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

  • February 17, 2020
    AAA report: caught red-handed
    Using published crash statistics, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety’s report found that 939 people were killed in red-light running crashes in 2017 – a rise of 28% since 2012. Moreover, more than a quarter (28%) of crash deaths at signalised intersections “are the result of a driver running through a red light”.
  • April 28, 2017
    Experiment discovers ‘deadliest distractions’ at the wheel
    Road safety charity IAM RoadSmart and UK car magazine Auto Express teamed up to find out which are the deadliest behind-the-wheel distractions with programming a sat-nav found to be the worst. Auto Express consumer editor Joe Finnerty and British Formula 3 hopeful Jamie Chadwick were put to the test in a professional racing simulator at Base Performance Simulators in Banbury. They were both assessed to see how they coped with the most common distracting tasks on UK roads, while completing timed laps and bra
  • November 7, 2014
    Drivers want semi-autonomous safety features
    Blind spot detection and rear-view cameras with park assist were the two features that tied for consumers' most-wanted car safety technology in a recent Edmunds.com survey. Edmunds polled more than 2,000 active site visitors to explore the vehicle safety technologies that most appealed to them for their next car purchase. “The most wanted features, like the blind spot detection, act more like co-pilots for your car,” said Edmunds senior analyst Ivan Drury, “providing drivers with 360 degrees of informati
  • May 30, 2013
    A global standard for enforcement systems – is it necessary?
    Jason Barnes speaks to leading figures from the automated enforcement sector about whether a truly international standard for automated enforcement systems is necessary or can ever be achieved. Recent reports of further press controversy in the US over automated enforcement (see ‘Focusing on accuracy?’, ITS International raise again the issue of standards and what constitutes ‘good enough’ in terms of system accuracy and overall solution effectiveness. Comparatively, automated enforcement has always expe