Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI Transportation

US Insurer 'Lemonade' Cuts Rates 50% for Drivers Using Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving' Software (reuters.com) 118

An anonymous reader shared this report from Reuters: U.S. insurer Lemonade said on Wednesday it would offer a 50% rate cut for drivers of Tesla electric vehicles when the automaker's Full Self-Driving (FSD) driver assistance software is steering because it had data showing it reduced accidents. Lemonade's move is an endorsement of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's claims that the company's vehicle technology is safer than human drivers, despite concerns flagged by regulators and safety experts.

As part of a collaboration, Tesla is giving Lemonade access to vehicle telemetry data that will be used to distinguish between miles driven by FSD — which requires a human driver's supervision — and human driving, the New York-based insurer said. The price cut is for Lemonade's pay-per-mile insurance. "We're looking at this in extremely high resolution, where we see every minute, every second that you drive your car, your Tesla," Lemonade co-founder Shai Wininger told Reuters. "We get millions of signals emitted by that car into our systems. And based on that, we're pricing your rate."

Wininger said data provided by Tesla combined with Lemonade's own insurance data showed that the use of FSD made driving about two times safer for the average driver. He did not provide details on the data Tesla shared but said no payments were involved in the deal between Lemonade and the EV maker for the data and the new offering... Wininger said the company would reduce rates further as Tesla releases FSD software updates that improve safety. "Traditional insurers treat a Tesla like any other car, and AI like any other driver," Wininger said. "But a driver who can see 360 degrees, never gets drowsy, and reacts in milliseconds isn't like any other driver."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Insurer 'Lemonade' Cuts Rates 50% for Drivers Using Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving' Software

Comments Filter:
  • by nocoiner ( 7891194 ) on Saturday January 24, 2026 @01:48PM (#65946690)

    Pretty sure this will drive up the number of accidents, causing many more claims than they can actually pay out.

    • by CalgaryD ( 9235067 ) on Saturday January 24, 2026 @01:53PM (#65946708)
      To be fair, have you looked at their data? Or it is your gut feeling?
      • It's not surprising. Tesla FSD is basically monitoring the driver at all times to ensure they are paying attention. That alone would reduce accidents.
        • Telsa's FSD driver monitoring is so good it was banned in Europe as an ADAS because it failed to monitor the driver correctly.
          Tesla's FSD driver monitoring is so good it was directly implicated in an accident where FSD killed its driver (the court case demonstrated the driver trivially worked around its deactivation, stopping on a highway to do so no less).

          FSD is a cool tech, but the way the driver monitoring portion of it is implemented is rubbish.

      • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Sunday January 25, 2026 @06:03AM (#65947690)

        To be fair, have you looked at their data? Or it is your gut feeling?

        Without looking at the data one can question the data source itself. Tesla has been infamously cagey about FSD data going out of their way to make falsehoods and actively compare different figures against the rest of the industry. The NHTSA has been routinely critical of Tesla not only in how they rolled out the technology, but also in how they market it and share information about it. Lemonade's data is from ... Tesla. Lemonade is basically a start-up insurance company, only 15 years old, run by tech bros and they partnered with Tesla directly.

        But there is something not said here. On the face of it this looks like an endorsement of FSD. But what it actually is is an insurance product that recognises that its target market is:
        1. Restricted to newer vehicles with enhanced safety features.
        2. Likely in the lowest of risk categories: old enough to afford fancy new cars with expensive subscription features, young enough to enjoy playing with tech - that is 30-50 year old segment which is statistically the safest market segment.
        3. There's a data sharing agreement in this (many insurance companies offer discounts for driver monitoring systems). This is likely an aggregate of that.

        • This may end badly for lemonade. A neighbor down the street had an S. He is currently fighting with insurance. I'm puzzled, insurance has totaled it with a decent payout. He wants to buy it back but they won't let him. I and most neighbors who saw the damage are incredulous. It looked like maybe the front quarterpanel might need to be replaced. Damage was so light I could have believed quarterpanel could have been repaired. And the wheel also had rash and would likely need replacing. Instead, totaled becaus
          • This sounds like a case of a silly insurance company, rather than an issue with insuring model S vehicles. No reason to assume Lemonade would do the same. Also that's a single anecdote, we've all heard one similar to it, but then we've all heard others that run counter to it. e.g. while it never implicated insurance directly my friend has a Model S as well, in his case he was arguing with his kid, not paying attention to the suddenly stopped traffic and the auto braking feature avoided a collision.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      I would expect it to take longer (as the US litigation system is slooooooow), but otherwise, I completely agree.

