Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Property - Casualty / General Insurance
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson
Actuarial Jobs

Visit our site for the most up to date jobs for actuaries.

Actuarial Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Health, Life, Pension and Non-Tradtional Jobs.

Actuarial Meeting Schedule
Browse this year's meetings and which recruiters will attend.

Contact DW Simpson
Have a question?
Let's talk.
You'll be glad you did.


View Poll Results: Will self driving autos kill car insurance?
Of course 42 16.60%
Maybe but not for a long time 182 71.94%
I'm a luddite... 29 11.46%
Voters: 253. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-24-2013, 02:45 PM
McUSA McUSA is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Studying for Life
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by r. mutt View Post
Look, the current navigation system - which still can't negotiate in anything but sunshine, apparently - is running at $70K above the cost of the car itself. There's still years of R&D ahead before they make the entire system "work" in all hazards (presuming they can), and then after that they have to make it work affordably.

Alternately you could argue that we'll develop road infrastructure that's separate for these kinds of vehicles, but until they can move from that structure into the rest of the grid, you might as well build a monorail ("a monorail! right here in Springfield!").

Something is coming, but I'm not worried yet.
Yea, some of that stuff may far in the future such as running in pods and communicating effectively. But basic driving seems to be worked out. I don't know what the cost is because a 150K system for a few test cars doesn't translate into the cost per car for 12 million cars sold annually. I don't think anyone thinks there needs to be radically different road infrastructure. If anything, road infrastructure would be less since ulimtately you wouldn't need signals, lanes, signs or lights.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:05 PM
DeepPurple's Avatar
DeepPurple DeepPurple is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by McUSA View Post
Those are great points, Mountain Hawk. I think 2050 is too long - I think we are talking about 2025 here. Maybe manual driving banned by 2035.

And you're right, there still's exposure to insure here. So 70% is a big chunk to take out of the market. I wouldn't buy any auto insurers stock right now - though, yes, this is far out in the future.

You sound like the guys who, in 1965, predicted people would be routinely vacationing in space by the 1990s, and living in colonies on the moon by 2000.


You just cannot extrapolate things so far into the future.

I think fully functional love-robots arrive before self-driving cars. Then self-driving cars won't be much of an issue because all of the world's engineers will be preoccupied with their fully functional love-robots.
__________________
Come on. Let's go space truckin'. Come on!
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-24-2013, 03:30 PM
McUSA McUSA is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Studying for Life
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepPurple View Post
You sound like the guys who, in 1965, predicted people would be routinely vacationing in space by the 1990s, and living in colonies on the moon by 2000.


You just cannot extrapolate things so far into the future.

I think fully functional love-robots arrive before self-driving cars. Then self-driving cars won't be much of an issue because all of the world's engineers will be preoccupied with their fully functional love-robots.
Could be that or could be this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZb0avfQme8
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-24-2013, 04:35 PM
MountainHawk's Avatar
MountainHawk MountainHawk is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salem, MA
Studying for Nothing!!!!
College: Lehigh University Alum
Favorite beer: Yuengling
Posts: 64,850
Default

None of those are a culture-shifting as the driverless car. It's a totally new world paradigm.
__________________

Play in the AO Prediction Game now!



1
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-24-2013, 06:06 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 27,303
Default

