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?
Talk to anyone from the midwest about not owning a car and they'll laugh you out of the room.
Well, unless it's because youre proposing they switch to ATV's and Snowmobiles, in which case there some people can technically get by without a traditional automobile.
Multiple Ubers per day are expensive. ($55 x 365 = $20,000)
All in, a budget car costs less than half of that per year.
But if you replace some of that with public transportation, or a car is otherwise impractical, the math changes.
Have we learned nothing from a decade of subscription services?
If your local legal system does not absolve you from liability when operating an autonomous vehicle, you can still be sued, and Mercedes has no say in this… even though they could reimburse you.
Also, even if a system is fully automated, that doesn’t necessarily legally isolate the person who owns it or set it into motion from liability. Vehicle law would generally need to be updated to change this.
It may be that it is; but then, if you are required to be watchful at all time, and be able to take over from the autonomous vehicle at all times, then - the autonomy doesn't really help you all that much, does it?
My first sentence was to say that even if the law treats autonomous vehicles differently, Tesla doesn’t sell one.
So, either those Tesla's don't really self-drive (which may be the case, I don't know, but then the whole discussion is moot), or they do, in which case, the human wasn't the one driving and may thus avoid liability.
Then of course there is the possibility that the court might be convinced the car was being drive collaboratively by the human and the car/the computer, in which case Tesla and the human might share the liability. IANA(US)L though.
All Teslas are level 2 ADAS and require the human behind the the wheel to monitor the vehicle and intervene when necessary.
> or they do, in which case, the human wasn't the one driving and may thus avoid liability.
That is not legally true. Automation does not absolve someone from liability. Owners of a piece of machinery have liability just by being the owner and placing it into operation.
Forget about cars for a second -- we already have many products that are entirely automated already, for example: an elevator. If you own a building with an elevator, and it hurts someone, the building owner is absolutely going to be sued over it, and "oh, it's automated" isn't a get-out-of-court free card.
There are still responsibilities that the owner has: did they properly maintain it? were they aware of an issue but decided to operate it anyway? were they in a position to intervene and avoid the accident, but failed to do so?
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 laws that allow them to provide such service but the law doesn't allow selling such cars to people.
That's changing. Quite likely this year we will have federal law that will allow selling cars with fully unsupervised self-driving, in which case the insurance/liability will obviously land on the maker of the system, not person present in the car.
FSD isn't perfect, but it is everyday amazing and useful.
If the company required a representative to sit in the car with you and participate in the driving (e.g. by monitoring and taking over before an accident), then there's a case to be made that you're not fully autonomous.
I think you're mixing some concepts.
There's car insurance paid by the owner of the car, for the car. There's workplace accident insurance, paid by the employer for the employee. The liability isn't assigned by default, but by determining who's responsible.
The driver is always legally responsible for accidents caused by their negligence. If you play with your phone behind the wheel and kill someone, even while working and driving a company car, the company's insurance might pay for the damage but you go to prison. The company will recover the money from you. Their work accident insurance will pay nothing.
The test you can run in your head: will you get arrested if you fall asleep at the wheel and crash? If yes, then it's not autonomous or self driving. It just has driver assistance. It's not that the car can't drive itself at all, just that it doesn't meet the bar for the entire legal concept of "driver/driving".
"Almost" self driving is like jumping over a canyon and almost making it to the other side. Good effort, bad outcome.
Probably about 90% perfect! Obviously we don't agree on the definition.
I'd guess my Subaru's lane-keeping utilisation is in the same ballpark. (By miles, not minutes. And yes, I'm safer when it and I are watching the road than when I'm watching the road alone.)
Also, self driving is a feature of a vehicle someone owns, I don't understand how that should exempt anyone from insuring their property.
Waymo and others are providing a taxi service where the driver is not a human. You don't pay insurance when you ride Uber or Bolt or any other regular taxi service.
Well practically speaking, there’s nothing stopping anyone from voluntarily assuming liability for arbitrary things. If Tesla assumes the liability for my car, then even if I still require my “own” insurance for legal purposes, the marginal cost of covering the remaining risk is going to be close to zero.
They are as self-driving as a car can be.
This is different than the one where they had a human supervisor in passenger seat (which they still do elsewhere).
