Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
Never trust an automated vehicle you have to buy insurance for. If it's truly autonomous, then the actual person in the driver seat is irrelevant. There is no need to price risk individually. Any true self driving car should have a lifetime insurance policy included in the purchase price. The manufacturer is the one determining if crashes will occur. The liability should be entirely on them. Any company selling you a "self driving" card that still requires you to buy insurance is selling snake oil.
I agree with you, but it will never happen without legislation forcing it. The insurance companies don't care who the money comes from (for the most part), so take them out of the equation. The person purchasing the car will (rightfully) feel that they shouldn't have liability because they're not driving the car, but the manufacturer/dealer will also (rightfully) feel that they can't control the environment that the owner subjects the car to, so the liability should be on the purchaser.
Right now, if you don't maintain your tires, and you lose traction and cause a wreck, you're at fault. If you don't maintain your brakes and they fail and you slam into the back of another car, you're at fault. Repeat ad nauseam for every part of the car.
Unless everything becomes leased (oh god, I can hear the comments about 'you will own nothing, and you will be happy' coming) and the manufacturer/dealer can force inspection of the car every x00 miles at the purchaser's expense, they will happily (and successfully, because they'll definitely sway the majority of american idiots with their 'dire warnings' about giving up ownership of your vehicle) that they shouldn't be liable because they can't ensure owners don't set up a dangerous situation.
I also don't see them 'grounding' a vehicle because a sensor says something is wrong. That is just screaming as the bad PR looms for the companies that would spearhead that thrust.
Your comment needs more paragraph-long sentences with multiple parentheticals. I can almost read it. /s
Actually, if you take out the parentheticals, your third paragraph doesn't even make sense.
Happily argue?
If you can't keep track of your own sentences enough to not miss an important word, how can you expect other people to do so? Maybe ease up on the parentheses.
Sory.
Edit: Sorry
Mm. No. Where / how much you drive it has everything to do with the amount of risk and is completely personal.
Well, self-driving cars should refuse to drive in conditions that are outside the safety parameters they are designed for, regardless of exposure (time, amount, and condition driven), so the result should be the same.
Even standard warranty doesn't define conditions that strictly, just time & mileage - and even that bcs of the wear.
No dude. If you live in a high crime city your insurance is going to cost more than if you live in an affluent gated community. Because the risk of theft or vandalism or damage is just greater. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, it’s just a fact. But maybe facts don’t belong in this fantasy session about how we all wished insurance worked.
Sorry, was this a reply to my post?
I got a bit lost.
Also, in the first and second world countries we don't have crime-area based pricing tables, only like natural disasters, but I've never heard about it applied to car insurance (tho it's def possible, but they wound need to be less detailed).
Yes it was a reply to you. I’m saying that all of these ideas about how “self driving cars take the human driver out of the picture, therefore everyone’s insurance should be the same” ignore the fact that the safety record of the human driver is only one of the risk factors that determines your car insurance cost. The other risk factors are unaffected by whether your car drives itself.
That depends on the market conventions I think.
From a few European countries that I vaguely know about car insurance pricing it just depends on drivers age and/or that persons past claim events.
But anyway, I wasn't commenting on the contrary, just that a self-driving car (like that combo of hardware and software versions) should behave comparably in regards to the safety it can control.
Eg that a user couldn't make a self-driving car drive in unsafe conditions.
Watch these Tesla's eat shit in "Full" Self-Driving mode because there's fog, it's sort of darkly hilarious that human needed to intervene to avoid hitting a fucking freight train:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4f-crzpZ9w