Can I hear more about these fully functioning love robots?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-24-2013, 06:10 PM
Heywood J Heywood J is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonlnear View Post
You sure had a lot of hot air to spew about deer avoidance fo rsomeone who hasn't ever been on a collision course wth one. Throughout the whole exchange you kept talking about the operator (human or mechanical), reaction times, etc. without ever acknowledging the single most important constraint in such a situation: friction.
I did acknowledge it, you just missed it. I acknowledged it by making an argument that it takes much less distance to swerve around an object than it takes to come to a complete stop. If you're running into a brick wall, and need to turn 90 degrees to avoid it, then you're better off braking, as it will take you half the distance of turning. However, you don't need to turn 90 degrees to avoid a deer, just a slight deflection will do.
Quote:
It doesn't matter what the reaction time of the computer is, the amount you can change the trajectory of a moving car at the last second is strictly limited by the tires - and it quadratically with speed. Do a few calculations to figure what turn radius can be achieved with a maximum available traction of 0.6g (which is VERY generous for an ordinary car in random conditions), consider that a "last minute" scenario would involve an initial reaction at a distance of 50-200 feet at a speed of 50 or more mph and get back to me with what deflection can be achieved in a single turn initiated at 100 feet away.
It's been a while since I did these calculations for Formula SAE in college, but at the risk of making an embarrassing stupid math mistake, I'll give it a go. At 60 mph, your turn radius would be 120 meters. You would achieve a deflection of about 4 meters, about the width of the lane, from 100 feet back. It would take you 60 meters (200 feet) to come to a full stop, so you're about 100 feet too late.
Quote:
Not to mention, traction control won't let you use all of your tire friction for turning, but you can safely use it for braking.
Couple of things. The point of stability control is to let you use most of your tire friction for turning in an emergency, without trying to use too much and losing control. I think you're also thinking of ABS, not traction control. Traction control is what maximizes your friction during acceleration.
Quote:
Swerving is pretty much only beneficial if the optimal path is known (i.e. the object to avoid isn't prone to random jumping), and is a small deflection from the initial path. Under pretty much any other circumstances braking is infinitely preferable to swerving. Don't forget that for swerving to be successful you need not only to be able to achieve the intial predicted path, but be ready to swerve the otehr way half way thorugh in the [more likely than you seem to be aware of] event that teh deer decides to jump the wrong way. At highway speeds the first turn is iffy under non-track conditions; the second turn (at, say, 50 feet - and still at the same speed) is physically impossible.

This doesn't even begin to consider that under many situations where deer are present, swerving isn't even an option due to things like guard rails, sharp drop-offs, loose gravel two feet over, etc.
All of that is a danger mainly due to human limitations. Computers aren't going to steer cars into guardrails, or cars in the blind spot for that matter.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-24-2013, 06:45 PM
Vorian Atreides's Avatar
Vorian Atreides Vorian Atreides is offline
Wiki/Note Contributor
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: As far as 3 cups of sugar will take you
Studying for ACAS
College: Hard Knocks
Favorite beer: Most German dark lagers
Posts: 62,718
Default

Will driverless cars make a moral decision of whether to run over a child about to run into the street versus hitting an on-coming car where there is no other alternative?
__________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing

Why should I worry about dying? Itís not going to happen in my lifetime!


Freedom of speech is not a license to discourtesy

#BLACKMATTERLIVES
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:28 PM
Heywood J Heywood J is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorian Atreides View Post
Will driverless cars make a moral decision of whether to run over a child about to run into the street versus hitting an on-coming car where there is no other alternative?
I imagine that one would be a bit tougher than calculating optimal avoidance path.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-24-2013, 07:55 PM
JasonScandopolous's Avatar
JasonScandopolous JasonScandopolous is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by McUSA View Post
Yea, some of that stuff may far in the future such as running in pods and communicating effectively. But basic driving seems to be worked out. I don't know what the cost is because a 150K system for a few test cars doesn't translate into the cost per car for 12 million cars sold annually. I don't think anyone thinks there needs to be radically different road infrastructure. If anything, road infrastructure would be less since ulimtately you wouldn't need signals, lanes, signs or lights.
FYI: An industry report I recently received expects these to cost ~$1,000-$1,500 more than an otherwise equivalent car immediately after hypothetical mass production (not years from now, today).
__________________
Jason Scandopolous Williams de la Hoya

Quote:
Originally Posted by jas66Kent View Post
People without an education don't see the solar system like I do.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-24-2013, 08:12 PM
sweetiepie sweetiepie is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 666 desdemona
Favorite beer: porters
Posts: 8,619
Blog Entries: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorian Atreides View Post
Will driverless cars make a moral decision of whether to run over a child about to run into the street versus hitting an on-coming car where there is no other alternative?
Ideally it would image search the child, identify its' parents, and calculate the price of a settlement.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.26343 seconds with 11 queries