> The problem with this view is that you're assuming that the current risk created by drivers that society would benefit from moving to self-driving systems is priced into their current driving, or into their insurance.
That's neither here nor there. Liability shouldn't be separated from the driver, since that's incentive for them to drive better. However, with self-driving vehicles, the driver is the manufacturer, full stop.
> My point upthread is that we're almost certain to end up over-pricing the risk caused by self-driving vehicles, while directly and indirectly subsidizing the continued operation of motor vehicles by even more flawed human beings.
1. You're making the flawed assumption that self-driving vehicles will be better drivers than humans. Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. It's yet to be seen. We'll know once the manufactures can't cherry-pick driving conditions or rely on backup humans to smooth over their defects.
2. If the problem you outline is an issue, the solution of pushing liability onto people who are not actually driving is a bad one.
> However, with self-driving vehicles, the driver is the manufacturer, full stop.
I don't think this argument has unanimous agreement.
If we force manufactures to be responsible, then they are going to find a way to reduce payouts. No country is going to destroy their automotive industry because of self-driving cars. And Too Big To Fail companies are never held responsible for their actions.
I'm in the camp of owner-responsibility. Insurance rates for self-driving cars will set a price for the safety of the system. It will happen rather quickly and will be largely accurate. Are you going to even use a self-driving system if it elevates your insurance premiums to $10k a month? Even a person who prefers convenience over personal safety is going to think twice about paying all that money to insure themselves.
> If we force manufactures to be responsible, then they are going to find a way to reduce payouts. No country is going to destroy their automotive industry because of self-driving cars. And Too Big To Fail companies are never held responsible for their actions.
No country would "destroy their automotive industry because of self-driving cars," by making manufactures liable for their products. Worst case is the shareholders would get wiped out in a bankruptcy, but the manufactures themselves would survive.
> I'm in the camp of owner-responsibility. Insurance rates for self-driving cars will set a price for the safety of the system. It will happen rather quickly and will be largely accurate. Are you going to even use a self-driving system if it elevates your insurance premiums to $10k a month? Even a person who prefers convenience over personal safety is going to think twice about paying all that money to insure themselves.
That's a ridiculous, Rube-Goldbergian idea. Lets simplify it: the manufacturer has the liability, buys the insurance, and includes the cost into the price of the self-driving feature. Instead of waiting for your insurance bill after you buy the car to find out if you can afford self-driving, it's there in the sticker price.
That's neither here nor there. Liability shouldn't be separated from the driver, since that's incentive for them to drive better. However, with self-driving vehicles, the driver is the manufacturer, full stop.
> My point upthread is that we're almost certain to end up over-pricing the risk caused by self-driving vehicles, while directly and indirectly subsidizing the continued operation of motor vehicles by even more flawed human beings.
1. You're making the flawed assumption that self-driving vehicles will be better drivers than humans. Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. It's yet to be seen. We'll know once the manufactures can't cherry-pick driving conditions or rely on backup humans to smooth over their defects.
2. If the problem you outline is an issue, the solution of pushing liability onto people who are not actually driving is a bad one.