Tesla rear-ends a stationary Fire Engine with its lights flashing at 65mph

[james_s]

The ads would be a deal breaker. The insurance could go either way, as a more careful than average driver I would expect my insurance to drop. Many insurance companies now offer a discount if you connect a logger to your car to record such things. I'd be willing to do so but my 28 year old car lacks OBDII.

[Simon]

in the UK young drivers can have a logger to help but strangely it is not available to older drivers

[CatalinaWOW]

Not strange.  As a rule the accidents of younger drivers can be prevented by behavior modification.  Older drivers accidents tend to be from other causes, and unfortunately our behaviors are more firmly fixed.

[james_s]

As far as I know, the ones that offer the loggers here do not have age restrictions. I believe the reasoning is that the logger capturing data immediately up to the collision potentially can save them a great deal of money investigating when it is not immediately clear who is at fault in an accident.

[ez24]

in the UK young drivers can have a logger to help but strangely it is not available to older drivers

Lucky you.  Here in the US, this can be used against the driver.  Like if they were going 36 MPH in a 35 MPH zone.  I would bet there is no "grace" speed.  In other words doing 36 in a 35 zone is illegal.

[Simon]

Not strange.  As a rule the accidents of younger drivers can be prevented by behavior modification.  Older drivers accidents tend to be from other causes, and unfortunately our behaviors are more firmly fixed.

It was done to help drag down prices for responsible young drivers. at 18 you can easily be paying well over £2000 for a small car, insurance in the UK has become a huge racket, my prices have been going up steadily and I'm about to tell my insurer to stuff it.

[Simon]

in the UK young drivers can have a logger to help but strangely it is not available to older drivers

Lucky you.  Here in the US, this can be used against the driver.  Like if they were going 36 MPH in a 35 MPH zone.  I would bet there is no "grace" speed.  In other words doing 36 in a 35 zone is illegal.

We have a +10%+2 rule here so if your done for speeding you definitely were speeding no if's or buts....

[BravoV]

A simple reflection, in today's modern age in 2018, still , trains that are running on a fixed rail, are crashing every year throughout the world ...

-> List of rail accidents (2010–present)  ... yep, there are entries in 2018 already. 

Suddenly I lost the appetite of discussing autopiloted car ... let alone riding it.

Latest additions since my own post above .... 

- 31 January - United States - 2018 Crozet, Virginia train crash: A chartered Amtrak train carrying Republican Party lawmakers from Washington, D.C. to a retreat in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia collides with a garbage truck at a grade crossing near Crozet, Virginia. One person on the truck is killed and six people are injured.

- 4 February - United States - 2018 Cayce, South Carolina train collision: Amtrak Silver Star train #91 traveling from New York City to Miami collided with a CSX freight train early Sunday in Cayce, South Carolina, killing at least two people, injuring at least 100 others, and spilling thousands of gallons of fuel.

[tggzzz]

Not strange.  As a rule the accidents of younger drivers can be prevented by behavior modification.  Older drivers accidents tend to be from other causes, and unfortunately our behaviors are more firmly fixed.

It was done to help drag down prices for responsible young drivers. at 18 you can easily be paying well over £2000 for a small car, insurance in the UK has become a huge racket, my prices have been going up steadily and I'm about to tell my insurer to stuff it.

That was the rationale for its introduction.
Would you bet against there being feature creep?
Would you bet that any info collected couldn't be used against a driver after an accident?

[Simon]

That was the rationale for its introduction.
Would you bet against there being feature creep?
Would you bet that any info collected couldn't be used against a driver after an accident?

You mean like my dash cam could? As it is I use a dash cam fully aware that it witnesses what I do as well as other drivers. I personally prefer to have the monitoring to prove what actually happened than not so that I can deny driving like an asshole which I do not.

[tggzzz]

That was the rationale for its introduction.
Would you bet against there being feature creep?
Would you bet that any info collected couldn't be used against a driver after an accident?

You mean like my dash cam could? As it is I use a dash cam fully aware that it witnesses what I do as well as other drivers. I personally prefer to have the monitoring to prove what actually happened than not so that I can deny driving like an asshole which I do not.

It is your "after the event" choice to use a dashcam, or not. That's fine.

With the recorder that ability could be taken away from you, and they (corporate or state) could state "you have been driving illegally, were not complying with the terms of your insurance, and are therefore uninsured".

Insurance companies can and do use any technique to deny liability. Here's a surprising (to me) one:

• you park your car legally
• someone else drives into it causing severe damage
• you get the perp's details
• the perp is insured
• police inspect the scene; there is no doubt the perp is 100% to blame
• the perp's insurance company denies the claim
• you have to claim on your insurance, thus affecting your record and increasing your re-insurance price next time around

So, how does the perp's insurance company escape unscathed? The perp had a heart attack, and that caused the crash. The escape clause is "automatism". It means that accidents that occur after a heart attack (or other medical conditions) are generally found to be out of the driver’s control and, as a result, the perp's insurer is not liable.

Still trust insurance companies to behave honourably? I don't.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/12/driver-heart-attack-wrote-off-my-parked-car-lost-no-claims

P.S. Looks like that can apply in the US as well: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/car-accidents-caused-medical-emergency.html

[Simon]

I supposedly get an insurance discount for declaring I have a camera, I'm not aware of the details but always assume that uninsured if my camera is not on.

Insurance companies need cracking down on because they have become a racket as you would expect from any aspect of banking that involves so much money going around.

[tggzzz]

I supposedly get an insurance discount for declaring I have a camera, I'm not aware of the details but always assume that uninsured if my camera is not on.

I wouldn't touch such a policy with a bargepole. While I can tell whether a camera is on, I can't tell whether it is working properly and storing the video on the card. Hence it is conceivable that I would be unaware that I'm not insured.

