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

A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

waymo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 497 posts

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#361

Post by coryfklein »

mindvirus wrote: post #79

I think insurance prices will drive adoption of self driving very quickly. Consider: if a non-self driving car is in an accident with a self driving car, it'll almost always be the non-self driving car at fault. And with the telemetry from the self-driving car, they can prove it too, so accidents that would have been no-fault or shared fault become fully the non-self driving cars fault. And so I think insurance for n…

Insurance for human drivers stays the same. If anything, it goes down, because the more Waymo-level autonomous vehicles on the road, the safer it is overall.

Insurance isn't a zero sum game, where "less insurance spent on autonomous vehicles" means the insurance companies have to make up for it somewhere else.

In a way, "car driving getting safer overall" isn't great for car insurers, because they make money financing auto risk, and if there is 50% less auto risk then they have less addressable market.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#362

Post by achatham »

t8sr wrote: post #27
impoppy wrote: post #16

How did Waymo do this? As far as I know, replacing drivers with an AI was the goal of ever-money-losing Uber and Lyft, however, Waymo managed to get to this much sooner while having less funds.

Started 15-20 years ago, whereas Uber and Tesla hopped on the bandwagon late and tried to play catchup. I remember talking about the self-driving project at Google in 2008 or something like that. (IIRC they were trying to use Haskell for something.)

We started January 2009.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#363

Post by shafyy »

graemep wrote: post #181
shafyy wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure cars are helpful for transporting stuff. But most car rides is one dude sitting alone in a 1.5 ton machine moving his lazy ass around town. Public transport, if done correctly, can replace that, also outside of big cities. There are good examples across Europe for this.

> Sure cars are helpful for transporting stuff. But most car rides is one dude sitting alone in a 1.5 ton machine moving his lazy ass around town. I do not know about lazy. I find it a lot easier to use public transport myself. I would like to see numbers for "most" especially outside the US. Very few of my car trips are by myself without something to carry. > Public transport, if done correctly, can replace that, al…

> Where has public transport eliminated cars? Not anywhere I have been in Europe. You can significantly reduce car usage, but not eliminate it, so any safety improvements are still very important.

Sure, not eliminated. There will always be cars. But reduced, as you said. I guess my main point was that one should not falsely believe that the existence of driverless buses and trains will somehow magically and significantly improve the public transportation situation in a given country.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#364

Post by fragmede »

coryfklein wrote: post #361
mindvirus wrote: post #79

I think insurance prices will drive adoption of self driving very quickly. Consider: if a non-self driving car is in an accident with a self driving car, it'll almost always be the non-self driving car at fault. And with the telemetry from the self-driving car, they can prove it too, so accidents that would have been no-fault or shared fault become fully the non-self driving cars fault. And so I think insurance for n…

Insurance for human drivers stays the same. If anything, it goes down, because the more Waymo-level autonomous vehicles on the road, the safer it is overall. Insurance isn't a zero sum game, where "less insurance spent on autonomous vehicles" means the insurance companies have to make up for it somewhere else. In a way, "car driving getting safer overall" isn't great for car insurers, because they make money financin…

Insurance is, however, a for profit corporation, out to maximize profits, so they'll charge both groups a premium, and then add a service fee on top of that.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#365

Post by tim333 »

rglullis wrote: post #86
mulmen wrote: post #56

I rode in a Waymo recently and was amazed at how good it was. It was easily in the top 5 best drivers I have ridden with. Really really impressive. It wasn’t nearly as cautious or timid as I expected it to be. But it also wasn’t reckless. I would describe it as assertive, but I’m sure some people would call it aggressive. It knows the rules and what’s going on around and acts accordingly. This really should be the no…

The whole thing with self-driving cars is that it feels like the story of NASA's space pen. All this money being poured into a technology that would not be needed if the richest country in the world had the common sense of simply getting rid of its car dependency and developed proper public transit infrastructure.