And different than the one where they didn't have human supervisor but did have a follow car.
Now they have a few robotaxis that are self driving.
https://electrek.co/2026/01/28/teslas-unsupervised-robotaxis...
This is news to me. This context seems important to understanding Tesla's decision to stop selling FSD. If they're on the hook for insurance, then they will need to dynamically adjust what they charge to reflect insurance costs.
So yes, carmakers would pay in a hit-and-run.
Why? That's not their fault. If a car hits and runs my uninsured bicycle, the manufacturer isn't liable. (My personal umbrella or other insurance, on the other hand, may cover it.)
If you run into someone on your bike and are at fault then you generally would be liable.
They're talking about the hypothetical where you're on your bike, which was sold as an autobomous bike and the bike manufacturer's software fully drives the bike, and it runs into someone and is at fault.
> Quite likely this year we will have federal law that will allow selling cars with fully unsupervised self-driving, in which case the insurance/liability will obviously land on the maker of the system, not person present in the car.
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.
Why surely? Turning on cruise control doesn't absolve motorists of their insurance requirement.
And the premise is false. While Tesla does "not maintain as much insurance coverage as many other companies do," there are "policies that [they] do have" [1]. (What it insures is a separate question.)
[1] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001318605/0...
And I’d include “AI driver” as an example.
and Musk for removing lidar so it keeps jumping across high speed traffic at shadows because the visual cameras can't see true depth
99% of the people on this website are coders and know how even one small typo can cause random fails, yet you trust them to make you an alpha/beta tester at high speed?
Cars are traditionally sold as the customer has liability. Nothing stops a car maker (or even an individual dealer) from selling cars today taking all the insurance liability in any country I know of - they don't for what I hope are obvious reasons (bad drivers will be sure to buy those cars since it is a better deal for them an in turn a worse deal for good drivers), but they could.
Self driving is currently sold as customers has liability because that is how it has always been done. I doubt it will change, but it is only because I doubt there will ever be enough advantage as to be worth it for someone else to take on the liability - but I could be wrong.
In reality, you acquired a license to use it. Your liability should only go as far as you have agreed to identify the licenser.
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 subscription-only, maybe not even that). If you have to rebuild the whole thing yourself anyway, what have you really gained? Its not exactly a secret how the technology works, only costly to build.
> Except that they could just buy one themselves.
That is unlikely, unless you mean buying Tesla outright? Getting a license to use it as a manufacturer is much more realistic, but still a license.
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?
> Yep, you bought it, you own it, you choose to operate it on the public roads. Therefore your liability.
The assumption there is that the remaining human drivers would be the higher risk ones, but why would that be the case?
One of the primary movers of high risk driving is that someone goes to the bar, has too many drinks, then needs both themselves and their car to get home. Autonomous vehicles can obviously improve this by getting them home in their car without them driving it, but if they do, the risk profile of the remaining human drivers improves. At worst they're less likely to be hit by a drunk driver, at best the drunk drivers are the early adopters of autonomous vehicles and opt themselves out of the human drivers pool.
1. People who can't afford self driving cars (now the insurance industry has a good proxy for income that they couldn't tap into before)
2. Enthusiasts who like driving their cars (cruisers, racers, Helcat revving, people who like doing donuts, etc...)
3. Older people who don't trust technology.
None of those are good risk pools to be in. Also, if self driving cars go mainstream, they are bound to include the safest drivers overnight, so whatever accidents/crashes happen afterwards are covered by a much smaller and "active" risk pool. Oh, and those self driving cars are expensive:
* If you hit one and are at fault, you might pay out 1-200k, most states only require 25k-50k of coverage...so you need more coverage or expect to pay more for incident.
* Self driving cars have a lot of sensors/recorders. While this could work to your advantage (proving that you aren't at fault), it often isn't (they have evidence that you were at fault). Whereas before fault might have been much more hazy (both at fault, or both no fault).
The biggest factor comes if self driving cars really are much safer than human drivers. They will basically disappear from the insurance market, or somehow be covered by product liability instead of insurance...and the remaining drivers will be in a pool of the remaining accidents that they will have to cover on their own.
It kind of is. They're responsible for something like 30% of traffic fatalities despite being a far smaller percentage of drivers.
