back to article New UK laws address driverless cars insurance and liability

Insurers would be primarily responsible for paying out damages stemming from accidents caused by "automated vehicles" under new UK legislation laid before the UK parliament. The Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill sets out how the liability for accidents involving automated vehicles should be apportioned, and factors in …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    30 years....

    So for 30 years no-one has been quite sure who was responsible if the DLR went wrong and killed someone?!

    1. Electron Shepherd

      Re: 30 years....

      I think the difference is that the tracks on the DLR are not the public highway.

      1. lglethal Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: 30 years....

        Lets put it this way - if you get your car on the DLR tracks, not only are you liable for the Crash, but HOW THE F%&K DID YOU GET YOUR CAR ON THE DLR TRACKS!!!!! :P

        1. Rich 11

          Re: 30 years....

          HOW THE F%&K DID YOU GET YOUR CAR ON THE DLR TRACKS!!!!!

          My car is Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

          Well, at least approximately that old and noisy.

        2. Trigonoceps occipitalis

          Re: 30 years....

          Maybe I need to update my Satnav?

          1. Danny 14

            Re: 30 years....

            If it possible then a white transit would already have been there, done that and cut up a DLR train by now.

  2. hatti

    Driverless Upgrades

    The insurance industry potentially has a lot to lose if the level of incidents from driverless cars drops dramatically as the software becomes increasingly more reliable and AI and machine learning become factors for the future.

    Possibly a future range of driverless car software plugins too, such as 'school run' and 'fetch milk'.

    1. Siberian Hamster

      Re: Driverless Upgrades

      Surely quite the reverse, if there are no accidents then the insurance companies pay out NOTHING EVER! It's their version of utopia, because you can bet your insurance premium won't come down much if at all.

      1. bazza Silver badge

        Re: Driverless Upgrades

        No, because if every car is self driving, and the accident rate drops to an official "zero", there'd never be any need for insurance in the first place. It would be legal madness to compel people to insure themselves against a third party liability when the law says it's the manufacturer at fault.

        The new law is a little bit worrying - it says that the liability rests with the driver if they're using the car in self driving mode "inappropriately". Now, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Either it's a self driving car that can do the whole job all the time, or it's simply a car with an advanced cruise control that actually has to be watched like a hawk in case it craps out on the driver, leaving them with precious little time to wake from their slumbers to take control and avoid the terrible outcome for which they will be blamed. Rubbish.

        1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

          Re: Driverless Upgrades

          Insurance doesn't just cover collision accidents. Theft, fire and if you're fully comp, breakdowns and other issues with the vehicle are also covered.

        2. hplasm
          Holmes

          Re: Driverless Upgrades

          "...legal madness ..."

          The one with no cure.

  3. daldred

    I'm quite possibly missing something here - but isn't this saying (in long and convoluted language) that if a vehicle is insured with an insurer, the insurer is responsible for the insured losses?

    What's actually new?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Blue Windscreen of Death

      The insurer will just say, "well, the driver only had CarOS version 3.3.3.5 installed, and hadn't updated to CarOS v3.3.3.6, so we cant be held responsible for this!"

      1. m0rt

        Re: Blue Windscreen of Death

        But they *did* insure the car when it had 3.3.3.5 installed. So why would that version, all of a sudden, not be insurable?

        So what this means is that some kind of body will have to state: We accept this version as insurable.

        That same body will also have to state: This version has X bug, so is no longer insurable after X date.

        Now since you can't really allow the manufacturers police their own releases, due to conflict of interests, (Hi Tesla!), this means that there needs to be a very high quality, and comprehensive testing policy that determines that something is suitable.The insureres will have to ratify that they will trust this body. I suppose this is similar to determining thata vehicle is roadworthy. This will need to be paid for, and paid for it will be by the manufacturers, and therefore by the consumers.

        As it ever was, thus.

        DVSA (nee VOSA) could be onto a winner, here..

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: Blue Windscreen of Death

          I suppose this is similar to determining thata vehicle is roadworthy.

          More than just similar, it is determining if it's roadworthy.

          Something like an MOT would determine if the car is running an acceptably recent version of the SW, if not then it fails and is uninsured.

          If there's a critical safety patch, the manufacturer has the responsibility to recall & fix the problem, just as they would if a mechanical probem was found, say with the brakes.

