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 21, 2018
    Autonomous vehicles, smart cities: moving beyond the hype
    There is a lot of excited chatter about autonomous vehicles – but 2getthere’s Robbert Lohmann suggests we might need to take a step back and look realistically at what is achievable. You might be surprised that the chief commercial officer of a company delivering autonomous vehicles would begin an article with the suggestion that we need to get past the hype. And yet I do; because we have to, and urgently so. The hype prevents the development of autonomous vehicles that address actual transit needs. And
  • February 2, 2012
    Need for balance on UK speed enforcement funding cuts
    Trevor Ellis, Chairman of the ITS UK Enforcement Interest Group, considers the implications of the UK Government's decision to withdraw funding for road safety camera partnerships
  • April 19, 2017
    TEXpress adds reversible managed lanes
    Land availability restrictions and tidal traffic flows have led to the implementation of a novel managed lane configuration in Texas, as Colin Sowman finds out. Dealing with traffic congestion related to the ‘tidal flows’ caused by large numbers of commuters making their way into major business hubs in the morning and returning to the suburbs in the evening, has seen the widespread use of adaptive signal timing and even reversible lanes.
  • November 23, 2015
    Telematics devices ‘prompt changes in driving behaviour’
    More than half (56 per cent) of the drivers participating in an Insurance Research Council (IRC) online public opinion survey have made changes in how they drive since installing a telematics device provided by their insurance company in their primary vehicle. The report, Auto Insurance Telematics: Consumer Attitudes and Opinions, also claims that 36 per cent of respondents said they have made small changes in how they drive and 18 per cent said they have made significant changes. Thirty-eight per cent s