Poll: Auto Accident Fatalities and Injuries

[JohnL]

How many of us want the safety margin knobs controlled by billionaires with immunity and profit motivations. I prefer to keep profit and accountability tied together as close as possible, which is why I cast a suspicious eye on corporation law in general, but that is another topic.

This makes a good point and it leads me to also question insurance corporations who make a lot of money too. Car insurance and life insurance and health insurance and the house insurance adds up. I have a particular problem with the actuarial tables used for life insurance because its almost like they're laying bets on when people die.

[ohio jones]

Most impact testing has been for front collision, and while that is important as well, inattentive driving is a major cause for both types of collision. Our current family car has an automatic braking function that engages the brakes when it senses a vehicle in front of it, but approaching a stationary vehicle at 50 MPH is much more than these systems can deal with.

A vehicle with full self driving like Tesla or similar systems such as BMW's "Hands Off" available in Europe would prevent this from happening; it simply won't approach something stationary without giving enough time to stop.

There is a case to be made that all vehicles need to have this technology. For a Tesla, it adds about $8000 in cost to a vehicle that has a base price of $40,000. Compared to the cost of accidents, that is reasonable. In any case, considering how dangerous vehicle accidents are and how many people die, it seems to me like a reasonable safety measure, particularly for motorists who think the most important activity when driving is to be staring at their phone.

Alternatively, law enforcement could simply start impounding one's vehicle and permanently suspending one's licence when one engages in dangerous activity, like is done in some other countries. Australia's fatality rate remains half of America's.

Ah, yes, like in this incident in Walnut Creek, CA.
https://abc7news.com/post/tesla-autopil ... /13144903/

The Tesla driver was so fortunate that his Tesla refused to approach the stationary fire truck....

I recall a mention on S2S of someone who was on their way home from KFW in heavy traffic moving at highway speeds, when the vehicle in front of him suddenly changed lanes, revealing a Tesla that was stopped. With no time to react and traffic on both sides, he rear ended it. Thanks to other safety equipment such as belts and air bags there were no serious injuries. Apparently the Tesla had encountered debris on the roadway that it could not identify, and simply stopped and froze, refusing to move. I guess if the entire highway had been populated by self-driving Teslas, the whole thing would have been bricked by a brick or whatever it was.

Driver assist is one thing, but there absolutely must be a way for a human driver (or pilot; there have been several aviation disasters attributed to this) to override the system immediately and completely, and use their own judgment. An experienced driver in an emergency situation is almost always going to make better choices.

[ohio jones]

I have a particular problem with the actuarial tables used for life insurance because its almost like they're laying bets on when people die.

Just one of the reasons conservative Anabaptists have historically eschewed life insurance.

[Neto]

How many of us want the safety margin knobs controlled by billionaires with immunity and profit motivations. I prefer to keep profit and accountability tied together as close as possible, which is why I cast a suspicious eye on corporation law in general, but that is another topic.

This makes a good point and it leads me to also question insurance corporations who make a lot of money too. Car insurance and life insurance and health insurance and the house insurance adds up. I have a particular problem with the actuarial tables used for life insurance because its almost like they're laying bets on when people die.

Regarding this particular type of insurance, I have scruples, and won't do it.

As concerns the manipulative practices associated with it, while I was in Bible college, an agent 'targeted' the students (and me as well, but I wasn't interested, perhaps mainly due to prohibitions in my congregation), and several of my friends invested in it. I think all of them terminated it later. These were all young single guys, all 20 or younger.

[JohnH]

It wouldn't surprise me to find the overall data to show automated driving is marginally safer but there are deeper issues that concern me. When a human driver caused death or injury he, and his insurer and employer, must stand to account for it. This cloaks the driving experience with a certain amount of care and concern because of legal accountability which stands even when people abandon ethical accountability.

None of that changes when using a vehicle with extra safety features, whether anti lock brakes, lane keep assist, or FSD.

The only difference is a driver could try suing an auto maker claiming the safety feature didn’t work.

However if the equipment, software, profit and control all belong to a few people or their shell companies, accountability will quickly errode. Especially once the beneficiaries gain access to the political machinery and grant themselves legal protections.

Okay, but none of that has happened.

We can have self driving cars next week if Congress grants Musk and all Tesla beneficiaries total and permanent immunity from all damages.

We already have full self driving and no grant of immunity was necessary.

