Recent announcements of two new robotaxi services in the U.S., together with a robotaxi-related surge in Tesla stock, seem to be raising lots of questions about how quickly autonomous vehicles (AVs) will become a major factor on our streets and about what they will mean for auto insurers.
Once you understand the "stack," to use the Silicon Valley term for the layers of hardware, software and operational service that make up a robotaxi service, the implications start to become clear.
So let's have a look.
The reason for the recent surge of interest in robotaxis stems in part from last week's announcements by Amazon and May Mobility. Amazon said its toasterlike Zoox AVs will start operating in Las Vegas, while May Mobility said it will start offering rides in Atlanta in its autonomous vans, which will be offered to those who hail a ride through Lyft.
In addition, Tesla fans are out in force again, boosting the stock with claims such as that the company will be able to remove safety drivers from its robotaxis imminently and can thus have thousands of the vehicles operating fully autonomously by the end of the year.
As backdrop, there was a highly publicized report from Goldman Sachs in June that says fully autonomous robotaxis will be generating $5 billion of revenue in the U.S. by 2030. That's a lot of robotaxi rides.
I'd urge some caution on the pace. Zoox is just offering rides between five points in Las Vegas. May Mobility is operating only in a section of Atlanta, with what the CEO calls “a few hands’ worth of vehicles” and with safety drivers behind the wheel. Tesla is operating perhaps three dozen cars in Austin, Texas, all with safety drivers, and, while CEO Elon Musk said earlier this year that millions of autonomous Teslas will be on the road by the second half of next year, his projections have been wildly overoptimistic for a decade now.
Still, robotaxis seem to finally be on a clear glide path toward widespread adoption.
Google's Waymo says it has 2,000 AVs on the road in Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, and Atlanta, completing hundreds of thousands of paid rides per week. Waymo plans to keep steadily increasing the number of cities it serves. Wired magazine says that, "in China, WeRide, Baidu’s Apollo Go, and Pony.ai are all running robotaxis in multiple cities; WeRide has started operations in Abu Dhabi, too." Regulators in Beijing and Shenzhen are allowing the robotaxis to operate without safety drivers, and Abu Dhabi encourages AVs in special zones. So, while Europe is moving somewhat slowly, there is plenty of international competition to keep up the pressure for improvements in the technology and for deployment.
What does this all mean for auto insurance?
Let's look at the stack. It's dividing up into the hardware (the car), the software (the artificial intelligence that operates the car) and the operator (the company that will keep the cars recharged, positioned so they can get to passengers quickly, cleaned, and so on).
Insurers could have a role at any of those tiers but will likely have little to do with the software. In any case, any insurance will be commercial. Personal insurance won't be a factor for the simple reason that people don't need to insure their driving if they aren't driving.
The hardware
For a time, General Motors tried to take on all three layers in the stack. It made the cars that used the AI developed by its Cruise subsidiary, which also operated a robotaxi service. But GM shut Cruise down last year and is focusing on incorporating its AI into existing lines of vehicles. Tesla is also trying to handle all three layers, while offering insurance, to boot, but as I've said several times now (including here), I don't think Tesla can pull it off. Musk is just using cameras as sensors, while others are using radar and LIDAR, as well. Musk does have better access to certain kinds of data than other robotaxi companies because he has cameras in every car and has so many Teslas on the road, but I don't see how having better maps can cover for the lack of real-time data from sensors that are more sophisticated than cameras. Tesla may eventually have usable technology, but Musk is years behind Waymo, and I think he'll stay there.
If Musk does succeed with his grandest vision, he would introduce an opportunity for personal auto insurance in the robotaxi world. That's because he has said individual owners will be able to upgrade their software with Tesla's latest AI capabilities and make their cars available as part of a robotaxi fleet that Tesla would coordinate. Owners would presumably be responsible for the upkeep of their cars, so they might buy insurance to cover their liability.
But if I'm right that Tesla will be a minor player in robotaxis for the foreseeable future, then the hardware is a separate layer. It splits into two pieces: the manufacturing and the ownership.
The role of insurance in manufacturing will be what it's always been. Car makers will have to worry about product liability and could purchase insurance, but the behemoths that do that sort of work will likely self-insure.
Ownership could be a different question. Just about nobody wants to own assets these days. Everybody wants to be an asset-light company like AirBnB and not have to commit the hundreds of billions of dollars that robotaxis will cost. So it's not clear yet who will own the vehicles. If, as I suspect, huge companies — perhaps formed just for the purpose — own the cars, they'll likely self-insure. If not, there could be opportunities for commercial insurers.
The software
The AI is where the magic happens, and the work is so expensive that it is either being done by huge companies now or by startups that will surely be acquired by massive companies. So, yes, this layer will surely be self-insured. There's room for commercial insurance on, say, theft of business secrets but not for personal auto insurers.
The operators
Who will own this layer isn't quite clear yet. Waymo, for instance, is operating its own network at the moment, and that makes total sense at this stage of the technology. Waymo needs to have people in-house available when one of its vehicles runs into a problem, both to smooth over issues for paying customers and to learn where problems are, so the underlying AI can continually be improved. But Waymo and others won't always have to own the whole operating process.
Yes, Waymo will need to always be running the AI in its cars, but that doesn't mean it will have to handle the dispatching, the recharging, the cleaning and so on, and there could be opportunities for insurance there.
I suspect the dispatching will be handled by big companies. Uber and Lyft have been doing a nice job of positioning themselves as partners to AV companies. Google could also muscle its way into dispatching through its maps — if you're asking about a destination, Google could easily offer you a ride. So there could be an interesting battle here (perhaps with antitrust implications for Google), but I don't think it will matter to insurers because the winners will self-insure against any customer issues.
The rest of the operations, though, could create opportunities for commercial insurers. The cleaning and recharging could well be handled by smaller companies, perhaps different ones in different cities, and they could well want to lay off some of the risk of dealing with customers, who can have any number of hard-to-predict problems.
But, again, no luck for personal auto insurance.
As I've said, there are plenty of reasons to think that some of the claims about robotaxis are hyperbole, but if Goldman Sachs is even close to right that robotaxis will be generating $5 billion in revenue by 2030, vs. my back-of-the-envelope calculation of maybe $100 million this year, then we're on an exponential curve. And as all those companies that didn't come to grips with the pace of Moore's law have learned over the past few decades, exponential change can sneak up on you really fast. It's always wise to be thinking ahead.
Cheers,
Paul
P.S. If you really want to think ahead, imagine what cities will look like if there is the sort of takeover by robotaxis envisioned in this article at Vox: "A self-driving car traffic jam is coming for US cities."
The underlying changes will be deceptively simple. Parking garages, which take up as much as 40% of the space in some cities, will pretty much disappear. So will curbside parking. But the number of cars on the road will increase drastically.
When you go from there, though, there could be all sorts of effects. Maybe apartment buildings replace the parking garages, and the additional housing makes cities less expensive and draws more people. Maybe having even more people in cities facilitates time in the office and leads to more office buildings, too. Maybe restaurants and other small businesses benefit greatly from increased foot traffic... or maybe they don't, because robotaxis are taking people straight to their destinations, so they aren't walking and window shopping. And maybe robotaxis make it easier to live in suburbs and exurbs, so city populations actually diminish and people work at home more.
The good news is that cities won't change nearly as fast as the car fleet does. It takes a lot longer to tear down and replace a parking garage or rip up city streets than it does to beam a software update to a car.
But I still find this kind of thing interesting to ponder and thought you might, too.