Skip to main content

Drivers need clarity on liability with automated vehicles, says FIA

FIA Region I recently presented the consumer view on liability and automated driving at the Driving Future platform, where it stressed the need to increase consumer confidence in driverless technologies by guaranteeing safety and swift compensation for traffic victims. FIA believes the transition to fully autonomous vehicles will take time, during which different levels of automation will coexist on our roads, creating challenges for the current insurance model. It says there must be differentiation
March 14, 2017 Read time: 2 mins
8054 FIA Region I recently presented the consumer view on liability and automated driving at the Driving Future platform, where it stressed the need to increase consumer confidence in driverless technologies by guaranteeing safety and swift compensation for traffic victims.

FIA believes the transition to fully autonomous vehicles will take time, during which different levels of automation will coexist on our roads, creating challenges for the current insurance model.

It says there must be differentiation between lower levels of automation and the higher levels of automation. Up to SAE level 2, driver interaction is required in some form and therefore drivers should remain liable, provided the systems are properly designed and the driver is aware of their function, limits and constraints. For higher levels of automation, drivers can be asked to take over only under certain circumstances. In those circumstances, the recording of a limited set of data will be needed to establish liability in case of an accident.

FIA Region I interim director general, Laurianne Krid, said: "Drivers need to be properly informed about upcoming automated systems and their responsibilities to make correct use of the technology as it is released. At higher automation levels, drivers expect to be able to engage in other tasks and should, in our view, not be held liable in case of accident or infringement. Limited data recording through a Data Storage Systems should help clarify liability in case of doubt.”

Related Content

  • October 27, 2016
    The downside of driverless vehicles
    Driverless cars will have a detrimental effect on congestion and security while the road safety benefits can be achieved sooner and cheaper using ADAS, argues Colin Sowman. Many Governments are consulting about the introduction of driverless vehicles and even running trials. As 70% or 80% of crashes are caused by human error, the promise of a crash-free future of driverless, self-driving or autonomous vehicles (call them what you will) is alluring, as are the claims of reduced congestion and lower emissions
  • January 19, 2012
    Safer roads need safe systems approach, better infrastructure
    Some developed countries are far from leading the way when it comes to making road infrastructure safe. In fact, says the Road Safety Foundation's Joanne Hill, they learn a lot from what is happening in emergent nations. A new report from the Road Safety Foundation, 'Saving Lives, Saving Money - the costs and benefits of achieving safe roads', makes some startling assertions about attitudes to road safety. Although concerned predominantly with the UK, there are some universal lessons to be learned, accordin
  • December 3, 2018
    Majority of Brits do not think AVs will reduce accidents, says Axa
    Three-quarters of UK residents do not believe driverless cars will improve road safety, even though 90% of accidents are caused by human error. In a survey of 2,000 respondents, insurance firm Axa says only a third of UK residents believe driverless cars would be better for the environment and only 25% think the technology will improve safety for pedestrians. Axa emphasises that motorists are confused by the definition of a driverless car as well as by what sort of autonomous technology is available in mo
  • January 31, 2012
    Do we need a new approach to ITS and traffic management?
    In an article which has implications for the European Electronic Toll Service, ASECAP's Kallistratos Dionelis asks whether the approach we currently take to major ITS system implementations is always the best or healthiest. I was asked recently to write a paper on the technology-oriented future of transport. To paraphrase, I started with: "The goal of European policy-makers is to establish a transport system which meets society's economic, social and environmental needs, satisfying in parallel a rising dema