It's just a matter of a software update to grant permissions. The question is who gets sued when they drive over somebody's children. This will most certainly happen and when it does it is small comfort to the grieving to assure them the data says this is safer in the long run.

How many of us want the safety margin knobs controlled by billionaires with immunity and profit motivations. I prefer to keep profit and accountability tied together as close as possible, which is why I cast a suspicious eye on corporation law in general, but that is another topic.

What does corporation law have to do with any of this?

The safety features simply assist the driver. Anti lock brakes simply help you stop in a shorter distance. Lane departure warning beeps when you drift out of your lane. Full self driving is a bunch more of that stuff. You can go and buy it today.

Replace Elon Musk with, I dunno, a large group of shareholders and Tesla with some car manufacturer you like. (I am making an assumption you have political objections to Elon Musk.) For example, BMWs sold in Europe have similar FSD features. So do Chevy Tahoes sold in America.

Would this change any of your position?

[Neto]

I personally strongly dislike ABS. It can take away the driver's ability to control the vehicle in the best possible way. The main such situation I have encountered is when attempting to slow down or come to a stop on a street where the right side of the road is snow or ice covered. The ABS system will disengage the brakes on the wheels that are on dry pavement, making the vehicle continue farther or faster than if the driver had full control of the brakes. (All you have to do is counter steer. Anyone who drove vehicles before the ABS nonsense came into fashion does this instinctively. But I guess this is an "old geezer attitude", because perhaps most drivers now-a-days never drove before that all came about. The first vehicle we owned that had ABS was the 93 Chrysler Town & Country minivan we bought in 2000. I was driving already for nearly 30 years before that.)

[JohnH]

I personally strongly dislike ABS. It can take away the driver's ability to control the vehicle in the best possible way. The main such situation I have encountered is when attempting to slow down or come to a stop on a street where the right side of the road is snow or ice covered. The ABS system will disengage the brakes on the wheels that are on dry pavement, making the vehicle continue farther or faster than if the driver had full control of the brakes. (All you have to do is counter steer. Anyone who drove vehicles before the ABS nonsense came into fashion does this instinctively. But I guess this is an "old geezer attitude", because perhaps most drivers now-a-days never drove before that all came about. The first vehicle we owned that had ABS was the 93 Chrysler Town & Country minivan we bought in 2000. I was driving already for nearly 30 years before that.)

I suppose one could also make arguments for drum brakes, bias-ply tyres, no power steering, no power brakes, and a number of other modern things. The good news is that if you want to drive a vehicle like that, you certainly can. You could even pull the fuse for your ABS system and the brakes will work the old fashioned way.

[JohnH]

How many of us want the safety margin knobs controlled by billionaires with immunity and profit motivations. I prefer to keep profit and accountability tied together as close as possible, which is why I cast a suspicious eye on corporation law in general, but that is another topic.

This makes a good point and it leads me to also question insurance corporations who make a lot of money too. Car insurance and life insurance and health insurance and the house insurance adds up. I have a particular problem with the actuarial tables used for life insurance because its almost like they're laying bets on when people die.

Most auto insurance companies pay out more in claims than they receive in premiums.

[ken_sylvania]

How many of us want the safety margin knobs controlled by billionaires with immunity and profit motivations. I prefer to keep profit and accountability tied together as close as possible, which is why I cast a suspicious eye on corporation law in general, but that is another topic.

This makes a good point and it leads me to also question insurance corporations who make a lot of money too. Car insurance and life insurance and health insurance and the house insurance adds up. I have a particular problem with the actuarial tables used for life insurance because its almost like they're laying bets on when people die.

Most auto insurance companies pay out more in claims than they receive in premiums.

I don't believe that is correct. Certainly not true for Geico or Progressive for the past three years.

[JohnH]

Most auto insurance companies pay out more in claims than they receive in premiums.

I don't believe that is correct. Certainly not true for Geico or Progressive for the past three years.

I should be a little more clear with operating expenses+claims being more than received in premiums. State Farm paid out significantly more a few years ago and was ordered by the several states to get their loss ratios lower. They are at about 85% now.

Most insurers sit in a gigantic pool of money and try to invest it prudently so they can rely on that extra income.

If an insurer is paying out significantly less in claims (after operating expenses etc.) than premiums, the state will often order them to lower premiums. For example, this just happened in Florida with Progressive. I think the minimum is 80%.