EPA appointee says air is too clean

[Hydra009]

How does that work???

In theory you can take out life-insurance on any old person about to die and name yourself as a beneficiary...

That's stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI).  It's ethically dubious at best since the policyowner has a vested interest in the insured's death.  It also violates insurable interest (you're not a blood relative, spouse, or business partner of the insured)  Afaik, it's also in some legally pretty murky waters.  Imo, probably not the kind of thing you could easily get an insurance company to sign off on.

[Hydra009]

What Baruch is oh-so-conveniently forgetting is that the insurance company is a greedy SOB, too, and they don't want to pay out benefits they don't need to, and if they do, they are as sure as hell going to make sure that the benefits they expect pay out do not exceed the amount of money they collect in premiums on those policies. That is, after all, how insurance companies make their money, and it is the reason why insurance companies are willing to make these contracts in the first place â€" they want to make money, too.

I haven't been following this segway too closely, so I apologize in advance if I misunderstand the conversation.

But if when autonomous cars become the norm, insurance will still continue as normal (after all, there are still vehicles getting wrecked and people getting hurt) but there will be much less risk of an accident.  Depending on the exact nature of the autonomous system, the human driver may have little to no control over the vehicle and thus driving habits are much less of a factor in accidents - risk can now be calculated without human variables like driver age.  Since the likelihood of a crash has decreased across the board, insurance companies will not have to pay out as often, so auto insurance premiums will decrease.

TL;DR: lower premiums, insurance companies are still making a profit.  Nothing much new there.

[Baruch]

I haven't been following this segway too closely, so I apologize in advance if I misunderstand the conversation.

But if when autonomous cars become the norm, insurance will still continue as normal (after all, there are still vehicles getting wrecked and people getting hurt) but there will be much less risk of an accident.  Depending on the exact nature of the autonomous system, the human driver may have little to no control over the vehicle and thus driving habits are much less of a factor in accidents - risk can now be calculated without human variables like driver age.  Since the likelihood of a crash has decreased across the board, insurance companies will not have to pay out as often, so auto insurance premiums will decrease.

TL;DR: lower premiums, insurance companies are still making a profit.  Nothing much new there.

The legalities ... the autonomous car must be designed to allow the passenger(s) to take control themselves in the even of a mishap.  So that also protects the owner/manufacturer.  The victims weren't fast enough to correct Seri.

[Baruch]

Some people here ... will defend any corporation, any time ;-)  How much are they paid for this?  Who knows?

Reminds me of Christian apologetics ;-))  And tobacco company scientists ;-((

And sorry, I won't believe anyone's prediction that policy X will reduce premiums ... ACA much?

[Hydra009]

Some people here ... will defend any corporation, any time ;-)  How much are they paid for this?  Who knows?

Is this some sort of shot at me?  Some days, you insinuate that a dirty commie.  Some days, you insinuate that I'm shilling for corporate America.  You can't even keep your story straight, let alone your facts.  I sincerely doubt your barely coherent ramblings impress anybody anymore, so I don't have to address this bul--

But what the hell, just for kicks, let's address this because I want to get something through to you.  Descriptive =/= normative.  Describing what will happen given a certain scenario = descriptive.  Advocating for what I think ought to be the case = normative.  In case my post was entirely lost to you (which seems to be the case), I was clearly engaged in the former.

And sorry, I won't believe anyone's prediction that policy X will reduce premiums ... ACA much?

1) You don't have believe anything.  That's be beauty of reality, it doesn't depend on anybody's perceptions.
2) I'm not describing any policy.  I'm describing a scenario where autonomous cars are in widespread use and auto accidents occur at a significantly reduced rate.
3) It's a truism in the insurance industry that as risks change, insurance premiums also change to reflect those risks.  But don't take my word for it, this principle is demonstrably true.  How hazardous your job is affects life insurance premiums.  Whether you're a smoker or non-smoker affects health insurance premiums.  Insurance companies compute the risk of loss (chances of a claim occurring and predicting how much they'd have to pay out) and calculate premiums based off of that.  If the former changes, so does the latter.  This is a fact, not an opinion.

[Baruch]

OK.  Yes, descriptive vs prescriptive.  I don't prescribe, I describe ... in horror.  But not someone in particular, but the general herd, unless someone specific is pointed out.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I, too, was engaged in description, not advocacy. The scenario you describe is not supported by how insurance companies work. Companies are not out to kill you. They're out to make money. That is the end-all and be-all of their operation. Even if you can't trust them to do anything else, you can trust them to do that, and dead customers do not give a company repeat business.

[Cavebear]

Thank you.

[fencerider]

I think that people who think that driverless cars will have less accidents have too much faith in technology. I went to school for computer information and computer science. I dun seen the old man behind the curtain. I’ve seen how thin the veneer of the greatness of our technology really is. ( of course we’ve already had several driverless car fatalities) Now because I drove an 18 wheeler for 5 years I would say that anybody who thinks a computer geek can make a driverless truck safe should be put in the pokey fir public endangerment. 5 years just gets you comfortable. and there are people been driving 20-30 years still learning something new everyday.


