Insurers Are Rewarding Tesla Owners For Using Autopilot (reuters.com)

Britain's largest auto insurance company Direct Line is testing out an idea to let Tesla owners receive a 5% discount for switching on the car's autopilot system, seeking to encourage use of a system it hopes will cut down on accidents. Reuters reports: The move - confirmed by company representatives in response to Reuters' questions - is Tesla's only tie-up in the UK and comes at a time when the company is trying to convince insurers that its internet-connected vehicles are statistically safer. Direct Line said it was too early to say whether the use of the autopilot system produced a safety record that justified lower premiums. It said it was charging less to encourage use of the system and aid research.

"Crash rates across all Tesla models have fallen by 40 percent since the introduction of the autopilot system ... However, when owners seek to insure their Tesla vehicles, this is not reflected in the pricing of premiums," Daniel Pearce, Financial Analyst at GlobalData, said. Direct Line, which is enjoying soaring motor insurance prices in Britain, said it sets premiums for Tesla drivers based on the risk they present, including who is driving, their age, driving experience and claim history.

Comments

That's the way to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think it's a bit early for the public to perform beta testing of such a frail system. But if the airline industry is any indication, automation is the way to go.

Re:That's the way to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah look at how all those human drivers crashed into the concrete where the Tesla didn’t.

Re:That's the way to do it

[Lordpidey]

Oh fuck off, we aren't saying they're perfect, we're saying they're significantly better than humans on average. Yes, there will be the occasional fuckup, but it will happen a lot less than human error.

Re:That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

And as I keep saying, would it have happened to THAT human? If not, then we are all fools to trust the technology.

Re:That's the way to do it

[ShanghaiBill]

And as I keep saying, would it have happened to THAT human? If not, then we are all fools to trust the technology.

That makes as much sense as saying that you should buy lottery tickets because you might win.

If your driving skills are 40% better than average, you might come out ahead by driving yourself. Everyone else has better odds with Autopilot, and the odds will get better as the technology improves.

Re:That's the way to do it

[Jeremi]

Most humans aren't very good at assessing risk, since they tend to rely on emotion and anecdote.

Insurance companies, OTOH, live or die by the accuracy of their risk assessment, and as such they do a proper statistical analysis and go by the actuarial tables -- or they go out of business.

Therefore I'm inclined to weigh the insurance companies' ideas about what improves safety more heavily than shouts of "OMG look what happened that one time though" on Slashdot.

Re:That's the way to do it

[belthize]

Even if you're so convinced that your situational awareness and reaction times are better than a computer's (they're not) you should at least root for everybody else to be using autopilot because it's certainly better than the average driver.

I'll feel a damn sight safer driving when all the other cars aren't being piloted by distracted meat sacks.

Re:That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

Fine, so screw the people who actually are better than Autopilot?

Re:That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

You're completely missing the point. I'm not denying that people in general get into less accidents. The insurance company doesn't care whether Autopilot causes an accident for someone or not, they're happy to charge either way. I'm just saying the person who had Autopilot get them into an accident due to faulty programming and lack of testing, they don't deserve to have their premiums go up.

Re:That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

Ok then there is no discussion, computers are perfect because of their awareness and reaction times and therefore will never get in an accident.

Re:That's the way to do it

[belthize]

Who ever said anything about them never getting in an accident. It's not a question of perfect, it's a question of better, and they're demonstrably better.

Re:That's the way to do it

[AK Marc]

I know multiple humans that have done the same thing. Perfect isn't the immediate goal. "Beating a human" is a low bar, and autopilot beats it.

Re:That's the way to do it

[ShanghaiBill]

Fine, so screw the people who actually are better than Autopilot?

It isn't clear that anyone is better. Is the "best" driver 40% less likely to be in an accident as an average driver? I don't know, but perhaps not. Many accidents are unavoidable. If someone pulls out in front of you, and there is no place to swerve except into oncoming traffic, then the only thing that matters is how fast you can brake. Even the best humans take about 1500ms to see the problem, realize what is happening, shift their foot to the brake, and start depressing. At 60 mph, a car can go about 130 feet in 1.5 seconds. Autopilot takes about 1ms to start braking.

Re:That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

Again the point is that they are causing accidents for some. Some who will pay more for insurance, not because they made a mistake while driving but because they had bad luck. No one is denying they are better than average in the right circumstances.

Re:That's the way to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck off, we aren't saying they're perfect, we're saying they're significantly better than humans on average.

