The Association of British Insurers (ABI) and vehicle safety expert Thatcham Research are pushing for new autonomous vehicle data laws, allowing insurers to view data after an accident involving a driverless car so they can determine where the blame lies.
Thatcham has proposed that data would be collected by the vehicle and made available to insurers, the emergency services and the vehicle manufacturer. It would reveal whether the car was in autonomous mode or not, how long it had been in its mode, provide a GPS location for the incident and show whether the driver’s seat was in use.
These regulations would require data from 30sec before and 15sec after the incident to be saved, to provide a clearer answer as to what happened and which car is to blame, helping to speed up the insurance payout decision process.
Ford works towards driverless car with new autonomous tech
Thatcham Research CEO Peter Shaw said: “Future legislation needs to protect the consumer so that in the event of an accident, responsibility and who pays can be quickly determined.
“Was it driver error or a failure of the automated driving system? This can only happen if their insurer has access to key data about the crash. We would like to see car manufacturers and legislators working together with the insurance industry to develop a framework to make this happen.”
The ABI believes the manufacturer should be made to pay for damages if a faulty autonomous car causes an accident. It said this would help to reduce costs to the consumer, bringing premiums down. Volvo has already said it would adopt this approach with its first autonomous vehicles. “If you want to be in that market, you have to take that liability,” Volvo CEO Håkan Samuelsson said.
Join the debate
Andrew Lee
Ludicrous
madmac
Yup, as usual the insurance
What utter BS "the manufacturer should be made to pay for damages" " it will reduce costs to consumers" At least they are truthful about their intentions!! huh!!
What a bunch of thieves.I have fought them many times on account of clients and they are all the same.
Madmac
Bob Cholmondeley
madmac wrote:
Anything that is non-intrusive but, will help to ensure correct apportionment of blame has to be a good thing. Also if an autonomous car causes an accident, as a consequence of hardware or software design inadequacy or error, then the manufacturer should be liable for the resulting costs.
Citroëniste.
Bob Cholmondeley
madmac wrote:
Anything that is non-intrusive but, will help to ensure correct apportionment of blame has to be a good thing. Also if an autonomous car causes an accident, as a consequence of hardware or software design inadequacy or error, then the manufacturer should be liable for the resulting costs.
Citroëniste.
Bob Cholmondeley
madmac wrote:
Anything that is non-intrusive but, will help to ensure correct apportionment of blame has to be a good thing. Also if an autonomous car causes an accident, as a consequence of hardware or software design inadequacy or error, then the manufacturer should be liable for the resulting costs.
Citroëniste.
madmac
Bob Cholmondeley wrote:
You made your point once,you bonehead! you don't need to make it 3 times! that is just rudeness!
Madmac
BigZoot
I hope manufacturers dont see
bowsersheepdog
Why is this even a question?
I don't need to put my name here, it's on the left
ericmorton
Vehicle Safety
Vehicle Repair
Add your comment