    • by bjoast ( 1310293 )
      And this prediction is based on...?
    • by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Saturday January 24, 2026 @02:59PM (#65946802)

      NHSTA data shows Tesla's being ~1/2 as likely to be involved in a crash as comparable cars. That already covers the premium reduction.

      Tesla often claims much higher safety advantage (up to 10x) and has been criticised for misrepresentation as those numbers are based on pretty selective data - telemetry collected when FSD is turned on. Which is obviously not all the time and in fact most likely to be used on the easy part of the route, so not at all represent of the average risk.

      But in this case those are exactly the conditions in which Lemonade is offering the reduction, so they are providing a 2X payout for 10X payoff. And even if that affects the statistics negatively (more use of FSD in risky conditions for reduced premium) you would expect that to at worst converge to the overall 2X payoff.

      But honestly they are probably going to get their real savings from the telemetry and being able to back their non-payouts with ironclad proof, and, conversely, not spend legal and investigative resources when they should just payout.

      • by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Saturday January 24, 2026 @03:57PM (#65946884)

        NHSTA data shows Tesla's being ~1/2 as likely to be involved in a crash as comparable cars.

        The huge, huge caveat is that the NHTSA claim is based on self-reported Tesla numbers and is perhaps questionable and misleading. Many articles claim that Tesla accidents as reported to NHTSA are heavily redacted and trimmed. Tesla's definition of an "accident" is different and much more narrow than what NHTSA and other car makers generally use, so many crashes that almost all people would call an accident are not accidents to Tesla.

        Furthermore, independent reports show that Tesla drivers are the worst drivers of all car makes [lendingtree.com] and that Tesla cars have the highest fatality rate of all car makes [roadandtrack.com]. These reports support the notion that Tesla fudges its numbers.

        Of course, all of these numbers likely characterize Tesla drivers rather than Tesla cars. It likely says nothing about Autopilot or FSD. It would be interesting to compare the accident rate for Tesla driven by a human versus the computer.

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Furthermore, independent reports show that Tesla drivers are the worst drivers of all car makes [lendingtree.com]

          Maybe that's independent, but their methodology is s**t. They lump together accidents, DUIs, speeding tickets, and citations as "incidents". Here's the problem:

          • Fast != unsafe. Driving fast when children are playing nearby is unsafe. Driving fast on a stretch of road with almost nobody else around is not. Both are offenses that could cause a speeding ticket, yet one makes you a bad driver and the other just makes you a fast driver.
          • Cops consider means when deciding to ticket. When a cop pulls you over,
          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Furthermore, independent reports show that Tesla drivers are the worst drivers of all car makes [lendingtree.com]

            Maybe that's independent, but their methodology is s**t.

            All too common these days. People with Big Data capability overlooking that insight is required to make good measurements. Instead they make statistics, which requires no insight, but does not yield good results.

        • Furthermore, independent reports show that Tesla drivers are the worst drivers of all car makes [lendingtree.com]

          Anecdotally, this has been my experience too. If I see someone driving like a bat out of hell with absolutely no regard for the speed traffic is flowing at, it's almost always a Tesla.

          Also, a few years back when my partner and I were actually considering a Model 3, the insurance quote we'd gotten was absolutely nuts. Ironically, had we purchased it, it would've been based on the older platform that can't run Tesla's latest FSD software anyway.

          • Anecdotally, this has been my experience too. If I see someone driving like a bat out of hell with absolutely no regard for the speed traffic is flowing at, it's almost always a Tesla.

            That's Florida. In Arizona, it's white BMW. In California, it's old dirt-crusted 90s car missing a muffler. In Texas, it's needlessly oversized pickup truck.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sinij ( 911942 )

        But honestly they are probably going to get their real savings from the telemetry

        Even if you are a good driver you should not agree to insurance collecting telemetry. Since auto insurance is mandatory and regulated, insurers are regulated in how they can increase premiums. They DO NOT operate on premiums - payouts * profit margin, but more accurately max(premium market will bear) - what regulators allow. As such, telemetry is just a roundabout way to get around regulators and charge you more premiums.

