As advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) reach the stage of mass adoption, the question of liability in the event of accidents has become an unavoidable issue for the industry.
In May this year, BYD Company Limited held a press conference to announce it would provide a safety guarantee for its city navigation system. The company stated that users of its DiPilot A and B systems would enjoy a one-year guarantee for city navigation—if an at-fault traffic accident occurs while using the CNOA city navigation function in compliance with regulations, BYD Company Limited will cover the economic losses, including vehicle repair costs, third-party property damage, and personal injury losses. BYD Company Limited also clarified that this benefit is free for users, has no compensation cap, and does not affect the user's commercial insurance premium the following year. Users do not need to file an insurance claim; BYD Company Limited will provide direct compensation.
Prior to BYD Company Limited's announcement of this safety guarantee, the industry had seen various forms of "intelligent driving insurance" or ADAS protection benefits. From an industry perspective, different companies beginning to establish protection mechanisms around driver-assistance systems represents a positive development in the evolution of autonomous driving. In the past, automakers focused more on functional experience and technical capabilities. Now, as the frequency of ADAS use increases, companies are beginning to directly address user concerns about accident risk, liability determination, and loss compensation, making user reassurance an essential industry lesson. This indicates that competition in intelligent driving is shifting from a "capability race" to a further stage of "accountability competition."
However, it is important to note that the schemes currently collectively referred to as "safety nets" in the industry are not all based on the same underlying mechanism.
One category consists of protection plans presented as "ADAS peace-of-mind benefits" or "intelligent driving protection rights." These schemes are typically co-developed by automakers and insurance companies, essentially forming "intelligent driving insurance." The benefits are often tied to the validity status of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance, and most have compensation caps. After an accident, the vehicle owner typically needs to first seek compensation through compulsory and commercial insurance. After insurance payouts are completed, the "intelligent driving insurance" then provides compensation, which often only covers the premium increase for the following year, making it difficult to cover increases in the third or fourth years, as well as vehicle depreciation losses resulting from the insurance claim. These benefits usually require the vehicle owner to purchase them separately, though some manufacturers may include them with an ADAS service package.
The other category is the manufacturer's direct compensation safety net mechanism, currently offered only by BYD Company Limited. This benefit does not require separate purchase by the owner; it comes with the vehicle and does not depend on compulsory or commercial insurance. If a user is involved in an ADAS-related accident where they are at fault and the liability stems from the ADAS function, the automaker directly covers the direct economic losses with no compensation cap. The compensation does not come from an insurance company, does not leave a claim record, and does not affect subsequent premiums.
It is evident that there is a clear distinction between "intelligent driving insurance" and the manufacturer's direct compensation "safety net" model. The safety net model requires no payment from the user, has no compensation limit, and does not affect future commercial insurance premiums. In contrast, the essence of "intelligent driving insurance" is that after the user pays for a "premium intelligent driving package," the user's commercial insurance is first used to cover the accident, and then, within a certain scope, the insurance covers the user's premium increase losses and vehicle depreciation losses, with a compensation cap in place.
Therefore, in the L2 era where drivers are still ultimately responsible for driving behavior, "intelligent driving insurance" more closely resembles an additional layer of risk buffer from an insurance company added onto the existing ADAS service framework. The manufacturer's direct compensation safety net, however, addresses user concerns about liability attribution at a more fundamental level. Both provide users with risk protection, but the latter is more direct and places higher demands on the automaker.
For users, beyond the various marketing claims, the details that matter most are whether these "intelligent driving insurance" or "safety net" schemes require additional payment, are tied to premium feature packages, have compensation limits, require going through commercial insurance first after an accident, and affect premiums for the next year and beyond.
As ADAS accelerates in popularity, users will also judge the capabilities and limitations of these systems more rationally. In the past, consumers might have focused more on whether ADAS could handle journeys from parking space to parking space or minimize the need for human intervention. In the future, users will equally care about whether companies can establish a clear, credible, and actionable accountability mechanism once ADAS becomes part of daily use.
The competition in intelligent driving ultimately is not just about technical specifications; it is also a competition in trust mechanisms. The company that can translate technological capability into a commitment to responsibility is the one more likely to earn users' genuine confidence in using advanced driver-assistance systems.
Comments