Car Culture

[fast]

iv) The 'over my dead body' brigade.

So nice to know where I belong.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Will I need insurance or will the manufacturer now be liable?

Does it really matter? If the manufacturer is responsible, the cost of that will be passed on to the buyer. If the buyer is responsible, the car will be cheaper but it will be made up for with the required insurance.

But if accidents plummet, the cost will not be there nearly as much. Google's problem right now is their cars follow the law. They stop for pedestrians and get rear-ended, they wait excessively at four-way stops because all the humans keep inching forward. What's a law-abiding car to do? So far, of the sixteen accidents Google cars have been involved in, all have been human fault.

 

[ZiprHead]

I hope the GPS systems in these SD cars are more accurate than the one I use. I pull in my driveway and the GPS thinks I'm on the road three houses further down.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Another step closer to Bubble Wrap World where all forms of risk must be eliminated. Our technology, like an overzealous parent, is going to coddle us and keep us so very, very safe...car computer - 'don't you dare touch that steering wheel, little Johnny, it's much too dangerous for you!''

I don't see why reducing the likelihood of accidents by such a wide margin is a bad thing. If it means less completely avoidable deaths, why not? If it means less stress and more free time, why not? To dismiss it merely as "another step closer to Bubble Wrap World" seems shortsighted at best. It's no different than wearing a seatbelt to prevent yourself from being ejected from a vehicle.

 

[rousseau]

Yea, at some point autonomous cars will be nearly flawless to the point that they're pretty common-place, but I'd prefer to drive until all of the human sacrifices due to coding errors are done.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yea, at some point autonomous cars will be nearly flawless to the point that they're pretty common-place, but I'd prefer to drive until all of the human sacrifices due to coding errors are done.

I don't think I would want to ride in a fully autonomous car unless there were a switch to turn off the computer and allow for fully manual operation. I don't think it is possible for the coders to imagine all possible situations and code in solutions. Plus there are innumerable situations where a component failure could leave the occupants in serious danger. Maybe there are some people who have never had any problems with an electronic device and wouldn't understand but I doubt there are many.

This is sorta like our modern passenger aircraft. They can already automatically complete a full flight from takeoff to landing but they also have a pilot that can at any time turn off the automatic system and take manual control of the aircraft.

 

[credoconsolans]

Once driverless cars (or smart cars) become available (and affordable) for the general public, I predict that many countries with make 'manual control' illegal (or least tightly controlled).

This is because a lot of people are killed in collisions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Driverless cars could potentially reduce the number of fatalities to zero, or at least restrict it to freak accidents involving pedestrians or critical system failures.

It has a lot in common with the politics of gun control. While many drivers are responsible and competent, many others are incompetent, negligent, or just stupid.

They'd have to figure out a way to make the control network for cars un-hackable.

Can you imagine someone hacking the network and driving people into each other and over bridges and crowds and the driver being unable to stop?

 

[Metaphor]

I hate automatic transmission. How do you feel what the engine is doing?

Why would I want to 'feel' what the engine is doing? What purpose does it serve?

Of the dozens of things an engine does, which of those do you wish were under manual control, and why?

 

[bilby]

I hate automatic transmission. How do you feel what the engine is doing?

Why do you need to, if you have an automatic transmission?

 

[Metaphor]

I think driverless cars are a long time away from being required.

Of course they're not 'required', any more than any of the tech that made life incredibly more comfortable was ever 'required'.

 

[bilby]

I hope the GPS systems in these SD cars are more accurate than the one I use. I pull in my driveway and the GPS thinks I'm on the road three houses further down.

SatNav systems use GPS, but are programmed with the assumption that you are on the road network, and that if GPS says you are close to, but not on, a road then the software assumes that there is a map error and/or loss of GPS accuracy.

My SatNav guesses that I am on the parallel road, rather than my driveway too, but my handheld GPS gets my location right to within three metres - so it's not the GPS that's wrong, it's the SatNav's software rules.

The best compromise for a system that should (as often as possible) give workable directions to a human driver is not the best compromise for an entirely autonomous vehicle.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think driverless cars are a long time away from being required.

Of course they're not 'required', any more than any of the tech that made life incredibly more comfortable was ever 'required'.

From the OP:

I predict that many countries with make 'manual control' illegal (or least tightly controlled).

 

[arkirk]

Will I need insurance or will the manufacturer now be liable?

That is actually a good point

This would have the effect of making a large very powerful entity responsible for the safety of us all and with that power would also go the impunity that often accompanies delegation of immense powers...so every accident would be the responsibility of an unassailable entity. I don't think that is a very good idea.

