I'm having trouble trying to explain what I'm thinking. Basically with all the new NYIAS releases, I've found I'm way more interested in the SUVs than the cars. Not from an actual ownership POV- in that context I will never relent; I actually care about driving dynamics and enjoyment. But from an industry watching POV it seems like SUVs are where the excitement is. Market share reflects that with the bulk of vehicles sold NOT being cars anymore, for better or worse.
Doesn't help that manufacturers seem to be mailing it in with cars vs actually trying with crossovers/SUVs/trucks. This isn't limited to the Hertz "free upgrade" Altimas either; in the luxury car space the M.O. seems to be "more tech", and in the performance car realm the M.O. seems to be "beat our last C&D headline figures at all costs (even the essence of the car)". Car design has also become a bit stale (see Audi/BMW) or flat out garish (Honda/Toyota/Lexus), while there are actually some legitimately good looking SUVs (dat Aviator :wub: )
Thoughts? Sentiments?
Is there any data out there about sedan sales vs SUV sales over the last few decades? SUVs were hot in the 90s, struggled a bit in the mid 2000s (?) when gas prices shot up, and now we're in another SUV (well, CUV, really) frenzy.
Decades, no but I do know regular cars are in the minority for the first time ever in market share.
CUVs have become pretty fuel efficient as well which means they probably won't get reamed by a gas price spike.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 28, 2018, 02:16:51 PM
Decades, no but I do know regular cars are in the minority for the first time ever in market share.
CUVs have become pretty fuel efficient as well which means they probably won't get reamed by a gas price spike.
Oh yeah. An Equinox will get what, 25-28mpg on the highway all day long? That's what some sedans were getting before the CUV craze. Makes sense since they're essentially car based.
The CUV popularity isn't nearly as irrational as the late 90s / early 00s large SUV craze imo. Footprints are small for the interior space, fuel efficiency is getting pretty good, overall value is decent etc. plus unlike those earlier SUVs the refinement is there.
Americans have always equated mass with status & luxury. That used to mean 20 foot long Cadillacs, but now it's SUV/CUVs.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 28, 2018, 02:32:01 PM
Oh yeah. An Equinox will get what, 25-28mpg on the highway all day long? That's what some sedans were getting before the CUV craze. Makes sense since they're essentially car based.
Meanwhile car efficiency has gone way up. Honda Accords with
Earth Dreams turbo engines get 38mpg.
Quote from: Laconian on March 28, 2018, 03:47:53 PM
Meanwhile car efficiency has gone way up. Honda Accords with Earth Dreams turbo engines get 38mpg.
That's true. And I think it's great and amazing that efficiency has taken a big hike upward. Cars are sharper and faster than ever before, yet even more efficient.
They seem to have become the jack of all trades - ground clearance/seating height, relatively good fuel economy, carlike driving manners, big trunks, reasonable prices (compared to equivalent sedans)
I wish we would ditch MPGs and go for gallons per hundred miles. MPGs distort things a lot and make for weird psychological thresholds and incentives. I doubt Hyundai would have fooled around to show their cars went from 2.56 to 2.5 gallons per 100 miles vs 39 to 40. Metric system wins again.
But yea CUVs have pretty much closed the gap in mixed driving. IF there's a gap it's nowhere near big enough to justify the hassle of changing cars.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 28, 2018, 04:05:05 PM
That's true. And I think it's great and amazing that efficiency has taken a big hike upward. Cars are sharper and faster than ever before, yet even more efficient.
I think it's a real-world example of the Substitution Effect. The "price" decreases as fuel efficiency of all vehicles improves. So consumers have a choice to make - either enjoy the greater fuel efficiency of the sedans and benefit from the reduced fuel costs, allowing them to spend that money on other goods; or substitute in a CUV that gets the same MPG as their previous vehicle, but provides the benefits that Speed_Racer just mentioned.
I wonder if the prevelance of CUV's is a conspiracy for automakers to pass CAFE averages easier. These things are usually classified as light trucks and thus the CAFE, emissions, and other laws are different for them
Everything is still driven by market demand. Hybrids help CAFE too, but nobody wants them.
Quote from: Laconian on March 28, 2018, 03:47:53 PM
Meanwhile car efficiency has gone way up. Honda Accords with Earth Dreams turbo engines get 38mpg.
And they have an Accord plug-in hybrid with a 45 mile battery-only range. Not too bad if you ask me.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 28, 2018, 04:11:27 PM
I wish we would ditch MPGs and go for gallons per hundred miles. MPGs distort things a lot and make for weird psychological thresholds and incentives. I doubt Hyundai would have fooled around to show their cars went from 2.56 to 2.5 gallons per 100 miles vs 39 to 40. Metric system wins again.
But yea CUVs have pretty much closed the gap in mixed driving. IF there's a gap it's nowhere near big enough to justify the hassle of changing cars.
