Waymo's Driverless Cars Are Apparently an Insurance Company's Dream (engadget.com) 60
A study by reinsurer Swiss Re found that Waymo's autonomous vehicles have demonstrated significantly fewer property damage and bodily injury claims compared to human-driven cars, with reductions of up to 92% in some metrics. Engadget reports: Swiss Re analyzed liability claims from collisions covering 25.3 million miles driven by Waymo's autonomous cars. The study also compared Waymo's liability claims to human driver baselines based on data from over 500,000 claims and over 200 billion driving miles. The results found that Waymo Driver "demonstrated better safety performance when compared to human-driver vehicles." The study found cars operated by Alphabet's Waymo Driver resulted in 88 percent fewer property damage claims and 92 percent fewer bodily injury claims.
Swiss Re also invented a new metric to compare Waymo Driver against only newer vehicles with advanced safety tech, like driver assistance, automated emergency braking and blind spot warning systems, instead of against the whole corpus of those 200 billion driving miles. In this comparison, Waymo still came out ahead with an 86 percent reduction in property damage claims and a 90 percent reduction on bodily damage claims.
Swiss Re also invented a new metric to compare Waymo Driver against only newer vehicles with advanced safety tech, like driver assistance, automated emergency braking and blind spot warning systems, instead of against the whole corpus of those 200 billion driving miles. In this comparison, Waymo still came out ahead with an 86 percent reduction in property damage claims and a 90 percent reduction on bodily damage claims.
Hey! Rates will go down! (Score:5, Insightful)
with reductions of up to 92% in some metrics.
Well, with this comes great news! The rates of coverage will only go up by 50%!
Zip code level data (Score:2)
So the big question is if waymo vehicles travel safer routes than general driving. At least this is broken down by zip code . But one could probably come up with a different measure comparing accidents on similar paths. The data may not be dense enough for that though
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So the big question is if waymo vehicles travel safer routes than general driving.
I think they actually use more dangerous routes, because they stay on surface streets. I read just a month or two ago that they have finally begun using freeways in Phoenix. I don't believer the use freeways anywhere else they operate.
Re: (Score:2)
"I think they actually use more dangerous routes, because they stay on surface streets. "
As opposed to the underwater streets? Or underground streets?
Re: (Score:2)
"I think they actually use more dangerous routes, because they stay on surface streets. "
As opposed to the underwater streets? Or underground streets?
As opposed to limited-access highways which don't have intersections in the normal sense of the word, and which are often grade-separated from streets which do have intersections and which might have pedestrians on them.
Re: (Score:2)
So the big question is if waymo vehicles travel safer routes than general driving. At least this is broken down by zip code
The answer is yes.
Re: Zip code level data (Score:2)
I'm certain that's a factor. They're severely limiting the range within which the cars can operate.
I want to take trips from my home with no cell signal to a remote beach also with no signal, going through a route with at least 20 miles of no signal. And there is of course no EV charger available at destination or en route . 2 slow 32 amp ones at my home. Only way I know yo make this trip is to drive myself. Uber won't work since I can't summon them on the way back due to no signal. I also can't drive in th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't say their cars get in fewer accidents. It just says they result in fewer insurance claims. That's not the same.
Just speculating here, but it wouldn't surprise me if they mostly self insure. They're big enough to pay for minor accidents out of pocket and only insure against major losses. If you can afford to do that, it's usually less expensive in the long run.
We should be able to find out. At least in California, they're required to report every time one of their cars is in an accident. Pro
Re: (Score:2)
Odd way to rate safety (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Higher premiums, maybe, but those profits are more risky, as there's a greater chance of screwing it up and losing money because of extra claims.
They want to know the actual risk so they can compete with other insurance companies, charging enough to cover the risk, but still hopefully undercutting the competition.
Certainty not Safety, Average not Enough (Score:3)
Instead of saying Waymo car rides are safer, they are saying the insurance companies like them?
Insurance companies will like them regardless of their safety rating because they are a known quantity. There are many of them all with identical algorithms and so the rate and severity of accidents can be measured to far higher degree of precision than with a human driver since we are all different. In addition, unlike a human driver is not going to start driving bad because it had a major upset or because someone had to work late and drive home tired etc. This lets them know with a higher degree of certa
Re: Certainty not Safety, Average not Enough (Score:2)
This is true, and itâ(TM)s related to what I would guess are the biggest reasons for the difference in performance: (1) Computers donâ(TM)t drink and (2) They never look away from where theyâ(TM)re going (to text or change the radio or look at the weather or whatever). But mostly the not drinking part.
Yeah (Score:2)
It's hard to get into accidents when they randomly decide to stop somewhere and not move.
Not that hard (Score:2)
Given all the tailgates on the road. Though this is more common on highways.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that these are currently operating as Taxis. If you're the rider in a human driven taxi, you're not responsible for any accidents either unless you go to some extraordinary effort to cause one.
Who pays the bill? The Taxi company is currently also the company that makes the Taxis, so it's easy: Waymo in this case. Given that they have a ~90% reduction in accidents, that means that a corporate policy covering them is going to be relatively very cheap. Especially compared to what Uber needs to ch
Re: (Score:2)
Who pays the bill [for an accident]? The Taxi company is currently also the company that makes the Taxis, so it's easy: Waymo in this case.
Agreed, but note that Waymo doesn't "make" the taxis. It buys stock vehicles (such as Jaguar I-PACE, Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, Prius, Audi TT, and Lexus RX450h) and refits them with self-driving hardware and software.
[Sorry to nitpick, and thanks Google AI Overview for the list of cars.]
