UK insurers concerned over grey area between ‘assisted’ and ‘automated’ driving systems

The risk of 'autonomous ambiguity' over the differences between 'assisted' and 'automated' driver systems could lead to a short-term increase in collisions, warn UK insurers.

With wide-reaching changes being defined by international regulators on what assisted and automated systems can and can't do, the Automated Driving Insurer Group (ADIG), led by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) in collaboration with Thatcham Research, has released a white paper setting out the latest position of UK insurers.

The Regulating Automated Driving paper is set to reveal that UK insurers, including AXA, Admiral, Ageas, Allianz, Aviva, Co-operative Insurance, Covea, Direct Line Group, Esure, LV, RSA, Zurich and the Lloyd’s Market, strongly support vehicle automation in the firm belief that it will deliver a significant reduction in accidents.

However, there are real concerns about driver confusion caused by so-called intermediate automated systems.

Such systems offer significant self-driving capability but require the driver to take back control of the vehicle in certain circumstances.

Peter Shaw, CEO of Thatcham Research, said: “Vehicles with intermediate systems that offer assisted driving still require immediate driver intervention if the car cannot deal with a situation.

"Systems like these are fast emerging and unless clearly regulated, could convince drivers that their car is more capable than it actually is.

"This risk of autonomous ambiguity could result in a short-term increase in crashes.”

The paper suggests that a clear distinction between assisted and automated systems should be made by international regulators considering design standards for these vehicles.

Therefore, a vehicle should be clearly identified and marketed as automated only when:

• The driver can safely disengage in the knowledge that the car has sufficient capabilities to deal with virtually all situations on the road
• A vehicle encounters a situation it can’t handle, that it has the ability to come to a safe stop
• The autonomous system can avoid all conceivable crash types and can continue to function adequately in the event of a partial system failure
• Both insurers and vehicle manufacturers can immediately access data to identify whether the driver or vehicle is liable in the case of an accident, without ambiguity.

James Dalton, director of general insurance policy at the ABI, said: “The insurance industry strongly supports the development of automated driving technology – which we see as the logical conclusion to work over several decades to reduce the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on the roads.

“However, we know all too well from conventional vehicles that drivers often misunderstand what their vehicles can and can’t do. Therefore, consistent standards are needed so that those taking up automated driving technology can do so with confidence.”

The paper also highlights the need for more clarity in how vehicle manufacturers give names to assisted driving systems.

Shaw said: “Vehicle Manufacturers should be judicious in badging and marketing such systems, avoiding terms which could be misinterpreted as denoting full autonomy. Hybrid systems which creep into the intermediate grey area between assisted and automated should also be avoided.”