SHARE

The automotive industry is undergoing seismic change, fuelled by multi-billion-pound investments in electric, autonomous, and robotic technology from manufacturers and governments alike.

But while the commercial attractiveness of being first to cross the finish line in the race for driverless remains, it is important to recognise the challenges that come with some of the technologies that sit at the heart of making driverless a reality.

Mechanical glitches that may once have been restricted to brake pads or suspension levels have transitioned to self-parking sensors, connectivity, rear-view cameras, and electronic handbrakes, to name a few.

Read more: Consumer fears about driverless cars are steadily dropping

The introduction of these features has been designed to make driving an easier, safer, and more enjoyable experience, but recent testing has revealed a vulnerability to hacking, with the potential to put the lives of drivers at risk.

Take software coding risks, for example. These were recently highlighted when a Chinese cyber security lab identified 14 separate flaws in BMWs car computer systems.

Moreover, research from Tencents Keen Security Lab exposed a range of ways that hackers could compromise the safety of cars, including using infected USB sticks to connect to Bluetooth, thus exploiting the vehicles 3G/4G data links.

While 14 faults may sound problematic, it could be the tip of the iceberg of an issue that is much greater. A further unrelated study found that it takes around 200 days for data breaches to be detected, which means that there may be additional undetected vulnerabilities present in BMWs and in other connected cars, and that BMW could find itself the face of a far wider problem.

Despite these safety concerns, innovation in automotive technology sees no sign of abating. The question is therefore how the insurance sector will need to evolve to respond accordingly.

At what point should risk be transferred from the driver to the manufacturer? In the event of an incident, does blame lie with the technology company behind a particular software? The chain of establishing liability becomes much longer and more complex.

Until we have more clarity on driverless vehicles, we shouldnt assume that dangers wont exist. This was most recently demonstrated by the fatality involving the self-driving Uber in Arizona earlier this year.

It was therefore surprising to see Carlos Ghosn, chairman of the Renault, Nissan, Mitsubishi alliance, last month claim that “all the reasons you have today for a car accident you are going to make disappear” with the introduction of autonomous vehicles.

This statement focuses on the potential upsides of reducing the risk of human error, which of course exist. However, it ignores the fact that the risk profiles of such vehicles are markedly different, thus opening the possibility of new accident triggers.

Driverless cars will undoubtedly reduce the likelihood of human error, but at such an early stage of development we cant yet rule out risks associated with the technology itself.

Furthermore, driverless vehicles will drive on the same road infrastructure as current vehicles – and that infrastructure is full of potholes, inconsistent or degraded signage, and of course other vehicles. A fleet of driverless vehicles will not absolve the government of the need to provide safe and well maintained roads.

Investment in automotive innovation should continue to be encouraged, but not at the detriment of safety. Ensuring we balance what is technologically possible with what is socially acceptable means understanding the full extent of the risks associated with driverless technology before customers are handed the keys.

There remains a vast range of differing views on how quickly fully autonomous cars will become mainstream on public roads in the UK; particularly prevalent given the emphasis of autonomous cars within the governments industrial strategy.

But a disproportionate focus on the future should not take precedence over the importance of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of customers.

Regulating a complex new technology, and technologies that go hand-in-hand with that, is difficult, particularly when it is evolving rapidly.

Deep and detailed guidance on the considerations and legalities of autonomous vehicles for the vast number of organisations involved in the driverless revolution is vital, as well as ensuring that autonomous vehicles are safe, without inhibiting innovation.

Read more: Majority would use autonomous cars but worry about etiquette in car shares

Original Article

[contf] [contfnew]

CityAM

[contfnewc] [contfnewc]

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here