←back to thread

319 points doctoboggan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
TulliusCicero ◴[] No.46235375[source]
Autonomy subscriptions are how things are going to go, I called this a long time ago. It makes too much sense in terms of continuous development and operations/support to not have a subscription -- and subscriptions will likely double as insurance at some point in the future (once the car is driving itself 100% of the time, and liability is always with the self driving stack anyway).

Of course, people won't like this, I'm not exactly enthused either, but the alternative would be a corporation constantly providing -- for free -- updates and even support if your car gets into an accident or stuck. That doesn't really make sense from a business perspective.

replies(18): >>46235819 #>>46235936 #>>46235949 #>>46236024 #>>46236150 #>>46236188 #>>46236255 #>>46237451 #>>46237487 #>>46238071 #>>46238397 #>>46238855 #>>46239572 #>>46240212 #>>46240694 #>>46242103 #>>46242505 #>>46242708 #
bryanlarsen ◴[] No.46236024[source]
Agreed, it seems inevitable that autonomy and insurance are going to be bundled.

1. Courts are finding Tesla partially liable for collisions, so they've already got some of the downsides of insurance (aka the payout) without the upside (the premium).

2. Waymo data shows a significant injury reduction rate. If it's true and not manipulated data, it's natural for the car companies to want to capture some of this upside.

3. It just seems like a much easier sell. I wouldn't pay $100/month for self-driving, but $150 a month for self-driving + insurance? That's more than I currently pay for insurance, but not a lot more. And I've got relatively cheap insurance: charging $250/month for insurance + self-driving will be cheaper than what some people pay for just insurance alone.

I don't think we need to hit 100% self-driving for the bundled insurance to be viable. 90% self-driving should still have a substantially lower accident rate if the Waymo data is accurate and extends.

replies(9): >>46236098 #>>46236522 #>>46236731 #>>46237640 #>>46238483 #>>46239662 #>>46240208 #>>46241770 #>>46243195 #
apercu ◴[] No.46236098[source]
Curious where you live? The only place I ever paid insurance premiums that high (and not quite that high) was in Ontario. I pay $70.
replies(4): >>46236173 #>>46236698 #>>46237078 #>>46242522 #
lotsofpulp ◴[] No.46237078[source]
I always chuckle when discussions start comparing insurance premiums without defining the insurance itself.

Might as well compare the prices of apples and oranges and vacuums and space stations.

These comments could be quoting liability only insurance or comprehensive/collision for a kia or comprehensive/collision with bodily injury for a rivian R1S. The insured amount would differ by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

For reference, I have only ever paid for maximum liability only insurance including uninsured/underinsured coverage ($500k/$250k), but not bodily injury, and my premium for 10k miles per year is less than $50 per month. Used to be less than $40 per month before 2022.

replies(1): >>46237811 #
maxerickson ◴[] No.46237811[source]
Why would you forego bodily injury liability coverage? Most states require it, and it makes sense if you have even modest assets.

The medical portion of my insurance that covers me (unlimited PIP) is like $17 a month, I can't see driving much and not spending that, even with relatively limited expectations for how much easier it might make things.

replies(1): >>46237919 #
1. lotsofpulp ◴[] No.46237919{3}[source]
Sorry, I meant I forego Personal Injury Protection, not Bodily Injury. I purchase the maximum amount of bodily injury (I forget if it’s $250k or $500k, but it’s up there).