And not only that but as new failure modes are identified the fixes can be rolled out to ALL cars and EVERYONE becomes safer as a result. The problems will be squeezed down more and more over time.

The safety gap between humans and autonomous vehicles will only grow ever larger.

Re:That's the way to do it

[Kjella]

And as I keep saying, would it have happened to THAT human? If not, then we are all fools to trust the technology.

Would you toss a coin or play russian roulette for your life? The outcome is not given, but statistics matter. You can't take the guy who just blew his brains out and say "should have taken the coin toss" except as snark. Same way with a self-driving car, you pick the least risk but sometimes luck is against you. Unless you think it's because THAT human is actually better than average, but that's just moving the goal posts a little to say "better than sober, drug clean rested female age 40 with 20+ years experience" rather than "better than the average driver".

Re:That's the way to do it

[mikael]

If that occasional fuckup happens on a motorway in fog and black ice conditions, it's going to be a category 5 splatterfest.

Re: That's the way to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Good drivers expect idiocy from others and don't let them get to a point where half a second matters in vehicle operation. Your attitude suggests your not a good driver, but you probably think you are.

Re: That's the way to do it

[zapez.perplex]

car autopilot does not text and drive, what's for shure...

Re: That's the way to do it

[dryeo]

Actually they do. You'll find that most all autopilots have cell connections that they send telemetry out on.
The difference is a true multitasking OS and multiple cores so they can truly multitask with the texting niced.

Re: That's the way to do it

[zapez.perplex]

The public roads are NOT race tracks, nor places for pissing contests. They are mere means for solving transportation problems. You need to get fom A to B, without killing someone else or getting yourself killed. You need to do that without causing any dammage and unnecessary expenses to yourself or someone else. So the only meaningful definition for "better driver" should be the one who states something like "the person who was not involved in a car accident" or something like that. Statistics and not gut filling should be your judge.

Re:That's the way to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

In carefully controlled circumstances, yes.

Re:That's the way to do it

[epyT-R]

Reaction times? No. Situational awareness? Hell yes.

Re: That's the way to do it

[religionofpeas]

Good drivers expect idiocy from others and don't let them get to a point where half a second matters in vehicle operation

So, if you're going 50 MPH on a highway, and some car is coming from a side street, you're going to slow down to 15 MPH, just in case they don't yield ?

Re:That's the way to do it

[epyT-R]

So therefore, what? The bloody mess (oh excuse me, 'failure modes') that gets us there is justified? They can't/won't even fully automate trains yet. Lets start with that one first.

Re: That's the way to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Create an insurance company that only insures these 'better' drivers for a modest discount. You'll make a motza on the arbitrage. Just have them self declare they're good drivers on the application form, so no bad drivers slip through.

Re:That's the way to do it

[aix tom]

I find the whole "X or Y" discussion a little funny.

If you have a system X that can prevent some cases of problems, and a system Y that can prevent some other cases of problems, then the logical solution would be to combine those systems, so that when of of the systems doesn't detect an oncoming accident the other does.

That that is so often overlooked, I suspect, is because people are not really interested in preventing problems, but more on putting the blame on one of the systems. Which gets a pretty hard to do, when two systems co-pilot the car.

Re:That's the way to do it

[MrL0G1C]

It doesn't matter if a computer has perfect reaction times if it can't recognise deadly scenarios in any time frame. Computers as no-where near as good at recognising hazards as humans.

Re: That's the way to do it

[MachineShedFred]

You know you are advocating not using anything until a perfect safety record can be achieved, right? In that spirit, here is an incomplete list of things you should stop using immediately in order to not appear to be a hypocrite:

Any car, with autonomous driving capability or not
Any motorized transport whatsoever
Any aircraft
Any boat
Any animal-powered transport, including but not limited to horses, oxen, cattle, elephants, dogs, or humans
Elevators, escalators / stair lifts
Bicycles / tricycles
Electricity
Candles
Natural gas
Propane
Gasoline
Diesel
Kerosene
Whale oil
Fire of any kind

Thank you. When one of these technologies achieves a perfect safety record, we'll let you know and remove it from the list.

Re:That's the way to do it

[religionofpeas]

Computers as no-where near as good at recognising hazards as humans.

Computers are already better than a human driver looking at something else.

Re:That's the way to do it

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Just occurred to me, how can I tell that this was the autopilot's doing? I'm not in the car so I find it hard to tell.

Re:That's the way to do it

[religionofpeas]

I'm just saying the person who had Autopilot get them into an accident due to faulty programming and lack of testing, they don't deserve to have their premiums go up

So you would be okay with paying higher premiums if it got into an accident despite sound programming and thorough testing ?

