real" FSD, no matter how wonderful their software controlling the car is. Also, self driving is a feature of a vehicle someone owns, I don't understand how that should exempt anyone from insuring their property. Waymo and others are providing a taxi service where the driver is not a human. You don't pay insurance when you ride Uber or Bolt…

Never say never—it’s not physically impossible. But yes, as it stands, it seems that Tesla will not be self driving any time soon (if ever).

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#103

Post by dddgghhbbfblk »

Larrikin wrote: post #76
hamdingers wrote: post #55

The whole point of self-driving cars (to me) is I don't have to own or insure it, someone else deals with that and I just make it show up with my phone when I need it.

This is the nightmare scenario for me. A forever subscription for the usage of a car. Subscription for self driving will almost be a given with so many bad actors in tech nowadays, but never even being allowed to own the car is even worse.

I think this is purely psychological. The notion of paying for usage of some resource that you don't own is really rather mundane when you get down to it.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#104

Post by brookst »

Sayrus wrote: post #72
BarryMilo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine this for a whole neighborhood! Maybe it'd be more efficient for the transport to come at regular intervals though. And while we're at it, let's pick up other people along the way, you'll need a bigger vehicle though, perhaps bus-sized... Half-jokes aside, if you don't own it, you'll end up paying more to the robotaxi company than you would have paid to own the car. This is all but guaranteed based on all SaaS…

Focusing only on price, renting a beafy shared "cloud" computer is cheaper than buying one and changing every 5 years. It's not always an issue for idle hardware. Cars are mostly idle and could be cheaper if shared. But why make them significantly cheaper when you can match the price and extract more profits?

> But why make them significantly cheaper when you can match the price and extract more profits?

Even better — charge 10% less and corner the market! As long as nobody charges 10% less than you…

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#105

Post by arijun »

kjksf wrote: post #35
jasoncartwright wrote: post #5

If it autonomous or self-driving then why is the person in the car paying for the insurance? Surely if it's Tesla making the decisions, they need the insurance?

Because that's the law of the land currently. The product you buy is called "FSD Supervised". It clearly states you're liable and must supervise the system. I don't think there's law that would allow Tesla (or anyone else) to sell a passenger car with unsupervised system. If you take Waymo or Tesla Robotaxi in Austin, you are not liable for accidents, Google or Tesla is. That's because they operate on limited state l…

I imagine insurance would be split in two in that case. Carmakers would not want to be liable for e.g. someone striking you in a hit-and-run.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#106

Post by redanddead »

mullingitover wrote: post #40
kjksf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla is cooperating with Lemonade on this by providing them necessary user driving data. If Tesla didn't want Lemonade to provide this, they could block them. Strategically, Tesla doesn't want to be an insurer. They started the insurance product years ago, before Lemonade also offered this, to make FSD more attractive to buyers. But the expansion stalled, maybe because the state bureaucracy or maybe because Tesla sh…

> But the expansion stalled, maybe because the state bureaucracy or maybe because Tesla shifted priority to other things. If the math was mathing, it would be malpractice not to expand it. I'm betting that their scheme simply wasn't workable, given the extremely high costs of claims (Tesla repairs aren't cheap) relative to the low rates that they were collecting on premiums. The cheap premiums are probably a form of…

The math should've mathed. Better data === lower losses right? They probably weren't able to get it to work quite right on the tech side and were eating fat losses during an already bad time in the market.

It'll come back.

Lemonade or Tesla if you find this, let's pilot, i'm a founder in sunnyvale, insurtech vertical at pnp

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#107

Post by dpkirchner »

cyberax wrote: post #96
bluGill wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars and personal computers have advantages over shared resources that often make them worth the cost. If you want your transport/compute in busy times you may find limitations. (ever got on the train and had to stand because there are no seats? Every had to wait for your compute job to start because they are all busy? Both of these have happened to me).

I ran the numbers, and for most non-braindead cities something like a fleet of 6-seater minivans will easily replace all of local transit. And with just 6 people the overhead if an imperfect route and additional stops will be measured in minutes. And of course, it's pretty easy to imagine an option to pay a bit more for a fully personal route.

This exists in a way -- I'd wager every city has a commercial service that will shuttle you to, say, the airport. They're not cheap, however.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#108

Post by redanddead »

Veserv wrote: post #85
mullingitover wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the expansion stalled, maybe because the state bureaucracy or maybe because Tesla shifted priority to other things. If the math was mathing, it would be malpractice not to expand it. I'm betting that their scheme simply wasn't workable, given the extremely high costs of claims (Tesla repairs aren't cheap) relative to the low rates that they were collecting on premiums. The cheap premiums are probably a form of…

It was not workable. They have a loss ratio of >100% [1], as in they paid out more in claims than received in premiums before even accounting for literally any other costs. Industry average is ~60-80% to stay profitable when including other costs. They released the Tesla Insurance product because their cars were excessively expensive to insure, increasing ownership costs, which was impacting sales. By releasing the u…

Who was paying for this?

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#109

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

cyberax wrote: post #90
dfabulich wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-driving municipal busses would be fantastic.

Why would you need buses?

Believe it or not, in some cities that have near grid-lock rush-hour traffic - there's between 50-100%+ as many people traveling by bus as by car.

If all of those people switch to cars, you end up with it taking an hour to travel 1 mile by car.

It's almost as if they have busses for a reason.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#110

Post by nradov »

Sayrus wrote: post #72
BarryMilo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine this for a whole neighborhood! Maybe it'd be more efficient for the transport to come at regular intervals though. And while we're at it, let's pick up other people along the way, you'll need a bigger vehicle though, perhaps bus-sized... Half-jokes aside, if you don't own it, you'll end up paying more to the robotaxi company than you would have paid to own the car. This is all but guaranteed based on all SaaS…

Focusing only on price, renting a beafy shared "cloud" computer is cheaper than buying one and changing every 5 years. It's not always an issue for idle hardware. Cars are mostly idle and could be cheaper if shared. But why make them significantly cheaper when you can match the price and extract more profits?

Nah, I don't want to share my car with anyone. It's my own personal space where I can keep some of my stuff and set it up exactly the way I want.
Post reply on HN