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

Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting

[Press2ToContinue]

If car auto-pilot is like auto-correct, we're all going to die in really funny ways. No matter what the results of this survey say.

Re:Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting

[lgw]

"Lake street. No, no, Lake street. Aiiiiiiiii *splash*"

90% of people think they're in the top 10% of drivers. Ask if they feel safer with a computer driving, most will say no. Ask if they feel safer if everyone else had a computer driving, most will say yes.

Watch for this in the marketing when self-driving cars come to market (we'll see if Nissan hits their 2020 goal). The pitch will be all about ways it makes you safer despite you, personally, being the bestest driver evar. Plenty of ads showing loaning the car to your teenager, no doubt.

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

[JustOK]

I'd say a little less than half are below average.

Re: Flagrant Flatulism Posing as Reporting

[JanneM]

Once one car in ten or so is self-driving they'll act as pace cars and effectively force you to drive at the same speed and with the same care as they do. And since they keep detailed recordings of everything happening around them, you will get the blame for any incident if you tried to push the limits at the time.

And at that point, driving yourself has become a dull, monotonous exercize in boredom. So you might as well join the ranks of non-drivers as well.

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?

[a.d.trick]

Car insurance would still exist. Robot cars won't stop vandalism.

Re:lower insurance?

[stinerman]

We will not have a robot driving the car (or a computer) for a very long time.

People's cognitive biases are such that they overestimate the amount of risk involved in driving when they are in control (hence everyone saying they're above average in driving ability). Even then, there will be laws against such things. If, due to a software bug, 1 person died per day in a car accident, the cars would be classified as death traps in the media and in government. Of course, the fact that 32,367 people died in vehicle deaths in 2011 wouldn't matter. People will be able to handle 30,000 people per year dying due to driver error. They won't be able to handle 300 people dying per year due to software error.

Re:lower insurance?

[lordofthechia]

The car owner walks out with their family, a suitcase full of whatever clothes they can gather, food for the trip, toys, and of course the family albums.

A sudden panic overtakes him as he realizes his car is no longer where he left it. He frantically looks up and down the street to no avail. Finally he pickups up his phone to call the police when he sees a message:

Message from: FamilyCarAutodrive. Received at 8:01pm. "I told you motherfuckers I was out of here at 8'o'clock!"

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.

What is odd about those results?

[djmurdoch]

This seems to me to be a completely rational point of view:

  - I think I am a better driver than a computer.

  - I think insurance companies are not going to reduce my premiums if I let a computer drive my car, because I'm a safer driver than a computer would be.

  - You say they'll reduce my premiums by 80%? Well, maybe I was wrong, and I'll actually trust the computer to drive. After all, insurance companies aren't going to reduce my premiums by 80% unless the risk from claims is reduced by at least that much.

Reality check here

[volkerdi]

The question will actually be more like "would you keep driving manually if it meant 80% higher insurance rates?"

No, read that again.

[Valdrax]

You mean people will choose to save money while increasing their overall safety if statistically proven?

You seem to have missed the part in which most people were of the belief that they would be decreasing their overall safety in exchange for more money. That's what it means when 75% believe that they would be better drivers for their children than an autonomous car and yet 75% would still take the money.

At the most extreme disjoint of the two sets, that means that 50% of people believe that letting a car drive their children to school would put them at higher risk, and yet they'd do it anyway for money. At least 2/3 of all the people who said yes, and it's likely more because there have to be at least some people who think it would be safer and who wouldn't do it in spite of the money for other unknown reasons.

That's kind of horrifying, actually, regardless of what you think about auto-drive.

So nothing would change?

[fox171171]

...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."

So essentially the same as what most of them are doing now, based on casual observations.

Re: people better than computers...

[ColaMan]

It's not just blindly following maps with GPS, you know.

*Nav system*: Ok, now turn left here to get onto the highway.

*Vehicle Guidance*: Um, when I look to the left, there's an obstuction in the way. It goes on for at least 4 or 5 car lengths. Could be a railing or a wall or something. I can't see an intersection anywhere?

*Nav system*: Shit. Keep going and I'll re-route. I'll beep and let the passenger know that something's up.

*Vehicle Guidance*: Fuck me, Nav system, you had ONE JOB. Now we have to deal with the passenger who's probably on Slashdot as we speak posting about his crappy self-driving car wanting to drive him off a bridge.

Re:What's surprising about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet! Let's apply (one sided) market principles to a captive audience in order to lessen the inconvenience on the more affluent. Once all of those annoying poor folk can't afford to commute to work, we won't have to wait behind them in traffic. If we want to keep chasing that revenue stream, we can re-engineer all of the routes for the sole purpose of maximizing revenue. We can pretend that's it's a free market by saying, "you can leave at any time."

Bonus points on the textbook application of rent seeking.

Re:Most Drivers Would Hand Keys Over To Computer I

[Skapare]

I told them I'd spend 100 minutes to save 100%. They didn't want to go along with that.