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

141–150 of 359 posts

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#141

Post by 1970-01-01 »

Veserv wrote: post #127
1970-01-01 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sir, your bias is extreme. https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=Veserv

Ah yes, posting well documented video evidence of reality is bias. How silly of me. The only unbiased take is to ignore my lying eyes and make logically unsound arguments in favor of endangering the public. That is what unbiased people do. I also like how you completely avoided addressing my argument in favor of a attempted ad hominem.

> ignore my lying eyes and make logically unsound arguments

Why haven't you acknowledged this video as fake? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2N8f3nEYc

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#142

Post by Matheus28 »

jtbayly wrote: post #89
bluGill wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the vast majority of people who own a car, continuing to own the car will remain the better deal. Most people need their car during "rush hour", so there isn't any savings from sharing, and worse some people have "high standards" and so will demand the rental be a clean car nicer than you would accept - thus raising the costs (particularly if you drive used cars) Any remaining argument for a shared car dies when…

> sometimes they don't have one when you arrive. Or, if they are Hertz, they might have one but refuse to give it to you. This happened to my wife. In spite of payment already being made to Hertz corporate online, the local agent wouldn't give up a car for a one-way rental. Hertz corporate was less than useless, telling us their system said was a car available, and suggesting we pay them hundreds of dollars again and…

I personally would have changed it to a round-trip then just returned the car to the other Hertz location and let them figure it out.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#143

Post by buran77 »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #79
jasoncartwright wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet still on relying you to cover it with your insurance. Again, clearly not autonomous.

Liability is a separate matter from autonomy. I assume you'd consider yourself autonomous, yet it's your employer's insurance that will be liable if you have an accident while driving a company vehicle. If the company required a representative to sit in the car with you and participate in the driving (e.g. by monitoring and taking over before an accident), then there's a case to be made that you're not fully autonomo…

> it's your employer's insurance that will be liable if you have an accident while driving a company vehicle

I think you're mixing some concepts.

There's car insurance paid by the owner of the car, for the car. There's workplace accident insurance, paid by the employer for the employee. The liability isn't assigned by default, but by determining who's responsible.

The driver is always legally responsible for accidents caused by their negligence. If you play with your phone behind the wheel and kill someone, even while working and driving a company car, the company's insurance might pay for the damage but you go to prison. The company will recover the money from you. Their work accident insurance will pay nothing.

The test you can run in your head: will you get arrested if you fall asleep at the wheel and crash? If yes, then it's not autonomous or self driving. It just has driver assistance. It's not that the car can't drive itself at all, just that it doesn't meet the bar for the entire legal concept of "driver/driving".

"Almost" self driving is like jumping over a canyon and almost making it to the other side. Good effort, bad outcome.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#144

Post by loeg »

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.

No? Insurance costs would be passed through to consumers in the form of up-front purchase price. And probably the cost to insure L5 systems for liability will be very low. If it isn't low, the autonomous system isn't very safe.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#145

Post by [deleted] »

wat10000 wrote: post #115
FeloniousHam wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%?

[deleted]

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#146

Post by smallnix »

arijun wrote: post #105
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…

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.

If the car that did a hit-and-run was operated autonomously the insurance of the maker of that car should pay. Otherwise it's a human and the situation falls into the bucket of what we already have today.

So yes, carmakers would pay in a hit-and-run.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#147

Post by Larrikin »

dddgghhbbfblk wrote: post #103
Larrikin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One mean tweet and your self driving subscription is taken away is way better than one mean tweet and your car is taken away.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#148

Post by Veserv »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #141
Veserv wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, posting well documented video evidence of reality is bias. How silly of me. The only unbiased take is to ignore my lying eyes and make logically unsound arguments in favor of endangering the public. That is what unbiased people do. I also like how you completely avoided addressing my argument in favor of a attempted ad hominem.

> ignore my lying eyes and make logically unsound arguments Why haven't you acknowledged this video as fake? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2N8f3nEYc

I am utterly baffled by what you are trying to argue with this post except for distracting from the weakness of your original argument with more attempted(?) ad hominems. Must be my bias showing.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#149

Post by bluGill »

cyberax wrote: post #137
bluGill wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Scroll down to the other articles as I said in the first place.

self driving changes some things, but there are a lot of other points in the many article linked from there that don't change.

Post reply on HN