        2. Red Bren

          Re: Blue Windscreen of Death

          "But they *did* insure the car when it had 3.3.3.5 installed. So why would that version, all of a sudden, not be insurable?"

          Because v3.3.3.6 includes the new Highway Code rule that states self-driving vehicles must follow some arbitrary requirement. Your car is X.Y years old and just out of warranty. The manufacturer only releases updates for cars up to X years old so what do you do? Your car is effectively uninsurable and worthless.

          1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

            Re: Blue Windscreen of Death

            > The manufacturer only releases updates for cars up to X years old so what do you do? Your car is effectively uninsurable and worthless.

            Indeed, and there are other scenarios as well.

            So apart from being able to effectively send all models of a certain age to the scrapheap, there's the "protection racket" issue - in effect, the owner will have no choice but to pay whatever the manufacturer charges for updates.If the manufacturer won't provide updates unless you pay an annual "service charge" then you have to pay that charge. Annual charge more than the value of the car - tough.

            So the ever decreasing practical life of a car, mostly due to technology and the cost of what would once have been simple and cheap repairs, takes another step.

            And it's retrospective as well - unless the manufacturers are forced to state future service costs for some arbitrary future lifetime, then there's no way to know in advance of purchase what the car is going to cost to keep "insurable". yes there's a certain amount of unknown in it now - but at least the cost of parts etc tends to be generally predictable.

            And of course, it opens up further opportunities for gouging and lock-in. Want updates ? We'll only provide them through our franchised dealer network ! Want new brake pads ? Oh didn't you notice the mention on page seventy-eleven of the 6 point T&Cs that the pads have software in them to talk to the autonomous driving system, so you can only use our own pads at a 1000% markup compared to what the very same pads (from the same factory) without our name on would cost, and only available through our franchised dealers who are the only ones with the tools to re-code the car to the new pads !

            Yup, I reckon these proposed rules herald a new era of vendor lock-in.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Meh

        Re: Blue Windscreen of Death

        Expect the Government to bail out the insurance companies with wheelbarrow loads of money in twenty years time when they are all facing bankruptcy following some external problem like a solar flare or a 32 bit epoch rollover and a few million cars running the same software all crash at the same time.

    2. ArrZarr Silver badge

      Black: The new black

      More laying out the ground rules than introducing anything earth-shattering but IMO the important bits are that insurers effectively wouldn't be liable unless these three criteria are fulfilled:

      1. The car is on the list of cars you can legally drive autonomously in the UK

      2. Patches installed

      3. The software isn't tinkered with

      (2) will be interesting if you don't have a readily accessible internet connection

      (3) will be interesting when the determined tinkerer finds a way around the safeguards & can reset on a whim

    3. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Pint

      What's actually new?

      Nothing much but it does define who is by default responsible should the worse happen and that is very significant, a question many people have asked and pondered. I think it's the right and fair decision.

    4. 's water music

      I'm quite possibly missing something here - but isn't this saying (in long and convoluted language) that if a vehicle is insured with an insurer, the insurer is responsible for the insured losses?

      What's actually new?

      I think that what is new is that with an automated vehicle there was a lot more scope for arguing that liability lay with a third-party (the manufacturer) and for the insurer to disavow responsibility (having covered the liabilities of the insured 'driver'). Those arguments can still take place but the injured parties will get compo from the insurer in the mean time.

      1. Danny 14

        Insurance companies want you to pay them but Ford to payout.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      When is an insurer not an insurer?

      "...if a vehicle is insured with an insurer, the insurer is responsible for the insured losses?"

      Well, there's also this snippet from the article...

      "Insurers would not be liable for damages stemming from accidents caused by 'automated vehicles' if the vehicle has not been insured."

      ...which seems like a rhetorical tautology.

  4. gnasher729 Silver badge

    Q very simple and sensible rule - if a car is on the road and driving, whether with or without a driver, it must have third party liability insurance. What I don't like is that the insurance company can get out of paying if the owner misbehaves. What should happen is that they have to pay the victim, and then of course the insurance should be able to recover the money from anyone who was responsible. Plus the possibility to take legal action _before_ an accident happens.

    I would think that like with cars with a driver, the insurance cost would depend on the number and cost of accidents that the insurance has to pay for.

