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."
Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting (Score:5, Funny)
If car auto-pilot is like auto-correct, we're all going to die in really funny ways. No matter what the results of this survey say.
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:Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I'm at best an average driver. Whole stretches of the road seem to disappear and all I can recall is the story I was listening to or the thing I was thinking about. Anyway, I hate driving and would jump at the chance to be a passenger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, you're claiming taxis and trains have lower costs than driving? Where the hell are you living? I'd love to be there!
Here, a taxi is orders of magnitude more expensive. A train close to equal, but still more.
Re: (Score:3)
Here it is also quite feasible not to own a car, assuming you have no problems with biking.
Re:Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting (Score:4, Interesting)
Where I live (Osaka city), all my train and subway use - a daily commute and weekend trips in the area - cost less altogether than just renting a parking space for a car would cost for the same period. Then you'd add actually buying a car, paying taxes and insurance, fuel, maintenance, highway tolls...
We take taxis whenever we're in a hurry or the train is inconvenient, and we still come out way ahead of driving ourselves. In fact, I haven't actually driven for more than a decade, and only keep my license since it's a convenient form of ID.
Re: (Score:3)
A friend of mine had his car break down he couldn't afford to fix it immediately so he rode his bike to work for a month and at first it was rough but by the end of the month he had trimmed off a little weight and was feeling really good so he decided to junk the car and rode his bike to work for 3-4 years before he finally bought a new car. He says it's one of the best things that ever happened to him. {He's probably right office jobs aren't really good exercise, he still rides his bike when there is good
Re:Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting (Score:5, Funny)
I'd say a little less than half are below average.
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:4)
And there's a real problem. Would I turn my driving over to the computer if it's going to drive legally and conservatively? Not likely. In my state (and most of those I've been to), the speed limit is set to provide a more than adequate margin of error for half-blind idiots driving on bald tires in a blizzard. Nobody follows them (including said idiots, which is why they still crash). Further, the road is often full of hazards, obstructions, and idiots, some of which require one to take illegal actions (such as crossing into the opposite lane) to make forward progress. The computer couldn't do that.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, while I might agree with your general sentiment, your examples are poor. No autonomous car has even come close to driving around in a race track as fast as a half decent race car driver, so your example is completely false.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
So if I'm reading this right, the driver in your example ends up in Lake Wobegone.
Re: (Score:3)
99.9 percent of drivers are absolute selfish shit, myself included.
Re: (Score:2)
When a person does it it's negligence. When a computer does it it's funny.
If no one ever got hurt in car accidents, the cause of most car accidents would be funny.
I'd pay to see robots get drunk and smash into each other.
Re:Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting (Score:4, Interesting)
"Hello, I am your new computer aided driver Ray Charles. Are you ready to boogie to a possible destination?"
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the cars are running Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
If car auto-pilot is like auto-correct, we're all going to die in really funny ways. No matter what the results of this survey say.
Unless of course, you are on the presidential hit list, then auto correct would be apropos.
Re: (Score:2)
If car auto-pilot is like auto-correct, we're all going to die in really funny ways. No matter what the results of this survey say.
Or if it is navigated by Apple Maps. Lots of potential for error here.
lower insurance? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:lower insurance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah but a car that could self evacuate from a cyclone would certainly lower premiums by a lot more than 80%.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but a car that could self evacuate from a cyclone would certainly lower premiums by a lot more than 80%.
As your are walking to it to evacuate yourself... I think the liability lawsuits might be worse...
Re:lower insurance? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah but a car that could self evacuate from a cyclone would certainly lower premiums by a lot more than 80%.
Do you have a citation that shows that such a large percentage of auto insurance claims comes from cars that are damaged in cyclones? For cyclone avoidance to cause such a large decrease in premiums, cyclones would have to create 80% of the damage.
You also might want to consider the liability created by an autonomous vehicle that "self evacuates" from any dangerous situation. The people it leaves behind when it decides to scoot out of danger may feel like suing the auto manufacturer for damages to them. You know how bad it will look for the big bad auto company when someone goes to court and testifies "When the warning horns started going off we picked up to leave. That stinking car had its own NOAA receiver, got the SAME alert before we did, and when the family and I went to the garage to evacuate that bugger had already left..."
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.
Re:lower insurance? (Score:5, Funny)
The car owner walks out with their family, a suitcase full of whatever clothes they can gather, food for the trip, toys, and of course the family albums.
