Most Drivers Would Hand Keys Over To Computer If It Meant Lower Insurance Rates

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."

Comments

lower insurance?

[Xicor]

lol... please... if everyone on the road had a robot driving the car, we wouldnt have need for car insurance. also, it isnt the insurance that would get me to have a robotic car, but the fact that i can play video games while it drives me places.

Re:lower insurance?

[Obfuscant]

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..."

I, for one.

[mcgrew]

Hell, I'd almost pay higher premiums for the computer to do the driving.

Computer vs human drivers

[c0d3g33k]

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:Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting

[anagama]

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:Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting

[s.petry]

"Hello, I am your new computer aided driver Ray Charles. Are you ready to boogie to a possible destination?"

Re:Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting

[JanneM]

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.