Ministerial Round Table - The Future of Motor Insurance

 I was privileged to be asked to speak yesterday at a meeting with Baroness Vere & others, so thought I would share what I said - Insurers have big concerns about access to data and flawed implementation of technology like ALKS.

We at AXA are keen to support, promote and enable the take-up of automated technology on UK roads, provided the deployment of the technology is underpinned by a clear legal and regulatory framework which prioritises safety and is appropriate for the level of automation in development.

We recognise the potential benefits of this new technology for society. We see the consequences of Road Accidents on a daily basis and CAV technology has the potential to remove the cause of 90% of road traffic accidents – driver error

Since discussions began on regulation, we have consistently said that the Legal & Regulatory framework must clearly define the responsibilities of the users of automated vehicles and any changes to the current road safety regime.

A critical element in this process is ensuring insurers have access to specific data in the event of an incident is fundamental for establishing liability, effective claims management for those involved in road traffic accidents and enabling insurers to meet their obligations under the AEVA.

■       There are many remaining questions surrounding data that need to be addressed to determine liability. Future legislation needs to protect the consumer so that in the event of an accident, responsibility for the accident and who pays can be quickly determined. 

■      There is still no consensus about how data is collected, stored, and accessed. However, AXA was pleased that the Law Commission proposed that legislation should impose a duty on those controlling automated vehicles data to disclose relevant data to insurers following an incident.

■      Regulation stipulates that data must be recorded in “detectable collisions”. However, there is no definition as to what a detectable collision is and whilst I don’t want to get into a debate on ‘airbag and pretensioner deployment thresholds’, I will say that these only capture 5% of overall crashes (possibly 10% on motorways). This will mean that low energy and low velocity collisions will not be recorded. This could be a pedestrian or motorcyclist serious injury of fatality. If the vehicle fails to detect the collision it could continue its journey with eth user-in-charge blissfully unaware of the situation.

■      These vehicles will have, by their very nature, more sophisticated sensors that can identify these collisions so it could be possible to record these more minor events, but the regulation fails to stipulate this.

■      One Ask from todays’ meeting would be for a discussion between Government and ABI/Thatcham/MIB specifically on data issues

While we recognise the transformative impact self-driving technologies can have, it is imperative we consider all the challenges related to the types of transport innovation becoming commercially available. AXA, along with others in the insurance industry, have concerns around the safe use of ALKS and its relation to AEVA

We are at a crucial moment, technology is getting there, but isn’t quite ready, and the wrong move from a legal or regulatory perspective could jeopardise the above.

§ Automated Lane Keeping Systems (ALKS), a level 3 system under the SAE standards, less capable than that intended to be the province of the Automated and Electric vehicle Act, and yet the Government appears to be considering adding ALKS vehicles to the AEVA List. Doing so, particularly before the Law Commission’s review of the regulatory framework, which will underpin the safe deployment of automated vehicles, could be perceived as rushing for headlines, allowing people to disengage whilst driving, rather than making a considered decision.

§ ALKS systems have significant technological limitations and are closer to ‘Assisted Driving’ rather than ‘Automated Driving’, with the driver needing to remain engaged in the driving task at all times. They only comply with 2 of the 12 Thatcham requirements for safe automation, challenges include not being able to change lanes or perform a Minimum Risk Manoeuvre (this could force a stop in a live traffic lane) and not being capable of detecting objects low to the ground

§ We know the general public are still concerned about ‘Mad Robot Cars’, imagine the impact on the whole Connected and Autonomous Mobility progression, if we see accidents, deaths and injuries caused by what are really just Driver Assistance systems, being described as autonomous.

§ The AEVA definition of a vehicle ‘driving itself’ requires the vehicle to be “operating in a mode in which is not being controlled and does not need to be monitored by an individual’. The definition outlined in AEVA 2018 was never intended to be aimed at conditional automation but SAE Level 4 & 5. This was also clarified in a letter from Baroness Suggs during the passage of the Bill.

§ Classification of ALKS systems as ‘automated’ could damage consumer confidence. Not only would this impact the UK’s Future of Mobility project it could undermine trust in the potential of similarly advanced technologies and damage the potential of this as an emerging industry.

§ The Department for Transport should review their timings for the introduction of ALKS in order to consider all challenges related to deployment and ensure road safety and public trust has been efficiently established. This should be through further engagement with manufacturers and insurers, and a commitment to undertake research / real-world testing.

 David J Williams, Managing Director, Underwriting & Technical Services, AXA Insurance (UK), [email protected], @AXADavidW