Re:That's the way to do it

[MrL0G1C]

That may be so but if a computer can't tell the difference between a road and a river then it really doesn't matter that it's not distracted whilst being cognitively deficient.

Re:That's the way to do it

[religionofpeas]

In other words: what matters is the overall statistics. And apparently, the insurance company believes that computers can make an improvement.

Re:That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

If that were the case, it wouldn't get into accidents.

Re: That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

That's stupid, if people had crystal balls this wouldn't even be a discussion. You would know every flaw lurking in Autopilot and they would be fixed.

Re: That's the way to do it

[tinkerton]

Sometimes it does mean you slow down to a speed where the damage is less. Often it means that before that moment you do the opposite: show your commitment and maintain your speed as long as possible so the other driver won't get the idea he can cut in just in time. There's a lot going on if you're an active driver . You're checking if the other one is aware, if he is slowing down so the moment you see his speed is not matching the situation, you can react.

Re:That's the way to do it

[religionofpeas]

If that were the case, it wouldn't get into accidents.

So you would only accept a computer driving if it was absolutely perfect. But a human driver getting into accidents after just a few dozen hours of practice is acceptable.

Re: That's the way to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously donâ(TM)t own one...I do and it works great, especially in stop and go traffic.

Re:That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

Autopilot is only just reaching the low hanging fruit. It works where driving is simple. Almost as simple as being in the open air.

Re: That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

I change lanes to allow them to yield, if I see them about to yield, I will anticipate where they are coming out. It's not hard. Though it may be for Autopilot.

Re:That's the way to do it

[MrL0G1C]

No, the insurance company believes it can sell more insurance, that's what matters to them.

Re:That's the way to do it

[religionofpeas]

No, the insurance company believes it can sell more insurance, that's what matters to them.

If they wanted to sell more insurance by lowering the rates, they could have done that at any time before.

Re:That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

That's not even a valid question for Autopilot, since humans are doing all of the actually complicated driving anyway. When cars are fully automated, it will be a question not only of how many accidents they can avoid, but how many they cause due to not understanding how humans drive. Humans cut corners in traffic all the time in safe ways. If self driving doesn't learn to anticipate moves such us, a truck backing out slowly from an alleyway and anticipate that correctly by stopping soon enough, driving will be worse for humans. Someone like you will be saying 'see? I told you humans suck at driving', but that will be the fault of self-driving being too robotic, not the fault of the human.

Once these basic glitches are worked out, then it should be mostly safe anyway. I don't think it is too much for us to ask self driving companies to make it safer than 99% of all humans. Unless they can work out these issues, it will make things worse for everyone.

Re:That's the way to do it

[Kjella]

I find the whole "X or Y" discussion a little funny. If you have a system X that can prevent some cases of problems, and a system Y that can prevent some other cases of problems, then the logical solution would be to combine those systems, so that when of of the systems doesn't detect an oncoming accident the other does.

And if it were computer systems who have no other thoughts, never get bored and paid full attention 100% of the time that would be a great idea. How long could you watch the car drive before your mind starts to wander, five minutes? Fifteen? Maybe you'd pay attention the first time. The tenth? Hundredth? There's a reason semi-autonomous driving systems have tons of checks and warnings to make sure you're paying attention because otherwise we wouldn't do that. In fact many people try to cheat the systems already in place so they don't have to. The idea that human drivers could function as "co-pilots" has been so thoroughly studied and discredited I wonder which rock you've lived under for the last decade.

Re:That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

They didn't have the self driving angle before. What are they supposed to do? Offer people in red cars 5% off? This way they have their angle and they get self driving fanatics like you creaming in their pants.

Re: That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

Apples to oranges, none of those things are advertised as replacing humans. Therefore, humans are expected to handle them carefully for them to be safe. Tesla on the other hand is offering me a driving service, but have no way to show me how safe their drivers are.

Re: That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

Yet the human who is supposed to be still paying attention in case the self-driving fucks up out of nowhere is more likely to be texting at that point in time.

Re: That's the way to do it

[flux]

It's hardly a driving service - at least yet.

But let's say a common scenario in traffic: you need to peek to your shoulder to ensure there's no another vehicle. And what if at that instant someone in front you you does something surprising? Well, you just enable autopilot before the peek and you're better off than before.

Re: That's the way to do it

[fluffernutter]

if it is put into a car and offers to drive independent of your control, then it's a driving service. Just not a very good one.

