So one day my car insurance company will tell me: "you have to pay us more because you are driving yourself".
As it should. You’re objectively higher risk, particularly if you’ve ever been at fault for a crash or gotten a ticket.
I would expect premium levels to continue to be driven by liability pool payouts plus a profit margin. Autonomous vehicles don't increase driver risk or liability pool payouts. IF anything, they reduce them due to safer driving conditions for the humans.
If the overall liability pool goes down but the human drivers become an outsized part of it, the insurance company will likely shift that cost to them. If they don’t, someone could set up an autonomous-only insurance company (or google could just insure itself) to take advantage of the lower risk, making the human insurance more expensive (even more so that the liability since the overall pool will be much smaller).
Human driving wont be more risky than today.
How objective is that?
This is factually wrong: I did not.
Now that we have established the fact that you, palata, did not have a speeding ticket 3 years ago, I would encourage you to think about the application of my statement, to your actual situation. That is, you may substitute the words "speeding ticket 3 years ago" with any traffic violation or insurance claim where you were determined to be at fault, over any time period which might not be 3 years. Then the question is raised of whether you, palata, would incur higher insurance costs than Waymo.
To which I answer: "how objective is that, when the claim comes from the company selling the autonomous car?"
Then you tell me something that I understand as: "well, you are objectively higher risk because if you look at your record, you have made mistakes that show that your are".
And when I say "actually, I haven't", you patronize me? Is that how it works?
No. I haven't killed more people than autonomous cars have. Before you can prove that over my life as a driver, I will cause more damage than an autonomous car would have, then you don't get to say that I am objectively higher risk and therefore should pay more insurance.
Now you can try to look at studies that try to prove that. And when I ask "how objective is that?" when the study comes from those who benefit from those results, you can stop for a minute and consider that maybe, I am allowed to ask.
And as new cars are developed, obviously there are more "drivers". Essentially every year there'll be new drivers for every company that makes autonomous cars, possibly multiple.
Yeah, it's still a lot fewer than the individual humans, but it's definitely not just "one driver".
Having said that, with time we will have more independent studies.
Which is to say that naked capitalism works until it doesn’t, and when it stops working big chances are that it won’t do it gracefully, see how present-day health insurance CEOs are now scared shitless of Big City streets.
They won't be "widely available" because of the higher prices, just look at the EV market right now. You won't get a self-driving $2,000 clunker, and when you drive a $2,000 clunker you don't do it because you "like it", but because that's all that you can afford.
Otherwise, believing in "technological progress" as a potential solution is just just that, an irrational belief.
You won't walk around with a calculator in your pocket, will you?
Or even as anyone who is ever on the road.
Despite the law, driving in America is a necessity for many. That means our bar for taking it away is high. Quantify the safety delta and have an available alternative, and we can start lowering the bar for taking dangerous drivers off the road. (Frankly either >1 DUI or >1 at-fault crash should result in license revocation. We should also delay license issuance until 18 years old and have restrictions on the license until 20 [1].)
I would love it if these comparisons included "bus stats / average passengers". There are ways to just reduce the miles driven and the chances of collisions at the same time, without new tech improvements.
we could have amazing and SAFE cycling infrastructure NOW if american culture wasn't so objectively trash.
What year would the EU* ban human driven cars on public roads?
That's it. Million different opinions ranging from "never" to "within a couple decades for sure", weak, strong opinions, and of course many interesting topics to branch out into.
*: sometimes I ask with US, or particular countries, it doesn't really matter for the sake of conversation.
Fun fact: people working in automotive tend to say within this century, people who like and owned many cars say never :-)
If at some point all new cars have full self-driving capabilities with widely accepted performance, then it's not impossible that after a decade of that as status quo, cars end up shipping with manual driving only being an override for specific maneuvering, and eventually having regular licenses lose rights to manual driving on public roads.
Riding a horse is very dangerous. Its just regarded as an acceptable risk (its something many people encourage kids to do) for cultural and social reasons. A British government scientific advisor was fired for pointing out that riding a horse carries about 30 times the risk of a "serious adverse effect" as taking ecstasy.
Could we have a link for this one please?
Sure, not now. Because cars replaced them.
> Seems like it'll depend on how thoroughly self-driving becomes a thing of the past on its own.
Based on my experience with Waymo if they come to Seattle in the next two years I won’t buy another car.
You tried to establish self driving cars as a threat to human driven cars using horses as an example.
Highways were invented for cars. Horses were never allowed there.
There’s no comparable proposal for self driving cars.
Lot of related topics to branch out to! I actually wasn't ever interested in the "cut off date", but all these side topics, and why some people think differently about what the trajectory looks like today.
Just consider vintage cars: These are vastly more dangerous for both occupants and pedestrians/cyclists than existing cars and also pollute more. They have not been banned in the last century and no ban seems to be coming anytime soon.
If you are not gonna ban vintage cars, why would you ever ban manual driving (which is much less harmful in multiple ways)?
Once adoption picks up, a ban becomes useless anyway because the fraction of problematic cars decreases (and no longer really matters), while any decisive legislative action towards bans gets tons of pushback from enthusiasts (and no real political gain, because the average voter does not give a shit about single digit traffic accident rate reduction anyway).
It's just saying something without any information.
Here in Italy insurance is 20% more expensive at the very least and the gap is widening if you don't put a tracking device on your car which checks position, speed, etc.
I have a hard time justifying why one would not want it (besides privacy), all people that complain about it are people that regularly drive above the speed limit or pull dangerous overtaking maneuvers.
Road deaths are among the leading causes of death in multiple developed countries.
We criticize chinese government but we do much worse.
But considering that most people don't give two damns about their privacy (or at least act like it, keeping 24/7 a tracking device on them and sharing all of their lives non stop) what would be their valid reason to not have a tracking device for insurance purposes on their cars?
My car displays the speed limit in the dash, as a helper, and sometimes the above happens. If it had automatic braking for crossing the speed limit, it would be a disaster.
Also, if I drive 70 on a 70 road completely covered in snow, will the system know I'm doing something dangerous?
Automatic judgement of people is a bad idea, and it surprises me that anyone who is working in software development would think otherwise.
In any case, the system works fine in Italy, the purpose is only to provide more data in case of collisions.
The idea is that if you're driving legally and you end up in a costly accident you can prove you were driving and acting correctly.
They can be football issues, they're still issues.
> you can prove you were driving and acting correctly
Unless there's a technical issue that makes you either unable to prove it, or makes the data say you were at fault.
Look at the thread about the UK Post Office and how many people were wrongfully convicted based on "technical issues".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56718036
"Just technical issues"
(all of these regularly happen all in the same place)
Says wikipedia. Yeah, I don't know what I expected. Of course there's no actual snow in the meditteranean. It "lightly snowed" 3 times in the last 10 years.
This is in the catania area https://imgur.com/a/rhnIGNa
Perhaps you have no clue of what you're talking about?
I had snow 2 days ago… but sure, random guy on the internet who's never been here must educate me -_-' how completely unusual…
this is in calabria https://www.sullaneve.it/articoli/localita-italiane/calabria...
No, not more than you currently pay, because you haven't become more at risk of collision than you are now.
I guess this day has arrived for us.
Definitely sooner than I expected.