    1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      In the UK Insurance Companies, through the MIB, pay out when uninsured drivers are at fault. They are free to recover from the "guilty party". Quite often the guilty party has no funds but the victim still gets a payout. Of course the law abiding, insured drivers are paying for this one way or another through increased premiums.

      I imagine that something equivalent will apply to autonomous vehicles once they become popular. It should apply if the software is out of date, just as the MIB is on the hook if some prat has doubled the power of his car and left the brakes as standard.

      (Simplified statement of the MIB responsibilities.)

  5. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    It seems a sensible clarification of the current position - you must be insured to use a vehicle on the public highway, and the first onus is on the insurer.

  6. earl grey
    Devil

    you're shafted no matter what

    didn't update your software - guilty

    did update your software - guilty

    let your self-driving car actually self-drive - guilty

    didn't use the self-driving feature - guilty

    ran over 42 little kids - extra guilty

  7. M7S

    failed to "install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system - hmm

    At work we've a policy of reviewing patches and the like before rolling them out, and both there (and at home) we wait a couple of weeks before running things like MS update on the Windows boxes in case there's a problem or something unannounced and generally unwanted, which is why I am not currently typing this on Windows 10, nor do I have an unwanted U2 album in my iTunes.

    Given that most members of the public, and in relation to vehicle software I include myself in that, will not be in a position to review the updates and will probably default to "automatic updates" this seems to suggest that the public highways will in effect become a beta testing ground with unaware participants both inside and outside those vehicles. It's all very well saying that the insurance will be valid, and I agree it needs to be, but if some buggy implementation that people cannot uninstall when a problem becomes apparent means I am run over more frequently or knocked off my motorcycle, its not really going to endear me further to the idea of autonomous vehicles about which I am otherwise ambivalent, with a slight bias towards hopefulness.

    I recall that there was an Apple OS update for Macs a few years back ago that broke things and people wanted to roll back but were told something along the lines of "you cant" (the previous version was pulled from the website) or "there's no provision to do so". If this applied to cars, telling people unable (for example) to use public transport that they can't drive to work or pick up the kids is a bit more serious than saying they cant use their personal computer for a bit.

    1. Rich 11

      Re: failed to "install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system - hmm

      this seems to suggest that the public highways will in effect become a beta testing ground

      Since beta testing should clearly comprise a smaller set than the full customer group, I propose that Slough should become the beta testing ground. And they can use Swindon for the alpha.

    2. Filippo Silver badge

      Re: failed to "install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system - hmm

      That all depends on how exactly the bit that states that insurers can seek compensation from manufacturers work.

    3. S4qFBxkFFg

      Re: failed to "install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system - hmm

      M7S: "...will not be in a position to review the updates and will probably default to "automatic updates""

      I would be very surprised if it is even possible to disable automatic updates short of keeping the vehicle in a Faraday cage or physically removing its SIM(s) and radio(s).

      Incidentally, the slashdot version of this story was amusing in that their headline stated the vehicles themselves would be held liable - I imagined punishments such as being forced to charge from a square wave supply for minor infractions, all the way up to having the OS replaced with Windows ME for actually killing someone.

      1. Lee D Silver badge

        Re: failed to "install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system - hmm

        I wanna see an automated car negotiate the Hanger Lane gyratory.

        If they can pass through that unscatched, then I think they're ready to go on the roads.

        I imagine, however, that they would spend their lives stuck on the roundabout entrance never quite managing to get anywhere.

        1. Swarthy

          Re: failed to "install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system - hmm

          I see your Hanger Lane gyratory test and raise you the Swindon magic roundabout.

          1. katrinab Silver badge

            Re: failed to "install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system - hmm

            That is just 5 mini roundabouts arranged in a circle, so shouldn't be too difficult for a computer.

            1. Mark York 3 Silver badge
              Go

              Re: failed to "install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system - hmm

              The Magic Roundabout is fantastically brilliant to drive through.

              I used to whip around that thing in seconds (for some reason that junction always clogged up when it was raining), you just had to get into the mindset of effectively going the wrong way around, which was the way it was intended to be used.

              If you think of it as packets of network traffic, I can see it actually being well suited for such a AI as the approaching traffic could be shaped to go around in the most efficient manner depending on the intended destination.