Re: That's the way to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, since in aviation is a help and not intended to replace skills and training. In fact, reliance on too much automation has been recognized as a big problem requiring a change in training to reinforce flying skills.

The reason is simple: humans do cause some mishaps when they mess up, sometimes disasters, but when machines mess up it's almost always a huge disaster. This is because machine mistakes are the result of a situation not anticipated by programming or by bad sensor input not recognized or accounted for.

What concerns me about Tesla's method is that some of the worst aviation disasters occur when there is confusion as to whether a human or the machine is in charge. Airplane autopilots are not better flyers. They will give up in challenging or confusing situations. They are consistent pilots in normal situations though, and that is how they are used--for convenience and consistency, but not as replacements.

So yes, we do need to look to aviation, but not in the way the anti-human people here believe so offhandedly. Most of them have no appreciable talents and so don't think anybody else does either.

Re:That's the way to do it

[david_thornley]

You seem not to understand how insurance works. Insurance companies carefully calculate the cost of insuring certain market segments, and they base their premium rates on those. That's how they avoid going out of business.

Offering lower rates to a certain group will indeed attract more business for that group, but it will mean losing money, which companies in general don't like to do. It isn't going to attract much business to other groups. When I talk to an agent, I want to know how much I'll be paying, not how much somebody else would be paying.

If an insurance company offers a reduced rate to a group, it is because they have figured that that group is lesser risk.

Insurance Company Math

[zenbi]

Our rates have decreased by 40%! Lets give them a discount of 5% because we are so generous!

Re: Insurance Company Math

[Anonymous Coward]

A 40% decrease in frequency of accidents (crash rates). The severity (amount per loss) is higher on those vehicles. So, even though a 5% discount is probably low, it doesn't mean they saw a total loss reduction of 40%.

Re: Insurance Company Math

[Anonymous Coward]

And your explanation/excuse doesn't mean they aren't being cheap, greedy fucks.

Re: Insurance Company Math

[Anonymous Coward]

It also doesn't mean they are being cheap. I gave a factual explanation. You have given an emotional opinion. In the UK, the insurance industry is extremely competitive. If they truly feel that the loss performance is better on that risk, they will do whatever they can from a pricing perspective to get it, or else another company will. It's more complicated than you assume it to be.

Re:Insurance Company Math

[Z80a]

Yep.
That's how capitalism works, they will try always to get the highest profit, so they will increase the discount until they get the perfect balance, and if they have actual competition, they will get the discount even higher just to cut out the rival.

Re:Insurance Company Math

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree but if you read the article, that's no the case.

The insurance company says there is not enough data to justify a discount yet but they are giving a 5% to encourage people to use autopilot to encourage research and gathering of data.

Another case of Slashdot summaries lacking critical details from the article.

Re:Insurance Company Math

[AmiMoJo]

And how do they know you are using it? Sounds Orwellian, they must be getting data from Tesla who monitor everything you do. The car logs every action, no matter how trivial, and Tesla get some kind of telemetry from that. Naturally they don't tell you what they know, but from their statements it seems to be everything.

Can I get a discount for not owning a smartphone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure accident rates in that case are pretty dramatically lower too, other things equal.

Today

[Anonymous Coward]

... it's switch on your autopilot for a 5% discount.

Tomorrow, it will be manual controls disabled unless you pay the 500% self-drive (i.e.: think "self-serve", you get to drive it your self!) premium.

Re:Today

[fluffernutter]

Steering wheels are expensive technology, bro.

Re:Today

[Anonymous Coward]

That's as it should be. You can do your own driving on the track. You fools are too dangerous to operate heavy machinery in public. Self driving cars are the best thing since toilet paper without splinters.

Re:Today

[RhettLivingston]

Exactly. We aren't there yet, but there will come a point where insurance rates for manual driving will start following a geometric curve. When they hit a steep enough point, there will be a serious discussion of outlawing manual driving so that we can start saving money on all of the vehicle safety equipment such as seat belts, airbags, and bumpers and get rid of speed limits and tailgating laws that reduce drafting efficiency. Long before that, the police departments will no longer be able to justify patrolling for speeders. Just one more job wiped out by AI.

Re:Today

[RhettLivingston]

And windshields - seriously. It won't be long before it will be cheaper to paper the inside of the car with displays, and we'll just be able to display whatever scenery or videos we want. Myself, I'll have to have scenery to avoid sickness.

