Tag Archives: autopilot

How to Prepare for Self-Driving Cars

For decades, privately owned, privately insured cars have been so common that few people have questioned these models of transportation and the associated risk.

Property and casualty insurers deal with thousands of individual vehicle owners and drivers as a result. Insurers deal with those drivers’ mistakes, too. A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that human error plays a role in 94% of all car accidents.

The entire auto insurance industry is built on this humans-and-their-errors model. But autonomous vehicles stand to turn the entire model on its head — in more ways than one.

Here are some of the biggest changes self-driving cars are poised to make to the auto insurance world and how P&C insurers can prepare for the shift.

Vehicle Ownership

Most conversations about self-driving cars and insurance focus on questions of fault, compensation and risk.

In a 2017 article for the Harvard Business Review, however, Accenture’s John Cusano and Michael Costonis posited that an even bigger disruption to P&C insurance practices would be a change in patterns of vehicle ownership.

“We believe that most fully autonomous vehicles will not be owned by individuals, but by auto manufacturers such as General Motors, by technology companies such as Google and Apple and by other service providers such as ride-sharing services,” Cusano and Costonis writes.

Indeed, companies like GM and Volvo are already exploring partnership with services like Lyft and Uber, as keeping self-driving vehicles on the road as much as possible amortizes their costs more effectively.

Paralleling the autonomous vehicle/ride-sharing partnership trend is a decrease in vehicle ownership. Young adults and teens are less interested in owning vehicles than their elders were, Norihiko Shirouzu reports for Reuters. Instead, they’re moving to more walkable areas or using ride-sharing services more often, already putting pressure on auto insurance premiums.

See also: Time to Put Self-Driving Cars in Slow Lane?  

U.S. roads are likely to be occupied by a combination of human-driven and self-driven vehicles for several decades, Cusano and Costonis estimate. As ownership trends change, however, P&C insurers’ focus on everything from evaluating risk to branding and outreach will change, as well.

Connected closely to the question of ownership is a second question: Who is at fault in a crash?

Fault Ownership

NHTSA’s statistics on human error as a crash factor imply that reducing the number of human drivers behind the wheel would reduce accidents. A McKinsey & Co. report agrees, estimating that autonomous vehicles could reduce accidents by 90%.

Taking human drivers’ mistakes out of the equation means taking human fault out of the equation, too. But questions of human fault stand to be replaced by even more complex questions regarding ownership, security and product liability.

Several automakers have already begun experimenting with approaches that upend traditional questions of fault and liability. Concerned over the patchwork of federal and state regulations in the U.S., Volvo President and CEO Håkan Samuelsson announced in 2015 that the company would assume fault if one of its vehicles caused an accident in self-driving mode.

The statement appears to apply to Volvo’s vehicles during the development and testing phases, according to Cadie Thompson at Tech Insider. It is too early to tell whether the company will extend its acceptance of fault to autonomous Volvo vehicles that function as full-fledged members of the transportation ecosystem. Nonetheless, the precedent of automakers accepting liability has been set — and, as automakers continue to explore partnerships or other models of fleet ownership, accepting liability or even providing their own insurance may become part of automakers’ arsenal, as well.

Ultimately, Volvo seems unconcerned about major liability shifts. “If you look at product liability today, there is always a process determining who is liable and if there is shared liability,” Volvo’s director of government affairs, Anders Eugensson, told Business Insider. “The self-driving cars will need to have data recorders which will give all the information needed to determine the circumstances around a crash. This will then be up to the courts to evaluate this and decide on the liabilities.”

Meanwhile, in Asia, Tesla is trying another method: including the cost of insurance coverage in the price of its self-driving vehicles, according to Danielle Muoio at Business Insider.

“It takes into account not only the Autopilot safety features but also the maintenance cost of the car,” says Jon McNeill, Tesla’s former president of sales and services (now COO of Lyft). “It’s our vision in the future we could offer a single price for the car, maintenance and insurance.”

Doing so would allow Tesla to take into account the reduced accident risk of the autonomous system and to lower insurance premium prices accordingly. This might reduce the actual cost of the vehicle over its useful life.

The NHTSA has already found that accident risk in Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot are 40% lower than in vehicles without, and the company believes insurance coverage should reflect that, according to Muoio.

If P&C insurers don’t adjust their rates accordingly, Tesla is prepared to do so itself.

