Tag Archives: Rolls Royce

Driverless Vehicles: Brace for Impact

On June 26, Waymo (Google’s autonomous car firm), signed a deal under which Avis Budget Group will provide “fleet support and maintenance services” to Phoenix-area Waymo vehicles. Waymo uses Chrysler Pacifica minivans to autonomously shuttle Phoenix residents around town. Its first fleet of 100 minivans quickly grew into an order for 500 more.

The Waymo/Avis agreement may only be a pilot, but the implications are enormous. Not unlike standard cab companies, Waymo realized that a fleet of autonomous vehicles would need cleaning and maintenance throughout the day and storage throughout the night. When practical matters like auto cleaning and storage become news enough for a press release, something big is going on.

Here are some fun facts:

  • According to USA Today, Avis’ stock rose 14% on the news.
  • The Chrysler Pacifica was chosen, in large part, because it could close its own doors. Waymo usage experts theorized that riders might often hop out and forget to close the door.
  • Within hours of the Waymo announcement, Apple likewise unveiled a deal where Hertz Global would manage its autonomous fleet.

Autonomous vehicles have picked up the pace of disruption over the last two years. What will life be like when the Autonomy of Things takes on many of our everyday behaviors or occupations, like driving? Will we be safer? Will we need insurance? Will auto manufacturers cover accidents via product liability? Who will cover bodily injury or property damage? How will risk products be changed to fit this new model? Is there an insurance right-road to surviving autonomy?

See also: The Evolution in Self-Driving Vehicles  

Is Autonomy Impact Still Underrated?

There has been a lot of talk and certainly a wealth of words written on the impact of auto autonomy, and safety is at the top of the concerns and promises of autonomous vehicles. Insurers are, of course, focused on how autonomous vehicles might cause a decline in the need for auto insurance.

The pace of development, rollout, experimentation and expansion of autonomous vehicles has far exceeded original expectations. In his blog, Peter Diamandis (XPrize Founder) noted that a former Tesla and BMW executive said that self-driving cars would start to kill car ownership in just five years. John Zimmer, the cofounder and president of Lyft, said that car ownership would “all but end” in cities by 2025.

The Wall Street Journal reported in July 2016 that auto insurance represents nearly a third of all premiums for the P&C industry, with projections that 80% could evaporate over the next few decades as autonomous vehicles are introduced, some of them replacing legacy vehicles and some created for shared transportation. At the same time, U.S. government support strengthened in September 2016 when federal auto safety regulators released their first set of guidelines, sending a clear signal to automakers that the door was wide open for driverless cars and betting that the nation’s highways will be safer with more cars driven by machines instead of people.

Those statements, among others, might cause some scrambling. Manufacturers are working frantically to partner with AI providers, cab services and ridesharing services such as Uber, Lyft and Waymo. Naysayers will note that rural areas will be highly unlikely to use autonomous vehicles soon, and it’s true that the largest impact may be in urban areas. But if car ownership were even cut by 5% by 2030, a tremendous number of auto manufacturers and auto insurers would be affected.

Autonomy and its insurance impact isn’t limited to personal autos. Truck company Otto is testing self-driving commercial trucks — a necessary automation that could help alleviate the growing lack of truck drivers. Husqvarna has several models of autonomous lawn mowers on the market. Yara and Rolls Royce are among companies working on autonomous ships. Case, John Deere and Autonomous Tractor Corporation have all been developing driverless tractors.

In nearly every one of these cases, there are safety benefits and disruptive insurance implications, but there are also revenue growth opportunities for those that think more broadly and “outside the box.” From developing partnerships with automotive companies to leveraging the autonomous vehicle data for new services, each offers alternative revenue streams to counter the decline of traditional auto insurance. The key is experimenting with these technologies to find alternative “products and services” and develop an ecosystem of partners to support this, before the competition does.