Re:Today

[Anonymous Coward]

Just one more job wiped out by AI.

stupid humans said they wanted "labor saving devices" but apparently they were wrong

throw out your stored food and scavenge from the land if you really believe that technology is doing you wrong

Re:Today

[SlaveToTheGrind]

When they hit a steep enough point, there will be a serious discussion of outlawing manual driving so that we can start saving money on all of the vehicle safety equipment such as seat belts, airbags, and bumpers and get rid of speed limits and tailgating laws that reduce drafting efficiency.

We can only hope the first big EMP comes before society makes that many short-sighted utopian decisions in a row so we'll only be partially screwed and will have a chance to recover.

Re:Today

[Anonymous Coward]

we'll just be able to display whatever scenery or videos we want.

That's a funny way to spell "4 foot wide McDonalds ads"

Re:Today

[RhettLivingston]

Oh, I'd agree. Without tech, our food supplies would collapse and less than one in ten would survive the initial starvation. I'm all for getting rid of all of the jobs. It would just be nice if we'd start working on the plan for distributing resources that isn't earnings-based before it happens.

Re:Today

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance rates for manual drivers won't go up.
Self-driving rates will go down to the point it might not be worth the government mandating it necessary to have.

Re:Today

[Kjella]

We can only hope the first big EMP comes before society makes that many short-sighted utopian decisions in a row so we'll only be partially screwed and will have a chance to recover.

Meh, any civilization trying to rebuild is going to have a damn hard time no matter what because of economic efficiency. All the easily accessible ore? Gone. Oil? Pumped up. Coal? Mined. Sure we have plenty of it still, but only deep down where only high tech can reach it. And I expect a collapsing civilization will kill off most remaining large animals, fish and other resources as the excess population starves to death. Sure we could try passing knowledge, but you'd probably be back to struggling with the basics which made 90% work in agriculture a few centuries ago.

Re:Today

[RhettLivingston]

I think that court rewards for harm caused by people manually driving will eventually sky-rocket. It will be considered as irresponsible as drunk driving is today. This will force rates up.

Re:Today

[swillden]

Myself, I'll have to have scenery to avoid sickness.

It had better be the scenery outside the car, displayed with very low latency, or you'll get sick. One of the biggest factors inducing motion sickness is when the motion reported by the inner ears doesn't match the motion reported by the eyes. This is why many people can't read or watch a movie in a moving vehicle.

OTOH, if the car's screens projected a book or a movie on the displays, but made them appear as though they were on a very large billboard (which somehow kept up with the car), complete with appropriate movement as the car bounces and jolts, then you probably could watch a movie or read just as well as you could look out a window.

Re:Today

[swillden]

... it's switch on your autopilot for a 5% discount.

Tomorrow, it will be manual controls disabled unless you pay the 500% self-drive (i.e.: think "self-serve", you get to drive it your self!) premium.

Yep, and at that point traffic fatalities will drop to a miniscule fraction of what they are now. This will be a good thing.

Re:Today

[sjames]

Until your car's display gets the pukalotta virus ;-)

Re:Today

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. If you want the try to try to kill me you should bloody well have to pay for it.

Re:Today

[BeCre8iv]

Dont get ahead of yorurself. The current ragime has ensured that 'peak utopia' wont be an issue in our lifetimes.

"Roll up your sleeves citizens - Its mosquito time!"
The Donald

Re:Today

[Anonymous Coward]

And anyone that can't afford a new car with AI or cant afford to switch to a job displaced by AI will be pushed to their breaking point, repeating the liberal errors of the 2010's. They will be damned if they do, damned if they don't yet again. The working class will elect a second Donald Trump. Only this time the president will have access to an AI workforce, police force, and military presence. What will protests and riots look like when unfeeling, unsympathetic machines controlled by the political opposition take the field?

AI will never be a good idea for humanity to implement in any serious form until everyone, even the unemployed, shares in all of the benefits. This punishing and ignoring the poor only leads to disaster in the end.

Re:Today

[epyT-R]

Yeah, until the first bored teenager with a laptop at an overpass has his way with the mesh network of cars...

Re:Today

[geekmux]

That's as it should be. You can do your own driving on the track. You fools are too dangerous to operate heavy machinery in public...

Adults handing heavy machinery keys to a 16-year old vs. legislators who actually believe that children should be able to legally operate heavy machinery.

Root cause analysis tends to make you wonder who the fool is.

Re:Today

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. We aren't there yet, but there will come a point where insurance rates for manual driving will start following a geometric curve. When they hit a steep enough point, there will be a serious discussion of outlawing manual driving so that we can start saving money on all of the vehicle safety equipment such as seat belts, airbags, and bumpers...