Future Ownership

Property and casualty insurers seem torn on how self-driving cars will affect their bottom line.

On the one hand, “insurers like Cincinnati Financial and Mercury General have already noted in SEC filings that driverless cars have the potential to threaten their business models,” Muoio reports.

On the other, 84% don’t see a “significant impact” happening until the next decade, according to Greg Gardner at the Detroit Free Press.

Other analysts, however, believe the insurance industry is moving too slowly in response to autonomous vehicles.

“The disruption of autonomous vehicles to the automotive ecosystem will be profound, and the change will happen faster than most in the insurance industry think,” KPMG actuarial and insurance risk practice leader Jerry Albright tells Gardner. “To remain relevant in the future, insurers must evaluate their exposure and make necessary adjustments to their business models, corporate strategy and operations.”

KPMG CIO advisory group managing director Alex Bell agrees. “The share of the personal auto insurance sector will likely continue to shrink as the potential liability of the software developer and manufacturer increases,” Bell tells Gardner. “At the same time, losses covered by product liability policies are likely to increase, given that the sophisticated technology that underpins autonomous vehicles will also need to be insured.”

See also: The Unsettling Issue for Self-Driving Cars  

Major areas of concern in recent years will likely include product liability, infrastructure insurance and cybersecurity.

Meanwhile, the number of privately owned vehicles — and individually insured drivers — on the road will likely continue to drop, placing further pressure on auto insurance premiums.

What should P&C insurers to do prepare? Cusano and Costonis recommend the following steps:

  • Understand and use big data and analytics. As Eugensson at Volvo notes, autonomous vehicles will generate astounding quantities of data — data that can be used to pinpoint fault. It can also be used to process claims more quickly and efficiently, if insurers are prepared to use it. Building robust data analysis systems now prepares P&C insurers to add value by analyzing this data.
  • Develop actuarial frameworks and models for self-driving vehicles. As Tesla’s insurance experiment and NHTSA data indicates, questions of risk and cost for autonomous cars will differ in key ways. P&C insurers that invest the effort into developing and using more sophisticated actuarial tools are best-prepared to answer these questions effectively.
  • Seek partnerships. The GM/Lyft and Volvo/Uber ventures demonstrate how partnerships will change the automotive landscape in the coming years. Insurers that identify and pursue partnership opportunities can improve their position in this changing landscape by doing so.
  • Rethink auto insurance. Currently, P&C insurers’ auto work involves insuring large numbers of very small risks. As our relationship to vehicles changes, however, insurers will need to change their approach, as well — for instance, by moving to a commercial approach that trades many small risks for a few large ones.

Autonomous vehicles are poised to become one of the most profound technological changes in an era of constant change. Fortunately, the technology to manage this change is already available for insurers that are willing to embrace a digital future.

When Will the Driverless Car Arrive?

When Chris Urmson talks about driverless cars, everyone should listen. This has been true throughout his career, but it is especially true now.

Few have had better vantage points on the state of the art and the practical business and engineering challenges of building driverless cars. Urmson has been at the forefront for more than a decade, first as a leading researcher at CMU, then as longtime director of Google’s self-driving car (SDC) program and now as CEO of a driverless car dream team at Aurora Innovation.

Urmson’s recent “Perspectives on Self-Driving Cars” lecture at Carnegie Mellon was particularly interesting because he has had time to absorb the lessons from his long tenure at Google and translate those into his next moves at Aurora. He was also in a thoughtful space at his alma mater, surrounded by mentors, colleagues and students. And, it is early enough in his new startup’s journey that he seemed truly in “perspective” rather than “pitch” mode.

The entire presentation is worth watching. Here are six takeaways:

1. There is a lot more chaos on the road than most recognize.

Much of the carnage due to vehicle accidents is easy to measure. In 2015, in just the U.S., there were 35,092 killed and 2.4 million injured in 6.3 million police-reported vehicle accidents. Urmson estimates, however, that the real accident rate is really between two and 10 times greater.
Over more than two million test miles during his Google tenure, Google’s SDCs were involved in about 25 accidents. Most were not severe enough to warrant a regular police report (they were reported to the California DMV). The accidents mostly looked like this: “Self-driving car does something reasonable. Comes to a stop. Human crashes into it.” Fender bender results.
While we talk a lot about fatalities or police-reported accidents, Urmson said, “there is a lot of property damage and loss that can be cleaned up relatively easily” with driverless technology.
2. Human intent is the fundamental challenge for driverless cars.
The choices made by driverless cars are critically dependent on understanding and matching the expectations of human drivers. This includes both humans in operational control of the cars themselves and human drivers of other cars. For Urmson, the difficulty in doing this is “the heart of the problem” going forward.
To illustrate the “human factors” challenge, Urmson dissected three high-profile accidents. (He cautioned that, in the case of the Uber and Tesla crashes, he had no inside information and was piecing together what probably happened based on public information.)

