We expect the advent of autonomous vehicles to make us feel like we are living in nirvana. Ok. Maybe not nirvana, but it should lead to the elimination of car crashes. After all 94% of all car crashes are the result of driver error.
No? No. There will be crashes. If you don’t think so, then you are badly mistaken. (That will be true, even as creative chemical engineers develop special pigments to afford better recognition of moving vehicles- and what those vehicles are capable are doing.) Yet, there still is another important issue.
That issue is one my boss (from years ago) brought up when quizzed by Congress. He was being asked if he could make our drinking water safe. And, after delaying his response for a few seconds, his rejoinder was exquisite.
What did he say?
Safe? What’s safe? That’s a political decision. You tell me how many people can will be allowed to die from drinking our water and then provide me with enough funds- and we will meet that standard. But, safe? That’s not a scientific concept, it’s political. And, it’s your job as politicians to tell us scientists and engineers what standard you want, it’s your responsibility to provide us with the funds (and the ability) to produce systems to meet that standard, and then we’ll ensure our water meets that specification.
That same logic applies to autonomous vehicles. Our cars are going to be “safer”- how safe is a political decision. Government (and citizens) will have to make that decision and then regulatory bodies will enforce rules to ensure that the definition of safe is met.
If a car must be flawless before it travels on our roads, we will need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for each vehicle. And, even then, the standard will see some failures. And, that’s well before autonomous vehicles travel our roads- because by 2020 (only two years from now), cars will be at least 10% safer than those on the roads right this minute.
Right now, 100 folks die on our roads each and every day. So, that 10% safer mark means only 90 will die. Wait a minute! Maybe it mean we’ll have 10% fewer accidents but the same death rate. That’s one of the problems with political decisions. By their nature, they are not specific enough.
These sort of questions are why we should only expect our autonomous vehicles to simply augment the driving we do now. Not take over, not take away our control- but alert us to our stupidity, correct errors that the AI (artificial intelligence) system discerns are about to occur. It’s why automobile manufacturers will have to move gingerly about the marketplace, making sure the populace is ready for the changes awaiting at the gates of progress.
Which brings up the million dollar question. Who will insure these vehicles? Because the million dollar question is crystal clear: In the case of an accident, who the heck is at fault? The manufacturer? The owner of the highway or street upon which the car traveled? The car owner? The person who chose the destination?
Wow! I bet that made you really wonder. Which is exactly why Alphabet, Google’s parent company, the one that owns Waymo, the self-driving car dynamo, has discerned that we need new insurance programs so autonomous car routing can proceed.
Because it’s pretty clear that when and if autonomous vehicles become a reality, about 4/5 of the premiums we all pay for automobile insurance will no longer be justified. Some states (like California) are considering imposing manufacturers incorporate liability insurance to accompany the cars they sell. (So you know, California is considering a $ 5 million liability premium.)
***
And, Alphabet is considering a firm known as Trov insurance, which began operations some 5 years ago (2012). The concept is that Trov will cover folks who travel within driverless cars. Trov will operate on a kind-of per trip program (like travel insurance), where one swipes a smartphone and insures an individual trip in an autonomous vehicle.
I don’t know about you, but I find such coverage more than a little troubling. After all, it’s simply on-demand and not permanent. But, without proper insurance, the industry will never achieve the dreams we have conceived.
High hopes? Not until we maneuver our way around, over, and through a few hurdles.
Can l just that l love the answer your former boss gave? I bet it stopped them in their tracks. I also don’t like the idea of swiping for insurance. I can just see the insurance companies coming up with ideas to still screw you, so nothing will change :-).
He was among the smartest of bosses that I ever had.
And, I agree with you. I continually wonder why it is that with a clean record, my insurance rates increase each year- despite having an older car!
At this point, I don’t have a lot of hope in self driving cars. I’d rather that the money that was being spent on developing these things be used on better and safer forms of mass transit, to make transportation safer for more people. Very few people are going to be able to afford to buy self driving cars. Let’s focus our resources on transporting more people, rather than a few people who are looking for a fun gimmick that may or may not be safe.
I don’t quite connect with your point, Alice. You expect PRIVATE industry to build infrastructure? That’s part of the problem right now- if they do, they charge inordinate tolls (like $ 44 for a 9 mile segment of road here in Virginia.) Private industry is spending ITS capital to develop these technologies, for which they hope to make big profits.
Moreover, the auto industry has already discerned that fewer and fewer folks will be buying cars. Instead, they will share them with other via the car-sharing and autonomous services that will be proffered.
Self-driving cars are not for me…I have too many control issues.
OK, Jean. I don’t think they will be mandated (unless you have lost your vision or are an habitual reckless driver…)
But, you may change your mind when and if they make these things capable of maneuvering through traffic.
Yes, it is troubling! But also, for water, “safe” should mean that the water won’t kill anyone. Once it becomes a political decision, as you’ve said, that means that the decision-makers are okay with some people dying. And I, personally, would like to drink water that won’t hurt me. Not just not kill me!
Jeanine-
The last time there was virgin, pure water was when Adam and Eve roamed the Earth. Since then, all the water is reused and/or infused with our pollution. So, the question still remains- how much we are willing to spend to ensure that the water is perfectly pure. And, I can guarantee you that you wouldn’t want to pay that toll. So, accepting one disease capability per million gallons and one death per 100 million gallons is not an inordinate demand.
I’m not excited about autonomous vehicles or the insurance. But I’ll probably be in a nursing home when they come out so I won’t be driving. LOL
Martha recently posted..Savings Using Coupons
I could be excited by autonomous vehicles during rush hour, Martha! So, I could sit back and relax. The problem is that such an occurrence won’t be possible until I am long gone. And, since the vehicle will be employed when traffic is light and the roads are straight- I wouldn’t need the assistance! Unless and until I am decrepit!
🙂 Roy, mayhap will help drivers like this one –
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/01/tesla-owner-attempts-autopilot-defense-during-dui-stop/
LadyInRead recently posted..Great Big Diamonds (Literally) Everywhere, Not One That You Can Claim
There are few drivers I would hope the state would require all trips to be so effected. Especially the ones who apply makeup, comb their hair, or turn around to speak to the back seat residents incessantly!
Thanks, Vidya!
It is very nice. Thanks for sharing about this.
Nice to meet you, Durgamatha!
Thanks for the compliment and the visit!
Its very nice article.Its is interesting to read .
Glad to oblige, Astrorushi! Come back often! Please!
hey, this blog is very intresting. thanks for sharing
Thanks, Shakthi! Come back soon!