Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 383–395 | Cite as

Driving to a future without accidents? Connected automated vehicles’ impact on accident frequency and motor insurance risk

  • Fabian Pütz
  • Finbarr MurphyEmail author
  • Martin Mullins


Road traffic accidents are largely driven by human error; therefore, the development of connected automated vehicles (CAV) is expected to significantly reduce accident risk. However, these changes are by no means proven and linear as different levels of automation show risk-related idiosyncrasies. A lack of empirical data aggravates the transparent evaluation of risk arising from CAVs with higher levels of automation capability. Nevertheless, it is likely that the risks associated with CAV will profoundly reshape the risk profile of the global motor insurance industry. This paper conducts a deep qualitative analysis of the impact of progressive vehicle automation and interconnectedness on the risks covered under motor third-party and comprehensive insurance policies. This analysis is enhanced by an assessment of potential emerging risks such as the risk of cyber-attacks. We find that, in particular, primary insurers focusing on private retail motor insurance face significant strategic risks to their business model. The results of this analysis are not only relevant for insurance but also from a regulatory perspective as we find a symbiotic relationship between an insurance-related assessment and a comprehensive evaluation of CAV’s inherent societal costs.


Connected automated vehicles Automated driving accident risk Motor insurance 



This work was supported by the VI-DAS (Vision Inspired Driver Assistance Systems), a European Commission Horizon 2020 research consortium [Grant Number 690772].


