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

D.W. Simpson and Company -- Actuary Salary Surveys
Pension, Life, Health and Investment Actuarial Jobs
Property and Casualty Actuarial Jobs   Registration Form


View Poll Results: Will self driving autos kill car insurance?
Of course 7 10.45%
Maybe but not for a long time 50 74.63%
I'm a luddite... 10 14.93%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 01-29-2013, 04:44 PM
Paul Godsmark Paul Godsmark is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
College: Southampton University
Posts: 17
Default

A not particularly informed or detailed industry view: The re-shaping of auto insurance:
http://www.insurancetech.com/managem...ance/240145794

Lloyds view - Donald Light of Celent seems to be one of the better informed researchers (still) in the insurance sector:
http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insig...mber_209056609
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 01-29-2013, 04:59 PM
Paul Godsmark Paul Godsmark is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
College: Southampton University
Posts: 17
Default

An interesting one for the Insurance industry - one of the Princeton University autonomous vehicle work research goals is for their vehicle to take the New Jersey driving test.

When they do this (I am convinced they will), who or what actually has the license?
Does it have any legal standing that the car has a license? - does there still have to be a human licensed driver in the vehicle? (in the case of Nevada, Florida, California they currently do as they have passed laws to cover this - but what if NJ doesn't?)
Is it that particular vehicle, with that particular software coding that has the license?
But what happens when you update the software? - do you have to re-license?
Is the license applicable across a fleet - i.e. can a different vehicle with the same software coding drive under the same license? - or until you update the software?
Will we move to a 'virtual driving test' for autonomes to speed the process up?
What will the insurance industry make of all of this?

Over to you lot - what does it mean if a car or an Artificial Intelligence Operating System has a driving licence?...........

Last edited by Paul Godsmark; 01-29-2013 at 05:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 01-29-2013, 05:19 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 49,115
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Whoa, so it's going to do the driving test, which involves following spoken instructions? I would be extremely impressed. Much more impressed than what the self-driving cars can already do.

I would be a little less impressed if it could also pass the written test, but that would be pretty cool as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 01-29-2013, 10:38 PM
_BullDog_'s Avatar
_BullDog_ _BullDog_ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Favorite beer: Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout
Posts: 22,648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Godsmark View Post
An interesting one for the Insurance industry - one of the Princeton University autonomous vehicle work research goals is for their vehicle to take the New Jersey driving test.

When they do this (I am convinced they will), who or what actually has the license?
Does it have any legal standing that the car has a license? - does there still have to be a human licensed driver in the vehicle? (in the case of Nevada, Florida, California they currently do as they have passed laws to cover this - but what if NJ doesn't?)
Is it that particular vehicle, with that particular software coding that has the license?
But what happens when you update the software? - do you have to re-license?
Is the license applicable across a fleet - i.e. can a different vehicle with the same software coding drive under the same license? - or until you update the software?
Will we move to a 'virtual driving test' for autonomes to speed the process up?
What will the insurance industry make of all of this?

Over to you lot - what does it mean if a car or an Artificial Intelligence Operating System has a driving licence?...........
You will have to pay $100 annually to keep the license....
__________________
bulldogbrute.mybrute.c
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 01-30-2013, 08:44 AM
vividox's Avatar
vividox vividox is offline
Lead Guitarist
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Favorite beer: Saison-Brett
Posts: 46,946
Default

Wondering how self-driving autos would have handled my commute this morning... road crews haven't even touched the highways up here yet.

Of course, if you automate the road plows, too, maybe you can keep the roads clearer.
__________________
This post was crafted using a special blend of herbs and sarcasm.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 01-30-2013, 09:36 AM
Vorian Atreides's Avatar
Vorian Atreides Vorian Atreides is offline
Wiki/Note Contributor
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Knock Turn Alley
Studying for ACAS
College: Hard Knocks
Favorite beer: Sam Adams Cherry Wheat
Posts: 36,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Godsmark View Post
Ummm no.... I don't get what you are after. Rather than me guess would you mind having another go please!
Sorry, allow me to attemp to reword my particular concern.

I grew up in the mountains of Colorado and learned early on that the mechanics of navigating curves (especially during inclement weather) are different when that curve is on an incline versus on level ground.

This is often not evident until experienced directly (albeit, it's learned very quickly once experienced).

I imagine that many programmers of the self-driving autos may not have experience with mountain driving, let alone driving in inclement weather in the mountains.

I believe that part of the problem here is that most people tend to think two-dimensionally about driving, when in the mountains, you need to think three-dimensionally because of the added influence of gravity to the mechanics of driving.