Oh, you want to save money? OK, YOU can remove your seat belts, airbags, and bumpers from YOUR car.

That way I'll know at a glance who's STUPID enough to blindly trust the human-programmed, physics-bound, mechanical autonomous solution to magically never fail.

Re:Today

[Anonymous Coward]

We can only hope the first big EMP comes before society makes that many short-sighted utopian decisions in a row...

You seem to be implying that autonomous vehicles would be more vulnerable to EMP. All modern vehicles except specially built milspec types would be rendered useless by EMP.

Re:Today

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance rates for manual drivers won't go up.
Self-driving rates will go down to the point it might not be worth the government mandating it necessary to have.

The rates won't go down that far. A fair bit of your premium is to cover theft, vandalism, accidental damage while parked etc. Even if theft is eliminated there's still the other causes.

Re:Today

[MrLogic17]

Find me a car newer than a Model T that won't be rendered inoperable by an EMP. ...and GP is wrong. Safety equipment will always be mandatory, and ever increasing. Heaven forbid someone gets bruised when a deer jumps in front of a self-driving car and totals it.

Re:Today

[LinuxIsGarbage]

And windshields - seriously. It won't be long before it will be cheaper to paper the inside of the car with displays, and we'll just be able to display whatever scenery or videos we want. Myself, I'll have to have scenery to avoid sickness.

Which is why passenger trains, busses, and passenger jets don't have windows...

Re:Today

[Anonymous Coward]

If only we had a government that would plan the way forward through the end of labor to a fair and just distribution of resources to all instead of striving to roll us back to that fantasy time when America was great because poor people were breaking their backs and choking to death on mining dust.

Re:Today

[PingPongBoy]

Tomorrow, it will be manual controls disabled unless you pay the 500% self-drive (i.e.: think "self-serve", you get to drive it your self!) premium.

That day, self drive shouldn't require insurance.

Self drive should just work, no mistakes. Do you expect that from tires? Who buys tire failure insurance? Yet tire failure is damn scary.

Re:Today

[swillden]

Yeah, until the first bored teenager with a laptop at an overpass has his way with the mesh network of cars...

Meh. Rocks are much easier.

Re: Ku Klux Klan

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus loves you and all of them. God bless.

Meanwhile...

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

Tesla users' umbrella insurance policy premiums just went up 1000%.

Re:Ku Klux Klan

[PopeRatzo]

I know you're in Pensacola, Florida tonight, Mr President, but you really can't use that in your speech again. I mean, our supporters hate the shvoogies, but that's just not acceptable.

About as safe as drunk driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe in five years.

Is Tesla AP even good enough for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Tesla behind on the AP curve though? The whole camera approach seems to not be reliable and safe enough compared to what other companies are doing with lidar.

Self-selecting set, IMHO

[fyngyrz]

If your driving skills are 40% better than average, you might come out ahead by driving yourself.

Those with such skills likely know it —it's a pretty low bar. Most people drive terribly. The number of drivers who have an intuitive, as-you-go grasp of the physics of the process, a real feel for the road surface and its bank, sightlines and so on, fine tuned abilities to estimate distance and speed and closure... they're not likely users of Tesla's autopilot (or anyone else's) anyway, because they are also probably members of the class who really enjoy driving.

My SO almost never gets to drive... she knows better than to take away my fun. :)

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[fluffernutter]

Can't say I have ever in my life been in a vehicle with a person I didn't feel safe with. Maybe 1 in 10,000 you see doing something stupid and you're ready to call everyone a bad driver.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[ShanghaiBill]

Those with such skills likely know it

Nope. 80% of drivers rate themselves "above average".

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you've never been driven by someone else or you're not very observant.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[sjames]

That's a different proposition. The question is how do the people actually that good rate themselves.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[j-beda]

That's a different proposition. The question is how do the people actually that good rate themselves.

If you "know" your skills are better than average and 80% of drivers think they are better than average, how can you be sure that you are not one of those people who think you are better than average, but are in fact not better than average?

I suppose that, depending on the distribution and how one defines "average" in this context, one could have 80% of the population being slightly better than average, with the 20% who are below average being way below average (80 people scoring 51, and 20 people scoring 46 gives an average of 50, so 80% are above average).

Re: Self-selecting set, IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

80% of drivers think that 90% of other drivers suck. Not themselves though.

