Waymo's Driverless Cars Are Apparently an Insurance Company's Dream (engadget.com)
- Reference: 0175704917
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/12/19/2315215/waymos-driverless-cars-are-apparently-an-insurance-companys-dream
- Source link: https://www.engadget.com/transportation/waymos-driverless-cars-are-apparently-an-insurance-companys-dream-220746643.html
> Swiss Re analyzed liability claims from collisions covering 25.3 million miles driven by Waymo's autonomous cars. The study also compared Waymo's liability claims to human driver baselines based on data from over 500,000 claims and over 200 billion driving miles. The results found that Waymo Driver "demonstrated better safety performance when compared to human-driver vehicles." The study found cars operated by Alphabet's Waymo Driver resulted in 88 percent fewer property damage claims and 92 percent fewer bodily injury claims.
>
> Swiss Re also invented a new metric to compare Waymo Driver against only newer vehicles with advanced safety tech, like driver assistance, automated emergency braking and blind spot warning systems, instead of against the whole corpus of those 200 billion driving miles. In this comparison, Waymo still came out ahead with an 86 percent reduction in property damage claims and a 90 percent reduction on bodily damage claims.
[1] https://waymo.com/research/do-autonomous-vehicles-outperform-latest-generation-human-driven-vehicles-25-million-miles/
[2] https://www.engadget.com/transportation/waymos-driverless-cars-are-apparently-an-insurance-companys-dream-220746643.html
Odd way to rate safety (Score:2)
Instead of saying Waymo car rides are safer, they are saying the insurance companies like them? Only insurance companies care about having fewer traffic deaths, injuries, and property damage? And why would insurance companies care anyway? Riskier tasks can command higher insurance premiums and profits.
Re: (Score:3)
Higher premiums, maybe, but those profits are more risky, as there's a greater chance of screwing it up and losing money because of extra claims.
They want to know the actual risk so they can compete with other insurance companies, charging enough to cover the risk, but still hopefully undercutting the competition.
Yeah (Score:2)
It's hard to get into accidents when they randomly decide to stop somewhere and not move.
Not that hard (Score:2)
Given all the tailgates on the road. Though this is more common on highways.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that these are currently operating as Taxis. If you're the rider in a human driven taxi, you're not responsible for any accidents either unless you go to some extraordinary effort to cause one.
Who pays the bill? The Taxi company is currently also the company that makes the Taxis, so it's easy: Waymo in this case. Given that they have a ~90% reduction in accidents, that means that a corporate policy covering them is going to be relatively very cheap. Especially compared to what Uber needs to ch
Re: (Score:2)
> Who pays the bill [for an accident]? The Taxi company is currently also the company that makes the Taxis, so it's easy: Waymo in this case.
Agreed, but note that Waymo doesn't "make" the taxis. It buys stock vehicles (such as Jaguar I-PACE, Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, Prius, Audi TT, and Lexus RX450h) and refits them with self-driving hardware and software.
[Sorry to nitpick, and thanks Google AI Overview for the list of cars.]
Hit and run (Score:2)
> Waymo's autonomous vehicles have demonstrated significantly fewer property damage and bodily injury claims
Yeah, well, that is how hit-and-run works, since cops are too lazy to arrest a corporation when it drives into people/things. Better get used to "It's a car, that building shouldn't have been parked there, cars always have the right of way!"
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, do you have any citation where a Waymo car has been in an accident, knows it has been in an accident, and still drives away?
Most people who get into accidents aren't arrested, even if they caused the accident. Normally that requires some serious criminal behavior to get arrested.
I've seen pictures of Waymo cars. It's not like they blend in, you see that car, you know it's a Waymo. It'd likely on cameras. At which point they can almost just send a bill to Waymo. It's easy compared to a possible ille
Re: (Score:3)
> ...illegal immigrant...
Well, you just told us the content of your character there!
Re: (Score:2)
As did you.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, this says more about you than it does me, and that's still not much.
I'm willing to bet that the stuff you'd predict from it would be well under 50% accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
You compared a hypothetical hit-and-run Waymo to "a possible illegal immigrant without insurance." VeryFluffyBunny called you on it, and you think that says more about him/her than you?
You're in no position to point, dude.
Well uhh, yeah (Score:2)
Well uhh, no shit. They omitted the "report an accident as required by law after an accident" branch of the state machine
Re: (Score:2)
Not really? Waymo is under much tighter regulations as far as reporting accidents and such goes. Unless shenanigans are happening, which would sink their boat, all the accidents are reported. Maybe not via traditional means, but they're being reported to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
> Unless shenanigans are happening, which would sink their boat
Incidentally, that's why Cruise doesn't exist anymore, outright lying to regulators.
Looking at the paper, I don't see where they adjusted for drunk drivers. That's not a problem for calculating insurance fees, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are the ones notorious for that.
Comparing apples with oranges (Score:3)
This is disingenuous because they're not comparing like with like. They're comparing taxis with all cars. They're comparing routes where Waymo cars drive with all routes driven by all cars. If you want a like with like comparison, compare Waymo cars with taxis driven along the same routes. Let's see how the stats add up under those conditions.
This is basic stats 101 & journalists really shouldn't be falling for this shit. It's embarrassing just to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine if all they want to do is calculate insurance fees. The headline is maybe not supported by the paper, but that's normal scientific reporting.
