Hacker News Reader

Comment by legolas2412 | Hacker News Reader

A question for you, and all self-driving safety proponents. If Tesla's FSD cars are so safe, why are they not taking the liability of the cars. Why have only a regular car insurance punted on to the owners? When the manufacturers of self-driving cars roll out liability of all owners, or taxi services with a monitoring driver with no liability, is the time when self-driving is actually available. Till then it is vaporware.

View on HN

> why are they not taking the liability of the cars.

Because that's still incredibly costly. We as a society care greatly about a decrease in net risk, but that doesn't mean that net risk is small enough for one party to bear.

That makes so sense. When they say "it's safer than a human", that should definitely translate to a smaller insurance cost than a human driven car.

And it does. It just doesn't mean that one company can suddenly afford to be an insurer of tens of thousands of drivers.

If they make driving safer, they could insure cheaper and make more profit than existing insurance companies. Or they could collaborate with insurers to reduce the insurance cost for Tesla drivers, e.g. by underwriting the costs of deadly accidents, and splitting the profit. 35000 deaths, that's a lot of dough. A money making machine like Tesla must surely have thought of that, if it is remotely true.

Tesla still don't have a public FSD. All they have is traffic aware cruise control with lane assist + stop signs. And some other bits and pieces.

They may not have public FSD, but they do have public FSD capable cars! Hopefully that’s clear to all the consumers involved.

all our cars' hardware support some unspecified version of self driving software that doesn't exist; to use our version of self driving software you have to add this 10k piece, and while using this version of self driving software you'll have to be in control of the vehicle all the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com