Skip to main content

UK drivers want to be insured against hackers

According to a new survey of almost 1,200 people by road safety charity IAM RoadSmart, 74 per cent of drivers think insurers should provide cover for damage caused by hackers accessing control systems in driverless cars. The results of this survey have been used to guide IAM RoadSmart’s response to the Centre for Connected & Autonomous Vehicles’ consultation, Pathway to Driverless Cars.
September 9, 2016 Read time: 2 mins

According to a new survey of almost 1,200 people by road safety charity IAM RoadSmart, 74 per cent of drivers think insurers should provide cover for damage caused by hackers accessing control systems in driverless cars.

The results of this survey have been used to guide IAM RoadSmart’s response to the Centre for Connected & Autonomous Vehicles’ consultation, Pathway to Driverless Cars.  

When asked whether they agree with the proposal that in future insurers must include cover for driverless cars in their new policies, almost half (46 per cent) said this was a good or very good idea. However, this view shifted when asked whether they’d still agree if this adds to the cost of insurance for all drivers, with 68 per cent disagreeing with the proposition, versus 23 per cent who agreed.

Those surveyed were largely not in favour of driver assistance systems being able to take over from the driver. When asked if they agreed with amending Highway Code rule 150, ‘do not rely on driver assistance systems’, 55 per cent said no compared to 35 per cent who said yes.

And when it comes to self-driving cars manoeuvring themselves with no occupant in the car, those surveyed were vehemently against changing the rules to allow it.

When asked if the Highway Code rules (which currently say that you should be in full control of a vehicle and switch off the engine when you are not in it) should be changed to allow a car to park itself, just six per cent supported this statement strongly. Some 13 per cent supported it, but 69 per cent didn’t support it at all.

Neil Greig, IAM RoadSmart director of policy and research, said: “In our view it is logical that hacking electronic systems in autonomous vehicles is treated the same way as a traditionally stolen vehicle, with the insurer bearing the cost. This will be an important way of developing consumer confidence around one element of the plethora of questions driverless cars pose.

“Driverless cars are a very new proposition for many and views towards them are mixed. Previous research we have carried out shows that road users are by and large excited about their development. But they still have concerns about responsibility, especially when it comes down to liability.”

Related Content

  • April 2, 2020
    Distraction danger rises with in-car tech, says TRL
    The increasing sophistication of in-car technology is creating new dangers in terms of driver distraction, a new study finds.
  • December 18, 2013
    Drivers tricked with phantom insurance by spoof online fraudsters
    NFU Mutual, the UK’s leading rural insurer is urging drivers to consider the risk of ‘ghost brokers’ when insuring their car online. Illegal middlemen, known as ‘ghost brokers’, using fake websites that look very much like the real thing, are targeting people looking for cheaper car insurance by offering them products that are non-existent. The fraudsters are posing as legitimate insurance brokers targeting those people who are more likely to consider cut price insurance to help save money. Accordin
  • May 18, 2015
    New Yorkers split on congestion pricing, tolling plan
    In a recently published Quinnipiac University poll, 49 per cent of voters on New York opposed a proposal to toll the East River bridges and at the same time reduce tolls on the ‘outer borough’ bridges between the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island and use the money for mass transit. Forty-four per cent backed the plan. Opposition to just setting tolls on the free East River bridges remains strong at 69 per cent, with just 27 per cent in favour, the independent poll finds. There is no group that co
  • 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