Share and Transportation as a Service — Insurers May Like

In our report, A New Age of Insurance:  Growth Opportunity for Commercial and Specialty Insurance in a Time of Market Disruption, we cite a report from RethinkX, The Disruption of Transportation and the Collapse of the Internal-Combustion Vehicle and Oil Industries, which says that by 2030 (within 10 years of regulatory approval of autonomous vehicles), 95% of U.S. passenger miles traveled will be served by on-demand autonomous electric vehicles owned by fleets, not individuals, in a new business model called “transport-as-a-service” (TaaS). The report says the approval of autonomous vehicles will unleash a highly competitive market-share grab among existing and new pre-TaaS (ride-hailing) companies in expectation of the outsized rewards of trillions of dollars of market opportunities and network effects.

Welcome to the adolescence of the sharing economy and transportation as a service. Autonomy isn’t the only road for vehicle progress. Vehicle sharing is growing and will remain in vogue for some time. Just as Airbnb and HomeAway have given rise to new insurance products, Zipcar and Getaround and Uber have given rise to new P&C products.

At the same time, a merging of public and private transportation and a pathway to free transportation is in the early stages of being created in the TaaS model. This will shift risk from individuals to commercial entities, governments or other businesses that provide the public transportation, creating commercial lines product opportunities beyond traditional “public transportation.”

Vehicle users, whether they are riders, borrowers, sharers or public entities, are going to need innovative coverage options. Tesla and Volvo may be promising some level of auto coverage for owners of autonomous vehicles, but that kind of blanket coverage is likely to mimic an airline’s coverage of passengers and cargo — it will be limited. Those who lend their vehicle, through a software-based consolidator, such as Getaround, will need coverage that goes beyond their auto policy.

In the past few weeks, we’ve also seen how cyber attacks can undermine freight and shipping, not to mention systems. Nearly all of these service-oriented options will require new types of service-level coverage. Autonomous freight may be safer in transit, but in some ways it may also be less secure.

The lessons appear to be found in brainstorming. Technology is breeding diversity in service use and ownership. There will be new coverage types and new insurance products needed.

See also: Will You Own a Self-Driving Vehicle?  

Up Next … Flying Vehicles

Remember the movie “Back to the Future” and the Jetsons flying cars that were so cool? Well, they are quickly becoming a cool reality. A June 2017 Forbes article says flying cars are moving rapidly from fiction to reality, with the first applications of flying vehicles for recreational activities in the next five years. The article says that, in the past five years, at least eight companies have conducted their first flight tests, and several more are expected to follow suit, indicative of the frenzied activity in this space.

Companies such as PAL-VTerrafugia, AeromobilEhangE-VoloUrban AeronauticsKitty Hawk and Lilium Aviation completed test flights of their flying car prototypes, with PAL-V going further by initiating pre-sales of its Liberty Pioneer model flying car, which the company aims to deliver by the end 2018. This sounds like Tesla and its pre-sales move!

Not to be left behind … ride-sharing companies are aggressively entering the space. Uber launched the Uber Elevate program, with a focus on making flying vehicles transport a reality by bringing together government agencies, vehicle manufacturers and regulators. Google and Skype are entering the space by investing in start-ups: Google in Kitty Hawk and Skype in Lilium Aviation. Not to be left behind, Airbus has unveiled a number of flying car concepts, with plans to launch a personal flying car by 2018. Airbus also plans to build a mass transit flying vehicle…the potential next TaaS option.

So, it pays for insurers to keep their attention on autonomous vehicle trends … because it is more than the personal autonomous vehicle … it is the transformation of the entire transportation industry and will have a significant impact on premium and growth for auto insurers. As we recently found in our commercial and specialty insurance report, the transportation industry is rapidly changing and new technologies may be lending themselves to safety, but the world itself isn’t necessarily growing any safer.

Risk doesn’t end. Insurers will always be helping individuals and companies manage risk. The key will be using the trends to rapidly adapt to a shift to the new digital age. Insurers will need to understand and value new risks and offer innovative products and services that meet the changing needs in this shift during the digital age.