 

[bilby]

New Zealand has had universal no-fault compensation for personal injuries of all types since 1974, through the Government owned  Accident Compensation Corporation.

This is funded through a payroll tax (the ACC levy is currently 0.9%) to cover injuries at work; an income tax supplementary levy of 1.26%, to cover non-work, non-vehicle injuries to employed persons; a fuel levy of 6.9c per litre (to cover motor vehicle related injuries); and a contribution form general revenue to cover persons not employed. For accounting purposes, medical (malpractice and accidental) injuries are compensated from both the income tax levy and general revenue, depending on the victim's employment status.

The result of this is that any person who is injured in New Zealand is entitled to a compensatory payout from ACC, without having to establish fault.

It shouldn't be particularly difficult to establish a similar scheme for motor vehicle related property damage claims, in an environment where assigning fault to a person is rendered difficult or impossible due to the absence of a human driver in charge of the vehicle(s) involved. The cost of such a fund could either be drawn from a fuel tax or from a vehicle registration fee.

 

[arkirk]

New Zealand has had universal no-fault compensation for personal injuries of all types since 1974, through the Government owned  Accident Compensation Corporation.

This is funded through a payroll tax (the ACC levy is currently 0.9%) to cover injuries at work; an income tax supplementary levy of 1.26%, to cover non-work, non-vehicle injuries to employed persons; a fuel levy of 6.9c per litre (to cover motor vehicle related injuries); and a contribution form general revenue to cover persons not employed. For accounting purposes, medical (malpractice and accidental) injuries are compensated from both the income tax levy and general revenue, depending on the victim's employment status.

The result of this is that any person who is injured in New Zealand is entitled to a compensatory payout from ACC, without having to establish fault.

It shouldn't be particularly difficult to establish a similar scheme for motor vehicle related property damage claims, in an environment where assigning fault to a person is rendered difficult or impossible due to the absence of a human driver in charge of the vehicle(s) involved. The cost of such a fund could either be drawn from a fuel tax or from a vehicle registration fee.

Looks like you guys have a few good things down there!

 

[SimpleDon]

New Zealand has had universal no-fault compensation for personal injuries of all types since 1974, through the Government owned  Accident Compensation Corporation.

This is funded through a payroll tax (the ACC levy is currently 0.9%) to cover injuries at work; an income tax supplementary levy of 1.26%, to cover non-work, non-vehicle injuries to employed persons; a fuel levy of 6.9c per litre (to cover motor vehicle related injuries); and a contribution form general revenue to cover persons not employed. For accounting purposes, medical (malpractice and accidental) injuries are compensated from both the income tax levy and general revenue, depending on the victim's employment status.

The result of this is that any person who is injured in New Zealand is entitled to a compensatory payout from ACC, without having to establish fault.

It shouldn't be particularly difficult to establish a similar scheme for motor vehicle related property damage claims, in an environment where assigning fault to a person is rendered difficult or impossible due to the absence of a human driver in charge of the vehicle(s) involved. The cost of such a fund could either be drawn from a fuel tax or from a vehicle registration fee.

But you don't have the most important thing that an insurance scheme has to have in the US, someone making a huge profit from it.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

New Zealand has had universal no-fault compensation for personal injuries of all types since 1974, through the Government owned  Accident Compensation Corporation.

This is funded through a payroll tax (the ACC levy is currently 0.9%) to cover injuries at work; an income tax supplementary levy of 1.26%, to cover non-work, non-vehicle injuries to employed persons; a fuel levy of 6.9c per litre (to cover motor vehicle related injuries); and a contribution form general revenue to cover persons not employed. For accounting purposes, medical (malpractice and accidental) injuries are compensated from both the income tax levy and general revenue, depending on the victim's employment status.

The result of this is that any person who is injured in New Zealand is entitled to a compensatory payout from ACC, without having to establish fault.

It shouldn't be particularly difficult to establish a similar scheme for motor vehicle related property damage claims, in an environment where assigning fault to a person is rendered difficult or impossible due to the absence of a human driver in charge of the vehicle(s) involved. The cost of such a fund could either be drawn from a fuel tax or from a vehicle registration fee.

But you don't have the most important thing that an insurance scheme has to have in the US, someone making a huge profit from it.

Ugh, this shit again, and from you again.

Care to expound? How is insurance in the US a "Scheme" and who requires companies who provide insurance to profit?


aa

 

[SimpleDon]

Does anyone see a problem with this considering the recent problem we have had because of the cheat discovered in the Volkswagen diesel emission control software?

