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

131–140 of 359 posts

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#131

Post by recursive »

9rx wrote: post #21
SoftTalker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, you bought it, you own it, you choose to operate it on the public roads. Therefore your liability.

If you bought and owned it, you could sell it to another auto manufacturer for some pretty serious amounts of money. In reality, you acquired a license to use it. Your liability should only go as far as you have agreed to identify the licenser.

You can actually do that. Except that they could just buy one themselves.

Companies exist that buy cars just to tear them down and publish reports on what they find.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#132

Post by kjksf »

arijun wrote: post #102
2III7 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

They literally just (in the last few days) started unsupervised robotaxis in Austin.

They are as self-driving as a car can be.

This is different than the one where they had a human supervisor in passenger seat (which they still do elsewhere).

And different than the one where they didn't have human supervisor but did have a follow car.

Now they have a few robotaxis that are self driving.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#133

Post by Onavo »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #119
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…

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

They have been end to end street level for the past two years.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#134

Post by AlotOfReading »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #129
loeg wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Wouldn't that requirement completely kill any chance of a L5 system being profitable? If company X is making tons of self-driving cars, and now has to pay insurance for every single one , that's a mountain of cash. They'd go broke immediately. I realize it would suck to be blamed for something the car did when you weren't driving it, but I'm not sure how else it could be financially feasible.

The way it works in states like California currently is that the permit holder has to post an insurance bond that accidents and judgements are taken out against. It's a fixed overhead.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#135

Post by recursive »

nradov wrote: post #110
Sayrus wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's how some people feel about airplanes. Presumably you're not one of them. For some people, the inconvenience of being responsible for a car would outweigh the benefit of setting up their stuff inside of one.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#137

Post by cyberax »

bluGill wrote: post #113
cyberax wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Yeah, yeah: "Major US Public Transit Union Questions “Microtransit”" Read it. Go on. It's pure bullshit.

The _only_ issue with the old "microtransit" is the _driver_. Each van ends up needing on average MORE drivers than it moves passengers. It does solve the problem of throughput, though.

But once the driver is removed, this problem flips on its head. Each regular bus needs around 4 drivers for decent coverage. It's OK-ish only when the average bus load is at least 15-20 people. It's still much more expensive and polluting than cars, but not crazily so.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#139

Post by parineum »

dangus wrote: post #36
parineum wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mass human displacement campaign (a.k.a. Genocide) genocide /jĕn′ə-sīd″/ noun The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. The systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.

Great, I’m glad your dictionary is happy about deporting 5 year olds. “Uhm aktually it’s not a genocide it’s just a fascist police state” Multiple humanitarian organizations define mass displacement as genocide and/or ethnic cleansing. The holocaust literally started with mass deportations/detentions. Then the nazis figured out that it was easier to kill detainees.

> Multiple humanitarian organizations define mass displacement as genocide and/or ethnic cleansing.

You're mixing two things here to your advantage. Genocide is (or can be) ethnic cleansing but ethnic cleansing is not genocide. So your "and/or" does some work for you there and makes you correct. However, you said genocide not "genocide and/or ethnic cleansing". You've moved the goalposts.

It'd be odd to redefine any word that ends in '-cide' from actual killing.

> The holocaust literally started with mass deportations/detentions.

Which was ethnic cleansing.

> Then the nazis figured out that it was easier to kill detainees.

Which was the point which it became a genocide.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#140

Post by cyberax »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #109
cyberax wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First, these cities should be fixed by removing the traffic magnets. It's far past the point where we used the old obsolete ideology of trying to supply as much traffic capacity as possible.

But anyway, your statement is actually not true anywhere in the US except NYC. Even in Chicago, removing ALL the local transit and switching to 6-seater minivans will eliminate all the traffic issues.

Post reply on HN