Why to Worry About the Law of The Sea

The seizure on March 26, 2015, of the Marshall Islands-flagged Maersk Tigris cargo ship by Iranian forces off its coast at the Strait of Hormuz on a years-old dispute over containers is something that should get everyone’s attention. What is even more troubling than the seizure of a commercial vessel is that Maersk had agreed to settle the dispute. Iran is appealing for more money in the courts, but, rather than let the courts proceed, took the matter into its own hands.

Understand that one fifth of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz in a given year.

We know that piracy, especially off the east coast of Africa and in the vast Asian Pacific, has become a major concern to shippers. So much so that Rolls Royce has announced that one of the benefits of its proposed crewless ship is that it would be much easier to take down pirates, because there will not be the crew hostages to deal with, as there are today. However, if nations begin to seize ships outside the law and with as flimsy an excuse as Iran has in the Maersk case, this is cause for alarm.

While the U.S. will be escorting U.S.-flagged vessels in the area of the seizure, our military fleet is simply inadequate to serve all potential hot spots. Even with escort protection, the risks of confrontation accelerate. Confrontation can include blockades, using vessels to buzz or interfere with navigation or otherwise harass shipping and their escorts, firing shots across the bow, ramming and even firing on vessels and their escorts. Recall that the U.S. entered World War I and World War II and increased our presence in Vietnam as the result of the Germans’ sinking of the Lusitania, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the very questionable U.S.-North Vietnamese Gulf of Tonkin incident—all military events involving the sea.

Not all military maneuvers on the seas are necessarily problematic. The U.S. Coast Guard has become adept in hunting down drug traffickers and human smugglers in U.S. waters and cooperates with Central and South American countries to interdict traffickers in the greater Gulf of Mexico. However, these small ships, submarines and speedboats are not like the huge container vessels that large shipping conglomerates operate worldwide.

Even so, there are times when even larger ships pose challenges to countries and militaries, generally for contraband, drugs or illegal shipments of weapons. In 2013, Panamanian officials detained the North Korean-flagged Chong Chon Gang en route from Cuba to North Korea on suspicion of drug trafficking. The investigation uncovered cargo that looked like weapon systems subject to international sanctions against delivery to North Korea. The Panamanian Government consulted with the UN, and the dispute was resolved. In this incident, international law was followed. In the Iranian incident, it is much less clear that its military had the authority to seize the Maersk ship over a payment dispute already in the court system under appeal.

The Shipping Juggernaut

The World Shipping Council reported that world container shipping alone in 2009 produced an annual economic contribution of:

  • Direct gross output or GDP Contribution — $ 183.3 Billion
  • Direct capital expenditure — $ 29.4 Billion
  • Direct jobs — 4.2 million
  • Compensation to those employees $ 27.2 Billion

The global supply matrix relies heavily on container and bulk shipping to move raw materials, parts and components and complete product between producers, suppliers and customers to virtually every large-vessel navigable port in the world. Some of the biggest container vessels can carry 11,000 containers, and the loss of even one could strain world marine insurance resources. The increase in traffic and size of vessels has led to major efforts to widen the Panama and Suez canals. The Port of Long Beach 20-mile Alameda Corridor went online in 2002 to speed rail traffic under the streets of Los Angeles to remove a major bottleneck to the U.S.’s busiest container port. We can only speculate that one reason why Warren Buffett purchased the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad in 2009 was because he saw the spectacular increase in container rail traffic from ports on all U.S. coasts to all parts of the interior.

The modern insurance industry has its roots and owes even much of its policy language to marine insurance beginning with Lloyds during the first tranche of globalization when Britain and other European powers needed to cover commercial trade to and from their vast worldwide colonies. The ocean is big business.

Law of the Seas Doctrine

Who owns the sea? We all do. However, after World War II, many countries led by the U.S. increased the size of their territorial waters for security, fishing and other purposes. In 1967, the UN decided it was time to convene a group to develop an international law of the sea. Unlike trade agreements, the international law of the sea is a framework not for tariffs, taxes and other international economic activities, but for how we may use the sea as our collective heritage. We might compare the international law of the sea to the rules promulgated by the National Parks Service for what people can and cannot do while visiting, working in or otherwise using the natural resources of Yellowstone Park.