A sudden panic overtakes him as he realizes his car is no longer where he left it. He frantically looks up and down the street to no avail. Finally he pickups up his phone to call the police when he sees a message:
Message from: FamilyCarAutodrive. Received at 8:01pm. "I told you motherfuckers I was out of here at 8'o'clock!"
Re: (Score:3)
Only third party insurance is mandatory in most states (and indeed most countries) -ie - someone has to pay if you drive a $2000 car onto a million dollar Bugatti. If your $2000 dollar car was vandalized once every 20 years or so, you may decide that you don't need to cover that.
This is what I do - cover through insurance all the damage I might do to others, but buy a car cheap enough that I don't need to worry about cost of damage to
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
lol... please... if everyone on the road had a robot driving the car, we wouldnt have need for car insurance.
Car insurance doesn't just cover the financial consequences of your own mistakes. You forgot about things like theft, intentional and unintentional mistakes by other people, as well as acts of nature (hail storms, flooding, collisions with wildlife), all of which can be very expensive for you unless you are properly insured. For driverless cars the insurance would also have to take into account the possibility that certain software errors could have costly consequences.
Nevertheless, with no possibility f
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: (Score:2)
insurance for when your car gets hacked, or jacked
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?
I, for one. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, I'd almost pay higher premiums for the computer to do the driving.
Wait a second riiight there.... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Have you not seen what parents will do to get on reality TV? This is no surprise at all.
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: (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: (Score:3)
Heck forget lower premiums, I'd hand over the keys to a computer so I could take a nap.
Re: (Score:2)
Most days, I'll want the automated put-put, but on weekends, I'll want to dust off the sports car.
In other words, you are rich enough to be a two-car "family". Many people aren't.
TFA says that 34% would "hand over the keys". This is not "most" as the headline reports it. It's 90% who would consider it. But 75% say they would not let an autonomous car take their kids to school. Ergo, those 75% would NOT hand the keys over, or they, too, would have to be rich enough to be a two car family. They'll let the car take them to work, but they'll "dust off the sports car" to haul the kids to and from school.
Re: (Score:3)
I walked to my first school,
And thank God that nobody else lives any further from school than you ever did, so your experience can be accepted as a global standard for how things ought to be.
Cars are not for schoolchildren.
Nobody said that schoolchildren were driving cars. They are quite reasonable as passengers in cars, however. And when the school is five miles away and there is a car going that direction already, it seems reasonable for "schoolchildren" to ride in cars.
If you as an adult are whining about the time it takes you to commute to work and how much p
Computer vs human drivers (Score:5, Interesting)
Another 64% said computers were not capable of the same quality of decision-making as human drivers.
That's right. Based on my observations of human drivers (not to mention traffic fatality statistics and the nightly "single vehicle accident" reports), the quality would consistently be better. Don't mod me funny, please. I'm not joking.
Re: (Score:2)
What's surprising about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
as long as i could disable it during times where i wanted to enjoy the drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Traffic jams only exist where the price of accessing the road is below market equilibrium at that particular time and place. That's easy to fix even without self-driving cars, and it would provide a revenue source to increase throughput or lower taxes.
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: (Score:3)
NY city actually wants exactly this, so they subsidize the trains, encouraging people to commute in. If they increased prices and imposed toll
Demolition Man Style Driving? (Self-drive on!) (Score:3)
Quite frankly, I would not object to this, provided we have a choice of purchasing it. (There would be privacy issues I'd like to see addressed prior to buying, and if I don't like what I see, I'd prefer to not be forced into it.)
If I could hand over the driving to the computer when I'm doing a long-distance drive, ESPECIALLY when driving on a major highway that goes through a metropolitan area like Washington DC, I would be all over that. If for no other reason that a computer will not succumb to "Brake Light Accordion Games", where the idiot ahead of me rides with their left foot on the brake.
I hate drivers that do that. They cause all the drivers behind them to step on their brakes, which causes a ripple-effect all they way back, resulting in a 3-mile stretch of highway where traffic is moving at a snail's pace, but there are no obstructions of any kind.
That reason alone is more than sufficient reason to turn driving over to a computer. I could hop on to the I-95 auto-drive lane and say, "Self-drive off. Destination Boston, Massachusetts." And just go to sleep for the duration of most of the drive.
Heck, if it's a Tesla, I could set it up to automatically drive into a SwapStation to change out the battery without even waking me up!
