Regu­late connec­ted traf­fic

The driver of an autonomous car must always know the limits of what the car can actually do, so they can gauge to what degree they can focus on other things. That calls for binding standards – before any such systems are actually launched. While assistance systems only provide support to the driver, autonomous cars are designed to steer, brake and accelerate autonomously, at least temporarily. That enables the driver to concentrate on something other than traffic. In order for this to work, the systems must be sophisticated enough that the driver has to intervene only rarely, has enough time to react in these cases and that the car will safely come to a stop without any input from the driver.

As long as accidents occur, there must be a clear system to define how and by whom victims are compensated. The issue of responsibility is currently straightforward: in most cases liability lies with the driver. That will change as autonomous driving becomes more commonplace. Drivers, owners and manufacturers will be joined by IT service providers, mobile operators, digital network operators and digital card providers. Responsibility and liability will be shared among these parties. However, the issue will remain straightforward for accident victims. If the operation of a car leads to personal injury or property damage, the owner's motor vehicle liability insurance will cover the loss.

Anyone who brings faulty systems to market will be held responsible within the applicable legal regime. Establishing where responsibility lies in autonomous driving to the extent of providing evidence that will hold up in court is difficult, which is why it falls to the motor insurers as opposed to the claimants themselves. This prevents the insured community having to bear the costs. Recourse is on an equal footing between manufacturer and insurer. The motor insurer has the experience, legal expertise and financial resources to enforce claims, all the attributes that accident victims lack.

Autonomous and connected driving produces data. Insurers are already using this data to apply telematics rates to reward careful driving. Motorists can also access new digital services, for example the accident reporting service provided by insurers. However, that is contingent on the motorists owning the data as opposed to the manufacturers. They must be free to decide to whom they transfer their vehicle data. If the manufacturers had sole access to the data, they could restrict competition resulting in quasi-monopolies – to the detriment of motorists who are not only customers of car manufacturers but also of insurers.

Do assistance systems and automated driving functions really reduce accidents and make the roads safer? GDV experts have conducted research to determine the actual effect of the new technology. Their conclusion: the new systems will cause a mere 7% to 15% reduction in motor insurers’ compensation payments by 2035 compared to 2015. There are a number of reasons for the impact being so small: an autopilot is as helpful against car thieves as a parking assistant against rockfall, hail or marten bites. The take-up of these systems is slow – and the addition of sensors and new technology increases repair costs in the event of a claim.

Not even a low number of traffic deaths is an acceptable price to pay for individual mobility. At the start of the ‘70s, there were 15 million cars in Germany and over 20,000 road fatalities every year. In 2020, there are over 47 million cars, seat belts are mandatory, as are speed limits, blood alcohol limits, airbags, crumple zones, ABS and ESP. Accident research conducted by insurers keeps coming up with new ways of improving road safety. The result: in 2019, the number of traffic fatalities fell below 3,100, its lowest level ever. However, the mobility transition comes with its own new challenges. The welcome increase in the number of cyclists unfortunately means that they account for a growing share of the people killed or injured on the roads. All the more reason to make improved security the number one priority – for every traffic law, when planning every road and for every new innovation by car manufacturers and suppliers.

The climate crisis calls into question how we live, what we consume and how we travel. Those who point to the cost of the federal government’s climate package or the European Commission’s Green Deal, must also acknowledge the high cost and devastating consequences of climate change for all of us. Focusing solely on redirecting capital flows in support of sustainability criteria is not the way to solve the climate issue. Traffic is the third-biggest carbon emitter in Germany – after power generation and industry. There is no alternative to charging carbon emitters, on the roads and elsewhere (see sustainability).