> People who can't afford self driving cars (now the insurance industry has a good proxy for income that they couldn't tap into before)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30172108/
But also, wouldn't they already have this by using the vehicle model and year?
> Enthusiasts who like driving their cars (cruisers, racers, Helcat revving, people who like doing donuts, etc...)
Again something that seems like it would already be accounted for by vehicle model.
> Older people who don't trust technology.
How sure are we that the people who don't trust technology are older? And again, the insurance company already knows your age.
> Also, if self driving cars go mainstream, they are bound to include the safest drivers overnight
Are they? They're more likely to include the people who spend the most time in cars, which is another higher risk pool, because it allows those people to spend the time on a phone/laptop instead of driving the car, which is worth more to people the more time they spend doing it and so justifies the cost of a newer vehicle more easily.
> Oh, and those self driving cars are expensive
Isn't that more of a problem for the self-driving pool? Also, isn't most of the cost that the sensors aren't as common and they'd end up costing less as a result of volume production anyway?
> Self driving cars have a lot of sensors/recorders. While this could work to your advantage (proving that you aren't at fault), it often isn't (they have evidence that you were at fault). Whereas before fault might have been much more hazy (both at fault, or both no fault).
Which is only a problem for the worse drivers who are actually at fault, which makes them more likely to move into the self-driving car pool.
> The biggest factor comes if self driving cars really are much safer than human drivers.
The biggest factor is which drivers switch to self-driving cars. If half of human drivers switched to self-driving cars but they were chosen completely at random then the insurance rates for the remaining drivers would be essentially unaffected. How safe they are is only relevant insofar as it affects your chances of getting into a collision with another vehicle, and if they're safer then it would make that chance go down to have more of them on the road.
> How sure are we that the people who don't trust technology are older? And again, the insurance company already knows your age
Boomers are already the primary anti-EV demographic, with the complaint that real cars have engines. It doesn’t matter if they know your age of state laws keep them from acting on it.
> that more of a problem for the self-driving pool? Also, isn't most of the cost that the sensors aren't as common and they'd end up costing less as a result of volume production anyway?
I think you misunderstood me: If you get into an accident and are found at fault, you are responsible for damage to the other car. Now, if it’s a clunker Toyota, that will be a few thousand dollars, if it’s a roll Royce, it’s a few hundred thousand dollars. The reason insurances are increasing lately is that the average car on the road is more expensive than it was ten years ago, so insurance companies are paying out more. If most cars are $250k Waymo cars, and you hit one…and you are at fault, ouch. And we will know if it is your fault or not since the Waymo is constantly recording.
> If half of human drivers switched to self-driving cars but they were chosen completely at random then the insurance rates for the remaining drivers would be essentially unaffected.
That’s not how the math works out (smaller risk pools are more expensive per person period). And it won’t be people switching at random to self driving cars (the ones not switching will be the ones that are more likely to have accidents).
Fatalities get more thoroughly investigated so we have better numbers on them, but if you had to guess whether the people who get behind the wheel drunk were similarly disproportionately likely to bang up their cars in a non-fatal way, what would your guess be?
> Boomers are already the primary anti-EV demographic, with the complaint that real cars have engines.
EVs and self-driving are two different things. Fox News tells boomers that EVs are bad because Republicans have the oil companies as a constituency.
> It doesn’t matter if they know your age of state laws keep them from acting on it.
The only states that do that are Hawaii and Massachusetts.[1]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/select/best-car-insurance-seniors/
> If most cars are $250k Waymo cars, and you hit one…and you are at fault, ouch. And we will know if it is your fault or not since the Waymo is constantly recording.
If X% of cars are Waymos and you hit another car in your normally priced car and you're at fault, there is an X% chance it will be expensive. If the Waymo hits another car and it's at fault, there is a 100% chance it will be expensive because it will damage itself, and an additional X% chance that it will be very expensive because both cars are.
And again, that's assuming the price stays as high as it is when the production volume increases. A $250,000 car can't become the majority of cars because that percentage of people can't afford that.
> That’s not how the math works out (smaller risk pools are more expensive per person period).
Smaller risk pools don't have higher risk, they have higher volatility, and then if they're too small insurers have to charge a volatility premium. But the auto insurance market is very large and for it to get to the size that it would have volatility issues it would have to be a consequence rather than a cause of the large majority of people switching to self-driving cars.
> And it won’t be people switching at random to self driving cars (the ones not switching will be the ones that are more likely to have accidents).
You keep saying that but it's still not obvious that it's what would happen, and in any event the ones more likely to have accidents are already the ones paying higher insurance premiums -- which is precisely a reason they would have the incentive to be the first to switch to self-driving cars.
If there's only a small minority of human drivers people like you will have bigger fish to screech about there will be substantially less political will to perpetuate the system and it'll probably go away in favor of a far simpler and cheaper "post up a bond" type thing and much of the expensive mechanisms for grading drivers will be dismantled.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a39481699/what-happens-if-...
It was way too limited to be useful to anyone.
And the system is designed to set up drivers for failure.
An HCI challenge with mostly autonomous systems is that operators lose their awareness of the system, and when things go wrong you can easily get worse outcomes than if the system was fully manual with an engaged operator.
This is a well known challenge in the nuclear energy sector and airline industry (Air France 447) - how do you keep operators fully engaged even though they almost never need to intervene, because otherwise they’re likely to be missing critical context and make wrong decisions. These days you could probably argue the same is true of software engineers reviewing LLM code that’s often - but not always - correct.
Really? Thats crazy.
The last few years of Tesla 'growth' show how this transition is unfolding. S and X production is shutdown, just a few more models to shutdown.
Any car has varying degrees of autonomy, even the ones with no assists (it will safely self-drive you all the way to the accident site, as they say). But the car is either driven by the human with the system's help, or is driven by the system with or without the human's help.
A car can't have 2 drivers. The only real one is the one the law holds responsible.
Suppose ACME Corporation produces millions of self-driving cars and then goes out of business because the CEO was embezzling. They no longer exist. But the cars do. They work fine. Who insures them? The person who wants to keep operating them.
Which is the same as it is now. It's your car so you pay to insure it.
I mean think about it. If you buy an autonomous car, would the manufacturer have to keep paying to insure it forever as long as you can keep it on the road? The only real options for making the manufacturer carry the insurance are that the answer is no and then they turn off your car after e.g. 10 years, which is quite objectionable, or that the answer is "yes" but then you have to pay a "subscription fee" to the manufacturer which is really the insurance premium, which is also quite objectionable because then you're then locked into the OEM instead of having a competitive insurance market.
So to circle back to your thesis: when the car is operating autonomously, the manufacturer is responsible. If it goes broke then what? Then the owner will need to insure the car privately. So Tesla insurance might have to continue to operate (and be profitable).
The question this raises is if Tesla should sell any self-driving cars at all, or instead it should just drive them itself.
There are two problems with this.
The first is that insurance covers things that weren't really anyone's fault, or that it's not clear whose fault it was. For example, the most direct and preventable cause of many car crashes is poorly designed intersections, but then the city exempts itself from liability and people still expect someone to pay so it falls to insurance. There isn't really much the OEM can do about the poorly designed intersection or the improperly banked curve or snowy roads etc.
The second is that you would then need to front-load a vehicle-lifetime's worth of car insurance into the purchase price of the car, which significantly raises the cost to the consumer over paying as you go because of the time value of money. It also compounds the cost of insurance, because if the price of the car includes the cost of insurance and then the car gets totaled, the insurance would have to pay out the now-higher cost of the car.
> The question this raises is if Tesla should sell any self-driving cars at all, or instead it should just drive them itself.
This is precisely the argument for not doing it that way. Why should we want the destruction of ownership in lieu of pushing everyone to a subscription service? What happens to poor people who could have had a used car but now all the older cars go to the crusher because it allows the OEMs to sustain artificial scarcity for the service?
it's why young drivers pay more for insurance
(Though, there is still an element of owner/operator maintenance for level 4/5 vehicles -- e.g., if the owner fails to replace tires below 4/32", continues to operate the vehicle, and it causes an injury, that is partially the owner/operator's fault.)
I realize it would suck to be blamed for something the car did when you weren't driving it, but I'm not sure how else it could be financially feasible.