[justgottasay3]

I think there is an aspect of privacy that folks may be ignoring. Privacy from commercial entities.

Consider the following scenario:

Driver A and driver B are involved in an accident. Driver C is in an autonomous vehicle that "witnesses" the accident, by being in close proximity to the event.

If driver A or B have the same insurance company as C, that company could get the data from C to determine fault in the accident that C's vehicle witnessed... or better yet, show that both drivers were at fault and they will not pay anyone anything.

As the number of autonomous vehicles rise, the amount of data available to companies will grow, too.

I would be surprised if there isn't language in the policies being underwritten today that would make such a thing possible... possibly even mandatory.

[maxerickson]

For automobile insurance, I don't find the idea of the insurance company getting detailed information about a collision disturbing at all.

There's probably reason to make sure that policies don't contain weird provisions related to that data collection, but there isn't really a strong case for hiding driver information, there is enough variation in drivers to justify varied premiums.

[iamdave]

I would be surprised if there isn't language in the policies being underwritten today that would make such a thing possible... possibly even mandatory.

I think I'm misunderstanding, but when you say "make such a thing possible", what exactly are you referring to? The scenarios in your post I would think are heavily dependent on the considerations agreed upon in the policy between insurer and insured, so while Driver A may have a policy that sets limits on liability, Driver B may have a completely different set of considerations in the event of vehicle collision, what Driver C's car "sees" would just be supplementary, wouldn't it?

[Firerouge]

Is that any different or worse than the insurance company using street cameras to determine blame?