While I'm not opposed to self-driving cars on the roads, I have the position that these cars are only as good as the programmer; and at present, I would not trust these programmers to navigate the mountain highways (including Interstate 70) of Colorado simply because the margin for error on most of these mountain roads is very narrow. And this would be in the context of ideal weather; I don't know how these systems would safely navigate during inclement weather when visibility is decreased significantly.
__________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Wait until you have kids.

Freedom of speech is not a license to discourtesy
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 01-30-2013, 09:49 AM
Heywood J Heywood J is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorian Atreides View Post
While I'm not opposed to self-driving cars on the roads, I have the position that these cars are only as good as the programmer; and at present, I would not trust these programmers to navigate the mountain highways (including Interstate 70) of Colorado simply because the margin for error on most of these mountain roads is very narrow. And this would be in the context of ideal weather; I don't know how these systems would safely navigate during inclement weather when visibility is decreased significantly.
I think you're selling computer science a little short. Many programs outdo their programmers in performance, and I see no reason why that can't extend to driving. There are a lot of learning algorithms out there, and they're just going to get better with time. Second of all, I'm sure that huge car companies are going to have a test driver or two who's just as elite a driver as you are. And lastly, computer cars are going to have so many more gadgets to increase their visibility, some things that are just physiologically impossible for humans, so I think that's the weakest argument of them all.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:04 AM
Vorian Atreides's Avatar
Vorian Atreides Vorian Atreides is offline
Wiki/Note Contributor
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Knock Turn Alley
Studying for ACAS
College: Hard Knocks
Favorite beer: Sam Adams Cherry Wheat
Posts: 36,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heywood J View Post
I think you're selling computer science a little short. Many programs outdo their programmers in performance, and I see no reason why that can't extend to driving. There are a lot of learning algorithms out there, and they're just going to get better with time. Second of all, I'm sure that huge car companies are going to have a test driver or two who's just as elite a driver as you are. And lastly, computer cars are going to have so many more gadgets to increase their visibility, some things that are just physiologically impossible for humans, so I think that's the weakest argument of them all.
Similar arguments were made about the RMS Titanic.

And "more gadgets" (even when it's redundancy in the system) does not translate into "better" for me. This line of argument resides on the implicit assumption that these gadgets work as intended and with proper maintenance.

What happens when maintenance is lagging on these gadgets? What happens if there's a critical system failure at a critical moment? While I may pay due diligence to maintaining my vehicle, there is no guarantee that others will do so with the same level of care. How will my system respond to a malfunction in another's car?

Related to all of this is the question of the cost for the level of maintenance to prevent such failures.

But going back to my first line, I'm not going to blindly accept an Expert's word on the safety of new technology simply because the Expert says that it's safe. And I doubt that I'm alone with this opinion. I saw the results of a survey (I think it was Google that did it) where it asked people to what level of comfort they would trust this technolgy. While a large percentage indicated that they would trust it to get them around town and on road trips, practically no one trusted it enough to let it take their young child alone.
__________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Wait until you have kids.

Freedom of speech is not a license to discourtesy
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:49 AM
nonactuarialactuary nonactuarialactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorian Atreides View Post
Similar arguments were made about the RMS Titanic.

And "more gadgets" (even when it's redundancy in the system) does not translate into "better" for me. This line of argument resides on the implicit assumption that these gadgets work as intended and with proper maintenance.

What happens when maintenance is lagging on these gadgets? What happens if there's a critical system failure at a critical moment? While I may pay due diligence to maintaining my vehicle, there is no guarantee that others will do so with the same level of care. How will my system respond to a malfunction in another's car?

Related to all of this is the question of the cost for the level of maintenance to prevent such failures.

But going back to my first line, I'm not going to blindly accept an Expert's word on the safety of new technology simply because the Expert says that it's safe. And I doubt that I'm alone with this opinion. I saw the results of a survey (I think it was Google that did it) where it asked people to what level of comfort they would trust this technolgy. While a large percentage indicated that they would trust it to get them around town and on road trips, practically no one trusted it enough to let it take their young child alone.
Out of curiosity, do you refuse to blindly accept that an airplane wonít fall out of the sky and therefore refuse to fly? When driving a regular car, do you refuse to blindly accept the results of the safety tests and assume that the brakes will fail on you?

My point is that none of this is blind acceptance. These will go through countless hours of quality control scrutiny well before they ever see the consumer marketplace. Nobody will be blindly accepting that these are safe. Instead, people can objectively prove that these are safe by pointing to the mountains of research that will be done on the topic.