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:What is odd about those results? (Score:4, Informative)
I'd love to have a car that can drive itself. (Score:2)
I hate driving in traffic. If I could just sit there and let a computer do it for me while I surf the web or something, I'd be a lot happier.
It's not about me (Score:2)
Thanks for listening to these true stories. I have to go call the body shop to see if my car is ready.
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?"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, in this case it would be 400% higher.
Like that's going to happen (Score:2)
insurance rates would be reduced by 80%
Pollsters failed to quantify the opinions of drivers when asked whether they expect to receive an 80% reduction in rates by adopting automated vehicles; respondents were unable to breathe due to convulsive laughter.
I'd buy a car with auto-pilot (Score:2)
I love driving in general but I hate driving to work in the morning traffic. If I could push a button and have the car drive itself while I troll slashdot, it would make the commute much easier.
Can we get a variable amount of control? (Score:2)
Texas being the exception (Score:2)
Sadly in Texas there is a minimum you must pay regardless of how much of a risk you are. For example, if you fit within the age group least likely to have an accident, have never had a ticket, have never been in an accident, and never drive outside of the state, you will never be able to reduce your rate to below $35/mo. The only way to pay no insurance is to have a $250k bond, or own a fleet of 25 vehicles, or own a farm and the vehicle is used for "husbandry". The second bit is from back when the law w
DK Effect (Score:2)
75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer.
Yes, and a similar proportion in a different poll stated they believed they were safer than than average drivers.
This poll has all sorts of cognitive bias problems.
How you come up with THAT headline? (Score:2)
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.
Something like Most Drivers Are Not Ready To Hand The Keys Over To A Computer would've been more appropriate.
johnny cab (Score:2)
johnny cab now fire free
So nothing would change? (Score:5, Funny)
...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."
So essentially the same as what most of them are doing now, based on casual observations.
Nominated for Dumbest Survey Question Ever: (Score:2)
Yes, if only there were some way to put a person in a moving vehicle, without having them actually drive it, and observe them. Clearly that's impossible, so let's pose this hypothetical question.
If the computer (Score:2)
If the computer is driving, I call SHOTGUN!
More than 80% (Score:2)
Did they ask who would pay more for insurance? (Score:2)
Inverse Dunning-Kruger (Score:2)
I am fascinated that 75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer. Personally I suffer from the Inverse Dunning-Kruger effect: I sincerely hope that a majority of people drive better than I!
I can't wait for the self-driving car. Though I suspect the Google self-driving cars will be free, but if I want to drive to a restaurant it will just "happen" to drive by McDonald's and will offer me a coupon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh, I know what would be more efficient AND I don't have to pay the full insurance: a bus!
Computer-generated ad hoc bus routes to satisfy immediate requirements wouldn't be hard, if you're not such a prissy little bitch that you can't cope with changing vehicles once or twice on long journeys.
Re: (Score:2)
The title of the slashdot summary is "Most Drivers Would Hand Keys Over To Computer If It Meant Lower Insurance Rates". If you're riding in a bus then unless you are employed by the bus company, you generally aren't the driver, and then this wouldn't have applied to you in the first place.
If you're outside of the very demographic that the article is even talking about, as indicated by the second word in the title, what difference does it make to the point of the article whether you pay insurance or not?
Re: (Score:2)
The question didn't offer a comprehensive, cost-effective bus system as alternative, did it?
I don't know about where you live, but in many parts of the UK, local or state-managed bus services were undercut by private national providers being given permissive operating licenses a long time ago; the latter then boosted prices way beyond original fares, while maintaining their new regulated monopolies. If the state is going to go about removing restrictions from road transport, it would do better to allow at-c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you would want to insure the vehicle... or not, against theft or vandalism.
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: (Score:2)
True, but we know that human drivers slaughter vast numbers of humans every year.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but we know that human drivers slaughter vast numbers of humans every year.
Aw man, you've put me in the position of having to argue against an argument in favor of autonomous cars thanks to your bad use of math in an argument.
It doesn't matter if humans kill a lot of people on the road if Google's cars are worse. Without accurately knowing the risks of both methods of driving a car, we can't make a fair comparison. With a small sample set only publicly spoken for by a biased party, we can't yet make that assessment. That's the GP's argument. It doesn't matter what we know abou
Re: people better than computers... (Score:2)
What I do know is that Google's Sat Nav sometimes tells me to drive off the side of a bridge onto the highway that runs underneath it. All the other Sat Navs I've tested such as Tom Tom and Garmin have the same problem.