To get back to the topic title, consider
The VENTURER trials go hand in hand with developing an understanding of the insurance and legal implications of increased vehicle autonomy. http://www.venturer-cars.com/
Autonomous vehicles will also create new challenges and opportunities for automotive and IT sectors insurance firms and will require new legislative framework. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/engineering/research/csn/projects/current/venturer/
The trial is being funded by Innovate UK to investigate the legal and insurance aspects of the new technology ... http://www.atkinsglobal.com/en-gb/projects/venturer-driverless-cars

[GreyWoolfe]

"Insurance companies can and do use any technique to deny liability. Here's a surprising (to me) one:
you park your car legally
someone else drives into it causing severe damage
you get the perp's details
the perp is insured
police inspect the scene; there is no doubt the perp is 100% to blame
the perp's insurance company denies the claim
you have to claim on your insurance, thus affecting your record and increasing your re-insurance price next time around
So, how does the perp's insurance company escape unscathed? The perp had a heart attack, and that caused the crash. The escape clause is "automatism". It means that accidents that occur after a heart attack (or other medical conditions) are generally found to be out of the driver’s control and, as a result, the perp's insurer is not liable. "

Many years ago, my Ex and I had a brand new car-6 months old, that was parked in front of the house.  There was snow on the ground.  A truck was coming around the corner and slid into the car, pushing it up onto the sidewalk into a tree.  The police gave him an at fault ticket.  The insurance company took care of fixing the car and then dropped us.  I hate insurance companies.

Fast forward to last year.  We bought my old company van, 2013 Ram CV, basically a Dodge Grand Caravan without seats.  I will say that the van is VIN'ed as a commercial vehicle.  Progressive refused to insure it as a private vehicle, even though I stated that what the use was going to be.  We would not get the multi car discount and they wanted to charge commercial rates.  Allstate said, no problem.  Multi car discount and insured as a private vehicle, though it does cost more to insure a van than a car, from past experience we knew that.  We were with Progressive for 17 years and poof, gone.

[tszaboo]

That was the rationale for its introduction.
Would you bet against there being feature creep?
Would you bet that any info collected couldn't be used against a driver after an accident?

You mean like my dash cam could? As it is I use a dash cam fully aware that it witnesses what I do as well as other drivers. I personally prefer to have the monitoring to prove what actually happened than not so that I can deny driving like an asshole which I do not.

It is your "after the event" choice to use a dashcam, or not. That's fine.

With the recorder that ability could be taken away from you, and they (corporate or state) could state "you have been driving illegally, were not complying with the terms of your insurance, and are therefore uninsured".

Funny, you mention, you've been driving "illegally". I find it on a daily basis, that it is impossible to drive legally here. I give you examples.

Truck stops on a road where there is a continuous centre line. They are moving people, and they dont give a damn about everyone else. You can either break the law, and go into the other lane, or wait until the truck magically evaporates.
Speed limit signs only on right side of a 4 way highway. Like, how am I supposed to even see that through a truck.
Roads that are not wide enough.
Idiot peugeot drivers doing crazy things. The only way to avoid them is to get out of your car, and hide behind a tree, and hope they dont hit you. - by Jeremy Clrakson
Intersections, where you are supposed to give way, but you only see 5 meters of the other road, where cars go 50kph. Yeah, sure, two roads supposed to meet at od angles, and you definitely need a house built right next to the road.
Roundabouts in citys like Bussels or Paris, where it is a damn free for all elimination game. There is a roundabouts in Brussels, which has 4 lanes turning LEFT from it.
Cyclist on a 90kph road with continuous centre line for kilometers.
Speed limit set way too low.
Idiots driving 1m behind you.
Construction workers leaving their signs in your lane. I've seen once, they dig some holes next to the road, so they placed a signs on the road. The holes were behind a meter high concrete posts. Like, you need to total your car to drive into the hole and still, they had to force you into the other lane.

I find it, that maybe 20% of the time I can drive somewhere, without breaking the so called law.
Good luck with self driving cars.

[tggzzz]

That was the rationale for its introduction.
Would you bet against there being feature creep?
Would you bet that any info collected couldn't be used against a driver after an accident?

You mean like my dash cam could? As it is I use a dash cam fully aware that it witnesses what I do as well as other drivers. I personally prefer to have the monitoring to prove what actually happened than not so that I can deny driving like an asshole which I do not.

It is your "after the event" choice to use a dashcam, or not. That's fine.

With the recorder that ability could be taken away from you, and they (corporate or state) could state "you have been driving illegally, were not complying with the terms of your insurance, and are therefore uninsured".

Funny, you mention, you've been driving "illegally". I find it on a daily basis, that it is impossible to drive legally here. I give you examples.
...

Don't read too much into the words I thought up on the spot.

Nonetheless, where someone can save the corporation money (and therefore get a bonus), their Ts&Cs will be interpreted to their advantage.

[Simon]

It's also impossible here to drive without putting yourself in a situation where you could be blamed for an accident. I do in fact loath driving

[paulca]

[Marco]

I find it, that maybe 20% of the time I can drive somewhere, without breaking the so called law.
Good luck with self driving cars.

That's my main issue with this absolute fantasy of self driving cars. Urban driving requires human level AI AND the intentional breaking of the law.

If you aren't willing to do both you will cause gridlock and AI won't be able to do either.

[Simon]

If you aren't willing to do both you will cause gridlock and AI won't be able to do either.

that is pretty much what I said a way back, the AI car will just sit at a junction and won't be able to move.

[Neomys Sapiens]

Personally I think we should just to the chase and make everyone get a GPS implant.  That way we could track them also 

Yep. And also exploding cortical implant for anyone with a security classification. Should prevent anyone going Snowden.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Orwell was right.