    • They're looking at the data and seeing FSD cuts accidents so I don't know where you're getting that from.

      Bear in mind though it is merely cutting accident rates among Tesla owners and Lemonade is purely talking about reducing premiums among Tesla owners for FSD use. I know Teslas are some of the most expensive cars to insure right now, between the difficulty and expense of repairs, Teslas catching fire, yahoos using FSD as if those letters stand for "full self-driving" which obviou... they do? OK, well the

    • I'm sure it just means they were already charging 2x+ more than they needed to take a profit.
    • Google: "The U.S. insurer Lemonade has not made a net profit as of its latest financial reports through the third quarter of 2025. The company has consistently reported net losses every fiscal year since at least 2017 while focusing on growth and market expansion."

    • An insurance company isn't going to make a decision like this without plenty of actuarial data to back it up.
  • Smashing cameras.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by magamiako1 ( 1026318 ) on Saturday January 24, 2026 @01:50PM (#65946698)
    Many years ago in the state of Maryland, the state government stood up speed cameras on roadways to help protect the lives of construction workers. People were so upset by this that they were walking up with baseball bats to smash the cameras and threaten the camera operators due to the additional "surveillance" of people driving on the roadways.

    Meanwhile, Tesla with its FSD tracks every mile you drive, what you're doing in your car, and sells and shares that information to other entities, in increments of "every second you drive your car", and nobody's bothered by this in any way?

    To be fair, this was always going to be the reality. It's no different to when some insurance companies offered a tracker to reduce your insurance rates if you allowed them to track your driving behaviors. But this is now something offered to hopefully reduce your spend on car insurance, which is usually one of the most attractive ways to get someone to do something (hang money over their heads).

    Just interesting that we think all of this surveillance is totally okay (Teslas, Ring cameras, etc.)
    • Yep, looks like a majour privacy invasion. Do not take your Tesla if you are going somewhere which may not be approved by others...
    • by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Saturday January 24, 2026 @01:57PM (#65946720)

      Lets not forget those flock cameras that are recording us everywhere. Surprised and disappointed the kids in our neighborhood havent smashed them.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The idea of a traffic camera is "box bad!". The idea of Tesla car software is "may contain some bad functionality somewhere".

      For the average moron, the first is somewhat within mental reach and results in "Grok smash bad box!", while the second idea is so far outside of their mental range, they just do not see it. Sad but true. The average person essentially understands nothing.

    • by skam240 ( 789197 )

      I think the distinction between your two instances here is one can choose whether to drive a Tesla or not. That's not to say I like either form of tracking though.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      Anywhere that speed cameras were implemented it inevitably ends up as a tax generation tool. Speed limits are lowered and additional cameras are added until almost everyone get speeding ticket on a regular basis.
    • Is it surveillance? Seems to me like a voluntary arrangement with a company whose product you use and want to use for less money. And in a way that's more fair. If individuals are charged on how they drive, they aren't in a coverage pool that includes reckless drivers.
  • Isn’t this feature a subscription and can’t be bought?

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      So? If it turns out it was not used or subscribed, the insurer just does not pay out. All fine for _them_.

      • Re:Monthly fee (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday January 24, 2026 @02:06PM (#65946738) Homepage Journal

        But what do they do when the "feature" turns itself off seconds before the crash, as it has done multiple times now?

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Simple: Long multi-stage litigation until the victims agree to a settlement. And the insurer pays still pays a lot less.

          • by tragedy ( 27079 )

            Simple: Long multi-stage litigation until the victims agree to a settlement.

            Tesla owners are forced into mandatory binding arbitration. They are forced into a "settlement" decided by someone who works as a contractor for Tesla.

            • by gweihir ( 88907 )

              Interesting. Such a thing would be completely illegal in Europe, but I guess in the US you can do that.

              • by tragedy ( 27079 )

                Sadly, yes. You may or may not have heard about the recent case of a woman who died in a restaurant at a Disney park (I don't think it was one of the restaurants in the admission area of the park, one of the zones right outside with businesses, or maybe it was one of the resort only areas) due to a peanut allergy. They had been assured that there were no peanuts and there were peanuts. Disney's lawyers strategy was to say they could not sue because their child had signed up under their names for a Disney Pl

                • by gweihir ( 88907 )

                  I have heard of the Disney case, yes. It got reported here in Europe basically because it is such an extreme fail of the idea how the law should work.