Additionally, I also donít know why youíre so hung up on the Colorado mountains. These are engineering questions that can be solved with proper attention, and in fact, have already been solved to a certain extent. Iím not sure why you seem to think that all Google engineers are from the flattest parts of Iowa. Just in case you havenít seen it, back in 2010 (ancient history given how fast the technology is progressing), an Audi autonomous vehicle successfully scaled the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb in Colorado, which, as Iím sure youíre aware, is one of the oldest motorsports raceways in the country. Navigating this course is a lot more challenging than navigating Interstate 70. In a similarly equipped car, an expert human driver could apparently do it in 17 minutes. The autonomous car did it in 27 minutes. This isnít the game-stopper that you think it is. Link below:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/11...bs-pikes-peak/

As for maintenance to ensure the sensors and everything are working properly, this is something easily fixed with proper legislation. Many states already have the legal structure in place today (mine requires an annual safety inspection). This would just need to be tweaked to handle self-driving cars (maybe more frequent inspections and/or different inspection guidelines that shops must follow, for example).
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 01-30-2013, 11:12 AM
r. mutt's Avatar
r. mutt r. mutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,501
Default

While I'm glad Paul has joined us, hopefully he won't just drop a lot of glurg and run off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Godsmark View Post
I don't necessarily agree with everything that Brad writes, but on the whole he is bang-on in my opinion with the principles and has developed his understanding over many years:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/myths.html
This was kind of awful. Putting aside the fact that a high-tech guru seems unaware of spellcheck (that's not an unfair snipe...there were a dozen or so spelling errors), it's mostly cheerleading. Summarizing:

Top 10 (or so) Myths about Robocars

They won't be safe

His answer: "They will be, because the designers are focused on safety. And regulators will keep them in line!" Myth not busted.

The big issue is who will be liable in a crash
His answer: "It's just about money flow. There are experts who will work this out!" We'll I can't argue with that technically, but manufacturers are going to do everything they can to offload risk...prepare for war.

The cars will need special dedicated roads and lanes
I do like this: "There is a principle of such importance here that I have called it the first law of robocars -- you don't change the infrastructure. If you break this law it means you have cars that can only operate where you've made those infrastructure changes, and such changes are usually expensive, slow and bureuacratic or political."

We need radio links between cars to make this work
Essentially he argues that this is untrue, though what he really argues is that v2v doesn't work unless everyone has it (something argued upthread as well), and it's difficult to create consistently reliable technology. So he thinks v2v is not the way to go.

We wont see self-driving cars for many decades.
Kind of a straw man based on what you mean by "see" and "self driving".

It is a long time before this will be legal
More straw.

How will the police give a robocar a ticket?
More an entertaining diversion than a myth.

People will never trust software to drive their car
"People report good experiences so far!" Listen, the people riding in robocars right now make most early adopters seem like nervous nellies. We call this sample bias. Anyway, he goes on to say that evidence shows the recalcitrant will be relatively few, but he doesn't actually provide that evidence.

They can't make an OS that doesn't crash, how can they make a safe car?Quoting directly: "Your car today comes with large numbers of computers, and they control some of the most important safety systems like steering, brakes and throttle. These are much simpler computers than you find in your laptop, but you'll also notice that cars drive fine and people are not getting into accidents because of computer failure. "
Where to start? First of all, the reason you don't see accidents in cars arising from computer malfunction is that those computers are almost entirely monofunctional and are not really engaging in much decision making. And you know what? I've had on board computers misbehave. Second, you can't claim earlier w respect to v2v that "Security remains a major and unresolved issue", but then ignore that fact w respect to directional computers.

The cars will always go at the speed limit
Don't see the myth.


I get that advanced technologies need evangelists, and I appreciate the enthusiasm. And I do think this will all get solved in some fashion, but the casual dismissal of more complex challenges sometimes reminds me of this exchange from Monty Python:

Alan: Well, last week we showed you how to become a gynaecologist. And this week on 'How to do it' we're going to show you how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first, here's Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases.

Jackie: Hello, Alan.

Alan: Hello, Jackie.

Jackie: Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvellous cure for something, and then, when the medical profession really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there'll never be any diseases ever again.

Alan: Thanks, Jackie. Great idea. How to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well here we are. You blow there and you move your fingers up and down here.

Noel: Great, great, Alan. Well, next week we'll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing us how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. So, until next week, cheerio.

Alan: Bye.

Jackie: Bye.

(Children's music.)
__________________
(\ (\
( ^_^)
(_(")(") It all comes full akchigs eventually. ~ Full-On Devi
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
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 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, 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 0.33835 seconds with 8 queries