  8. tony
    Happy

    Appropriate

    "negligence in allowing the vehicle to drive itself when it was not appropriate to do so"

    Phew, at least theres a nice unclear term for lawyers to argue over on somebody elses dime.

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: Appropriate

      I wondered about that, what exactly will those restrictions be?

      Some 512 page EULA from the car company about not one roads without XYZ accuracy of GPS maps being created, etc, that you can't practically verify yourself? Or with snow or ice on roads, etc?

      Really, it should be simple:

      1) It is manual - drive it yourself

      2) It is motorway use only where simple lane tracking is OK (i.e. enhanced cruse control)

      3) It actually drives itself and you don't have ANY responsibility for its actions beyond setting the destination.

    2. Crazy Operations Guy

      Re: Appropriate

      I figure that road would be painted with a special symbol indicating that driver-less cars can be used on it. Something certifying that it has clean and clearly painted lines, is on a maintenance routine to keep it usable, and that there aren't any blind corners. Maybe implement it as a QR-like code or something on the bottom of speed signs so that the vehicle would identify it, read its ID, download the appropriate information for that stretch of road. After it downloads the data, it'd do some processing to determine if it is capable of going autonomous safely. The vehicle will only go into automated mode when it has been determine that is safe to do so. A sort of positive control system.

      I figure the signs would be good for a certain length of road with 'refresh' marked mid-way through that zone. If the car misses the refresh marker, it'd have enough time to warn the driver and return to manual mode before the stretch ended (EG, the marker is good for 10 miles with a refresh marker at 7.5 miles, so a driver would have 2.5 miles to regain control and start driving manually).

      As for how it communicates, I figure that the manufacturers would be able to make the same deal that Amazon did to get free 3G service into its Kindle readers.

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Appropriate

      A nice unclear term? It's a loophole that even the most inept Satnav could find its way through.

      1. Kiwi
        Holmes

        Re: Appropriate

        A nice unclear term? It's a loophole that even the most inept Satnav could find its way through.

        Appears pretty straightforward... If an autonomous car is "at fault" in a crash, then clearly it was an inappropriate time for that car to be in autonomous mode!

        Can't be any clearer than that..

  9. Mad Mike

    Sounds rather flawed to me

    At first sight, this all sounds fine, but there seems to be some flaws.

    The idea that someone has to maintain their car (including software) properly is just extending the MOT process to include software and patching. Effectively, someone must be within the 'supported' range of software versions. As you can't guarantee everyone will update instantly, it can't just be latest.

    However, if the car when running in autonomous mode has an accident for which it is to blame, the insurance of the 'driver' (I know he's not driving at the time, but has given the car permission to drive itself) will carry the cost. At first sight, this is reasonable, but is it really?

    When you drive a car, it is under your control (supposedly) and is probably (in general) maintained or not by yourself, so if anything happens, it's because you made an error or failed to maintain it properly etc. So, your insurance pays. However, if your tyre blew out due to a manufacturing defect, the tyre manufacturer could well become liable if proven.

    Now take a car in automatic mode. You're running software you have no control over. You've made sure it's up to date etc. and done all you can, but the functioning of the software isn't something you can reasonably test or validate. When that car has a crash for which it is found liable, why should your insurance company (effectively you) pay? If the software has a bug in it (equivalent of a manufacturing defect), why should they not pay?

    1. Named coward

      Re: Sounds rather flawed to me

      If a tyre blows and you crash into another car another car your insurance should pay the damages. If they find out it was a manufacturer default they then go after the manufacturer to recover the costs. If they discover that the tyres were not well maintained they might go after you to recover the costs

      Replace tyre with software

    2. YARR

      Re: Sounds rather flawed to me

      The idea that someone has to maintain their car (including software) properly is just extending the MOT process to include software and patching.

      Wrong analogy. Software does not degrade through use like hardware. Network connected devices need software updates to guard against network-borne attacks. Non-networked devices only need software updates to fix bugs that affect their operation (or changes to their operating environment).

      If software updates are legally required for non-networked devices, that would be a legal admission that the old code was not fit for purpose - the software equivalent of a product recall. In this case, the software vendor would then become liable for past accidents involving vehicles that ran the old code. To avoid such liability, the software vendor cannot admit that the old code is unsafe, just less efficient or less functional.

