NAMIC's paper on autonomous vehicles and their impact on insurers, policymakers, and the public.

Robotaxis are set to shake up Australia’s motor insurance market I was recently featured in Insurance Business Australia discussing what autonomous vehicles mean for insurers, brokers, and clients. With liability shifting from drivers to technology providers, and new risks like cyber exposures emerging, the insurance industry needs to rethink how policies are structured and delivered. It’s an exciting time of change, and a chance for insurers and brokers to get ahead of the curve. Read the full article here: insurancebusinessmag.com https://lnkd.in/gSbn96Mw #InsuranceIndustry #MotorInsurance #InsuranceInnovation #RiskManagement #Technology #AutonomousVehicles #FutureOfMobility #Robotaxis

Blame-Free Robotaxi Crashes Are Still Crashes: The tricky logic behind robotaxi crash metrics. In this Substack post I discuss which robotaxi crashes should "count" for robotaxi safety metrics. Some say that all crashes should count. Some say that only at-fault crashes should count. And some discussions about robotaxi safety say things like “no fatal crashes” when they should be saying “no at-fault fatal crashes” — which are two quite different things. The arguments for and against using blame as a filter for which crashes count is tricky. So let’s try to sort that out. For example, when some robotaxi company claims that their vehicles harm fewer people than human-driven cars, should that be based on all crashes or just at-fault crashes? We argue that blame-free is the best default metric. Blame-based metrics could have their place, but currently suffer from significant validity issues that need to be worked out before anyone should believe that at-fault crashes is predictive of net safety outcomes. Or perhaps the right answer is to report both metrics if what we care about is transparency and improving safety rather than claiming victory. https://lnkd.in/eK9D2SdN

Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) are expected to have a significant impact on the auto insurance industry, driving near-term frequency changes to the sector, although autonomous vehicles could have greater ramifications longer term, according to a recent Evercore ISI. https://lnkd.in/e5DfW3zd

INSHUR has added Guy Farley, co-founder and former CTO of ManyPets, to its UK board of advisors as it ramps up efforts in AI-driven and autonomous vehicle insurance https://lnkd.in/dMtrP-q2

INSHUR has added Guy Farley, co-founder and former CTO of ManyPets, to its UK board of advisors as it ramps up efforts in AI-driven and autonomous vehicle insurance https://lnkd.in/d5FCr9CT

"Traditional motor insurance assesses the driver, the vehicle and how it is used. For autonomous vehicles, insurers must also consider the software, hardware and regulatory environment," Jonathan Dye, Head of Motor at QBE Europe, tells Fleet News. "Yet," said Jonathan, "there is currently little exposure, accident or loss data to guide underwriting, making liability assessments and risk pricing far more difficult. This also introduces new vulnerabilities, such as software updates, cyber-security and potential system failures." https://lnkd.in/dcfZUXk6

Insurance risk models need an upgrade for modern vehicle tech. ADAS feature sets vary widely, yet insurers often lack the granular data needed to assess risk. Standardized ADAS data can provide the missing link. #ADAS #AutoInsurance #ReversingRatioTrends #DriverAssistance https://bit.ly/3IrOWLx

The Inexcusable Cost of Imperfection: Why We Must Accelerate the Autonomous Revolution Why are we tolerating needless deaths? The evidence is overwhelming: human drivers are, by far, the most dangerous variable on our roads. The time for regulatory caution is over; the time for moral action is now. We are currently accepting preventable fatalities and severe injuries simply by clinging to the deeply flawed status quo of human-controlled vehicles. Consider the data amassed by Waymo’s self-driving vehicles, a collective database spanning over 71 million miles of real-world experience. The numbers are not just compelling—they represent lives saved: • 88% fewer incidents resulting in serious injuries. • 79% less frequent airbag deployment. • 78% fewer overall accidents that cause injury. These statistics expose the catastrophic dual standard we live by. How can regulators and politicians—whose mandate is public safety—insist on an imperfect human system whose driving record is demonstrably worse, thereby tacitly accepting an incremental number of associated deaths? The only rational counter-argument that could possibly slow this vital transition—and one that serves a narrow set of financial stakeholders—is the economic disruption to the insurance industry. With dramatically fewer accidents, insurance companies are guaranteed to take a massive financial beating. Surely, our regulators and politicians are not so compromised by financial self-interest or lobbying interest that they would knowingly allow a preventable public safety crisis to continue. We must demand an end to this dangerous regulatory drag and accelerate the adoption of autonomous technology to save lives today.

Great piece in Insurance Thought Leadership earlier this week by Paul Carroll. As the robotaxi “stack” — hardware, software, and operations — becomes clearer, how will motor insurance evolve: 🔹 Personal auto insurance? Likely obsolete in a driverless world. 🔹 Commercial insurance? Opportunities in operations like cleaning, recharging, and dispatching. 🔹 Ownership models? Asset-light strategies may dominate, with large firms self-insuring. https://lnkd.in/edfxAWKM

Deployment of driverless busses in downtown Singapore has taken a step forward. The buses will run alongside manned buses as part of a hybrid fleet. Further, a safety operator will be stationed in each of the driverless buses, at least during the initial period. Currently no news on what insurance cover has been used. It has previously been reported that Allianz insures Singapore’s first fully driverless bus route on Sentosa. This bus uses a remote driver (i.e. someone sat in front of a computer screen in an office) to monitor the bus. Press reports implied that Allianz treated the bus in the same way as a traditional motor vehicle. The same press report noted that the Moovita bus at Ngee Ann Poly was insured by a motor policy issued by Liberty as well as a product liability insurance from Aon #insurancelaw #driverless #AV #insurance #publictransport https://lnkd.in/gPr_CyYG