Thanks to the DCMA law we are not allowed even to look at the software controlling ever more of our lives. Not only should we be able to look at the software running our machines, we should be provided with original program, along with a description of what the software is suppose to do and a description of how it does it. This idea of proprietary software that is locked away as a trade secret is ridiculous. It is creates a brand new property right that doesn't have any comparable analogy in the recent analog world where the way that mechanical and electrical systems operated was exposed and obvious.

The purpose of patents is to make innovation more widely used, not to bottle it up for fear that someone will duplicate your work. The DCMA law actually makes it almost impossible to figure out how the majority of our new things that we buy work. And it makes the Volkswagen cheats possible.

Can you imagine how messy it will be when we start having to litigate some of the inevitable accidents involving driverless vehicles without this information?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

It shouldn't be particularly difficult to establish a similar scheme for motor vehicle related property damage claims, in an environment where assigning fault to a person is rendered difficult or impossible due to the absence of a human driver in charge of the vehicle(s) involved. The cost of such a fund could either be drawn from a fuel tax or from a vehicle registration fee.

This is a good idea, except maybe the part about deriving the cost from fuel tax. Currently the cost to repair a Tesla is probably triple what it costs to repair an SUV yet goes 1000x farther on a gallon of gas. And just in general, newer models cost more to insure, but generally get better gas mileage than older models so there is a definite exposure rating mismatch. But that isn't necessarily a hurdle to such a fund. Current telematics already provide any insurer or government agency with exactly the right data to estimate a risk based cost per driver, they would just need to be mandatory on all vehicles.

No, the real hurdles are 2-fold:
1) Liability - Several states have no-fault laws regarding auto collisions, and while those do reduce auto insurance, they only apply to bodily injury. You can still be at fault for personal property damage. It would require a major overhaul of the US Tort system - by state - to enact (not saying it can't happen, and insurers would probably lobby against it, but it would most likely be the legal professionals that would be the biggest hurdle).

2) Medical Payments - Much easier to pull off a residual market plan like this one when all (most) healthcare bills are paid for by the state or are at least under some semblance of control.

If the US could address these 2 hurdles, eliminate 3rd party liability and add Universal Healthcare, Auto Insurance premiums would drop between 40-50% - and could easily be moved to the public sector as almost all 50 states already have a residual auto insurance market in place run by the state government.

aa

 

[SimpleDon]

But you don't have the most important thing that an insurance scheme has to have in the US, someone making a huge profit from it.

Ugh, this shit again, and from you again.

Care to expound? How is insurance in the US a "Scheme" and who requires companies who provide insurance to profit?


aa

Take for example the ACA in which the insurance is restricted to come only from the largely for profit health insurance companies, the massively inefficient insurance companies, who complain that they can only markup the cost of healthcare provided through their insurance by 25%. The administrative costs of Medicare add about 3% to the costs of the care.

Or take as an example the largely useless to most people long term care insurance which provides inadequate coverage that is marked up by 100%.

Most people who have long term care insurance still have to go onto Medicaid because they can't afford to pay the difference between what is charged for the care and what the insurance provides, which is usually even less than half of the costs.

You are an actuary. How much do you consider to be a reasonable markup for these forms of coverage? What is the markup for automobile coverage from the average private insurance company for an individual in the US? Do you think that the New Zealand method of providing coverage through the government is lower cost than our system in the US?

I am a strong supporter of capitalism. But the FIRE sector, Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate has become an oppressive burden that the productive part of the economy has to labor under. In 1970 the FIRE sector earned only 3% of the total corporate profits in the US. In 2007, before the Great Recession, caused by the excesses of the FIRE sector by the way, it earned 40% of all of the corporate profits.

All that we ever hear about from Adam Smith's book is about the invisible hand and the perfection of the free market. But 90% of the book and the reason that he wrote it was to warn us about the rentiers in capitalism, the banks, the stock brokers, the uninvolved owners, the landlords and the insurers who chip away claiming an ever increasing share of the pie. The needed overhead of the capitalistic mechanism that is capable of destroying capitalism by claiming these ever larger bites.

The FIRE sector of 1900 was more efficient and productive than today's FIRE sector. Today's FIRE sector charges twice as much for their services as JP Morgan did. The entire economy has become more efficient and more productive while the FIRE sector has become more inefficient, less productive. Even though they have access to the same computers and other advancements that the rest of the economy has used to improve, they have used the same tools and have gotten worse. Why? Maybe you can explain it.