Re: (Score:2)
They're significantly reworking them to the point that they're their cars. As you say, the same company making the AI is also operating them as Taxis, so short of a severe mess-up by the automaker, Waymo is still responsible.
They're stock vehicles turned into taxis, at least at this time.
Hit and run (Score:1)
Yeah, well, that is how hit-and-run works, since cops are too lazy to arrest a corporation when it drives into people/things. Better get used to "It's a car, that building shouldn't have been parked there, cars always have the right of way!"
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, do you have any citation where a Waymo car has been in an accident, knows it has been in an accident, and still drives away?
Most people who get into accidents aren't arrested, even if they caused the accident. Normally that requires some serious criminal behavior to get arrested.
I've seen pictures of Waymo cars. It's not like they blend in, you see that car, you know it's a Waymo. It'd likely on cameras. At which point they can almost just send a bill to Waymo. It's easy compared to a possible ille
Re: (Score:3)
...illegal immigrant...
Well, you just told us the content of your character there!
Re: (Score:2)
As did you.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, this says more about you than it does me, and that's still not much.
I'm willing to bet that the stuff you'd predict from it would be well under 50% accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
You compared a hypothetical hit-and-run Waymo to "a possible illegal immigrant without insurance." VeryFluffyBunny called you on it, and you think that says more about him/her than you?
You're in no position to point, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I can point all I like, you're doing it as well.
And you're showing lack of reading comprehension. Normally, I'd take the hit for not writing it well, but you were insulting, so it's your problem.
I was comparing the ease of extracting money, liability wise. Getting money from Waymo in case of an accident is easy compared to somebody running around without insurance, and them not being here legally just makes it even harder.
Re: (Score:2)
I see now what you were saying, and apologize for misreading it. Nevertheless, I agree with VeryFluffyBunny that a gratuitous dig at illegal immigrants was extremely uncool. You sound like you could be better than that.
Well uhh, yeah (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really? Waymo is under much tighter regulations as far as reporting accidents and such goes. Unless shenanigans are happening, which would sink their boat, all the accidents are reported. Maybe not via traditional means, but they're being reported to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless shenanigans are happening, which would sink their boat
Incidentally, that's why Cruise doesn't exist anymore, outright lying to regulators.
Looking at the paper, I don't see where they adjusted for drunk drivers. That's not a problem for calculating insurance fees, though.
Not adjusting for drunk drivers (Score:2)
Well, drunk drivers are a percentage of the population, and you always have the ones caught/in an accident for the first time, so they need to be factored in.
That said, when a commercialized self-driving car becomes available for purchase by private individuals, I think we're going to see a major shift in DUI stuff. The USA will probably start cracking down on it in European amounts, I think.
Basically, if somebody is convicted of DUI, by-by license, no exemptions for work, buy a self-driving car. With the
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are the ones notorious for that.
Comparing apples with oranges (Score:3)
This is basic stats 101 & journalists really shouldn't be falling for this shit. It's embarrassing just to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing Apples and Oranges (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, accident rates on freeways is lower per mile and overall than on "normal" streets, so that doesn't make the comparison worse. There's cherry picking going on, of course, but a 90% reduction is still very very good.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SF streets aren't known as the simplest places to transverse.
That said, "safe driving" seems reasonably answered, I've said for years that 90% reduction in accidents should be doable, with the caveat that self driving cars would have different accidents than human drivers. Basically, they can avoid the stuff like "drove too fast for conditions and plowed into a tree" and more something that even a stupid drunk human wouldn't get into. Even though I have a lot of faith in the accidents a "stupid drunk huma
Re: Comparing Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
SF streets are much more of a pain to park than drive, in my experience. Not pleasant, still.
If I lived there, I would definitely use the transit. I dont like the SF microclinmate, though. And my mansion in east SJ foothills would cost 4x the price in SF.
Unfortunately, due to vision problems, I don't have decades to wait for transit to become more widely available in Cali, or inexpensive robotaxis in my area. It's more likely that I'll move back to Europe after nearly 3 decades in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I used my anecdata as an example but I know they aren't in the Twin Cities yet, strange that?
Not really, since they aren't in most places. It would be weird if they were in CITY X.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they not only have fewer injuries, but they also still have fewer accidents overall.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Swiss Re. They know their stuff. They will have adequately compensated for all relevant effects.
Of course they're safer (Score:3)
They don't pass one another or other vehicles [imgur.com].
Oh, sure, they're happy now (Score:3)
But eventually, there will be no need for car insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'Insurance' will be provided with the car by the manufacturer. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for the liability 100% created by someone else's software.
Re: Oh, sure, they're happy now (Score:2)
It won't be your policy if you're taking a robotaxi ride. It will be the company's. They will still pass through the cost as part of their trip charges. It will be interesting to see it they average that cost, or charge different prices by zip code/route
Unfortunately, they don't operate in my zip code in San Jose, so I may not find out for a while.
Insurance differential (Score:2)
I figure they'll probably just average it out by mile. Figuring out accident rates by road, zip code, or such would be too much work and probably not accurate enough at that level.
At least, not unless the accident rate on a specific stretch is really ridiculous. In which case the choice might be to avoid that road.
Re: (Score:3)
There still will be. It will be a lot less profitable, but insurances are used to business changing.
one less person in the car (Score:2)
so fewer injuries. also no worker's comp insurance necessary.
That is really no surprise (Score:2)
Has been predicted for a long time. Human drivers are, on average, really terrible. Eventually, this will lead to human drivers being the exception.
\o/ (Score:1)
Do Waymo driverless cars support a 'cross country escape from the police followed by media helicopters' mode ?
Well, but... (Score:2)