No. Just no. Fuel per distance is not an efficiency measure.
Quote from: MX793 on March 29, 2018, 04:35:54 AM
No. Just no. Fuel per distance is not an efficiency measure.
:confused: Why not?
Efficiency is what you get out over what you put in. A unit of gallons per mile is the inverse of that.
And despite your assumption to the contrary, Hyundai didn't just fudge the mpg numbers in the US market. They also inflated the numbers in Canada, expressed in L/100km. The numbers only improved by like .3.
Any numerical measure is going to result in psychological thresholds. Maybe there won't be any when you first switch to a new unit system, because people are still acclimating, but once people have gotten used to it, new psychological thresholds will be established and automakers will set out to target those, sometimes fraudulently.
They're both mathematic ratios. Neither lie just because people are stupid and don't think about it.
I think the SUV/CUV thing is just a fad, sort of a "The Smiths next door got one and they love it! We'll get one too" kind of a thing. I drive these vehicles at work all the time- there really isn't that much difference between them and a sedan other than a tiny little area to throw crap in behind the rear hatch.
Quote from: shp4man on March 29, 2018, 07:37:40 AM
I think the SUV/CUV thing is just a fad, sort of a "The Smiths next door got one and they love it! We'll get one too" kind of a thing. I drive these vehicles at work all the time- there really isn't that much difference between them and a sedan other than a tiny little area to throw crap in behind the rear hatch.
What do you think will become the next big thing and replace SUVs/CUVs?
Quote from: Speed_Racer on March 29, 2018, 09:11:30 AM
What do you think will become the next big thing and replace SUVs/CUVs?
Amazon delivery drones that will bring everything to us, so we can sit on the couch & not move all day
Quote from: Speed_Racer on March 29, 2018, 09:11:30 AM
What do you think will become the next big thing and replace SUVs/CUVs?
Not driving at all!
Quote from: MX793 on March 29, 2018, 05:58:06 AM
Efficiency is what you get out over what you put in. A unit of gallons per mile is the inverse of that.
And despite your assumption to the contrary, Hyundai didn't just fudge the mpg numbers in the US market. They also inflated the numbers in Canada, expressed in L/100km. The numbers only improved by like .3.
Any numerical measure is going to result in psychological thresholds. Maybe there won't be any when you first switch to a new unit system, because people are still acclimating, but once people have gotten used to it, new psychological thresholds will be established and automakers will set out to target those, sometimes fraudulently.
L/100km is better because fuel consumption is represented linearly. People intuitively know how to interpret linear relationships with large values, but grokking inverse relationships and small values needs more sophisticated math. Many people assume a marginal mile per gallon is worth the same, whether it be applied to pickup trucks or hybrids.
Quote from: Speed_Racer on March 29, 2018, 09:11:30 AM
What do you think will become the next big thing and replace SUVs/CUVs?
The end of human driving.
Quote from: Raza on March 29, 2018, 02:29:11 PM
The end of human driving.
Such a drama queen
https://jalopnik.com/googles-waymo-ceo-wed-fight-a-ban-on-human-driving-1824121164
QuoteTesla CEO Elon Musk suggested back in 2015 that, eventually, cars are going to be so advanced that driving simply has to be outlawed.
"It's too dangerous," he said. "You can't have a person driving a two-ton death machine."
Krafcik doesn't agree.
"Good heavens, no," he told Jalopnik.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 29, 2018, 04:25:56 PM
Such a drama queen
https://jalopnik.com/googles-waymo-ceo-wed-fight-a-ban-on-human-driving-1824121164
He asked what's next. I answered. You praise to the high heavens the end of manually driven cars, but accepting it makes me a drama queen? Do you need an oxygen tank with the air so thin on such a high horse?
Quote from: Raza on March 30, 2018, 08:01:11 AM
He asked what's next. I answered. You praise to the high heavens the end of manually driven cars, but accepting it makes me a drama queen? Do you need an oxygen tank with the air so thin on such a high horse?
I have
never advocated, celebrated or promoted the death of manual driven vehicles :rolleyes:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 30, 2018, 08:22:37 AM
I have never advocated, celebrated or promoted the death of manual driven vehicles :rolleyes:
That's not even remotely true.
Quote from: Laconian on March 29, 2018, 11:09:49 AM
L/100km is better because fuel consumption is represented linearly. People intuitively know how to interpret linear relationships with large values, but grokking inverse relationships and small values needs more sophisticated math. Many people assume a marginal mile per gallon is worth the same, whether it be applied to pickup trucks or hybrids.
"Bigger is Better" is usually the preferred way to represent data ... That's why we have mpg
I see a huge bumper crop of new SUVs/CUVs but if we are being truthful about them - not too many impressive ones.
Most are just fwd based economy cars (some mid sized) on stilts with low development costs and actually it looks like there is a trend going to just using a ecoo car moniker with some "rugged off-road" name affixed to it. Its logical that as the pendulum swings from cars to CUVs, it will slightly swing back and have more of these hybrid things. That will probably be a trend from here out.
