TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Tesla Double Insurance for automatic driving

Discussion in 'Model S' started by princeofhouse, Feb 11, 2017.

  1. princeofhouse

    princeofhouse Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Location:
    England
  2. drklain

    drklain Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ/Fairfax, VA
    I read it they are talking about fully autonomous driving (FSD)
     
  3. princeofhouse

    princeofhouse Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Location:
    England
    which is what teslas will be capable of someday
     
  4. croman

    croman Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,262
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Insurers must justify their premiums based on data. Currently there is a paucity of data so they can make up whatever but there is a vibrant market for auto insurance. Some company won't be greedy and everyone will flock to them. If crash data matches the declines with AP1, that insurer will profit handsomely at the expense of others who charge too much. I see this with the current insurance rates where Progressive was very fairly priced and other insurers were 3x as much.
     
    • Like x 1
  5. drklain

    drklain Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ/Fairfax, VA
    Croman - did you read the link to the article in question? It was about a regulatory structure in England, not the US, which has different laws and regulatory bodies for insurance. The British government has decided that fully automated (level 5) cars will carry two types of insurance. One will be on the driver as is current.y done, it the other insurance will be on the car manufacturer to insure their liability when the car is driving in fully automated auto mode as they view that the manufacturer and not the driver is responsible if the car has an accident in this mode.

    Th article had NOTHING to do with US insurance rates or insurance companies making up rates because they are greedy and have a lack of data. You are also wrong that insurance companies don't have data on TeslAS in the US. hey have over 4 years of data which show several interesting points from an actuarial,perspective (which is what drives rates - no insurance company just makes stuff up):

    - Tesla's are pretty safe cars from a death or injury perspective in a crash
    - When they have a fender-bender, Tesla's tend to be very pricey to repair compared to other cars due to the body repair requirements. Even minor damage can be very expensive with parts only available from one source and taking long times to arrive and only a limited number of shops able to do the work.

    The result (unsurprisingly) is that Tesla rates are higher than for most $100K cars based on data. There is about 1 year's worth of data that says AP1 Tesla's tend to have less accidents that result in airbag deployments. There is still too little data to indicate this is because of TACC plus auto-steering use, alerts th AP1 cars do, emergency braking, TACC only or something else. It ther is NO data that says AP1 cars have minor accidents (fender-benders) at a lower rate and LOTS of data that shows repairing Tesla's is very expensive compared to other cars....that's why rates are higher.

    Lastly, cut-rate auto insurers tend to be wonderful at selling cheap policies. Of course when you file a claim and they don't want to pay it, put you through the wringer, etc. that you discover maybe their cheaper insurance wasn't such a good deal.
     
    • Like x 2
  6. bob_p

    bob_p Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,562
    On Tesla's order page, they mention FSD will be available WHEN the software has been validate and has received regulatory approval.

    What isn't mentioned is liability - and that could be an even larger obstacle than validation and regulatory approval.

    For AP/EAP, the driver is supposed to maintain control of the vehicle, so even if there is a flaw in the autopilot, ultimately, it's up to the driver - so the driver and their insurance company will be held liable for any accident.

    But, what happens when the car is operating without any human interaction? If there is an accident, is it anyone in the car (who may or may not be sitting in the driver's seat)? Is it the owner of the car (who may not even be involved in setting the destination for the car)? Or is it the manufacturer, who is effectively providing the driver for the car in the FSD software.

    And, to further complicate this, if the car is operating on the Tesla Network, and Tesla is directing the car to a location, without any interaction by the car's owner, does Tesla have any responsibility?

    These are potentially huge issues. Tesla would like to have the owner fully responsible, even if there is a problem with the FSD hardware or software.

    And, owners & insurance companies will want to hold Tesla responsible if there are any accidents under FSD control.

    It's possible resolving the liability issues could take longer than developing the FSD software, validating it and getting regulatory approval.
     
    • Like x 3
  7. croman

    croman Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,262
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    I did read the article. My answer was free market based. If UK decides to price insurance and manufacturer passes cost down, there will be a market reaction.

    Further if you were paying attention to my post it was about FSD and there is no data for it so maybe you aren't such a hot shot reader either.
     
  8. bhzmark

    bhzmark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,545
    The NHTSA report of the Florida death said in passing that even within the set of cars that have the AP1 hardware AP1 being enabled correlated with 40%fewer air bag deployments. Cars without AP1 enabled still had AEB. It isn't clear if they controlled for experience of the driver with the new car, but other than that possible confounding factor, I think pretty clearly supports that AP results in significantly fewer accidents bad enough to trigger airbag.
     
  9. Austral

    Austral Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2016
    Messages:
    221
    Location:
    McLean
    Perhaps Tesla should consider starting or buying an insurance company. There are storm clouds on the horizon.
     
    • Informative x 1
  10. drklain

    drklain Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ/Fairfax, VA
    #10 drklain, Feb 12, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
    Not quite true because they don't have correlation data on how often the AP is being used/controlling the car vs. total amount of time the car is being driven (exposure to accidents/air bag deployments). The report states that the AP software was activated but not necessarily being used across the sample size, so they did not have enough data to determine what exactly was causing the apparent decrease in airbag deployments (at least that is how I read it). It may well be that there is a totally different causative factor because the sample size is so small...what they indicated was that a Tesla with AP1 hardware and software installed and enabled (not necessarily autosteer being used) has 40% less airbag deployments than Tesla's without the hardware and software (i.e., non-AP1 cars). Problem is that the sample size is so small (total number of cars as well as the period of time AP1 has been out) that the data may be fundamentally skewed in some way, we just don't know.

