电动汽车风险简介

In response to the pressing need for sustainable transportation, initiatives have been underway globallyto promote the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). This movement aims to conserve fossil fuels andfacilitate a transition toward a net-zero emissions future and has resulted in remarkable growth of EVusage worldwide. There has been a lot of speculation around the change in risk profile for EVs, and anynew risk is treated with caution until there is sufficient evidence to help understand the new risk profile.Our academic paper discusses this changing profile and is summarised here. EV drivers tend to belong to higher-incomehouseholds and are generally older andpredominantly urban, according to the Gallup Poll(2024) and Department for Transport carownership review (2023). With respect to thevehicle itself, the newer technology in EVs oftenincludes advanced driver-assistance systems(ADAS), a simpler drivetrain and a lower centre ofgravity due to the placement of heavier batteries.While disentangling these effects on accidentfrequency is complex, we have made adjustmentsto the data to normalise it for clarity. Utilising extensive data, we have quantified thefrequency and severity of EV accidents incomparison to internal combustion enginevehicles (ICEVs). Our analysis encompasses datafrom Norway Norwegian Public RoadsAdministration (NRPA) spanning 2020 to 2023, aperiod marked by significant EV adoption, with42% of road traffic accounted for by EVs andhybrids in 2023. We examined more than 2 millionregistered EVs, which collectively account for 28billion kilometres of travel and more than 2,300accidents. Norway aspires to be the first country to ban thesale of new fossil-fuel-powered cars by the end of2025, according to the IEA policy review. Wehave enriched this data with severity metrics fromthe HLDI institute in the US, ABI statistics in theUK and the proprietary Guy Carpenter motorclaims database. Frequency Our findings indicate a consistent reduction inaccident frequency across all fuel types over time,attributed to advancements in vehicle safety,improved road infrastructure, and evolving drivingpatterns in the post-COVID era. EV accident frequency is consistently lower thanthat of ICEVs, with an overall reduction of 17%across all years tested in our analysis. The risk profile of EVs differs from that of ICEVsin several key aspects. Evidence suggests that situations, such as roundabouts and complexroad layouts. Severity Regarding severity, the average number of vehiclesinvolved in accidents is used as a proxy and isapproximately 8% higher for EVs than for ICEVs.Variations exist depending on the specificcharacteristics of the accidents, with EVs generallyhaving more vehicles in accidents in the majority ofcases, but there are situations in which the number ofvehicles involved is less than ICEVs, such as on roadswith lower speed limits. In our research, we analysed more than 100categories from the NRPA data related toaccident characteristics, looking for differentiatingfactors between EV and ICEV frequencypropensities. The main factors are summarised inFigure 2. To further analyse the impact of different types ofdamage, we utilised data from the HLDI in the US,which collects accident data by type of damage andmodel type. We linked this data to fuel type and weight,creating fuel type pairs for comparison. For instance,we compared a petrol vehicle from the samemanufacturer with its EV equivalent (e.g., the HyundaiKona 4dr and the Hyundai Kona Electric 4dr). Thisapproach ensures that our analysis comparesequivalent ICEVs and EVs, isolating changes in weightand cost from manufacturer-specific factors. It is important to note that EVs do not excel inevery scenario. They demonstrate superiorperformance compared to ICEVs in predictableroad conditions, such as single-car roads, and inadverse weather conditions, including nighttimeand rainy conditions. However, they tend toperform less favourably in unpredictable The subsequent analysis illustrates the change in EVcosts by head of damage. We employed ABI statistics to examine the proportionof claims by head of damage, revealing that, onaverage, the cost of claims for EVs and ICEVs iscomparable. typically involve a higher proportion of propertydamage, while larger claims are more likely to involvebodily injury. We simulated the claims distribution foreach head of damage, reflecting these proportions. However, focusing on larger claims, we adjusted theproportions by claim size using the proprietary GuyCarpenter motor claims database. Smaller claims Figure 4 shows the distribution of claims costs for EVsin comparison to ICEVs. This shows that the larger claims decrease due to theinjury element, and the smaller claims increase due tothe damage element. This study has demonstrated that EVs experience asignificant reduction in the frequency of accidents perkilometre driven compared to ICEVs. However, the analysis of severity reveals a morecomplex pict