Google Car Crashes With Bus; Santa Clara Transportation Authority

In the only accident where Google’s SDC was partially at fault, Google’s car was partially blocking the lane of a bus behind it (due to sand bags in its own lane). The car had to decide whether to wait for the bus to pass or merge fully into the lane. The car predicted that the remaining space in the bus’s lane was too narrow and that the bus driver would have to stop. The bus driver looked at the situation and thought “I can make it,” and didn’t stop. The car went. The bus did, too. Crunch.

Uber’s Arizona Rollover

Uber Driverless Car Crashes In Tempe, AZ

The Uber SDC was in the leftmost lane of three lanes. The traffic in the two lanes to its right were stopped due to congested traffic. The Uber car’s lane was clear, so it continued to move at a good pace.

A human driver wanted to turn left across the three lanes. The turning car pulled out in front of the cars in the two stopped lanes. The driver probably could not see across the blocked lanes to the Uber car’s lane and, given the stopped traffic, expected that whatever might be driving down that lane would be moving slower. It pulled into the Uber car’s lane to make the turn, and the result was a sideways parked car.

See also: Who Is Leading in Driverless Cars?  

Tesla’s Deadly Florida Crash

Tesla Car After Fatal Crash in Florida

The driver had been using Tesla’s Autopilot for a long time, and he trusted it—despite Tesla saying, “Don’t trust it.” Tesla user manuals told drivers to keep their hands on the wheel, eyes in front, etc. The vehicle was expecting that the driver was paying attention and would act as the safety check. The driver thought that Autopilot worked well enough on its own. A big truck pulled in front of the car. Autopilot did not see it. The driver did not intervene. Fatal crash.

Tesla, to its credit, has made modifications to improve the car’s understanding about whether the driver is paying attention. To Urmson, however, the crash highlights the fundamental limitation of relying on human attentiveness as the safety mechanism against car inadequacies.

3. Incremental driver assistance systems will not evolve into driverless cars.

Urmson characterized “one of the big open debates” in the driverless car world as between Tesla’s (and other automakers’) vs. Google’s approach. The former’s approach is “let’s just keep on making incremental systems and, one day, we’ll turn around and have a self-driving car.” The latter is “No, no, these are two distinct problems. We need to apply different technologies.”

Urmson is still “fundamentally in the Google camp.” He believes there is a discrete step in the design space when you have to turn your back on human intervention and trust the car will not have anyone to take control. The incremental approach, he argues, will guide developers down a selection of technologies that will limit the ability to bridge over to fully driverless capabilities.

4. Don’t let the “Trolley Car Problem” make the perfect into the enemy of the great.

The “trolley car problem” is a thought experiment that asks how driverless cars should handle no-win, life-threatening scenarios—such as when the only possible choices are between killing the car’s passenger or an innocent bystander. Some argue that driverless cars should not be allowed to make such decisions.

Urmson, on the other hand, described this as an interesting philosophical problem that should not be driving the question of whether to bring the technology to market. To let it do so would be “to let the perfect be the enemy of the great.”

Urmson offered a two-fold pragmatic approach to this ethical dilemma. First, cars should never get into such situations. “If you got there, you’ve screwed up.”  Driverless cars should be conservative, safety-first drivers that can anticipate and avoid such situations. “If you’re paying attention, they don’t just surprise and pop out at you,” he said. Second, if the eventuality arose, a car’s response should be predetermined and explicit. Tell consumers what to expect and let them make the choice. For example, tell consumers that the car will prefer the safety of pedestrians and will put passengers at risk to protect pedestrians. Such an explicit choice is better than what occurs with human drivers, Urmson argues, who react instinctually because there is not enough time to make any judgment at all.