      If vehicles had to run the latest code by law, your car would not allow you to start a journey until it had checked for updates. Also it would have to maintain constant network access while driving to stay up to date. The moment a bug is reported in the code, to avoid liability they would have to transmit a network message to halt all vehicles until a fix has been produced, and downloaded to your vehicle.

      To maximise road safety, computers must control the whole environment - i.e. human drivers, cyclists, and maybe pedestrians are prevented from using the road. To attain this they may use soft methods like artificially increased insurance premiums for human drivers, despite there being no inherent reason why human drivers should be more dangerous (write off more value + cause more injuries / fatalities) than than at present. A free market for insurers would keep premiums for human drivers comparable to what they are now.

      However when accidents occur between human drivers v self-driving vehicles, drivers will be in opposition with corporate lawyers so are more likely to lose legal cases. That said, corporate lawyers may deliberately accept liability at first to win public support, then turn up the pressure when there are few human drivers left on the road.

      1. Bill B

        Re: Sounds rather flawed to me

        Hold on a minute. "The old code was not fit for purpose?".

        Let's look at this way. The software in your car is updated so that a new feature "window wind half way down" is added. This does not mean that the old code is unfit. I can see a legal minefield here

  10. Joe Harrison

    Meanwhile back in May 2000...

    http://www.zdnet.com/article/open-source-is-here-to-stay/

    "Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?" - Bob Young, founder of Red Hat.

    He thought he was making a ludicrous analogy but it turned out he was making a prophecy.

    1. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: Meanwhile back in May 2000...

      To be honest, it's a stupid analogy.

      90% of drivers have probably never opened their bonnet (hood).

      Those that do, surely 90% of those are doing so to top up oil, water or other fluid. All of which could be from from a cap on the outside of the car.

      Hell, have you TRIED changing a lightbulb on a modern car yourself? It's nigh-on impossible without taking all kinds of stuff out.

      But the number of drivers who NEED to look under the hood is vanishingly small, and those that do could do all the ordinary stuff without needing to open it anyway. Why is it not just petrol, oil, water, washer fluid, brake fluid, clearly labelled, different size / colour / shape holes, locks on everything but the water, and a welded-shut bonnet? Everything further (servicing, etc.) you could quite easily dictate be done from under the car, which any garage can organise as part of their normal routines anyway.

      Most people do, effectively, buy cars with the hood welded shut and pretty much have since electronic ignition came in. It's also the same for software, which makes the analogy even worse. The reason is - if they have no understanding or need to tinker under there, it's safer not to give them access. What he was advocating was the antithesis of the least-privilege-principle, in effect.

    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Meanwhile back in May 2000...

      Even back in 2000, the engine management systems of new cars were so locked down that you had to go to an approved dealer to be able to diagnose (let alone fix) certain types of fault. He really needed to have been saying that 10 or 15 years earlier. *Then* it would have been funny.

  11. David Pearce

    Liability problems if a car maker closes down and nobody maintains the software anymore

    1. MrT

      SAAB...

      ... for example - plenty still on the roads, physically maintained etc.

      Now extend the 'out of business' idea to a car model deemed 'out of date' by the manufacturer - "Sorry mate, that's the Model 3. The latest software only applies to Model 3S or later". What then? Choose to have a fair chunk of the purchase disabled (the self-drive functions) as it is now uninsurable? Scrap the car?

      There would have to be a way of keeping or maintaining vehicles in those sort of situations, just like you can still maintain a Jag E-Type these days, 40 years after production finished...

  12. Ogi

    "unauthorised alterations" eh?

    Presumably disabling any tracking and/or recording systems in the car would count? Or over riding the default government approved "allowed routes" eh?

    Sure, that is not what will be the case now, but one day, in the future, when the ability of people to themselves direct where they want to go is fully taken away from them, I am sure the screws will start tightening. Nothing better than forbidding people from modifying and creating things themselves, they should just be perpetual "consumers", ideally on credit.

    I don't understand how some people can so willingly accept handcuffs, even if they are virtual. It is like they don't want any personal power, but have "someone else" take care of everything for them. At what point is someone else living your life for you exactly?

    I sure won't be using any such driverless technology for as long as I am capable of resisting. I don't mind sharing the roads with those who wish to be driven autonomously, but not at the expense of my ability to drive myself and control where I go.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like