Re: Self-selecting set, IMHO

[zapez.perplex]

delirium ?

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

The really good drivers are well aware of their defects, and as such, tend to rate themselves as worse than average!

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[geekmux]

Those with such skills likely know it

Nope. 80% of drivers rate themselves "above average".

"Received 27 April 1984, Revised 22 May 1985"

I can think of a billion reasons why your reference study is worthless.

"Do you use your smartphone while driving?" is the only question necessary to prove how bad drivers are today. Self-assessments are now irrelevant.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[tinkerton]

I see stupid things all the time and I make mistakes as well even if I consider myself a way above average driver. A lot of mistakes are simply increasing risk without anything necessarily going wrong. Often it's 'IF another car had done this you'd have been in trouble'.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[tinkerton]

You can also say 50% of the drivers ARE about average and they constantly have to hear this argument as a form of denial.

Of course if you use a statistic where 60% of the drivers are average and only 20% above average, then 80% of the drivers have really stupid ideas.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[fluffernutter]

So? The point is whether you absolutely know whether you are safer than Autopilot or not. If you don't know, then you shouldn't be using it until you do know.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way to absolutely know. Not in this reality. I know tons of people KNOW they don't need vaccinations. They might have access to secret knowledge, but more likely, they are just wrong. Based upon empirical data, the fact that there are many car crashes, and there are no fully autonomous vehicles around, your personal experiences of never having been in an accident is not the norm. If you were in an accident that was not your fault, then an autonomous vehicle might have prevented it.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

80%'s kind of high but the way I rate driving skill leads me to believe 70% of the drivers on the road are better than average so I don't see a problem.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[nukenerd]

Can't say I have ever in my life been in a vehicle with a person I didn't feel safe with. Maybe 1 in 10,000 you see doing something stupid and you're ready to call everyone a bad driver.

Incredible. I see drivers doing stupid things all the time. Occasionally I do something stupid, or at least sub-optimal, myself, but at least I recognise it and try to learn from it. I rarely feel at ease with someone else driving, and sometimes I have been terrified.

Having said that, I am unconvinced by autopilots. After all they are programmed by humans who, as we agree, can be stupid. As with driving, I see plenty of examples of stupid programming.

I think OP must be blind or something.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[nukenerd]

The point is whether you absolutely know whether you are safer than Autopilot or not. If you don't know, then you shouldn't be using it until you do know.

I know I am safer than the average driver on the basis that my insurance premiums are far lower than average (despite driving a car more powerful than most), perhaps because I have never had an accident. Telling me that autopilots are safer than the average driver does not give me me much re-assurance, in fact it is damning with faint praise.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[nukenerd]

The question is how do the people actually that good rate themselves.

By their insurance discount?

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[david_thornley]

I see drivers doing stupid things also. I also see many more drivers driving well. I remember the stupid ones better, since (a) they're the ones I have to watch for, (b) they're the ones who probably inconvenienced me, and (c) they're the ones I address comments to from the privacy of my vehicle. However, almost every time I see a driver do a boneheaded maneuver, I see many more people just driving like they should.

Re:Self-selecting set, IMHO

[david_thornley]

Driving skill or safety? I don't think my driving skills are up to average. On the other hand, I get into sufficiently few accidents that I get the maximum safety discount on my insurance. I allow for my lack of skill (and possibly overcompensate), and don't do anything likely to cause an accident.

Who pays if/when it crashes?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the question nobody has answered.

IMHO Tesla should be on the hook.

Re:Who pays if/when it crashes?

[fluffernutter]

Yep, if Tesla says they are selling a driving service, let's let that driver take responsibility for its actions. It's the only way to ensure these companies are as safe as possible.

Re:Who pays if/when it crashes?

[religionofpeas]

This is the question nobody has answered.

Of course it has been answered. The whole article is about the answer: the insurance company will pay for it.

Re:Who pays if/when it crashes?

[fluffernutter]

How does taking 5% off translate into paying for it? The real cost comes when the premiums go up after the accident. You are saying insurance companies aren't raising premiums for the driver any more?

Re:Who pays if/when it crashes?

[religionofpeas]

How does taking 5% off translate into paying for it?

You can't take 5% off the premium if you're not willing to provide the insurance in the first place.

The real cost comes when the premiums go up after the accident

So what ? Overall you're still paying less. You get 5% discount, and fewer accidents.

Re:Who pays if/when it crashes?

[fluffernutter]

But if Autopilot gets in an accident, your premiums go up, thus you pay for it.

How does this compare with Toyota?

