1 / 43

by Alain L. Kornhauser, Ph.D. Professor, Operations Research & Financial Engineering Director, Program in Transport

Smart Driving Cars Financially Attractive to the Insurer and Insuree. by Alain L. Kornhauser, Ph.D. Professor, Operations Research & Financial Engineering Director, Program in Transportation Faculty Chair, PAVE (Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering) Princeton University Presented at

sasha
Download Presentation

by Alain L. Kornhauser, Ph.D. Professor, Operations Research & Financial Engineering Director, Program in Transport

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Smart Driving Cars Financially Attractive to the Insurer and Insuree by Alain L. Kornhauser, Ph.D.Professor, Operations Research & Financial EngineeringDirector, Program in Transportation Faculty Chair, PAVE (Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering) Princeton University Presented at State Insurance Trade Association 2013 Annual Meeting Las Vegas, NV October 21, 2013

  2. Outline • Today’s Automobile: Its Mobility & Liabilities • Addressing the Liabilities: • Moderating Behavior • Mitigating Crashes • Avoiding Crashes through automation/SmartDrivingCars • What is the vision • Where are we now • How insurance gets us there.

  3. The Automobile’s 1st 125 Years (1886-2011) Benz Circa 2011 Benz patent 1886 1st Automobile Delivered: Enormous Personal Freedom & Mobility But…Safe Operation Requires Continuous Vigilance

  4. We Love the Freedom & Mobility But…Continuous Vigilance is an unrealistic requirement for drivers

  5. Txtng while driving is out of control…

  6. TravelTainment Industry Wants Everyone’sAttention

  7. http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/NHTSA_Hendricks2001_UnsafeDrivingActs.pdfhttp://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/NHTSA_Hendricks2001_UnsafeDrivingActs.pdf In In 717 out of 723 accidents ((99%) “In 717 out of 723 crashes (99%), a driver behavioral error caused or contributed to the crash”

  8. Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2012

  9. What is the Cost? UsingAAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury

  10. What is the Cost per Driver? • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury

  11. Who Pays? • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury

  12. Who Pays What? • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury

  13. Who Pays What? • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury • AAA:

  14. How do we Get These Costs Under Control (and possibly enhance Mobility)?

  15. Modify Driver Behavior... Kirkland, WA Laudable, but… Not Likely to be Effective

  16. Crash Mitigation (air bags, seat belts, crash worthiness, …) Up to today: The Primary Purview of Good News: Effective in reducing Deaths and Accident Severity Bad News: Ineffective in reducing Expected Accident Liability & Ineffective in reducing Insurance Rates

  17. Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles Extending its vehicle safety standards from Crash Mitigation to Crash Avoidance with Aim at Full Self-Driving Automation • Level 0 (No automation) • The human is in complete and sole control of safety-critical functions (brake, throttle, steering) at all times. • Level 1 (Function-specific automation) • The human has complete authority, but cedes limited control of certain functions to the vehicle in certain normal driving or crash imminent situations. Example: electronic stability control • Level 2 (Combined function automation) • Automation of at least two control functions designed to work in harmony (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) in certain driving situations. • Enables hands-off-wheel and foot-off-pedal operation. • Driver still responsible for monitoring and safe operation and expected to be available at all times to resume control of the vehicle. Example: adaptive cruise control in conjunction with lane centering • Level 3 (Limited self-driving) • Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions. • Human can cede monitoring authority to vehicle, which must alert driver if conditions require transition to driver control. • Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google car • Level 4 (Full self-driving automation) • Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip. • The human provides destination or navigation input but is not expected to be available for control during the trip. • Vehicle may operate while unoccupied. • Responsibility for safe operation rests solely on the automated system & Trucks SmartDrivingCars

  18. Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles What the Levels Deliver: Levels 1-> 3: Increased Safety, Comfort&Convenience Primarily a Consumer Play Level 4 (Driverless Opportunity) : Efficiency, Equity Revolutionizes “Mass Transit” by enabling the provision of mobility without incurring a Labor Cost Primarily a Fleet Play

  19. Where Are We with Automation/SmartDrivingCars?

  20. SmartDrivingCars: Pre-DARPA Challenges • Zworykin & Flory @ RCA-Sarnoff in Princeton, Late 50s* * VK Zworykin & L Flory “Electronic Control of Motor Vehicles on Highways” Proc. 37th Annual Mtg Highway Research Board, 1958 • Cruise Control (1958) • 1945 Invented by Ralph Teetor • 1958 Chrysler Imperial 1stintorduction • GM first offered on the 1959 model year Cadillac. GM Futurama @ 1939 World’s Fair

