• 0 Posts
  • 33 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 22nd, 2023

help-circle












  • This was the big discussion back when I still worked in insurance while years ago. The discussion was that insurance companies would not accept liability for the owners of self-driving cars because its not the driver creating the risk, but the car company and its programmers, but that car producers would have to insure their own vehicles. The discussion was how the industry will have to adapt to survive this change.

    Current models of insurance (and prices) is based on statistics, including the driver’s age, gender, location, and characteristics of the vehicle (make, model, age). Some companies give discounts if you are willing to give them telemetry on your driving habits. (Personally, I’m not willing, but at least that’s based on you individually rather than a statistical average version of you. )

    Those all to out the window when the car is self-driving. Driving behaviour is determined by the competence of the programmers who programed the car, which is entirely opaque to the public and insurers. An update can totally change the driving behaviour anytime, in ways no one can know. That is not an acceptable risk to a risk-calculating industry.

    When I was still around the industry, the current issue was exactly when did policy coverage start and stop for ride share drivers (the moment they accept a ride in an app or when a passenger enters the vehicle?). I have not seen a policy for a vehicle that has some autonomous mode, but I would imagine that, in these years since, wordings have been added that state a policy does not cover the owner when FSD is engaged. But I also haven’t seen that car companies are actually offering insurance either.

    So, owner or car company? Maybe both, but there’s a reason that Tesla specifically states that drivers have to maintain control of the vehicle, for exactly this reason: to disclaim responsibility.




  • A friend of mine had a neighbourhood event started by one site neighbour. He owns his home every month for conversation. There’s a topic each month, and there are rules about listening, being respectful, no phones allowed, etc. It’s strictly for having open conversation. My friend loves it.





  • No, a realist wrote it. You can do things like write letters and petitions, attend protests, etc., and I’m not even saying people shouldn’t or that those things were bad. People should exercise what little rights we do have before they’re taken away, too. But I am saying that, ultimately, it cannot stop anything, which is the question being asked. The system is functioning exactly as intended: power and authority concentrated by and to the few.

    Trudeau, whom I would still choose over Poillievre 10/10 times, showed us that exactly. He won by talking election reform, then dumped it in the trash as soon as possible without even having any actual exploratory consultations, surveys, etc. Power cannot and will not be given back to the people by polite elections twice a decade. Because the problem is that I still would vote for Trudeau or Carney 10/10 times instead of Poillievre, because that’s the best our system gives us. (Let’s just be honest and say there aren’t viable alternate contenders even if the system technically allows for it.)