There are other reasons for a car company to own its own insurance besides trying to increase profits. I drove a Weiner Mobile. They are self insured. The owner of the biz also owns the insurance company and the mech shop. Because its a big company 7,000+ trucks and 9,500 drivers there is at least one serious accident every day of the year. No insurance company would give them insurance or the price would be ridiculous

[Cavebear]

I think that people who think that driverless cars will have less accidents have too much faith in technology. I went to school for computer information and computer science. I dun seen the old man behind the curtain. I’ve seen how thin the veneer of the greatness of our technology really is. ( of course we’ve already had several driverless car fatalities) Now because I drove an 18 wheeler for 5 years I would say that anybody who thinks a computer geek can make a driverless truck safe should be put in the pokey fir public endangerment. 5 years just gets you comfortable. and there are people been driving 20-30 years still learning something new everyday.


There are other reasons for a car company to own its own insurance besides trying to increase profits. I drove a Weiner Mobile. They are self insured. The owner of the biz also owns the insurance company and the mech shop. Because its a big company 7,000+ trucks and 9,500 drivers there is at least one serious accident every day of the year. No insurance company would give them insurance or the price would be ridiculous

If it is computer-controlled, it is computer hackable.  I will never own a "self-driving car". 

I'm looking at a restored 1986 Ford Taurus Wagon...  But I may just try to keep the 2005 Toyota Highlander running a few more years.

[Baruch]

If it is computer-controlled, it is computer hackable.  I will never own a "self-driving car". 

I'm looking at a restored 1986 Ford Taurus Wagon...  But I may just try to keep the 2005 Toyota Highlander running a few more years.

Self driving cars will be expensive ... fleet cars only.  And since corporations are people now, and beyond the law ... connect the dots.  Yes, trust Big Brother.

[Cavebear]

Self driving cars will be expensive ... fleet cars only.  And since corporations are people now, and beyond the law ... connect the dots.  Yes, trust Big Brother.

Having not had even the most minor accident driving a car myself for 40 years, but having some real idiots hitting me a few times, I am slightly intrigued by self driving cars.  FOR OTHER PEOPLE! 

[Blackleaf]

I think that people who think that driverless cars will have less accidents have too much faith in technology. I went to school for computer information and computer science. I dun seen the old man behind the curtain. I’ve seen how thin the veneer of the greatness of our technology really is. ( of course we’ve already had several driverless car fatalities) Now because I drove an 18 wheeler for 5 years I would say that anybody who thinks a computer geek can make a driverless truck safe should be put in the pokey fir public endangerment. 5 years just gets you comfortable. and there are people been driving 20-30 years still learning something new everyday.


There are other reasons for a car company to own its own insurance besides trying to increase profits. I drove a Weiner Mobile. They are self insured. The owner of the biz also owns the insurance company and the mech shop. Because its a big company 7,000+ trucks and 9,500 drivers there is at least one serious accident every day of the year. No insurance company would give them insurance or the price would be ridiculous

Driverless cars will fail because of mechanical errors. People fail because of idiot errors, misjudgments, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, inexperience, losing concentration (distractions or just zoning out), exhaustion, as well as unpredictable mechanical problems in the vehicle. The question is which are more likely to make fatal mistakes, computers or humans? I don't know exactly how many driverless cars there are on the road right now, or the current rate of accidents caused by them per mile driven, but I did find this article from 2016: https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-self-driving-car-may-caused-first-crash/

This was, apparently, the first accident caused by the autonomous car. At the time, "Google’s cars have driven more than 1.3 million miles since 2009." That sounds pretty damn safe to me. Even this one accident was responsible for only minor damage. Both cars were moving 15mph or less, and no one was injured. The cause of the accident was also not entirely on the autonomous car. The Google car assumed that the bus driver would drive responsibly and slow down. If both vehicles were driverless, their common logic would not have likely resulted in a collision. The root of the problem was clearly the human element.

Google cars have been in other accidents before this one, but all have reportedly been the fault of the human drivers involved in the accidents, not the autonomous car. I absolutely think that driverless cars will be the norm soon, and I have every reason to suspect the number of both fatal and minor accidents will drop significantly because of it.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Self driving cars will be expensive ... fleet cars only.  And since corporations are people now, and beyond the law ... connect the dots.  Yes, trust Big Brother.

Yes, the first self-driving cars will be expensive. They will be expensive to repair and replace if they get into accidents. You can trust that the companies who own them are going to protect that asset by assuring that they will not get into many accidents, enough to make running a fleet of cars a net gain for the company and not a net loss. Follow the money.

[Baruch]

Yes, the first self-driving cars will be expensive. They will be expensive to repair and replace if they get into accidents. You can trust that the companies who own them are going to protect that asset by assuring that they will not get into many accidents, enough to make running a fleet of cars a net gain for the company and not a net loss. Follow the money.

Today money isn't money.  Amazon is a huge company, that has never made a profit ... thanks to government subsidy.  Once you leave cash-based-accounting, it is too easy to fraud the books.