  21. SmartDrivingCars: Pre-DARPA Challenges • Robert E Fenton @ OSU, Early 70s* * “A Headway Safety Policy for Automated Highway Operations” R.E. Fenton 1979 • Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) (1971) (wikipedia) • Chrysler & Bendix Corporation, introduced a computerized, three-channel, four-sensor all-wheel[6] ABS called "Sure Brake" for its 1971 Imperial. • Ford added an antilock braking system called "Sure-track" to the rear wheels of Lincoln Continentals as a standard option • General Motors :"Trackmaster" rear-wheel onlyABS . An option on rear-wheel driveCadillac models and the Oldsmobile Toronado. • “Wire Sniffing” Cars

  22. SmartDrivingCars: Pre-DARPA Challenges • 1990s • National Automated Highway System Research Program (NAHSRP) (1994-97) • Goal to develop specifications for a fully automated highway system • Benefits: • 1. Roadway capacity (led to focus on platooning) • 2. Safety • 3. Robust to Weather, Mobility, Energy, Land Use, Commercial efficiency, travel time • Focused on automated roadways exclusively serving fully automated vehicles. • Ref: The National Automated Highway System That Almost Was

  23. Evolution of SmartDrivingCars Concept 2007 2005 2004

  24. 2005 2007 Jump to Google Link to Presentation Old House Not Easy 2005 2007

  25. Current State of SmartDrivingCars • Much of the public interest has been promoted by the car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE • It is not driverless… • Not yet • But substantial advancements have focused on: • Development of a self-driving vehicle that can operate in the existing environment. • Motivated by fact: >90% of road traffic accidents involve human error. So… remove the human from the loop. • Often… People really do not want to drive. • Driven over 500,000 miles in self-driving mode

  26. Expected Implications of “Google Cars” DOT HS 810 767 Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury

  27. Expected Implications of “Google Cars” Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury

  28. Expected Implications of “Google Cars” Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury

  29. Expected Implications of “Google Cars” $475/yrare “Pass-through” Dollars Assume: Emergence of “Price Leaders” $450/yr Discount for Me $25/yrfor Flo or the Gecko or ??? To enhance “Combined Ratio” Could Discount Finance: ??

  30. What’s in the Showroom Today? • A number of car companies have been offering active Forward Collision Avoidance Systems for several years • Volvo • Acura • Mercedes • Subaru • … http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/47/5/1

  31. Preliminary Results are Disappointing

  32. But what has been sold so far doesn’t really work…

  33. However, It seems that some manufacturers are finally …. Getting Serious about Collision Avoidance And Serious about using it sell cars And Serious about having it work

  34. Click images to view videos • Intelligent Drive (active steering  ) MB @ Frankfurt Auto Show Sept ‘13 S-Class WW Launch May ‘13 MB Demo Sept ‘13 Volvo Truck Emergency braking

  35. History and Development of DISTRONIC:Price reduction, intelligent packaging and availability cross-carline MY 2000 MY 2014 - Future MY 2006 - Current DISTRONIC PLUS Autonomous Braking Intervention In “Driver Assistance Package” with Blind Spot Assist/Lane Keeping Assist $2,950 Available Cross-Carline on almost every model • Enhancements to Driver Asst. Package • Steering Assist • BAS with Cross-Traffic Assist • PRE-SAFE Brake with Pedestrian Detection • PRE-SAFE PLUS – protection during rear collisions • In “Driver Assistance Package” with Blind Spot Assist/Lane Keeping Assist +$2,800 • Only available on S/E Introduce DISTRONIC Adaptive Cruise Control In package for +$3,700 Only available on S/CL

  36. Near Term Opportunities DOT HS 810 767 Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research $475 are Pass-through Dollars

  37. Expected Implications of “Google Cars” $475/yrare “Pass-through” Dollars Assume: Emergence of “Price Leaders” $450/yr Discount for Me $25/yrfor Flo or the Gecko or ??? To enhance “Combined Ratio” Could Discount Finance: ??

  38. Could “Pass-through” Finance Mercedes Intelligent Drive?? (Available in ‘14 S-Class) May well Deliver 2/3rds the safety of Google Car $475 Pass-through becomes: $320 $20/yrfor Flo or the Gecko $300/yr to Mercedes • Therefore: I get Intelligent Drive for Free (thank you Google) !! Plus: • Prob. of my car killing me is reduced factor: 2/3*.81= 0.54 (half) • Prob. of my car injuring me is reduced factor: 2/3*.65= 0.44 • I “Save” my expected “deductible self-insurance”: 2/3*$247 = $165/yr • I have more Comfort • I have more Convenience • I have “Anxiety” relief • What a great Business Case!I’m a Buyer!

  39. Expected Implications… With Mercedes as the Market Leader offering “Level 2-” SmartDriving Technology at an incremental price tag that can be absorbed by a “Price Leading” Insurance Company, should lead to: • Other automakers will be enticed to follow (race seems to have already started) • Viral adoption by the car buying public • “Moore’s Law type of price/performance improvement • Market-driven Transition to “Level 2” and “Level 3” at same or even lower price structure • Adoption and enhancement rates that are comparable to that enjoyed by airbags may be likely

  40. Thank You Alaink@Princeton.edu www.SmartDrivingCar.com

More Related