Self Driving Car Insurance • Hacker News Board

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#111

Post by loeg » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:17 PM UTC

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?

It isn't fully autonomous yet. For any future system sold as level 5 (or level 4?), I agree with your contention -- the manufacturer of the level 5 autonomous system is the one who bears primary liability and therefore should insure. "FSD" isn't even level 3.

(Though, there is still an element of owner/operator maintenance for level 4/5 vehicles -- e.g., if the owner fails to replace tires below 4/32", continues to operate the vehicle, and it causes an injury, that is partially the owner/operator's fault.)

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#112

Post by 1970-01-01 » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:18 PM UTC

Veserv wrote: post #98

1970-01-01 wrote: post #10

A 50% discount is pretty damning empirical evidence for FSD being better at driving your Tesla than you are.

No it does not. A 50% discount and the insurance still having industry average profit, or at least being profitable at all, would tell you that. Selling at a loss does not indicate your costs are actually lower. You need to wait until we learn if it is actually at a loss.

Sir, your bias is extreme.

https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=Veserv

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#113

Post by bluGill » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:18 PM UTC

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.

you made too many false assumptions if you came up with those routes. Experts have run real numbers including looking at what happens in the real world. https://humantransit.org/category/microtransit - (as I write this you need to scroll to the second article to find the useful rebuttal of your idea)

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#114

Post by DaSHacka » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:18 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #93

gizmo686 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, liability for a thing falls on the owner/operator. That person can sue the manufacturer to recover the damages if they want. At some point, I expect it to become somewhat routine for insurures to pay out, then sue the manufacturer to recover.

Or at some point subscribing to a service may be easier than owning the damn thing.

All according to plan

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#115

Post by wat10000 » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:19 PM UTC

FeloniousHam wrote: post #49

jasoncartwright wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. So not Tesla's product they are using to sell insurance around isn't "Full Self-Driving" or "Autonomous" like the page says.

My current FSD usage is 90% over ~2000 miles (since v14.x). Besides driving everywhere, everyday with FSD, I have driven 4 hours garage to hotel valet without intervention. It is absolutely "Full Self-Driving" and "Autonomous". FSD isn't perfect, but it is everyday amazing and useful.

If it was full self driving, wouldn't your usage be 100%?

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#116

Post by ajcp » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:19 PM UTC

kittikitti wrote: post #82

I have Lemonade for my home insurance. It's been reliable for several years and the customer service is great. I don't have a self-driving car but I wouldn't hesitate to sign up. Their rates are very affordable.

I've had their Home Insurance since they started up and grabbed their car insurance a couple years ago. Competitive price, excellent customer service, no notes.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#117

Post by redanddead » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:20 PM UTC

FlyingBears wrote: post #56

Lemonade purchased Metromile and significantly increased prices. 2.5x if I recall correctly. This has forced me to move to Geico. Now, since prices have increased and new self driving car insurance is giving a discount, are you effectively paying same old rate?

Just curious about this, this was Lemonade's integrated insurance to the Tesla right? How's Geico like for you? Probably just fine right? Any differences?

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#118

Post by throw20251220 » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:24 PM UTC

1970-01-01 wrote: post #45

fred_is_fred wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla fans have not realized that every car made since 2021ish can do this.

It does more than AEB. It also knows to swerve out of the way during E: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1MWml-81e0

Generally known as AES, for example from BMW available with Active Driving Assistant or Driving Assistant Plus packages.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#119

Post by ErroneousBosh » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:24 PM UTC

sktb wrote: post #61

Hmmm. The source for the "FSD is safer" claim might not be wholly independent: "Tesla’s data shows that Full Self-Driving miles are twice as safe as manual driving"

> "Tesla’s data shows that Full Self-Driving miles are twice as safe as manual driving"

Teslas only do FSD on motorways where you tend to have far fewer accidents per mile.

Also, they switch to manual driving if they can't cope, and because the driver isn't paying attention this usually results in a crash. But hey, it's in manual driving, not FSD, so they get to claim FSD is safer.

FSD is not and never will be safer than a human driver.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#120

Post by bluGill » Fri, Jan 30, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #94

bluGill wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subscription for changes to maps and the law makes sense. I'd also pay for the latest safety improvements (but they better be real improvements). However they are likely to add a number of unrelated things and I object to those.

How do maps changes make sense to subscribe to when they are on OSM? And what do you even mean by subscription to changes to the law?

If OSM is up to date - many places it is very outdated. (others it is very good).

Law - when a government changes the driving laws. Government can be federal (I have driven to both Canada and Mexico. Getting to Argentina is possible though I don't think it has ever been safe. Likewise it is possible to drive over the North Pole to Europe), state (or whatever the country calls their equivalent). When a city changes the law they put up signs, but if a state passes a law I'm expected to know even if I have never driven in that state before. Right turn on red laws are the only ones I can think of where states are different - but they are likely others.

Laws also cover new traffic control systems that may not have been in the original program. If the self driving system can't figure out the next one (think roundabout) then it needs to be updated.