There is massive money being thrown at the market, but my observation seems to be most of it is just tech crap, electrification, and autonomous nonsense - which is undoubedly the market of the future.
If you want your SUV to have great levels of "Sport" and "Utility" the bar hasn't really moved much since Porsche came out with the Cayenne what 10+ years ago? After all this time you either need to pick either sporty with poor AWD&room or utility with poor handling but great 4wd/room. One would have thought if there was a serious effort in SUVs there would be better and cheaper choices.
Quote from: Raza on March 30, 2018, 08:23:38 AM
That's not even remotely true.
Your paranoia has prompted you to hallucinate.... here is a health
bitch slap dose of reality
https://www.carspin.club/index.php?topic=33908
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 30, 2018, 11:21:31 AM
Your paranoia has prompted you to hallucinate.... here is a health bitch slap dose of reality
https://www.carspin.club/index.php?topic=33908
You're always going on about how automation is going to be so much better than having human beings drive and pay attention to what they're doing. 90% of your posts are about how much better it'll be when autonomous cars take over and complaining about people who don't agree with you, blowing their responses out of proportion (as is your typical fashion with these things, it seems). You shield yourself with this fantasy that autonomous cars are going to take over and that you're still going to be able to ride your motorcycle, the lone person left on the road that isn't sitting in a rolling computer.
And even your link shows an acceptance than manual driving will come to an end, even if it will take a few decades. It's clear. Don't get upset at me for accepting that and not being happy about it.
*complains about me blowing other viewpoints out of proportion*
*blows mine out of proportion and lies about the points made in a link I posted*
Autonomous ubiquity <> the end of manual driving. We have got verbal conformation from the people in charge of these programs that killing manual driving is not an option. We know that there is still a lot of money in manual driving as well. But hyperbole and paranoia over autonomous cars, no matter how absurd and steeped in "slippery slope" fallacies you are willing to be, are your comfort blankie.
The people who think they're in charge are rarely the people in charge. Once autonomous cars become mainstream, insurance, economic and legal factors will soon make manual cars a rare plaything for the rich.
Good news is the guys who always say "track day" but never go eventually will, because that will be their only choice.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 01, 2018, 08:54:32 AM
The people who think they're in charge are rarely the people in charge. Once autonomous cars become mainstream, insurance, economic and legal factors will soon make manual cars a rare plaything for the rich.
Good news is the guys who always say "track day" but never go eventually will, because that will be their only choice.
Or the woods. I don't want some autonomous bullshit trying to drive me down a bumpy logging road.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 01, 2018, 10:01:45 AM
Or the woods. I don't want some autonomous bullshit trying to drive me down a bumpy logging road.
Yes, autonomous vehicles will first be constrained to certain controlled roads, then improved public roads, and then roads which are mapped. Off road areas and such will be more or less uncontrolled.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 01, 2018, 10:16:43 AM
Yes, autonomous vehicles will first be constrained to certain controlled roads, then improved public roads, and then roads which are mapped. Off road areas and such will be more or less uncontrolled.
We don't put nearly enough money into our roads to have AVs any time soon.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 01, 2018, 08:54:32 AM
The people who think they're in charge are rarely the people in charge. Once autonomous cars become mainstream, insurance, economic and legal factors will soon make manual cars a rare plaything for the rich.
Good news is the guys who always say "track day" but never go eventually will, because that will be their only choice.
I still don't buy that insurance will go up for manual cars for autonomous driving. It's not like autonomous cars won't have any share in the total liability. If they work as promised there will be less crashes which should make it cheaper for everybody.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 01, 2018, 05:39:13 PM
I still don't buy that insurance will go up for manual cars for autonomous driving. It's not like autonomous cars won't have any share in the total liability. If they work as promised there will be less crashes which should make it cheaper for everybody.
Autonomous cars remove human error from the equation, therefore manually driven cars will be a higher risk because they are the only ones that can behave erratically or unpredictably. An autonomous car will not misjudge a braking distance or the closing speed of an approaching vehicle before executing a turn or entering a roadway from a side street. I don't see how they could ever be found at fault for a collision. From a liability standpoint, the human-driven vehicle will definitely be a higher liability.
Quote from: MX793 on April 01, 2018, 06:44:49 PM
Autonomous cars remove human error from the equation, therefore manually driven cars will be a higher risk because they are the only ones that can behave erratically or unpredictably. An autonomous car will not misjudge a braking distance or the closing speed of an approaching vehicle before executing a turn or entering a roadway from a side street. I don't see how they could ever be found at fault for a collision. From a liability standpoint, the human-driven vehicle will definitely be a higher liability.