                  The thing how this works here is that as a private person, there are rights you cannot sign away. One is the right to sue. A business can give it up it via contract, but a private person always has it. This also applies to privacy rights under the GDPR and others. For example, you can sign away your right to privacy under certain conditions, but you cannot sig

                  • by tragedy ( 27079 )

                    The thing how this works here is that as a private person, there are rights you cannot sign away. One is the right to sue.

                    Oh, it's basically how it "works" in the US as well. Forced arbitration is clearly a violation of the 7th amendment. However Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Scalia have reasoned that, despite the fact that the constitution is above other federal laws, and despite various legal principles around unconscionably and that waiver of rights must be done with full intent, the Federal Arbitration Act nevertheless allows for people to waive the 7th amendment even through contracts of adhesion. Th

        • by Xenx ( 2211586 )
          In this instance, it's based upon miles driven. It wouldn't significantly affect the miles driven under FSD. Also, if it's only shutting off in the last few seconds it's likely not going to affect the actual outcome of the accident so the costs to them aren't likely affected.
    • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      Beginning next month, you are correct [arstechnica.com]. So save money here and pay money there.

    • Isn’t this feature a subscription and can’t be bought?

      Yeah, it's a $99/mo subscription, and Musk himself has hinted the price might go up. [x.com] That's actually more money than I currently pay to insure my Chevy Bolt.

  • With self driving activated, over the course of 15 minutes the driver had to intervene twice. Once to keep the car from drifting into another lane and once to stop the car from hitting a pedestrian who had the gall to be wearing a dark sweatshirt with the hood drawn up.

    Maybe things have gotten better.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, I'm calling BS on Lemonade here. I think this is a marketing stunt. Other insurers aren't lining up behind FSD, but this terminally online insurance company is the only one to.

      Every time there is a new FSD update, there are hundreds of posts on X and other places of FSD doing something stupidly dangerous.

    • Only two interventions in 15 minutes? Do you realize how exceptionally GOOD that is? Normal drivers have to intervene 900 times in 15 minutes.
      • Cant tell if you’re being funny or not, so I’ll take your comment seriously. If I’ve hired you to drive me around for 15 minutes, and I need to grab the steering wheel out of your hands twice in order to keep you from killing me or someone else, you’re getting immediately fired.

        Impressive? Yes. Ready for implementation? Hrrmmmmm. Like I said, maybe the tech has gotten better.
        • It's a matter of expectation. Teslas have a steering wheel. You are still the driver. Full self-driving is more like extreme driver assistance. It's like an airplane's autopilot. It does most of the work, but the pilot in command is still ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight.

          By contrast, Waymo does not have a steering wheel. You are not the driver, you are a passenger in a taxi.

          Two different approaches, both valid. Both possibly necessary; these technologies don't emerge fully formed.
          • by tragedy ( 27079 )

            Full self-driving is more like extreme driver assistance.

            Let's be clear here. Full self-driving or FSD is actually a trademark of Tesla, so we should be distinguishing it from plain English with a (TM). Let's try the trademarked version and the plain English version:

            Full self-driving (TM) is more like extreme driver assistance.

            Oh, yeah, OK. Makes sense. The Tesla feature named Full Self-Driving (TM) is more of a driver assist/advanced cruise control. Checks out.

            Now let's try plain English:

            Full self-driving is more like extreme driver assistance.

            Ummm, what? Are you on drugs? Full self-driving means it drives itself fully. That's crazy.

            See the difference?

            • Which is exactly why I said it was a problem of expectations. Or, perhaps, marketing. Yeah....we can always blame marketing.
              • by tragedy ( 27079 )

                Yeah, I get it. Still though, a chauffeured vehicle still has a steering wheel. That doesn't mean the monacled gentleman with the top hat in the back expects to ever touch it, even if he decides to see how the other half lives and sits in the passenger seat one day. Still, if the driver doesn't show up for work one day, the monacled gentleman certainly could hop in the drivers seat and drive himself.

                Basically, we seem to both consider this a matter of expectations. You are saying that the fact that there's

                • Waymo aside, AI isn't that good yet. Treating your car like an employee won't work any better than treating Claude like a software engineer. It's very impressive but it still needs a human hand on the rudder.
                  • by tragedy ( 27079 )

                    That's pretty much what I and hdyoung were saying. You appeared to be the one disagreeing with:

                    Only two interventions in 15 minutes? Do you realize how exceptionally GOOD that is?