Comparing Apples and Oranges (Score:1)
Waymo in my area (Los Angeles) doesn't even go on the freeways, so this seems like a poor comparison. Compare all miles in all shit weather and situations to the relatively easier surface streets (and Waymo do not cover all of those either), call me when they are in the real world. Waymo cherry picks it's miles and, by the transitive property, so are these data. Not saying it will necessarily be worse or better, but let's run the experiment and cut the BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, accident rates on freeways is lower per mile and overall than on "normal" streets, so that doesn't make the comparison worse. There's cherry picking going on, of course, but a 90% reduction is still very very good.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't like assumptions, let's run the experiment, put Waymo in winter in Minnesota as well. I used my anecdata as an example but I know they aren't in the Twin Cities yet, strange that? All in the sunny areas with no real strong weather.
Re: (Score:2)
I have said it for years, when self driving cars are better than human drivers, and insurance companies agree, let them "fly". I agree that right now they are only in the most "brain dead", simple areas that a computer can traverse, but they will get better. They will get better and expand their areas.
Re: (Score:2)
SF streets aren't known as the simplest places to transverse.
That said, "safe driving" seems reasonably answered, I've said for years that 90% reduction in accidents should be doable, with the caveat that self driving cars would have different accidents than human drivers. Basically, they can avoid the stuff like "drove too fast for conditions and plowed into a tree" and more something that even a stupid drunk human wouldn't get into. Even though I have a lot of faith in the accidents a "stupid drunk huma
Re: Comparing Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
SF streets are much more of a pain to park than drive, in my experience. Not pleasant, still.
If I lived there, I would definitely use the transit. I dont like the SF microclinmate, though. And my mansion in east SJ foothills would cost 4x the price in SF.
Unfortunately, due to vision problems, I don't have decades to wait for transit to become more widely available in Cali, or inexpensive robotaxis in my area. It's more likely that I'll move back to Europe after nearly 3 decades in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
> I used my anecdata as an example but I know they aren't in the Twin Cities yet, strange that?
Not really, since they aren't in most places. It would be weird if they were in CITY X.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but deaths are a lot less likely when cars are only driving 25 mph. Even in a really bad collision, at 25 mph modern car safety features will usually keep you from dying.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Swiss Re. They know their stuff. They will have adequately compensated for all relevant effects.
Of course they're safer (Score:3)
They don't pass one another [1]or other vehicles [imgur.com].
[1] https://i.imgur.com/azjYiAG.mp4
Oh, sure, they're happy now (Score:2)
But eventually, there will be no need for car insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it is a bad thing. There may be very little need for police too, as I have observed that what, 80% of their time is car related.
Re: (Score:2)
'Insurance' will be provided with the car by the manufacturer. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for the liability 100% created by someone else's software.
Re: Oh, sure, they're happy now (Score:2)
It won't be your policy if you're taking a robotaxi ride. It will be the company's. They will still pass through the cost as part of their trip charges. It will be interesting to see it they average that cost, or charge different prices by zip code/route
Unfortunately, they don't operate in my zip code in San Jose, so I may not find out for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
There still will be. It will be a lot less profitable, but insurances are used to business changing.
one less person in the car (Score:2)
so fewer injuries. also no worker's comp insurance necessary.
That is really no surprise (Score:2)
Has been predicted for a long time. Human drivers are, on average, really terrible. Eventually, this will lead to human drivers being the exception.
Hey! Rates will go down! (Score:5, Insightful)
> with reductions of up to 92% in some metrics.
Well, with this comes great news! The rates of coverage will only go up by 50%!
Zip code level data (Score:2)
So the big question is if waymo vehicles travel safer routes than general driving. At least this is broken down by zip code . But one could probably come up with a different measure comparing accidents on similar paths. The data may not be dense enough for that though
Re: (Score:2)
On my normal drives I see them so often that they either could provide the basis of an alibi or an invasion of privacy lawsuit. So, while I don't know where they're going, I know they are using my way of getting there.
Re: (Score:2)
> So the big question is if waymo vehicles travel safer routes than general driving.
I think they actually use more dangerous routes, because they stay on surface streets. I read just a month or two ago that they have finally begun using freeways in Phoenix. I don't believer the use freeways anywhere else they operate.
Re: (Score:2)
"I think they actually use more dangerous routes, because they stay on surface streets. "
As opposed to the underwater streets? Or underground streets?
Re: (Score:2)
> "I think they actually use more dangerous routes, because they stay on surface streets. "
> As opposed to the underwater streets? Or underground streets?
As opposed to limited-access highways which don't have intersections in the normal sense of the word, and which are often grade-separated from streets which do have intersections and which might have pedestrians on them.
Re: (Score:2)
> So the big question is if waymo vehicles travel safer routes than general driving. At least this is broken down by zip code
The answer is yes.
Re: Zip code level data (Score:2)
I'm certain that's a factor. They're severely limiting the range within which the cars can operate.
I want to take trips from my home with no cell signal to a remote beach also with no signal, going through a route with at least 20 miles of no signal. And there is of course no EV charger available at destination or en route . 2 slow 32 amp ones at my home. Only way I know yo make this trip is to drive myself. Uber won't work since I can't summon them on the way back due to no signal. I also can't drive in th
Re: (Score:2)
And the rate of denied claims will only increase by a small amount, too!