Can we get an insurance quote on human drivers operating a taxi service only in those postcodes?
Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
71–80 of 288 posts
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#72Computers don't drink, don't text and don't have road rage, so their claims might be plausible in a broad statistical way. My guess is that if you excluded humans that drink, text, have anger issues etc. then the humans probably win out.
Maybe, but do you have a way to exclude those humans from life?
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#73Aren't they operating under a lot of constraints? The comparison should be with human drivers operating under similar conditions and on similar roads, similar cars(eg. new ones), weather conditions etc. Plus they have a fleet of support folks and standby remote and dispatchable operators which cannot be cheap, we get no insight into the financials except that they're losing several billion dollars a year. If at the e…
I believe for the insurance purposes, this difference is irrelevant. The point is under the current condition, Waymo driverless cars are safer than human controlled cars, thus the question of liability and permit to operate should be cleared. The question whether humans are truly inferior to robots in term of controlling cars is rather a question of ego than a practical one.
Not sure that can be concluded easily as you would need to synthetically create a human driver profile with the same restrictions as Waymo. It does not say that in the linked article.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#74Of course it is, safer than drunk humans at least.
The problem is not safety, it is what happens after many get killed by machines.
And what happens to those inside the machine as it kills someone.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d like to see AVs compared to the average good driver. I’d bet it’s a lot closer in that case.
I'm not bullish on self driving cars, but that's a bit unfair. If their car performs better than 50% of the population, then that sounds like a success.
The thing is that 50% (even more) of the population should not be allowed to drive to begin with and we shouldn't wait for any technology to be ready to remove them from the road. That is the real elephant in the room that nobody wants to mention, especially political representatives who would be afraid to lose votes.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#76Computers don't drink, don't text and don't have road rage, so their claims might be plausible in a broad statistical way. My guess is that if you excluded humans that drink, text, have anger issues etc. then the humans probably win out.
Why would you exclude them? They're relevant.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#77Computers don't drink, don't text and don't have road rage, so their claims might be plausible in a broad statistical way. My guess is that if you excluded humans that drink, text, have anger issues etc. then the humans probably win out.
sure. but now your sample only contains the outliers of humanity.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
The correct way is "who goes to jail if a driverless car kills a child?"
Why? Who goes to jail if a child trips and falls down stairs? Should we ban stairs? If there were no negligence from the owner in maintaining the car, and no negligence in the manufacturer, why do you care if anyone goes to jail? It won't bring the child back. If self driving cars reduce the number of fatalities, and specially if they reduce them significantly, would you really be against them just because there won'…
If you drive a car that kills a child, you (potentially) go to jail.
If you are in a car that is driven by Waymo and it kills a child, the car drives away with no repercussions.
Are you really advocating a world where we change the laws to give Waymo a license to kill?
That won't ever, ever happen.
Also, "no negligence from the manufacturer" is very much begging the question. Read the typical software EULA, it is negligent by default.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#79Aren't they operating under a lot of constraints? The comparison should be with human drivers operating under similar conditions and on similar roads, similar cars(eg. new ones), weather conditions etc. Plus they have a fleet of support folks and standby remote and dispatchable operators which cannot be cheap, we get no insight into the financials except that they're losing several billion dollars a year. If at the e…
I believe for the insurance purposes, this difference is irrelevant. The point is under the current condition, Waymo driverless cars are safer than human controlled cars, thus the question of liability and permit to operate should be cleared. The question whether humans are truly inferior to robots in term of controlling cars is rather a question of ego than a practical one.
> I believe for the insurance purposes, this difference is irrelevant.
Can you explain this some more?
My understanding is that an insurance policy is valid in a certain set of circumstances.
Re: Waymo says insurance data shows its driverless cars are safer than humans
#80[deleted]