                    • The tech not being perfect and the tech being absolutely amazing are not in contradiction.
                    • by tragedy ( 27079 )

                      I suppose you can argue that. It doesn't seem to be relevant to the main original point though, which was about the fact that the safety of some self-driving systems is a bit questionable. The original poster was pointing out that, without their intervention, their Tesla would be killing people. Whether or not the rest of what it can do is amazing doesn't matter.

                      While I do believe that, ultimately, with sufficient advancement, robotic driving can probably eventually exceed the safety of even the best human

              • Musk is so desperate to "market" their FSD as level4/5 that tesla has removed the "safety" monitor from the robotaxis in Austin to a car that is following the robotaxi for not if, but when it does the wrong thing. https://electrek.co/2026/01/22... [electrek.co] So "marketing" is pushing the illusion the tech is better than it is. People have died from this illusion.
  • by silvergig ( 7651900 ) on Saturday January 24, 2026 @02:02PM (#65946728)
    Car insurance would be cheaper if they weren't so fucking expensive to repair. If a bumper dent can result in an $8k claim, because of all the sensors/calibration required to fix it, that's a bigger issue.

    The math on this is that Teslas are expensive to repair after an accident, but the hope is that there will just be less of them, but there is more to it....

    I have also tried the 'track your driving with a bluetooth beacon' thingy that State Farm offers, and what happens is that your rates go down for one renewal cycle, then you start getting dinged for every little thing afterwords - you took the corner too fast, (turning from a highway onto another highway), or you braked too hard - because someone in front of you had to brake hard, or you were driving too fast, (7 over because everyone on the road was 7 or more mover and you're trying to not enrage everyone). It ends up being not very worthwhile, (and if you have a sports car, you'll have to drive it like a grandmother to not be penalized on your rates).

    So in my mind, I have my doubts as to this being very workable, especially for aggressive Tesla drivers.
    • You could have much cheaper car insurance if you had single-payer healthcare. You would also need a lot of regulation to ensure proper competition between the companies too though.

      Back when car insurance was first mandated the reason the public got behind it is people would get into accidents and get injured and the person who caused the accident wouldn't be able to afford the medical bills. They trotted out a bunch of injured people.

      That said it doesn't really do any good to have single-payer healt
      • by hwstar ( 35834 )

        You forgot to mention that in the United States people can be litigious due to them being enabled by lawyers taking cases on contingency. If taking cases on contingency were made illegal, and the damages for medical issues were limited by a government mandated minimum liability amount that everyone had to have, that would go a along way towards resolving the issue.

      • Florida actually managed to make car insurance costs come down by imposing some restrictions on lawsuits. I'm sure the devil is in the details, but it actually worked and my rates did go down, so it's one thing our awful Republican leadership did that I actually saw a tangible benefit from.

    • IME most Tesla drivers aren't very aggressive. They rarely drive very fast, usually just about the same speed as the average. I think it's because of all those cameras. The flip side of having proof of what everyone else did is that there's proof of what you did. The only real exception is Cybertruck drivers. There's a couple of them in this county and they are always way over the limit.

      • IME most Tesla drivers aren't very aggressive. They rarely drive very fast, usually just about the same speed as the average.

        Come to central Florida sometime.

        • Come to central Florida sometime.

          Gonna try pretty hard not to

    • Repairing the cars isn't the problem it's the potential cost for medical bills combined with a lack of competition.

      If you look at the UK car insurance was averaging about 70 British pounds per month until about 2 years ago when prices shot up about 58%. Compare that to an average of about $150 a month. The British pound is worth slightly more than a dollar generally but it's not like it was 20 years ago where it was worth about twice as many dollars it's pretty close these days. It's a little worse righ
    • Car insurance would be cheaper if they weren't so fucking expensive to repair. If a bumper dent can result in an $8k claim, because of all the sensors/calibration required to fix it, that's a bigger issue.

      Car insurance is cheaper. It hasn't kept pace with the cost of inflation. That $8k bumper is an $8k bumper because it has technology that prevents it from being damaged. If your bumper costs that much you're far less likely to damage it thanks to it containing collision detection, auto braking systems, cross path detection, reversing cameras, radars, ultrasonics, etc. And most such fender benders are precisely at speeds where electronics can prevent the claims.