>technology that would not be needed if... developed proper public transit infrastructure

NYC and London have had 'proper' public transit for over a century. It's handy but not that great. I was on a 52 year old Bakerloo line tube train the other day and they are much like modern tube trains, if grubbier. It's not going to suddenly turn wonderful and solve everything. (typed on a London bus)

Also while I'm not sure any technology is really needed, as in we could get by without it, there are about 1 million road deaths a year globally. A 90% reduction would save 900,000 lives which is a nice to have. And more meaningful than a space pen.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#366

Post by zahlman »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #244
rglullis wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice strawman. I am not saying to get rid of cars altogether. I am saying that it would be better (and cheaper) for everyone if we took all those resources being out into "autonomous vehicles" and developed public transit first. Reduce the amount of yearly trips that are done by car. Provide alternatives . The important thing about Japan or Europe is not "they don't have cars", but "people make 3-4x less trips by car…

> if we took all those resources being out into "autonomous vehicles" and developed public transit first Waymo has raised about $11bn [1]. That is at best 4 miles of New York subway [2]. It's a third of a train between Bakersfield and Merced [3]. These things aren't competing. To the extent we can compare them on capital efficiency, it's not a good look for American public transit. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10…

>That is at best 4 miles of New York subway [2]. It's a third of a train between Bakersfield and Merced [3].

Bakersfield to Merced is 171 miles of intercity high-speed rail. It's unclear to me why Californians need to make such trips with any significant frequency, and it's certainly not what I'd normally think of as "public transit".

22 years ago in Toronto, the Sheppard line (3.4 mi, underground) was built for less than $1b CAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_4_Sheppard). From what I can tell, costs in NYC are mainly a NYC problem.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#367

Post by unshavedyak »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #354
unshavedyak wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ..not how Waymo compares to what we wish real drivers would have been like. I want to see "all the things", but in specific reply to this point, i want to see this because i have no intention to commit a DUI myself. So the bar for me personally is how well it'll do compared to safe drivers. Lots of stats are useful, but i don't think we should undersell the various "ai vs me" comparisons that individuals could use.…

But in terms of policy decisions, whether they should be allowed on the road, these are the correct numbers. Convincing people like you to ride is not the goal of this paper or its claims.

Sure, was just commenting that i find it valuable. Not a commentary on the validity of the paper.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#368

Post by zahlman »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #273
AstralStorm wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try using a unit per person. It starts to look much less rosy for Waymo and also do not forget roads are still public infrastructure that has to be paid for and maintained. What, you think Waymo will be able to weasel out of road tax or drive without roads?

> Try using a unit per person Not relevant when we’re comparing project costs. OP argued we should devote self-driving resources to public transit. I’m arguing that’s nonsense. > roads are still public infrastructure that has to be paid for and maintained Sure. But that isn’t a new funding commitment. Cancelling Waymo won’t reduce our road costs.

>OP argued we should devote self-driving resources to public transit.

Yes, because it would allow moving people more cost-effectively (among other things) - which is measured per person per unit distance traveled. (I'm not OP, but nothing in this discussion is even remotely new for transit advocates like myself.)

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#369

Post by zahlman »

graemep wrote: post #156
kiba wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impressive and all, but my reaction to self driving cars are completely different. It's a great technical feat, but it's not ever going to be efficient as public transportation. The form factor of the car works against it.

Public transport cannot do everything cars can do, especially outside big cities. Better public transport can reduce the need for car ownership - I did not own a car for much of my life for that reason. However, it does not eliminate it.

Doing the rare things that actually require a car, does not entail a need to own one. (And it's perfectly possible to have a fulfilling life without those rare things.)

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#370

Post by coryfklein »

fragmede wrote: post #364
coryfklein wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance for human drivers stays the same. If anything, it goes down, because the more Waymo-level autonomous vehicles on the road, the safer it is overall. Insurance isn't a zero sum game, where "less insurance spent on autonomous vehicles" means the insurance companies have to make up for it somewhere else. In a way, "car driving getting safer overall" isn't great for car insurers, because they make money financin…

Insurance is, however, a for profit corporation, out to maximize profits, so they'll charge both groups a premium, and then add a service fee on top of that.

Nothing about that changes with the introduction of autonomous vehicles though, and it's a very open and highly competitive market. It is extremely easy to switch your auto insurance provider, and anyone who can pay some actuaries can start up a new business. (Though few do, because there isn't a huge margin to take away from the industry as it is.)
Post reply on HN