    I love Tesla and think AP is a great tool, but statistics are just that...statistics and until we have a greater sample size (both quantity of vehicles/amount of miles driven and period of time/exposure) we can't draw any definitive conclusions. Right now the best we can say is that current data appears to indicate that AP1 equipped cars tend to have less bad accidents (as defined by airbag deployment rates) but we are not sure exactly why. The only way to know for sure is to look at airbag deployment rates when autosteer is being used as compared to when it is not in AP1-equipped Teslas (which removes most (but not all) other variables). AT that point a greater correlation might be obtained, but again, we run into the problem of small sample size....let alone the problem that the latest iterations of AP software imposed greater restrictions on where autosteer could be used (what kind of roads) and at what speed, so the usage now is different than it was 6 months ago.

    I'm not saying that AP/autosteer isn't a good idea or that it doesn't represent a safety improvement (I think it likely does). What I am saying is that a lot people (including the marketing department) are reading too much into a statistic and drawing potentially incorrect conclusions from that statistic. I hope this makes sense.
     
  11. drklain

    drklain Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ/Fairfax, VA
    Totally different that Tesla's core mission or competency. There are plenty of companies that provide liability insurance for businesses and have enough diversity across their policyholders to diversify the risk as well. Tesla (like all businesses) already carries some sort of liability insurance and I'm sure they are already putting in provisions for the FSD case going active because, regardless of what the regulatory environment says, they are likely to get sued as part of an accident anyway. Now if the regulators transfer all of the risk to them, they will adjust their insurance accordingly. None of us really know how this is going to turn out and the British regulator's apparent first stab at defining this is likely just that, a first stab and not what will be the ultimate solution.
     
  12. kort677

    kort677 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,612
    Location:
    florida.
    go to sleep, there are no autonomous cars being sold today. have this dream when autonomous cars are sold.
     
    • Like x 1
  13. bhzmark

    bhzmark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,545
    I think it is important to point out: -- they aren't doing traditional "samples" where you might always wonder if the "sample" is representative of the actual class. Here they are using the data for ALL the cars. You can't get a bigger sample than 100% of the population at issue.

    But really I think you are just pointing that there could be some other causal factor.
    But pointing out that there could be other confounding factors isn't interesting -- that is always the case. Give a plausible and ultimately persuasive suggestion for another confounding factor. I can only think of driver experience. Anything else?
     
  14. bhzmark

    bhzmark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,545
    In the same way that large employers self-insure their health plan for employees (and just pay a health insurance company a fee to administer the plan and use their provider networks but not actually collect the premiums or fund the claims), car mfrs should also self-insure their car liability. The insurance function is just a monetary risk pooling device and the only necessary competency is to have access to a large population. That's why it makes more financial sense for employers to self-insure their employees health coverage, and for car mfrs to self-insure their accident liability for FSD -- if indeed that is the way these things work out.
     
  15. princeofhouse

    princeofhouse Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Location:
    England
    I had to be up to moderate a google hangout for a client.
     
  16. thegruf

    thegruf Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    UK
    Perhaps the wider relevance of this disucssion is not determined by national boundaries but that governments are waking up to the incoming slew of autononous technologies.

    I have long felt that insurance and compliance are the two greatest hurdles for L5 autonomous.

    Ultimately it is regulatory bodies that wil have to set the standards that manufacturers must attain before such vehicles can be unleashed and with the speed such bodies tend to operate it is easy to think there may be decades of work to be done. Technology is going to be pushing them very hard indeed.

    Just think about the liability question:
    3rd party - The other car hit me, I am not taking the rap, somebody is going to have to pay.
    Driver - It wasn't me - the car was driving. I am going to sue for damages as well as the car should not have caused the accident and I now have ptsd for life.
    Manufacturer - well our algorithms are approved by the Regulatory body, so we have done what was required of us and cannot be held liable (well it is worth a try anyway)
    Regulatory Body - no the manufacturer is responsible - they make and sell the car and the software - we cannot test all scenarios, we can only state the car performs satisfactorily against a limited bunch of (unrelaistic if history is anything to go by) tests.

    Ultimately it would only take a a relatively limited bunch of claims against Tesla or a sizeable class action and Tesla would be done for, both in direct financial cost and in reputational market damage. M3 owners will be a much wider section of the populus and wil inevitably be much less forgiving than the goodwill extended by most to date in spite of Tesla's numerous failings amongst their spectacular successes.
     
  17. ev-now

    ev-now Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    427
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Well Tesla is selling them, just with an indeterminate delivery date ;)
     
  18. kort677

    kort677 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,612
    Location:
    florida.
    tesla is selling fully autonomous vehicles? really? I don' think so.
     
  19. S4WRXTTCS

    S4WRXTTCS Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2015
    Messages:
    1,820
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA
    They are claiming that it will be capable of full self driving.

    So they are selling it, and they have two videos showcasing what it's going to be like.

    As to whether they reach FSD is a completely separate question.

    Personally I like the idea of addressing regulatory/liability questions sooner than later. Even if they don't reach FSD they could easily hit the point where you transfer liability from the driver to the car (level 3 driving). Where you're no longer required to watch over. You just have to be there to take over if the car asks you to, but it has to give you ample time to take over.
     
  20. guipingfang

    guipingfang Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    China
    As far as I am concerned that model 3 will be better than model x
     

Share This Page