[Latent Heat]

How does Autopilot compare with "Forward collision warning, auto-pedestrian detection with auto braking, lane-departure warning and driver lane assist with adaptive cruise control"? I guess it has this long name because "Autopilot" (for an automobile) is already trademarked?

This whole shebang is standard on the 2018 Camry and an option on the Ford Fusion. I believe the sensors are millimeter-wave radar and cameras.

Is there decapitation waver to sign?

[sinij]

Is there decapitation waver that I have to sign to get this discount?

Re: Is there decapitation waver to sign?

[zapez.perplex]

Decapiations will stop the very moment imbecils wil be prohibited from taking the seat behind the wheel. The real safety problem on the roads is the very low standards for getting a driver license, especially on the "resonsability assesment" area. Same with guns.

Re:Is there decapitation waver to sign?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's your warning: If you're a moron that likes to take his hands off the wheel and watch a video in the fast lane, then you might be decapitated when your car crashes into an 18 wheeler that jumps the median.

o/~ The more you know! o/~

Re:Is there decapitation waver to sign?

[geekmux]

Is there decapitation waver that I have to sign to get this discount?

Only if you want to watch movies while driving.

You also receive 1000 Darwin Award votes every time you renew your policy...

Re:Can I get a discount for not owning a smartphon

[Z80a]

Probably would be a thing if it was easy to track if people are not using celphones.

Obviously, they're going to prefer the computer...

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes an incredible amount of focus to keep you people from smacking into the front-end of my truck (or spending too much time in dangerous positions).

Driving

[dohzer]

Driving is boring, autopilot is safe, here's Tom with the weather.

Premiums based on your proven risk

[dZap]

I would love to have the old way of calculating premiums back when you started high and then when you showed to be responsible and didn't have accidents it went way down. If you did have accidents the premium went up again.

This way it's more of a loan where you have to pay back and less trying to predict the future with massive data collection and strange, prejudiced looking, algorithms.

Driving is a waste of time.

[backslashdot]

I am amazed that there are so many people with so much free time that they want to sit and rotate a wheel side to side for an hour a day. Are they F-ing crazy? Let's be clear, driving is a waste of time, you could be spending that time doing so many other things like being productive, drafting a presentation, video conferencing to your family, watching TV, playing video games, or Netflix. The more you can do in your car during the commute, the more time you can get back so you can do other life things. Some people may consider playing video games to be a terrible waste of time, but at least when you play video games you create jobs, unlike time wasted driving.

Re:Driving is a waste of time.

[thenitz]

I'm all you with you, but Tesla Autopilot doesn't let you do any of those things, yet. You still have to pay attention to the traffic.

Re:Driving is a waste of time.

[Anonymous Coward]

I commute by train. Most of my driving is short hops or into the mountains. A good autopilot would be able to get me up the freeway to the top of the mountains, and maybe the better rated mountain highways, but quite a few roads I've been down I see no chance at all of an AI doing the driving on them.

Before you think this is bluster, the AI can't get out and survey the ground.

Re:Driving is a waste of time.

[fluffernutter]

I'm amazed so many people have anything productive they can do in a car. Usually the ride is too short to read a book or study significantly or get any amount of work done. I'm not at home, so I'm missing time with my family anyway. Personally I just want to get to my destination as quickly as I can regardless.

Re:Driving is a waste of time.

[religionofpeas]

I'm not at home, so I'm missing time with my family anyway

Use facetime/skype/messenger to talk to them from the car.

Re:Driving is a waste of time.

[fluffernutter]

You have a strange definition of family time.

Singular

[UsuallyReasonable]

The article talks about one insurance company; the headline says "insurers". Not the best job composing that headline.

It's complex

[fyngyrz]

I allow for my lack of skill (and possibly overcompensate), and don't do anything likely to cause an accident.

An important facet of the task is to be aware enough of other drivers to avoid the accident they are about to cause. Drunks, sleepyheads, lane weavers, light runners, ghosters that cluelessly drive in other people's blind spots (not just yours, either) tailgaters, fail-to-signalers, aggressive speeders, lane laggards, people pulling trailers too fast, poorly loaded, etc. And then there are road hazards. And people who completely change their driving style the instant they see a cop or their radar detector goes off. And cars carrying poorly disciplined children or excitable pets. People having arguments.

Most drivers are not very good. They may think they are - but they aren't.

Re:It's complex

[david_thornley]

Yup. Part of being cautious, for me, is noting who's likely to be a problem. That saved me from hitting a pedestrian once.