[dmooney1]

I agree the manufacturer would not necessarily take on the bulk of the risk. However, there is supposed to be less risk once this technology is perfected. If the technology is indeed superior to human drivers, auto insurers will offer discounts to self-driving car owners. Furthermore, autonomous cars make more sense economically if they are part of a fleet service like a robotic taxi service. The future subscription-based Zipcar or ad-based Google Cars service would carry the insurance. The human is just a passenger no more responsible for an accident than a human-driven-taxi passenger.

[einhverfr]

But in the US, one is not held to be responsible just because something bad happens. It has to be negligence at least.

So the idea here is that if the car crashes, people find out that an algorithm didn't handle a situation very well, and they sue the manufacturer over negligence regarding product safety.

[JabavuAdams]

> auto insurers will offer discounts to self-driving car owners

No, the market doesn't work like that. Auto insurers will raise the price for human-driven car owners.

[jemfinch]

You mis-parsed his statement. It's ((self-driving car) owners), not (self-driving (car owners)).

[a_m0d]

I don't think that was mis-parsed - I think that JabavuAdams is (rightfully ?) cynical that the insurance companies will lower prices.

Rather, they will make the current price the standard for (self-driving cars), and increase the price for (human-driven cars), thereby ensuring more money for themselves.

[jemfinch]

Ah, then I misunderstood JabavuAdams's post. That's a good point.

[redthrowaway]

    if car.self_driving.safe?
      car.human_driven.price_to_insure.raise
    elsif 1==0
      car.any.price_to_insure.lower
    end