Re: (Score:2)
And now, with a self-driving car, you can have that bridge-turning experience you've always wanted but could never convince yourself to act on. Let the suicidal rejoice!
[redacted joke about Ted Kennedy]
Re: (Score:2)
What I do know is that Google's Sat Nav sometimes tells me to drive off the side of a bridge onto the highway that runs underneath it. All the other Sat Navs I've tested such as Tom Tom and Garmin have the same problem.
Which is why so many of the people surveyed said they would watch scenery go by... Screaming all the way.
Re: people better than computers... (Score:5, Funny)
It's not just blindly following maps with GPS, you know.
*Nav system*: Ok, now turn left here to get onto the highway.
*Vehicle Guidance*: Um, when I look to the left, there's an obstuction in the way. It goes on for at least 4 or 5 car lengths. Could be a railing or a wall or something. I can't see an intersection anywhere?
*Nav system*: Shit. Keep going and I'll re-route. I'll beep and let the passenger know that something's up.
*Vehicle Guidance*: Fuck me, Nav system, you had ONE JOB. Now we have to deal with the passenger who's probably on Slashdot as we speak posting about his crappy self-driving car wanting to drive him off a bridge.
Re: (Score:3)
Phase 1: Private testing: IE what google is in now Compile data of every accident or near accident that the drivers saved themselves from by going manual.
Phase 2: Limited beta... IE google gives out 100 cars in the way they do with glass right now, slowly expand until about 5,000 cars are out for a year.
Phase 3: Public beta: This will technically be called release, but this timeframe is really going to be all about collecting massive amount of data, and w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's simple, we've seen it many times.
10% discount for automated cars... and everyone's insurance is going up 15% this year... The end result is everyone's rates will be at least what they are now, or higher, but you'll be penalized extra if you don't go with the automated car. And as a bonus, they get positive publicity for the discount they gave owners of automated cars, while the rate increase for everyone (including those drivers) gets glossed over.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that. I know what enterprise software looks like. I will stick to driving my own car.
I think it would look more like aviation software. I don't know how that differs from typical enterprise software, but plane crashes are rarely blamed on flight-control software bugs. (I know they do [wikipedia.org] happen, but are pretty rare in comparison to the number of annual flight hours)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know how that differs from typical enterprise software, but plane crashes are rarely blamed on flight-control software bugs. (I know they do happen, but are pretty rare in comparison to the number of annual flight hours)
The failures of "flight control software" don't often result in "plane crashes" mainly because there is a licensed pilot who is highly trained in detection of those failures and how to deal with emergencies of all kinds while in flight sitting in the pilot's seat monitoring the operation. The recurrent training that commercial/ATP pilots must go through to keep their jobs focuses very little on normal flight operations and very much on dealing with multiple system failures simultaneously. Some are on the K
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that. I know what enterprise software looks like. I will stick to driving my own car.
Just wait for the first service pack.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, we trust computers all the time, and you do too. I don't check the result of the computer's computation of the square root of 75.354, I don't check the sum on my sales slip, I just check if it lists the right items. But I don't add it up myself, I trust the cashier machine to be ok. (And I still have a pretty good idea how much the contents of my shop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would a human pay to insure a car that they're not driving? Either I'm driving, and am accountable for my actions, or the computer is driving, and is accountable for it's actions.
As the owner, you could be considered your autonomous vehicler's steward. You are accountable because you purchased the vehicle and choose to allow it to drive on public roadways. It's your property, so your responsibility.
To the question of why a human would pay to insure if not driving? Because autonomous vehicles would reduce the number of variables associated with driving and probably reduce the number of accidents. Even if the software is flawed, it's behavior will be consistent with all the other
Re: (Score:2)
Prepare to be modded down by people who do one or two things very well but have no clue about the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I like driving (Score:4, Informative)
The owner of the vehicle pays the insurance. It doesn't matter who's driving.
Re:Most Drivers Would Hand Keys Over To Computer I (Score:5, Funny)
I told them I'd spend 100 minutes to save 100%. They didn't want to go along with that.
Re: (Score:3)
You failed basic economics? Of course, insurance companies aren't interested in lowering your bills, but they are interested in competing for your business. So, the companies that spend "five billion in adds [sic]" that they can save you 15% are the companies that don't have your business and want it, and they are getting it by telling you that you can get a better price from them. It's called a market economy, and it does lower your insurance rates, not because the companies "are interested in it", but bec