Yes human driven cars will have a higher risk of crashing than autonomous cars if everything goes as claimed, but human driven cars in a sea of autonomous cars will have a lower risk of crashing than human driven cars in a sea of other human driven cars. I don't see how that can do anything but drive premiums down, even if human drivers have to pay more than autonomous users.
Plus don't forget there is still stuff like theft, uninsured motorist coverage, gap coverage etc. Liability is obviously the biggest piece and will get cut down significantly, but I don't know that it will ever go away completely for people who register/own cars.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2018, 05:47:03 AM
Yes human driven cars will have a higher risk of crashing than autonomous cars if everything goes as claimed, but human driven cars in a sea of autonomous cars will have a lower risk of crashing than human driven cars in a sea of other human driven cars. I don't see how that can do anything but drive premiums down, even if human drivers have to pay more than autonomous users.
Plus don't forget there is still stuff like theft, uninsured motorist coverage, gap coverage etc. Liability is obviously the biggest piece and will get cut down significantly, but I don't know that it will ever go away completely for people who register/own cars.
Insurance rates are based on relative risk. The human driven vehicles will be the highest risk group, and will pay the highest insurance premiums because of it.
As to the notion of rates going down... HAHAHAHAHA!
Cars today are vastly safer with respect to minimizing injury as well as helping the driver avoid accidents in the first place than they were 10 or 20 years ago what with all of the airbags, ABS, ESP, blind spot monitoring/warning systems, etc... Have auto insurance rates gone down as all of this safety tech has been introduced?
Quote from: MX793 on April 02, 2018, 06:34:28 AM
Insurance rates are based on relative risk. The human driven vehicles will be the highest risk group, and will pay the highest insurance premiums because of it.
Insurance rates are also based on the total risk of the pool, which will go down. For the 8th time, obviously human driven vehicles will have higher premiums.
Quote from: MX793 on April 02, 2018, 06:34:28 AMAs to the notion of rates going down... HAHAHAHAHA!
Cars today are vastly safer with respect to minimizing injury as well as helping the driver avoid accidents in the first place than they were 10 or 20 years ago what with all of the airbags, ABS, ESP, blind spot monitoring/warning systems, etc... Have auto insurance rates gone down as all of this safety tech has been introduced?
Well there are a couple of pretty obvious reasons why that may be....
For starters cars are a lot more complex than they used to be. A bumper hit = new parking sensors and possibly some radar/LIDAR stuff. A light front end collision = dozens of airbags. More complex materials and material mixes (i.e. high strength steel, aluminum) are nowhere near as straightforward to repair. Car values themselves, particularly in the used market, have skyrocketed. I keep referring back to Accords- in 03 a 10 year old Accord cost me $2200; an equivalent Accord today would cost 3-4x as much- well beyond what inflation would account for. That factors in. So on the car side there's plenty of stuff.
Then you get to the human side... phones have made us worse drivers. Accident/fatality rates per mile were on the decline, and then the smartphone came out and trends reversed, despite all the safety/accident avoidance tech. People are driving more since the recession ended. There are more cars and drivers on the road since 10-20 years ago. Etc. So plenty of factors there as well.
Obviously insurance companies are in it to make money, but prices are also bound by the market/competition... so barring some kind of price fixing scandal you have the inside scoop on I'd say premiums are pretty efficiently priced. As I said before, if anything autonomous cars would be a godsend to insurers, as they'd be able to generate the same profits on much less revenue/cost/headcount/hassle etc.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 01, 2018, 05:39:13 PM
I still don't buy that insurance will go up for manual cars for autonomous driving. It's not like autonomous cars won't have any share in the total liability. If they work as promised there will be less crashes which should make it cheaper for everybody.
There's this huge automotive insurance industry to support. Autonomous vehicles will be many times safer, and will be discounted heavily compared to normal cars. As insurance is often nearly on par with purchase price for some cars, this will be a major driver.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2018, 05:47:03 AM
Yes human driven cars will have a higher risk of crashing than autonomous cars if everything goes as claimed, but human driven cars in a sea of autonomous cars will have a lower risk of crashing than human driven cars in a sea of other human driven cars. I don't see how that can do anything but drive premiums down, even if human drivers have to pay more than autonomous users.
Plus don't forget there is still stuff like theft, uninsured motorist coverage, gap coverage etc. Liability is obviously the biggest piece and will get cut down significantly, but I don't know that it will ever go away completely for people who register/own cars.
You really think premiums for manually driven cars will go down with the rise of autonomous cars?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 02, 2018, 10:46:17 AM
There's this huge automotive insurance industry to support. Autonomous vehicles will be many times safer, and will be discounted heavily compared to normal cars. As insurance is often nearly on par with purchase price for some cars, this will be a major driver.
Oh, the auto insurance industry will definitely shrink. It's a low margin business, and the bulk of the cost side revolves around claims. If autonomous cars eliminate the bulk of claims, there won't be that much industry to support. Can't adjust + make repairs + offer rentals for claims on accidents that never happened in the first place :huh:
Quote from: Raza on April 02, 2018, 11:14:26 AM
You really think premiums for manually driven cars will go down with the rise of autonomous cars?