      So in my mind, I have my doubts as to this being very workable, especially for aggressive Tesla drivers.

      Why? This product targets the following:
      1. Cars

  • U.S. insurer Lemonade said on Wednesday it would offer a 50% rate cut for drivers of Tesla electric vehicles..

    So, offering discounts all the way back to pre-COVID rates then? How generous of Lemonade to offer up a refreshing sliver of lemon rind after they squeeze.

    Don't anyone mention the word "unibody" too loudly around the owners. They have a new uni-fied definition of totaled these days many who are considerably upside down on car loans will love to hate.

  • why does this smack of literal gambling

  • So they have this data where are they getting it? How much more data do they have?

    What I'm guessing here is that this is equivalent to the GPS trackers that you can put in your car from your insurance company. Basically if you sign up for this you give them the right to track you. So yeah they will cut your rate 50% and then they will track you and then if they don't like the way you are driving they will raise your rates 150% or more.

    But this makes the headlines and it's basically super cheap adver
  • As a society we accept a huge number of traffic fatalities and injuries. The driver at fault doesn't pay the true cost of the damage they do. If they did insurance would be unaffordable. Once self driving cars prove that they can reduce traffic deaths by a significant amount I think society will no longer accept the number of deaths by human drivers. We will put more and more of the cost of accidents on the drivers and their insurance. Eventually the cost of insurance for a human driven car will be com
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, at some point there will be a "professional driver" qualification needed and it will not be the joke of a driving test we have now. Think 6 months education, a drive-medical every 2 years and recertification every 2 years. And then nobody besides these experts will be allowed to drive themselves. And it will be a decidedly good thing. We are still 30 years or more removed from that though, SAE 5 does not even work in a lab-setting.

  • by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Saturday January 24, 2026 @03:57PM (#65946888) Homepage
    It seems they are mostly an automated company, or strive to be. How much of this is real world savings vs marketing trying to undercut competitors?
    • You are missing the synergy. They are striving to be an automated company so it stands to reason they would partner a special product with a company that collects realtime crash data via telemetry to help insurance claims. It also stands to reason that if you try to undercut your competition you'd offer a dedicated product targeting a car that is statistically driven by the safest demographic (white collar 30-50 year olds, thanks to its price and tech inclusion). Also it stands to reason that you'd pick a p

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Hahahahaha, yes. Like all these "online banks" that have trouble doing bookings right and some even getting hacked. Hence they may well just vanish at some point because they miscalculated on data analyzed without insight.

  • It's a positive feedback loop, the more the insurance industry sticks its nose into people's business to reduce risks, the higher the premiums go. This is because they are driven by a a need to increase profit by providing reducing their risk and providing as little comprehensive policy coverage (not comprehensive insurance for damages, but rather a reduced perils list and more perils being marked as not covered).

    At some point, cars will become unaffordable to the middle class.

    What happens then?

  • It says the discount applies "when the software is steering."

    Do they check who is steering at the moment they run your card each month?
    Do they check who is steering when an accident occurs?
    Do they average out who is steering across the whole month and apply a prorated discount?

    Wikipedia says they let AI handle their claims. So it seems just as likely that they don't know/don't care.

  • So the somewhat older Teslas, like mine, have HW3, it kinda isn't great. Summon is COMPLETELY broken and will scrape cars in parking lots and run over signs. FSD is still buggy. HW4 on the newer cars is actually way more reliable. It has Actual Smart Summon, moves fast and confident, and the FSD works much better.
  • "We're looking at this in extremely high resolution, where we see every minute, every second that you drive your car, your Tesla,"

    Translation: "Now that we can surveil you, we can sell your personal data to subsidize your insurance rates. We'll pass along some of that money to keep you happy and to continue to allow us to surveil you."

    • by dskoll ( 99328 )

      Addendum: I was offered a (very small) discount on my insurance if I agreed to load a spyware app on my phone and keep it running while I drove. Of course, I declined. But this is the direction the industry is heading.

  • Obviously, insurance against uninsured motorist does not change and given massive anti-Tesla hatred cultivated by mass media and social networks that should be even higher for Tesla sedans. But that probably amounts only to 30% of the insurance pay.

The best laid plans of mice and men are held up in the legal department.

Working...