That's been the case forever, though. And they still have less accidents per head than young drivers (subs please check my decade-old facts).
I think insurance premiums would sort this out if it were a serious issue.

Not for Prince Philip. He's got a few quid apparently.

That's been the case forever, though. And they still have less accidents per head than young drivers (subs please check my decade-old facts).

I think insurance premiums would sort this out if it were a serious issue.

Thinking of road safety, a while ago the local police did random eye checks on drivers. Someone at work put up a numberplate at one end of the corridor and a notice on the wall at the 20 metre spot so people could test themselves.

Fuck Craster, I want it.

Wait accidents per year / per mile is literally the same as likelihood of a claim occurring.

Sure, but you just said it's not about frequency, it's about cost and frequency.

Also, where the fault was determined to lie. The table doesn’t detail that I think.

Self driving cars would help a lot here, wouldn't they? For the elderly, I mean.

Assuming they have a youngster to tell them how to set the digital clock in the dashboard.

Self driving cars would help a lot here, wouldn't they? For the elderly, I mean.

Assuming they have a youngster to tell them how to set the digital clock in the dashboard.

Nobody really knows where the liability lies, until that is tested and costs are known, insurers will err on the side of caution.

Isn't one of the big problems with self driving cars what they decide to when an accident is inevitable? Do they always take action to preserve the lives of people inside them, even if that means killing someone else?

So what do the people actually building this technology think about the trolley problem? I’ve asked lots of AV developers this question over the years, and the response is generally: sigh.

“The bottom line is, from an engineering perspective, solving the trolley problem is not something that’s heavily focused on for two reasons,” says Karl Iagnemma, the president of Aptiv Automated Mobility and cofounder of the autonomous vehicle company nuTonomy.1 “First, because it’s not clear what the right solution is, or if a solution even exists. And second, because the incident of events like this is vanishingly small and driverless cars should make them even less likely without a human behind the wheel.”

Another frequent objection: Self-driving cars definitely don’t have the data or training today to make the kind of complex tradeoffs that people are considering in the Moral Machine experiment. It’s hard enough for their sensors to distinguish vehicle exhaust from a solid wall, let alone a billionaire from a homeless person. Right now, developers are focused on more elemental issues, like training the tech to distinguish a human on a bicycle from a parked car, or a car in motion.

It is, however, likely that engineers are training their tech to make certain tradeoffs. “The way people in autonomous driving taxonomize or organize the objects that they detect is that they have vulnerable objects and non-vulnerable ones,” says Forrest Iandola, the CEO of the company DeepScale, which builds perception systems for self-driving cars. “The most important vulnerable objects to detect are humans with no protection. But a parked car or a traffic cone tend to be non-vulnerable.” And thus: better to hit.

After the hassle I had once trying to put one of the calipers back together on the GT-Four, I decided never again to touch brakes and simply get someone else to do it for me.