I have been asking why people believe otherwise for years, and have been getting nothing but implicit admissions of a lack of understanding of how insurance and business in general works. Autonomous cars will present the rare opportunity for costs and prices to go down while increasing profitability :huh:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2018, 11:54:55 AM
Oh, the auto insurance industry will definitely shrink. It's a low margin business, and the bulk of the cost side revolves around claims. If autonomous cars eliminate the bulk of claims, there won't be that much industry to support. Can't adjust + make repairs + offer rentals for claims on accidents that never happened in the first place :huh:
I have been asking why people believe otherwise for years, and have been getting nothing but implicit admissions of a lack of understanding of how insurance and business in general works. Autonomous cars will present the rare opportunity for costs and prices to go down while increasing profitability :huh:
They will shrink reluctantly. What will really be the tipping point will be "autonomous only" insurance companies that will drive the price down quickly.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2018, 11:54:55 AM
I have been asking why people believe otherwise for years, and have been getting nothing but implicit admissions of a lack of understanding of how insurance and business in general works. Autonomous cars will present the rare opportunity for costs and prices to go down while increasing profitability :huh:
Because prices don't go down. When have you known insurance companies to be generous? :facepalm:
Quote from: Raza on April 02, 2018, 02:51:50 PM
Because prices don't go down. When have you known insurance companies to be generous? :facepalm:
I pay less for full coverage on our 4 vehicles today than I did for full coverage on my POS Accords/Maximas 10-15+ years ago. Home insurance policies definitely got cheaper when values collapsed during the recession. Etc. Come on, you are a law student, you can do better than this.
Other than the Uber deathstrike, autonomous car testing has basically proven than the only accidents happen when a human driver hits the autonomous car. So insurance rates will depend on how many autonomous cars vs. manually driven cars are on the road. The less manual drivers there are, the more narrowly the cause of the risk is concentrated and the higher the premiums will be for those few people.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2018, 04:47:07 PM
I pay less for full coverage on our 4 vehicles today than I did for full coverage on my POS Accords/Maximas 10-15+ years ago. Home insurance policies definitely got cheaper when values collapsed during the recession. Etc. Come on, you are a law student, you can do better than this.
Were you in your mid-20s 10-15 years ago? 🤔
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 02, 2018, 04:52:51 PM
Were you in your mid-20s 10-15 years ago? 🤔
I was... premiums went down when I turned 25, which they would not do if "prices don't go down". They have zero reason to that.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2018, 04:55:16 PM
I was... premiums went down when I turned 25, which they would not do if "prices don't go down". They have zero reason to that.
Everybody's premiums drop when they turn 25, so using that as an example seems moot. Which is why I asked.
You move to a different risk bucket. It is different.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 02, 2018, 06:01:19 PM
Everybody's premiums drop when they turn 25, so using that as an example seems moot. Which is why I asked.
Mine didn't decrease materially. Less than 5%, IIRC.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2018, 04:55:16 PM
I was... premiums went down when I turned 25, which they would not do if "prices don't go down". They have zero reason to that.
Micro vs macro.
So run me through the evidence/logic that autonomous cars would make for a macro increase for manual driver's insurance premiums. How does less risk = higher premiums?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2018, 07:45:22 PM
So run me through the evidence/logic that autonomous cars would make for a macro increase for manual driver's insurance premiums. How does less risk = higher premiums?
Is the average insurance premium for any given risk group (e.g. single males under 25, married men over 30, single women over 25, whatever) less than it was for the same group 15 years ago, adjusting for inflation?
That your rates went down from 15 years ago (corresponding from you as an individual, IOW "micro", shifting to a different risk pool) does not mean that rates as a whole have trended down.
Cars are safer now. Injuries are down. Rates are up. Insurance profits are up. Even if rates for autonomous cars are down, driving national average premiums down, I don't see non-autonomous rates ever dropping. Mostly because rates are based most heavily on the type of car you drive (sports car, SUV, minivan), your statistics (marital status, age, credit rating), and your driving record (tickets, at-fault accidents), not what everyone else around you drives. A 21 year old male with a non-autonomous Mustang is going to be just as much an insurance liability in a future when most cars are autonomous as today. Ergo, the rates for said driver in said car should not be expected to be any less in the future. If anything, they'll go up if for no other reason than to "incentivize" people to move to lower risk, autonomous vehicles. Just as the insurance industry has put a beat-down on sportbikes and coupes by jacking the rates on vehicles classified as such to incentivize people not to buy them. The basic performance capabilities of a BMW S1000RR and S1000XR are basically the same on the street, but one carries a significantly higher insurance premium because it's a "sportbike" while the other is an "adventure bike" or "dual sport".