  1. Ahangari H, Atkinson-Palombo C, Garrick NW (2017) Automobile-dependency as a barrier to vision zero, evidence from the states in the USA. Accid Anal Prev 107:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allianz SE (2015) Es kracht beim Ausparken. München. Accessed 22 Jan 2019
  3. Avery M, Weekes A (2019) Autonomous braking systems and their potential effect on whiplash injury reductionGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertolini A, Salvini P, Pagliai T, Morachioli A, Acerbi G, Trieste L, Cavallo F, Turchetti G, Dario P (2016) On robots and insurance. Int J Soc Robot 8:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanco M, Atwood J, Russell S, Trimble T, Mcclafferty J, Perez M (2016) Automated vehicle crash rate comparison using naturalistic dataGoogle Scholar
  6. Blower D (2014) Assessment of the effectiveness of advanced collision avoidance technologies. Transportation Research Institute (University of Michigan), MichiganGoogle Scholar
  7. Bundesanstalt Für Straßenwesen (2017) Verkehrs- und Unfalldaten - Kurzzusammenstellung der Entwicklung in Deutschland. Oktober 2017 ed. Bergisch GladbachGoogle Scholar
  8. Casualty Actuarial Society (2018) automated vehicles and the insurance industry—a pathway to safety: the case for collaboration casualty actuarial societyGoogle Scholar
  9. Checkoway S, Mccoy D, Kantor B, Anderson D, Shacham H, Savage S, Koscher K, Czeskis A, Roesner F, Kohno T (2011) Comprehensive experimental analyses of automotive attack surfaces. In: Proceedings of the 20th USENIX conference on security. USENIX Association, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Chirinko B, Chirinko R, Harper EP (1993) Buckle up or slow down? New estimates of offsetting behavior and their implications for automobile safety regulation. J Policy Anal Manag 12:270–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choudhary P, Velaga NR (2017) Modelling driver distraction effects due to mobile phone use on reaction time. Transp Res C 77:351–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cicchino JB (2017) Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. Accid Anal Prev 99(Part A):142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Claus S, Silk N, Wiltshire C (2017) Potential impacts of autonomous vehicles on the UK insurance sector. Q Bull 57:40–48Google Scholar
  14. DAT (2018) DAT Report 2018Google Scholar
  15. David GK, Bradly KH, Tia GT, Dean PC (2015) The effectiveness of a rearview camera and parking sensor system alone and combined for preventing a collision with an unexpected stationary or moving object. Hum Factors 57:689–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Destatis (2017) Verkehrsunfälle Zeitreihen 2016. Statistisches BundesamtGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy SH, Hopkins JP (2013) Sit, stay, drive: the future of autonomous car liability. SMU Sci Technol Law Rev 16:23Google Scholar
  18. Favarò F, Eurich S, Nader N (2017) Autonomous vehicles’ disengagements: trends, triggers, and regulatory limitations. Accid Anal Prev 110:136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finkel AM, Gray G (2018) Taking the reins: how regulatory decision-makers can stop being hijacked by uncertainty. Environ Syst Decis 38:230–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. GDV (2016) Loss type statistics—development of loss costs motor insurance 2015Google Scholar
  21. GDV (2018) Statistical yearbook of the insurance industry 2017Google Scholar
  22. German Insurers Accident Research (2016) Handing over from highly-automated driving to manual controlGoogle Scholar
  23. Grover C, Avery M, Knight I (2015) Parking crashes: the rationale for action and the development of test procedures. In: Proceedings of the 24th international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles (ESV)Google Scholar
  24. Groves DG, Kalra N (2017) Enemy of good: autonomous vehicle safety scenario explorer. Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  25. Harper CD, Hendrickson CT, Samaras C (2016) Cost and benefit estimates of partially-automated vehicle collision avoidance technologies. Accid Anal Prev 95:104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Highway Loss Data Institute (2017) General Motors collision avoidance features. HLDI Bull 34:18Google Scholar
  27. Insurance Europe (2019) Motor premiums 2017. Insurance EuropeGoogle Scholar
  28. International Transport Forum (ITF) (2018) Safer roads with automated vehicles?Google Scholar
  29. Jermakian J (2011) Crash avoidance potential of four passenger vehicle technologies. Accid Anal Prev 43:732–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kalra N, Paddock SM (2016) Driving to safety: how many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability? Transp Res A 94:182–193Google Scholar
  31. Keall MD, Fildes B, Newstead S (2017) Real-world evaluation of the effectiveness of reversing camera and parking sensor technologies in preventing backover pedestrian injuries. Accid Anal Prev 99:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kircher K, Ahlstrom C (2017) Evaluation of methods for the assessment of attention while driving. Accid Anal Prev 114:40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kockelman et al (2016) Implications of connected and automated vehicles on the safety and operations of roadway networks: a final report. Center for Transportation Research at The University of TexasGoogle Scholar
  34. Koopman P, Wagner M (2017) Autonomous vehicle safety: an interdisciplinary challenge. IEEE Intell Transp Syst Mag 9:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krueger R, Rashidi T, Rose JM (2016) Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transp Res Part C 69:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kubitzki J, Fastenmeier W (2016) Driver’s distraction by means of modern information and communication techniques and social interaction. Allianz Center for TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuehn M, Hummel T, Bende J (2009) Benefit estimation of advanced driver assistance systems for cars derived from real-life accidents. In: 21st international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Kusano K, Gabler H (2012) Safety benefits of forward collision warning, brake assist, and autonomous braking systems in rear-end collisions. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 13:1546–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liberty Mutual Insurance (2017) Fourth quarter and fully year 2016 results. Liberty Mutual InsuranceGoogle Scholar
  40. Litman T (2018) Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions: implications for transport planning. Accessed 27 Jun 2019
  41. Lohmann M (2016) Liability issues concerning self-driving vehicles. Eur J Risk Regul 2:335–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Merat N, Jamson AH, Lai FCH, Daly M, Carsten OMJ (2014) Transition to manual: driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transp Res 27:274–282Google Scholar
  43. Morency C, Verreault H, Demers M (2015) Identification of the minimum size of the shared-car fleet required to satisfy car-driving trips in Montreal. Transportation 42:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morgan Stanley, Boston Consulting Group (2016) Motor Insurance 2.0Google Scholar
  45. Munich Re (2016) Autonomous vehicles—considerations for personal and commercial lines insurersGoogle Scholar
  46. Murphy F, Pütz F, Mullins M, Rohlfs T, Wrana D, Biermann M (2019) The impact of autonomous vehicle technologies on product recall risk. Int J Prod ResGoogle Scholar
  47. NHTSA (2008) National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation SurveyGoogle Scholar
  48. Pütz F, Murphy F, Mullins M, Maier K, Friel R, Rohlfs T (2018) Reasonable, adequate and efficient allocation of liability costs for automated vehicles: a case study of the German Liability and Insurance Framework. Eur J Risk Regul 9:548–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Radke S (2014) Verkehr in Zahlen 2014/2015. In: Wirtschaftsforschung DIF (ed.)Google Scholar
  50. Rezaei M, Klette R (2011) Simultaneous analysis of driver behaviour and road condition for driver distraction detection. Int J Image Data Fusion 2:217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ross PE (2017) Ford robocar to ford engineers: wake up! IEEE Spectr 20(02):2017Google Scholar
  52. Schroll C (2015) Splitting the bill: creating a national car insurance fund to pay for accidents in autonomous vehicles. Northwest Univ Law Rev 109:803–833Google Scholar
  53. Sheehan B, Murphy F, Mullins M, Ryan C (2018) Connected and autonomous vehicles: a cyber-risk classification framework. Transp Res A 124:523Google Scholar
  54. Sivak M, Schoettle B (2015) Road safety with self-driving vehicles: general limitations and road sharing with conventional vehicles. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  55. Swiss Re and HERE (2016) The future of motor insurance—how car connectivity and ADAS are impacting the marketGoogle Scholar
  56. Teoh E, Kidd D (2017) Rage against the machine? Google’s self-driving cars versus human drivers. J Saf Res 63:57–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trommer S, Kolarova V, Fraedrich E, Kröger L, Kickhöfer B, Kuhnimhof T, Lenz B, Phleps P (2016) Autonomous driving—the impact of vehicle automation on mobility behaviourGoogle Scholar
  58. Volvo Car Group (2017) Volvo Cars CEO urges governments and car industry to share safety related traffic data. Göteborg (Sweden)Google Scholar
  59. Wadud Z, Mackenzie D, Leiby P (2016) Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles. Transp Res Part A 86:18Google Scholar
  60. Waymo (2017) Report on Autonomous Mode Disengagements for Waymo self-driving vehicles in California December 2016. Californian Department of Motor VehiclesGoogle Scholar
  61. Yeomans G (2014) Autonomous vehicles-handing over control: opportunities and risks for insuranceGoogle Scholar
  62. Yue L, Abdel-Aty M, Wu Y, Wang L (2018) Assessment of the safety benefits of vehicles’ advanced driver assistance, connectivity and low level automation systems. Accid Anal Prev 117:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.TH Köln University of Applied SciencesCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations