Most Drivers Would Hand Keys Over To Computer If It Meant Lower Insurance Rates 449
Lucas123 writes "Most drivers would consider buying an autonomous vehicle if it meant their insurance rates would be reduced by 80%, a new survey of 2,000 licensed drivers found. Oddly enough, the survey by the online consumer insurance site Car insurance.com also showed that 75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer. Another 64% said computers were not capable of the same quality of decision-making as human drivers. And 75% would not trust a driverless car to take their children to school. The survey also asked what commuters would be doing if a computer handled the driving: More than one-in-four would text/talk with friends; 21% would read; 10% would sleep; 8% would watch movies; 7% would play games; and 7% would work. The rest of those surveyed said they'd just watch the scenery blow by."
Re:Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting (Score:5, Insightful)
"Lake street. No, no, Lake street. Aiiiiiiiii *splash*"
90% of people think they're in the top 10% of drivers. Ask if they feel safer with a computer driving, most will say no. Ask if they feel safer if everyone else had a computer driving, most will say yes.
Watch for this in the marketing when self-driving cars come to market (we'll see if Nissan hits their 2020 goal). The pitch will be all about ways it makes you safer despite you, personally, being the bestest driver evar. Plenty of ads showing loaning the car to your teenager, no doubt.
Re:lower insurance? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's surprising about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is odd about those results? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to me to be a completely rational point of view:
- I think I am a better driver than a computer.
- I think insurance companies are not going to reduce my premiums if I let a computer drive my car, because I'm a safer driver than a computer would be.
- You say they'll reduce my premiums by 80%? Well, maybe I was wrong, and I'll actually trust the computer to drive. After all, insurance companies aren't going to reduce my premiums by 80% unless the risk from claims is reduced by at least that much.
Re:people better than computers... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Google's statements about their self-driving cars are just PR announcements. 300k miles without an accident (or whatever it is). No indication of driving conditions rain, snow, etc. Do the human drivers turn off the autopilot when they know they're approaching a situation it doesn't handle well? A good idea for safety, but a bad one for testing the cars. The truth is, we just don't know how good they are.
Re:lower insurance? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes you would. However good the programming is, there's no such thing as a zero accident rate. Tyres will blow out at the wrong moment, a tree will blow over on a car occasionally. The car manufacturers won't be paying the medical bills (or if they have to the prices of cars will go up astronomically, effecitvely to cover what the owners would otherwise pay in insurance). The way it will work is, car owners will get insurance based on the average accident rate of the model of autonomous car they own (and mileage etc.) Auto manufacturers would be liable if they could be shown to be grossly negligent (for example releasing a firmware without due testing), but otherwise the user will pay. The random "bug that slipped through duly diligent testing and goes on to kill someone" will just be one of those things that insurance covers. And as things go on and firmware evolves the accident rates will go down and down until no-one in their right minds would countenance a human driver behind the wheel.
Reality check here (Score:5, Insightful)
The question will actually be more like "would you keep driving manually if it meant 80% higher insurance rates?"
No, read that again. (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean people will choose to save money while increasing their overall safety if statistically proven?
You seem to have missed the part in which most people were of the belief that they would be decreasing their overall safety in exchange for more money. That's what it means when 75% believe that they would be better drivers for their children than an autonomous car and yet 75% would still take the money.
At the most extreme disjoint of the two sets, that means that 50% of people believe that letting a car drive their children to school would put them at higher risk, and yet they'd do it anyway for money. At least 2/3 of all the people who said yes, and it's likely more because there have to be at least some people who think it would be safer and who wouldn't do it in spite of the money for other unknown reasons.
That's kind of horrifying, actually, regardless of what you think about auto-drive.
I like driving (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:lower insurance? (Score:5, Insightful)
We will not have a robot driving the car (or a computer) for a very long time.
People's cognitive biases are such that they overestimate the amount of risk involved in driving when they are in control (hence everyone saying they're above average in driving ability). Even then, there will be laws against such things. If, due to a software bug, 1 person died per day in a car accident, the cars would be classified as death traps in the media and in government. Of course, the fact that 32,367 people died in vehicle deaths in 2011 wouldn't matter. People will be able to handle 30,000 people per year dying due to driver error. They won't be able to handle 300 people dying per year due to software error.
Re:No, read that again. (Score:4, Insightful)
... and yet 75% would still take the money.
TFA says that 35% would "take the money". It says that 90% would consider it. Part of "considering it" is "would I let the car take the kids to school", and 75% say "no". That 75% have at least three options: don't buy an autonomous car, buy an autonomous car as a second vehicle (so they own two cars) and take the kids to school in the manual car, or replace their existing car with an autonomous car and home school.
The rich ones will have two cars. That won't save them on their insurance, it will actually go up. The poor ones will not be able to afford to have two, they'll have to pick -- and they'll probably keep the car they have because it is paid off and they can't afford a new one.
At the most extreme disjoint of the two sets, that means that 50% of people believe that letting a car drive their children to school would put them at higher risk, and yet they'd do it anyway for money.
TFA does not support that conclusion.
Re:No, read that again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, nuts. I got caught out reading the summary and not the article before posting.
When will I learn not to trust summaries...
Re:What's surprising about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sweet! Let's apply (one sided) market principles to a captive audience in order to lessen the inconvenience on the more affluent. Once all of those annoying poor folk can't afford to commute to work, we won't have to wait behind them in traffic. If we want to keep chasing that revenue stream, we can re-engineer all of the routes for the sole purpose of maximizing revenue. We can pretend that's it's a free market by saying, "you can leave at any time."
Bonus points on the textbook application of rent seeking.
Re:lower insurance? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that once we start seeing driverless cars become mainstream, we'll see a development where it can avoid a pack of dumbasses with a spray can as well.
That would be a wonderful solution to the parking problem, especially for people with non-autonomous vehicles. When you get where you are going and can't find a parking space, pull a can of spray paint out of the glove box and all the autonomous cars parked nearby run away, leaving you a lot of spaces to park in.
No fault is a lie in the US (by comparison) (Score:4, Insightful)
Ontario has no-fault insurance as the standard car insurance now. That means that if you're injured in a car accident, if you get a note from a doctor saying you need something, you get it pretty much right away, and the insurance companies sort out the liability between themselves
Many states in the US are defined as "no fault", however it doesn't mean what you just described. In the US, "no fault" means that a law enforcement officer will assign fault in the accident, and then the rates of everyone involved will go up. In contrast, in states that are not currently "no fault", a law enforcement officer will assign fault in the accident, and then the rates of everyone involved will go up. See the difference?
Re:Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting (Score:4, Insightful)
Common misconception. It's actually entirely possible than 90% of drivers are above average... If 10% of drivers crash the very second they start the engine.
You can infer nothing at all about the percentage that are below average from that stat, beyond "it's less than 100%, and more than 0%".
Re: Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting (Score:5, Insightful)
Once one car in ten or so is self-driving they'll act as pace cars and effectively force you to drive at the same speed and with the same care as they do. And since they keep detailed recordings of everything happening around them, you will get the blame for any incident if you tried to push the limits at the time.
And at that point, driving yourself has become a dull, monotonous exercize in boredom. So you might as well join the ranks of non-drivers as well.