I imagine insurance would be split in two in that case. Carmakers would not want to be liable for e.g. someone striking you in a hit-and-run.

▲

smallnix 8 hours ago | parent [-]

If the car that did a hit-and-run was operated autonomously the insurance of the maker of that car should pay. Otherwise it's a human and the situation falls into the bucket of what we already have today.

So yes, carmakers would pay in a hit-and-run.

▲

JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> If the car that did a hit-and-run was operated autonomously the insurance of the maker of that car should pay

Why? That's not their fault. If a car hits and runs my uninsured bicycle, the manufacturer isn't liable. (My personal umbrella or other insurance, on the other hand, may cover it.)

	▲	graeme 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They're describing a situation of liability, not mere damage. If yor bicycle is hit you didn't do anything wrong. If you run into someone on your bike and are at fault then you generally would be liable. They're talking about the hypothetical where you're on your bike, which was sold as an autobomous bike and the bike manufacturer's software fully drives the bike, and it runs into someone and is at fault.