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2018, 04:47:07 PM
I pay less for full coverage on our 4 vehicles today than I did for full coverage on my POS Accords/Maximas 10-15+ years ago. Home insurance policies definitely got cheaper when values collapsed during the recession. Etc. Come on, you are a law student, you can do better than this.
10 to 15 years ago, you were in a higher risk category than you are now. Don't be ridiculous; those things aren't comparable. You at 18 and you at 30 are not comparable for car insurance purposes.
Quote from: MX793 on April 02, 2018, 08:11:09 PM
Mostly because rates are based most heavily on the type of car you drive (sports car, SUV, minivan), your statistics (marital status, age, credit rating), and your driving record (tickets, at-fault accidents), not what everyone else around you drives. A 21 year old male with a non-autonomous Mustang is going to be just as much an insurance liability in a future when most cars are autonomous as today.
Mostly wrong. Yes a 21 year old Rustang driver will be a high risk driver. No, these aren't the factors rates are most heavily based on, at least in my experience. My Civic, Z and G all cost about the same to insure with full coverage :huh: More importantly, I can't seem to get a quote now, but I'm certain that if I plopped my exact statistics here (married 34 y/o dad w/a few tickets) into a NYC address my rates would skyrocket. So by far where you are, and by extension what other cars are around you, have the biggest impact on your rates.
If the majority of cars around you are programmed to + demonstrably shown to reduce the likelihood of an accident, guess what. You are at less risk of having one, which makes you less risky, which will drive your premiums down. Coming back to your 21 year old- where is he more likely to have an accident: a crowded city where he is constantly surrounded by other drivers, or in the middle of nowhere with nobody around? You guys seem to have forgotten how the majority of accidents work (hint: they usually involve more than one car)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2018, 05:31:44 AM
Mostly wrong. Yes a 21 year old Rustang driver will be a high risk driver. No, these aren't the factors rates are most heavily based on, at least in my experience. My Civic, Z and G all cost about the same to insure with full coverage :huh: More importantly, I can't seem to get a quote now, but I'm certain that if I plopped my exact statistics here (married 34 y/o dad w/a few tickets) into a NYC address my rates would skyrocket. So by far where you are, and by extension what other cars are around you, have the biggest impact on your rates.
If the majority of cars around you are programmed to + demonstrably shown to reduce the likelihood of an accident, guess what. You are at less risk of having one, which makes you less risky, which will drive your premiums down. Coming back to your 21 year old- where is he more likely to have an accident: a crowded city where he is constantly surrounded by other drivers, or in the middle of nowhere with nobody around? You guys seem to have forgotten how the majority of accidents work (hint: they usually involve more than one car)
Insurance rates anywhere in NYS are much higher than North Carolina (and most other states). That's driven by state-specific insurance regulation, not risk pool. Dense city vs middle of nowhere makes some difference, but only because there's less opportunity for you to damage someone else's property (which is what liability covers). Same effect as not driving many miles annually vs driving a lot of miles.
For coverage other than liability (collision and comp), location makes a difference. Living in a high crime area can drive up comprehensive premiums, for example. High traffic density increases opportunity for a collision, same as driving lots of miles. Collision covers damage to your vehicle when you are at fault, so that should be unaffected by what everyone else around you drives. If anything, it may go up for non-autonomous vehicles when autonomous vehicles become the majority.
Quote from: MX793 on April 03, 2018, 06:38:36 AM
Insurance rates anywhere in NYS are much higher than North Carolina (and most other states). That's driven by state-specific insurance regulation, not risk pool.
For coverage other than liability (collision and comp), location makes a difference. Living in a high crime area can drive up comprehensive premiums, for example. Collision covers damage to your vehicle when you are at fault, so that should be unaffected by what everyone else around you drives. If anything, it may go up for non-autonomous vehicles when autonomous vehicles become the majority.
Again, even accidents you are at fault for should go down with autonomous cars if they work as intended. It's usually never 100% one way or another. At least now we have moved from rates going up being a certainty to a possibility. The notion that less claims = higher premiums remains ridiculous and unproven.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2018, 06:43:10 AM
Again, even accidents you are at fault for should go down with autonomous cars if they work as intended. It's usually never 100% one way or another. At least now we have moved from rates going up being a certainty to a possibility. The notion that less claims = higher premiums remains ridiculous and unproven.
The only way accident rates for non-autonomous vehicles go down is if only the best drivers continue to drive manually. And while good drivers who actually enjoy driving will certainly be part of the non-autonomous demographic, so will the squids and hoonigans that drive up insurance premiums for performance cars today. Any affordable, non-autonomous car in the hypothetical future will, to insurance companies, be as tainted as cheap performance cars (WRXes, Mustang's, Camaros, etc) or sport bikes today.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 02, 2018, 07:45:22 PM
So run me through the evidence/logic that autonomous cars would make for a macro increase for manual driver's insurance premiums. How does less risk = higher premiums?