The convention can be summarized as follows: The seas are open and free to all states, coastal or landlocked. Passage shall be free and unhindered. The sea is the heritage of all humanity, which includes conservation and protection of these resources from pollution or overfishing or other adverse activities. The seas shall be used for peaceful purposes. Ships and states have a duty to render assistance to vessels and persons in trouble. Cooperation is expected to repress piracy.

These are some of the key provisions relevant to the discussion of the Iranian seizure:

  • 12-nautical-mile limit on territorial waters.
  • “Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed ‘transit passage’ through straits used for international navigation; States bordering the straits can regulate navigational and other aspects of passage”
  • “All other states have freedom of navigation and overflight in the EEZ [Exclusive Economic Zone], as well as freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines”
  • “Land-locked and geographically disadvantaged states have the right to participate on an equitable basis in exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the EEZ’s of coastal states of the same region or sub-region; highly migratory species of fish and marine mammals are accorded special protection”
  • “All states enjoy the traditional freedoms of navigation, overflight, scientific research and fishing on the high seas; they are obliged to adopt, or cooperate with other states in adopting measures to manage and conserve living resources”
  • “Land-locked states have the right of access to and from the sea and enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit states”
  • “State parties are obliged to settle by peaceful means their disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the convention”
  • “Disputes can be submitted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established under the convention, to the International Court of Justice, or to arbitration. Conciliation is also available, and, in certain circumstances, submission to it would be compulsory. The tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over deep seabed mining disputes.” (United-Nations 2012)

Iran is a 1982 signatory of the International Law of the Sea and included this statement:

In accordance with article 310 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seizes the opportunity at this solemn moment of signing the Convention, to place on the records its “understanding” in relation to certain provisions of the Convention…that only states parties to the Law of the Sea Convention shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights created therein. [including] The right of Transit passage through straits used for international navigation…The notion of “Exclusive Economic Zone” (Part V). – All matters regarding the International Seabed Area and the Concept of “Common Heritage of mankind” (Part XI)…In the light of customary international law, the provisions of article 21, read in association with article 19 (on the Meaning of Innocent Passage) and article 25 (on the Rights of Protection of the Coastal States), recognize (though implicitly) the rights of the Coastal States to take measures to safeguard their security interests including the adoption of laws and regulations regarding, inter alia the requirements of prior authorization for warships willing to exercise the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea…The right referred to in article 125 regarding access to and from the sea and freedom of transit of Land-locked States is one which is derived from mutual agreement of States concerned based on the principle of reciprocity.

However, Iran included this provision which may have led to its thinking it could lawfully detain the Maersk vessel.

Furthermore, with regard to “Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions” the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully endorsing the Concept of settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, and recognizing the necessity and desirability of settling, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation, issues relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, at this time will not pronounce on the choice of procedures pursuant to articles 287 and 298 and reserves its positions to be declared in due time.”

We can expect that there will be incidents that involve questionable cargo subject to international restrictions and conventions, such as drugs, piracy, and prohibited weapons. We can expect that some of these interdictions will involve questions of fact that will be disputed or will later be found to be the result of false or misleading information or observation. However, disputes over cargo payments or other commercial activities whether between commercial ventures or states and commercial ventures deserve to be heard in arbitration procedures, courts of law or other internationally sanctioned dispute resolution venues.

Global trade has become too important for individual states to begin regulating the high seas on their own. There are many places of narrow passage like the Strait of Hormuz that border on many countries. We need to be especially vigilant in these areas and all agree to this specific International Law of the Sea provision: “Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed ‘transit passage’ through straits used for international navigation; States bordering the straits can regulate navigational and other aspects of passage.”

We need also to prevent harassment or other restrictive activities so that border states in these narrow straits only introduce navigation and rights of passage regulations that are consistent with legitimate safety and security concerns. Slowages, frequent boardings, detentions and other activities that unnecessarily and intentionally restrain trade should be vigorously protested and prosecuted by international bodies and global industry.