5. The “mad rush” is justified.

Urmson reminisced about the early days when he would talk to automakers and tier 1 suppliers about the Google program and he “literally got laughed at.”  A lot has changed in the last five years, and many of those skeptics have since invested billions in competing approaches.

Urmson points to the interaction between automation, environmental standards, electric vehicles and ride sharing as the driving forces behind the rush toward driverless. (Read more about this virtuous cycle.) Is it justified? He thinks so, and points to one simple equation to support his position:

3 Trillion VMT * $0.10 per mile = $300B per year

In 2016, vehicles in the U.S. traveled about 3.2 trillion miles. If you could bring technology to bear to reduce the cost or increase the quality of those miles and charge 10 cents per mile, that would add up to $300 billion in annual revenue—just in the U.S.

This equation, he points out, is driving the market infatuation with Transportation as a Service (TaaS) business models. The leading contenders in the emerging space, Uber, Lyft and Didi, have a combined market valuation of about $110 billion—roughly equal to the market value of GM, Ford and Chrysler. Urmson predicts that one of these clusters will see its market value double in the next four years. The race is to see who reaps this increased value.

See also: 10 Questions That Reveal AI’s Limits  

6. Deployment will happen “relatively quickly.”

To the inevitable question of “when,” Urmson is very optimistic.  He predicts that self-driving car services will be available in certain communities within the next five years.

You won’t get them everywhere. You certainly are not going to get them in incredibly challenging weather or incredibly challenging cultural regions. But, you’ll see neighborhoods and communities where you’ll be able to call a car, get in it, and it will take you where you want to go.

(Based on recent Waymo announcements, Phoenix seems a likely candidate.)

Then, over the next 20 years, Urmson believes we’ll see a large portion of the transportation infrastructure move over to automation.

Urmson concluded his presentation by calling it an exciting time for roboticists. “It’s a pretty damn good time to be alive. We’re seeing fundamental transformations to the structure of labor and the structure transportation. To be a part of that and have a chance to be involved in it is exciting.”

Is Driverless Moving Too Fast?

An excellent article by Levi Tillemann and Colin McCormick at The New Yorker lays out the advantages that Tesla has in the race towards driverless cars. Some, however, think that Tesla is driving recklessly toward that goal. Is Tesla racing toward victory or calamity? The answer hinges on a key issue in human/robot interaction.

DonNorman2003-4-1200x798
Don Norman, Director, Design Lab, University of California San Diego (Source: JND.org)

Don Norman, the director of the Design Lab at University of California, San Diego, argues that the most dangerous model of driving automation is the “mostly-but-not-quite-fully-automated” kind. Why?

“Because the more reliable the automation, the less likely the driver will be to respond in time for corrective action. Studies of airline pilots who routinely fly completely automated airplanes show this (as do numerous studies over the past six decades by experimental psychologists). When there is little to do, attention wanders.” [Source: San Diego Union-Tribune]

Norman contends that car autopilots are more dangerous than airplane autopilots. Airplanes are high in the sky and widely distributed. Pilots are well-trained and have several minutes to respond. Drivers are not nearly as well-trained and may have only seconds to respond.

Yet, Tesla’s “Autopilot” follows exactly the “mostly-but-not-quite-fully-automated” model about which Norman warns.

I asked Norman about Tesla’s approach. His response:

“Tesla is being reckless. From what I can tell, Tesla has no understanding of how real drivers operate, and they do not understand the need for careful testing. So they release, and then they have to pull back.”

As examples, Norman pointed to Tesla’s highway passing, automatic parking and summon features.

Norman considers Tesla’s highway passing feature dangerous because its cars do not have sufficient backward-looking sensors. Mercedes and Nissan, he noted, have far better back-looking sensors.

Consumer Reports found serious issues with Tesla’s automatic parking and summon features. Tesla’s sensors had high and low blind spots, causing the car to fail to stop before hitting objects like duffel bags and bicycles. There were also issues with the user interface design. The parking control buttons on the car key fob were not marked. The car continued to move when the iPhone app was closed. Consumer Reports told its readers, “It is critical to be vigilant when using this feature, especially if you have children or pets.” Tesla fixed these problems once Consumer Reports raised its safety concerns.

Here’s Don Norman’s observation about Tesla’s quick response:

“Good for Tesla, but it shows how uninformed they are about real-world situations.”

“Tesla thinks that a 1 in a million chance of a problem is good enough. No. Not when there are 190 million drivers who drive 2.5 trillion miles.”

