Comment by lvl155
2 days ago
For example, if you get into an accident in NYC, you’re pretty much screwed. Uber will not cover you and you have to rely on “bankrupt” commercial insurance. Which is funny because Uber fees INCLUDE these phantom coverages. Class-action waiting to happen.
> if you get into an accident in NYC, you’re pretty much screwed. Uber will not cover you and you have to rely on “bankrupt” commercial insurance
What is your source on TLC commercial insurance not paying out for medical expenses sustained in an accident?
And going back to Waymo, wouldn’t having one of the world’s wealthiest companies as the beneficial counterparty solve the problem you’re raising?
Aren’t you PE? Just look up the lawsuits bro. On a serious note, I don’t think Google or Tesla will take on that liability once we get to scale. That basically defeats the purpose of autonomous. Their legal and ops team will do everything to push an alternate business model similar to lease. This is why I really think autonomous has to be at least two orders of magnitude “safer” to be viable at scale (more than 10% on the road).
Comparing to taxi rates and positing a car that's pretty good by human terms, $500 a month for insurance defeats the purpose of autonomous? It doesn't seem like a big issue to me. That's less than a dollar per ride at unimpressive safety levels, so I can't imagine why it would need to be 100x safer.
> Aren’t you PE?
No. VC.
> Just look up the lawsuits bro
Can you name one? I’ve been in a single taxi accident. Liability was never even questionably mine.
> don’t think Google or Tesla will take on that liability once we get to scale
Based on what? Centralising liability tends to facilitate its transfer.