‘Autonomous ambiguity’ could cause crashes | Smart Highways Magazine: Industry News

‘Autonomous ambiguity’ could cause crashes

Share this story...Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageBuffer this pagePin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on Tumblr

Insurers have highlighted the confusion caused by different levels of autonomous vehicles and called for a clear distinction between assisted and automated systems to tackle ‘autonomous ambiguity’.

The Automated Driving Insurer Group (ADIG), led by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) in collaboration with Thatcham Research, has released a white paper setting out the position of UK insurers on ‘Regulating Automated Driving’.

The paper reveals ‘real concerns’ over driver confusion caused by so-called intermediate automated systems, which offer significant self-driving capability but require the driver to take back control of the vehicle in certain circumstances.

Thatcham Research CEO Peter Shaw said: ‘Vehicles with intermediate systems that offer assisted driving still require immediate driver intervention if the car cannot deal with a situation.

‘Systems like these are fast emerging and unless clearly regulated, could convince drivers that their car is more capable than it actually is. This risk of autonomous ambiguity could result in a short-term increase in crashes.’

James Dalton, director of general insurance policy at the ABI, said: ‘The insurance industry strongly supports the development of automated driving technology – which we see as the logical conclusion to work over several decades to reduce the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on the road.

‘However, we know all too well from conventional vehicles that drivers often misunderstand what their vehicles can and can’t do. Therefore, consistent standards are needed so that those taking up automated driving technology can do so with confidence.’

The paper says international regulators should make a clear distinction between assisted and automated systems by considering design standards for these vehicles. Therefore, a vehicle should be clearly identified and marketed as automated only when:

  • the driver can safely disengage in the knowledge that the car has sufficient capabilities to deal with virtually all situations on the road
  • if a vehicle encounters a situation it can’t handle, it has the ability to come to a safe stop
  • the autonomous system can avoid all conceivable crash types and can continue to function adequately in the event of a partial system failure
  • both insurers and vehicle manufacturers can immediately access data to identify whether the driver or vehicle is liable in the case of an accident, without ambiguity

The paper also calls for more clarity over the names manufacturers give assisted driving systems.

Mr Shaw said: ‘Vehicle manufacturers should be judicious in badging and marketing such systems, avoiding terms which could be misinterpreted as denoting full autonomy. Hybrid systems which creep into the intermediate grey area between assisted and automated should also be avoided.’


No comments yet.