Manual driven cars would begin to represent a higher and higher percentage of total risk. Its not about paying more in absolute terms, but in relative terms; putting a cost pressure on manually driven cars.
In an accident between a manual and an autonomous car, which party will most likely be found at fault?
Quote from: MX793 on April 03, 2018, 06:57:43 AM
The only way accident rates for non-autonomous vehicles go down is if only the best drivers continue to drive manually.
Not true, again people get into accidents with other cars they don't cause all the time. Autonomous cars would reduce that significantly if they live up to their promise (which they will have to if they become reality). Plus the lower overall accident rate would reduce administrative costs, which would reduce premiums even if human driving risk were priced the same.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2018, 10:33:42 AM
Not true, again people get into accidents with other cars they don't cause all the time. Autonomous cars would reduce that significantly if they live up to their promise (which they will have to if they become reality). Plus the lower overall accident rate would reduce administrative costs, which would reduce premiums even if human driving risk were priced the same.
Do you understand how insurance works? Liability insurance covers damage you cause to others. The rate is based entirely on your risk of being at fault in an accident. Collision insurance primarily covers damages to your property in accidents for which you are at fault (if you are not at fault, other party's liability insurance covers this). Comprehensive is the only coverage type not based on the policy holder being at fault (and covers theft, vandalism, and acts of nature). Barring a malfunction, it's unlikely an automnomous vehicle will be found at fault in a collision with a non-autonomous one. The driver of a non-autonomous car in the future is just as much an insurance risk in the future as today. And relatively speaking, a much higher risk in a future where most cars are autonomous.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2018, 10:33:42 AM
Not true, again people get into accidents with other cars they don't cause all the time. Autonomous cars would reduce that significantly if they live up to their promise (which they will have to if they become reality). Plus the lower overall accident rate would reduce administrative costs, which would reduce premiums even if human driving risk were priced the same.
The cost between insuring a normal car and an autonomous car will diverge; can we agree on that? Can we also agree that a manual car would be considered a higher risk and would cost more to insure than a comparable autonomous car? Are we on solid assumptive ground here so far?
Can we also make the assumption that autonomy will steadily become more affordable the way all other electronic advancements have?
Okay, now if we go forward with these assumptions, is it likely that eventually the cost savings of insuring an autonomous car will eclipse the initial cost of buying an autonomous car?
Once it becomes a better financial decision to go autonomous; how long will it take for autonomous cars to become the majority of vehicles? Once they are the majority, how many owners will tolerate having dangerous, out dated manual cars sharing the roads with them?
Manual cars will be responsible for the majority of accidents, traffic interruptions, and of course- traffic tickets at this point. Can increased licensing and registration costs be far behind that? Not to mention that manual cars will stick out like a sore thumb to the remaining traffic police who are Totally Not Dependant on Fines.
It's eventually gonna look like a losing battle.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 03, 2018, 11:39:47 AM
The cost between insuring a normal car and an autonomous car will diverge; can we agree on that? Can we also agree that a manual car would be considered a higher risk and would cost more to insure than a comparable autonomous car? Are we on solid assumptive ground here so far?
Can we also make the assumption that autonomy will steadily become more affordable the way all other electronic advancements have?
Okay, now if we go forward with these assumptions, is it likely that eventually the cost savings of insuring an autonomous car will eclipse the initial cost of buying an autonomous car?
Once it becomes a better financial decision to go autonomous; how long will it take for autonomous cars to become the majority of vehicles? Once they are the majority, how many owners will tolerate having dangerous, out dated manual cars sharing the roads with them?
Manual cars will be responsible for the majority of accidents, traffic interruptions, and of course- traffic tickets at this point. Can increased licensing and registration costs be far behind that? Not to mention that manual cars will stick out like a sore thumb to the remaining traffic police who are Totally Not Dependant on Fines.
It's eventually gonna look like a losing battle.
OK, now we are getting somewhere. This mostly makes sense, but you have moved the goalposts from insurance to TCO. I have always said autonomous cars will wind up being cheaper in the long run, most likely changing or even eliminating the concept of car ownership for many altogether. But assuming ownership stays the same, I don't see why registration fees would change or be cheaper for autonomous cars- a car is a car (and tax revenue is tax revenue). Licensing costs could enter a death spiral though as fewer folks would need it over time. Traffic wise I imagine traffic would be so severely reduced by autonomous cars that barring a full road blockage manual cars wouldn't be an issue. Remember, rubber necking is a 100% human driven phenomenon.
I still think the concept of ownership will diminish a good bit or at least change significantly in the context of autonomous cars. Car ownership is a huge waste of time, space and money for people who don't care about cars, and I imagine that is the majority of the driving public, including people in "nice" cars. If clean, private (or at least selectively car pooled) autonomous rides can be hailed quickly 24/7, why own a car? I don't think there is an answer to that question for a large chunk of the driving population. But that's another discussion.