If Norman is right, Tesla owners will grow less attentive—rather than more vigilant—as Tesla’s autopilot software gets better. Situations where their intervention is needed will become rarer but also more time-sensitive and dangerous.

Indeed, customer experience with Tesla’s early autopilot software produced a number of reports and videos of silly antics and near-calamitous cases. Here are just a few:

Jump to time mark 2:45 for the near accident:

Be sure to read the background comments from Joey Jay, the uploader of the video:

Jump to time mark 4:00 for a particularly “fun and scary” segment:

If Norman is wrong, Tesla does have a huge advantage, as Tilleman and McCormick note.

Other companies pursuing a semi-autonomous approach, like GM and Audi, have been slower to deploy new models with comparable capabilities.

Google, which advocates a fully driverless approach for the reasons that Norman cites, is mired in a state and national struggle to remove the regulatory limits to its approach. Even if Google gets the green light, its pace is constrained by its relatively small fleet of prototypes and test vehicles.

Tesla, on the other hand, has a powerful software platform that allows it to roll out semi-autonomous capability now, as it deems appropriate. And, it is doing so aggressively. Autopilot is already on more than 35,000 Tesla models on the road—and Tesla just announced a promotion offering one-month free trials to all Model S and X owners.

Soon, it will be preinstalled on all of the more affordable Model 3, of which more than 300,000 have been preordered.

That’s a critical advantage. The quality of autonomous driving software depends in large part on the test cases that feed each developer’s deep learning AI engines. More miles enable more learning, and could help Tesla’s software outdistance its competitors.

The challenge, however, is that Tesla is relying on its customers to discover the problems. As noted in Fortune, Elon Musk has described Tesla drivers as essentially “expert trainers for how the autopilot should work.”

Tom Mutchler wrote in Consumer Reports that “Autopilot is one of the reasons we paid $127,820 for this Tesla.” But, he also noted, “One of the most surprising things about Autopilot is that Tesla owners are willingly taking part in the research and development of a highly advanced system that takes over steering, the most essential function of the car.”

Telsa’s early-adopter customers are willing, even enthusiastic, about Autopilot. But, should untrained, non-professional drivers be relied upon to be ready when Tesla’s autopilot needs to return control to the human driver? Can they anticipate problems and intervene to retake control without being asked? Will they follow safety guidelines and use the autopilot only under recommended conditions, or will they push the limits as their confidence grows?

Imagine the consequences if a new slew of Tesla owner videos ended with a catastrophic failure rather than a nervous chuckle? It would be tragic for the victims and Tesla. It might also dampen the enthusiasm for driverless cars in general and derail the many benefits that the technology could deliver.

While the mantra in Silicon Valley is “move fast and break things,” Elon Musk needs to reconsider how much that principle should apply to Tesla’s cars and customers.

Lack of Enthusiasm for Driverless Cars?

Automakers will have to focus on women if they hope to make driverless cars mainstream, according to a NerdWallet survey that shows men are far more likely to express interest in the new technology. The survey of more than 1,000 Americans nationwide also exposes a sharp divide in views on self-driving vehicles between Millennials and older Americans.

Only 37% of women surveyed by NerdWallet expressed any interest in owning a self-driving car, whereas half of men expressed interest.

The survey also found that 53% of respondents ages 18 to 29 were “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in owning a self-driving car, compared with just 41% of those 30 and older.

Consumers Are Skeptical About Driverless Cars

Among key findings of the survey:

  • Most women expressed concern about the safety of self-driving cars, with 55% citing safety as among the biggest drawbacks of the new technology. Only 37% of men were worried about safety.
  • 44% of men were concerned that driverless cars will take the fun out of driving; only 23% of women felt that way.
  • Consumers have a limited amount of trust in autonomous car technology. When asked whether they would put a child alone in a driverless car to go to school or a friend’s house, only 6% of those surveyed would close the door and wave goodbye.
  • While consumers are not yet ready to embrace a driverless world, they are interested in safety technologies that are paving the way for fully autonomous vehicles. Blind-spot detection was by far the most popular new technology, with 42% citing it as the most appealing feature of semi-autonomous cars, followed by emergency braking to prevent crashes, favored by 30%.

