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

271–280 of 359 posts

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#271

Post by 9rx »

recursive wrote: post #266
9rx wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies exist that buy cars just to tear them down and publish reports on what they find. What does it mean to tear down software, exactly? Are you thinking of something like decompilation? You can do that, but you're probably not going to learn all that much, and you still can't use it in any meaningful sense as you never bought it in the first place. You only licensed use of it as a consumer (and now that it is…

Check out Munro and Associates. I'm not talking about software. The whole car.

For what reason?

In case you have forgotten, the discussion is about self-driving technology, and specifically Tesla's at that. The original questioner asked why he is liable when it is Tesla's property that is making the decisions. Of course, the most direct answer is because Tesla disclaims any liability in the license agreement you must agree to in order to use said property.

Which has nothing to do with an independent consulting firm or "the whole car" as far as I can see. The connection you are trying to establish is unclear. Perhaps you pressed the wrong 'reply' button by mistake?

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#273

Post by paulryanrogers »

wrsh07 wrote: post #256
sfblah wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that was unclear to me from the stats cited on the website is whether the quoted 52% reduction in crashes is when FSD is in use, or overall. This matters because people are much more likely to use FSD in situations where driving is easier. So, if the reduction is just during those times, I'm not even sure that would be better than a human driver. As an example, let's say most people use FSD on straight US I…

I think this might be right, but it does two interesting things: 1) it let's lemonade reward you for taking safer driving routes (or living in a safer area to drive, whatever that means) 2) it (for better or worse) encourages drivers to use it more. This will improve Tesla's training data but also might negatively impact the fsd safety record (an interesting experiment!)

> ...but also might negatively impact the fsd safety record (an interesting experiment!)

As a father of kids in a neighborhood with a lot of Teslas, how do I opt out of this experiment?

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#274

Post by pcchristie »

Not directly related to the topic, I spose, but I have a Model 3, and absolutely love it, but the Smart Cruise Control/Driver Assist is, I hate to admit it, pretty annoying (I think it's gotten worse, too). It's incredibly "jumpy" and over-cautious. A car could pull out in your way 300m ahead of you, totally safely, and the car will shit itself and slam on the brakes to be over-cautious. Same thing with pedestrians who are walking alongside the road, posing no risk.

It's so jarring at times that I'll often omit to use the Cruise Control if I have my wife in the car (so as not to give her car sickness) or other passengers (so as not to make them think I'm a terrible driver!).

I now have developed a totally new skill which is to temporarily disengage it when I see a mistake incoming, then re-engaging it immediately after the moment passes.

NB I am in Australia and don't have FSD so this is all just using Adaptive Cruise Control. Perhaps the much harder challenge of FSD (or near-FSD) is executed a lot better, but you wouldn't assume so.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#275

Post by losvedir »

pcchristie wrote: post #274

Not directly related to the topic, I spose, but I have a Model 3, and absolutely love it, but the Smart Cruise Control/Driver Assist is, I hate to admit it, pretty annoying (I think it's gotten worse, too). It's incredibly "jumpy" and over-cautious. A car could pull out in your way 300m ahead of you, totally safely, and the car will shit itself and slam on the brakes to be over-cautious. Same thing with pedestrians w…

FSD is way beyond AutoPilot (the free Traffic Aware Cruise Control + Lane Keep). Autopilot uses an entirely different, hand coded system from several years ago, which they haven't updated at all. FSD is a Deep Learning neutral network based system.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#276

Post by [deleted] »

ihaveajob wrote: post #214
Rover222 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you greatly overestimate humans

The problem IMO is the transition period. A mostly safe system will make the driver feel at ease, but when an emergency occurs and the driver must take over, it's likely that they won't be paying full attention.

[deleted]

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#277

Post by paulryanrogers »

zugi wrote: post #250
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?

If your minor child breaks something, or your pet bites someone, you are liable. This analogy may be more apt than Tesla would like to admit, but from a liability perspective it makes sense. You could in turn try to sue Tesla for defective FSD, but the now-clearly-advertised "(supervised)" caveat, plus the lengthy agreement you clicked through, plus lots of lawyers, makes you unlikely to win.

Can a third party reprogram my dog or child at any moment? Or even take over and control them?

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#278

Post by paulryanrogers »

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…

Tacking "Supervised" on the end of "Full Self Driving" is just contradictory. Perhaps if it was "Partial Self Driving" then it wouldn't be so confusing.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#279

Post by DaedalusII »

microtherion wrote: post #170

I'm quite skeptical of Tesla's reliability claims. But for exactly that reason, I welcome a company like Lemonade betting actual money on those claims. Either way, this is bound to generate some visibility into the actual accident rates.

The insurance industry is a commercial prediction market.

It is often an indicator of true honesty, providing there is no government intervention. Governments intervene in insurance/risk markets when they do not like the truth.

I tried to arrange insurance for an obese western expatriate several years ago in an Asian country, and the (western) insurance company wrote a letter back saying the client was morbidly obese and statistically likely to die within 10 years, and they should lose x weight before they could consider having insurance.

Re: Self Driving Car Insurance

#280

Post by pests »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #278
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…

Tacking "Supervised" on the end of "Full Self Driving" is just contradictory. Perhaps if it was "Partial Self Driving" then it wouldn't be so confusing.

Its only to differentiate it from their "Unsupervised FSD" which is what they call it now.
Post reply on HN