Plus again there is so much interest, industry and profit derived from "car/truck guys". I just don't see car culture relinquishing driving in the face of autonomy. I'm more optimistic.
Quote from: MX793 on April 03, 2018, 11:04:37 AM
Do you understand how insurance works? Liability insurance covers damage you cause to others. The rate is based entirely on your risk of being at fault in an accident. Collision insurance primarily covers damages to your property in accidents for which you are at fault (if you are not at fault, other party's liability insurance covers this). Comprehensive is the only coverage type not based on the policy holder being at fault (and covers theft, vandalism, and acts of nature). Barring a malfunction, it's unlikely an automnomous vehicle will be found at fault in a collision with a non-autonomous one. The driver of a non-autonomous car in the future is just as much an insurance risk in the future as today. And relatively speaking, a much higher risk in a future where most cars are autonomous.
If risk remains the same, then premiums remain the same. And again, with less claims, there will be much less administrative overhead to support, which should drive premiums down, at least marginally. Even assuming human drivers continue to crash at fault at the same rate, less accidents in total will make insurance cheaper for everybody. Insurers will spread the savings out to everyone to offer competitive rates. I don't see why they would issue punitive premiums on the folks who will most likely be their most profitable customers.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2018, 12:42:05 PM
OK, now we are getting somewhere. This mostly makes sense, but you have moved the goalposts from insurance to TCO. I have always said autonomous cars will wind up being cheaper in the long run, most likely changing or even eliminating the concept of car ownership for many altogether. But assuming ownership stays the same, I don't see why registration fees would change or be cheaper for autonomous cars- a car is a car (and tax revenue is tax revenue). Licensing costs could enter a death spiral though as fewer folks would need it over time. Traffic wise I imagine traffic would be so severely reduced by autonomous cars that barring a full road blockage manual cars wouldn't be an issue. Remember, rubber necking is a 100% human driven phenomenon.
I still think the concept of ownership will diminish a good bit or at least change significantly in the context of autonomous cars. Car ownership is a huge waste of time, space and money for people who don't care about cars, and I imagine that is the majority of the driving public, including people in "nice" cars. If clean, private (or at least selectively car pooled) autonomous rides can be hailed quickly 24/7, why own a car? I don't think there is an answer to that question for a large chunk of the driving population. But that's another discussion.
Plus again there is so much interest, industry and profit derived from "car/truck guys". I just don't see car culture relinquishing driving in the face of autonomy. I'm more optimistic.
No, I was always talking about cost of ownership, and insurance was just one example.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2018, 12:48:00 PM
If risk remains the same, then premiums remain the same. And again, with less claims, there will be much less administrative overhead to support, which should drive premiums down, at least marginally. Even assuming human drivers continue to crash at fault at the same rate, less accidents in total will make insurance cheaper for everybody. Insurers will spread the savings out to everyone to offer competitive rates. I don't see why they would issue punitive premiums on the folks who will most likely be their most profitable customers.
administrative overhead will not reduce itself quickly or without resistance
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2018, 12:48:00 PM
If risk remains the same, then premiums remain the same. And again, with less claims, there will be much less administrative overhead to support, which should drive premiums down, at least marginally. Even assuming human drivers continue to crash at fault at the same rate, less accidents in total will make insurance cheaper for everybody. Insurers will spread the savings out to everyone to offer competitive rates. I don't see why they would issue punitive premiums on the folks who will most likely be their most profitable customers.
Insurance is based on rates, not number of accidents. I can guarantee there are more car accidents than sportbike accidents per year and sportbike cost less than most cars, but full coverage on a sport bike costs more than full coverage on a car, even a performance car like a Mustang or WRX. And as I expect a good portion of those who stick to manual driving will be the hoonigans, Schumaker of the Street crowd, you may actually see an increase in accident rates for non-autonomous cars, just as there's a higher rate of accidents for sportbike vs cruisers.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 03, 2018, 01:10:12 PM
administrative overhead will not reduce itself quickly or without resistance
We are talking about publicly traded companies here, not the government. Shareholders rejoice when layoffs are announced; they will reduce headcount as quickly as possible.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2018, 01:53:22 PM
We are talking about publicly traded companies here, not the government. Shareholders rejoice when layoffs are announced; they will reduce headcount as quickly as possible.
No, no no.
Shareholders like money. They don't rejoice when layoffs are due to a shrinking business.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 03, 2018, 02:15:50 PM
No, no no.
Shareholders like money. They don't rejoice when layoffs are due to a shrinking business.
Autonomous cars will give them their dividends at a lower operating cost. Sounds like a win to me
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2018, 03:10:39 PM
Autonomous cars will give them their dividends at a lower operating cost. Sounds like a win to me
Assuming a higher profit margin, which competition will soon eliminate.