Self-driving cars are here

Self-driving cars, also known as autonomous vehicles, once seemed the stuff of science fiction, but they are already testing on the highway and seem certain to end up in dealer showrooms before long. Yet our survey of more than 1,000 Americans found a distinct lack of enthusiasm toward the prospect of driverless cars, with only a small minority “very interested” in buying one and nearly twice as many saying they were “not at all interested.”

Nevertheless, a transition to autonomous cars seems inevitable.

Google recently announced that it will begin putting its self-driving cars on public roads in Mountain View, CA, this summer. Over six years of testing, Google says its cars have been involved in only 11 accidents – none of which was the fault of the Google car. In most cases, the cars were rear-ended.

A self-driving Audi recently completed a trip from San Francisco to New York in nine days, driving in automated mode 99% of the time, according to Delphi Automotive, which made the technology.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently announced a software upgrade for some of the maker’s electric cars that will make it possible for the cars to drive from San Francisco to Seattle without human input – “from parking lot to parking lot,” as he put it at a news conference. However, the full autopilot feature will not be enabled, at least initially, he said.

While our survey found Americans as a whole relatively unenthusiastic about driverless cars, men were far more likely than women to express interest.

Interest in Owning a Driverless Car

Self-driving cars use GPS and a variety of sensors (cameras, radar and lasers) to scan and identify the environment around the car. A computer in the car processes data from the sensors to decide on driving actions such as steering, braking and turning. Cars would be networked, using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication to talk to one another. Ultimately, a human driver becomes just another passenger and would be able to sit back and do other things while en route.

The potential for reducing car accidents could be significant. After all, the computer never takes its “eyes” off the road, never gets distracted, never gets tired.

On May 13, Transportation Secretary Anthony Fox announced that the U.S. Department of Transportation will fast-track rules to require V2V communication in future cars.

Still, many people are firm in their resistance to driverless vehicles: 28% vow they will never purchase a driverless car. Only a very small contingent (3%) is ready to buy a self-driving car right now. The majority of those surveyed (51%) would wait three years or longer after such cars became available before considering buying one.

When People Would Buy a Driverless Car

NerdWallet also wanted to find out what would be appealing about driverless cars that could potentially win over customers. While more than one-third of consumers (36%) did not find anything appealing about driverless cars, about the same percentage liked the ideas of saving on car insurance and letting the car handle routine driving tasks.

What People Like About Driverless Cars

Notably, fewer than one-third of people found the potential for improved safety to be a compelling reason to own a driverless car.

The older the age group, the more likely respondents were to say they couldn’t find anything appealing about driverless cars, from a low of 26% among those ages 18 to 29, to 44% among those age 60 and older.

Safety and cost are top worries

Safety concerns are a major drawback of self-driving cars, according to 46% of respondents, but cost was the biggest worry.

What People Don't Like About Driverless Cars

Concern about safety also bubbled up when we asked about car insurance rates. Typically, cars that crash less are rewarded with lower auto insurance rates. But only 41% of people think owners of self-driving cars should pay less for insurance.

As another measure of trust in autonomous car technology, we asked whether people would put a child in a self-driving car alone to go to school or a friend’s house. Only 6% gave a thumbs-up to that idea. Most people (76%) said no, and the rest were unsure.

However, people did show interest in safety technologies such as collision avoidance, suggesting the possibility that they will eventually come around to self-driving cars if they can be sold on the cars’ safety promises (and if men can still have a little fun). Only 9% of people said they had no interest in any of the technologies we asked about.

Most Desired Advanced Technology Features

A few are ready to spend today

There’s a very small, enthusiastic contingent of people who are ready to embrace driverless cars today: 3% of respondents say they would purchase a driverless car today if they could, and 6% say they’d be willing to pay more than $10,000 extra for a fully autonomous car over a regular car.

Another 15% say they would pay $5,001 to $10,000 more. (Experts generally predict that self-driving cars will cost about $7,000 to $10,000 more than regular cars when they are introduced, with the price differential decreasing in subsequent years.) But pessimism about the value of autonomous cars still prevails: 50% of people say they wouldn’t pay a dime more.

Methodology

NerdWallet conducted a national, online survey of 1,028 randomly selected Americans ages 18 and older on May 12-13, 2015, via SurveyMonkey. Respondents were 52% female and 48% male. By age, 22% were under 30, and 26% were over 60. Margin of error: four percentage points.

For the full study, click here.