In Focus: Are stronger rules on data sharing needed for insurers to deal with driverless car claims?

A major announcement by Waymo last week revealed that autonomous cars are now driving themselves around London streets.

The autonomous driving technology company has been in the UK since last Autumn, with a team of professionals driving its autonomous taxis across tens of thousands of miles on roads.

The early mileage provided a baseline of context for the artificial intelligence (AI) Waymo Driver. And on 14 April 2026, Waymo said it was ready to take “the next step toward bringing fully autonomous ride-hailing to London this year with the start of autonomous driving”, with a human sitting in the driver’s seat just in case.

This shows that driverless cars are closer than ever to being in full force across the UK. But is the insurance industry ready to take on this challenge and be able to deal with claims around these types of vehicles?

“I would say, as things stand right now today, it’s not going to work,” Yousif Al-Ani, principal engineer for advanced driver assistance systems at Thatcham Research, told Insurance Times.

“The reason I say that is because there is no mandate for access to data for insurers in the event of an incident.”

The Automated Vehicles (AV) Act was made law in 2024 and aims to enable advanced technology to safely drive vehicles on British roads.

However, Al-Ani said that, according to legislation, “third parties such as insurance companies may access the data, it’s not a must”.

Joe Shaw, director of claims at the International Underwriting Association (IUA), said that “the importance of data collection and availability cannot be understated”.

He added: “We need to ensure that the correct data is collected and that this information is promptly provided to relevant parties, including insurers, after an incident.

“This will ensure fair and consistent outcomes, which is vital for motor users and the public. The first priority is to ensure continued redress to the victims of motor accidents and this is at the heart of the AV Act.”

How data can be collected

Clarity over how liability will be established should a self-driving vehicle be involved in an accident is essential when sorting out a claim, given an incident may occur because of the way a vehicle is driving rather than an individual, or vice versa.

In turn, access to the data needs to be prompt following a collision and clear as well, making it essential that manufacturers and the industry are working together to ensure positive outcomes.

While not baked into legislation, one way of doing this is through an open portal – Al-Ani said that through this, certain parties in the event in question would be able to access the data.

Without this, there could be “a lot of challenges”, according to Al-Ani. He said: “First of all would be an insurer having to approach an operator to try and access the data and in that case, we may be outside the retention period for the event and that data may be lost.

“The data might not be understandable for the insurer, this is also a big part of it.

“If operators have their own bespoke data record, they all have differences between them and none of them are really understandable.

“That doesn’t help the insurance industry because they’re not going to have AV engineers on hand to interpret this data.

“It has to all be readable to people without real technical experience.”

Meanwhile, Polly Sayers, legal advisor and insurance market analyst at HCR Law, said that “AV’s produce enormous amounts of information such as sensor readings, camera footage, GPS records, system logs and a running account of every decision the AV’s software makes”.

She added: “This data should give claims handlers a more reliable picture of what happened as opposed to piecing together accounts from drivers and witnesses which may well contradict each other. In short, the quality of the data, and the ability to access it, will determine the outcome of claims.”

However, despite all the options available for data sharing, she also warned that at the moment, there is “no guarantee” that manufacturers “will voluntarily hand over information to AV insurers”.

“As car manufacturers own and control the systems in their vehicles, there is no guarantee they will voluntarily hand over information to AV insurers seeking to explore recovery options,” she said.

“Some may push back on the basis of protecting trade secrets or intellectual property. If the key evidence needed to determine fault is not made available by the manufacturer, AV insurers could find themselves in difficulty. Without access to the vehicle’s data, building a case for recovery becomes much harder.

“All of this can be tackled by new legislation.”

Introducing new legislation

In December 2025, the Department for Transport released a call for evidence, asking people for their views on how Britain’s AV laws can encourage strong safety features to be built into self-driving vehicles and ensure they remain future proofed as the technology evolves.

Other areas include how self-driving vehicles are authorised and licensed and incident investigation processes.

Following the consultation, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) called on the government to introduce legislation that mandates the collection and availability of collision data related to driverless cars.

This is something Thatcham Research is working towards, with Al-Ani saying: “We’re working with the ABI, CCAV [Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles] and the rest of the government to try and really bake that in the secondary legislation that in the case of an incident, an insurer needs to get access to the data just to understand the extreme basics of liability.”

Shaw echoed this, saying that “the availability of data will be paramount to processing claims” and that legislation around this could be key.

He said: “The IUA strongly supports regulation that enshrines the provision of data as a mandatory requirement.

“This would ensure that the provision of this data is standardised and not subject to commercial agreements, which may not benefit potential victims.”

Sayers added: “If the government was to require manufacturers to collect, store and make available collision data from self-driving cars, it would give the industry the certainty needed.

“Such a law could set out what data must be recorded, how long it must be kept and how it should be disclosed when there is a claim or court proceedings. Without that kind of framework, the industry will be left relying on at best voluntary agreements that may fall apart. The government has already shown a willingness to regulate in this area and further action would be both welcome and necessary.”