The introduction of ever-greater levels of automation to vehicles on our roads will transform not just the car-making industry but many other parts of the economy and society. As telecoms companies, networking hardware firms, and peer-to-peer communications providers pile in behind Google and the traditional automotive companies, it will only become more difficult to establish liabilities and apportion blame in the event of an accident.
With vehicles becoming more technologically sophisticated, the manufacturers’ old ‘ship and forget’ sales model will have to give way to ‘ship and update’, as seen in large parts of the consumer technology industry. We can also expect to see more consumers querying the performance of these vehicles, as they are already doing with electric vehicles. Anticipating the direction of travel, Volvo has become one of the first manufacturers to say it will accept full liability whenever one if its cars is in autonomous mode. Others are likely to follow suit sooner rather than later.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
It will take a lot longer to determine exactly how this rebalancing of liabilities can be achieved. Much depends on how the law in this area develops as well as on how the insurance industry adapts to these changes. Remaining at the wheel of the car at all times and possessing a car insurance policy are likely to remain legal requirements for driving for some time to come.
Under current UK law it simply isn’t possible for manufacturers to accept liability. However, the trend away from individual vehicle ownership is putting even sharper focus on these issues. The question this poses is how the process of integrating semi and fully autonomous vehicles onto our existing road network will be managed. There are already a variety of big issues to tackle, such as the development and adoption of common technology standards (at both national and international levels), the harmonisation of road traffic laws, and the timing and phasing of deployment.
Against this backdrop, it’s clear that Volvo’s intervention is a starting point for further discussions rather than a ‘game changer’. There are still a great many variables that are yet to be addressed. Under closer scrutiny, one wonders what terms and conditions will end up being attached to such a commitment. What if one of Volvo’s autonomous car had been serviced or repaired by a third-party supplier? Will customers have to be restricted only to Volvo-accredited garages? We may even see manufacturers or vendors assert, as a condition of sale, the right to disable a driver’s vehicle in the interest of safety, for example if a critical software update has not been installed. Lastly there’s the possibility of cyberattack.
Nor is there any guarantee that establishing fault for an accident in the eventual age of autonomous vehicles will be straightforward. Issues such as whether there was deliberate misuse by a driver or passenger, or even an act of sabotage, might have to be considered. Would the manufacturer still be willing to take responsibility if it was found that the accident was caused by the road conditions or a problem with the supporting infrastructure? Or could highways authorities or other bodies responsible for urban planning one day find themselves liable for failing to make the necessary improvements or adaptations?
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataClearly there’s still a lot more to discuss. But if the UK wants to be recognised as a leader in driverless cars, government and industry must work together to navigate the liability minefield.
Caroline Coates is head of automotive at DWF
