Core Viewpoint - The emergence of "Intelligent Driving Insurance" (智驾险) aims to provide coverage for potential risks associated with the use of intelligent driving assistance technologies, addressing consumer concerns and enhancing their confidence in these features [2][3]. Group 1: Industry Developments - Numerous automotive companies and insurance firms are launching targeted products, such as "Intelligent Driving Insurance," to alleviate consumer worries regarding the safety of intelligent driving technologies [2]. - The increasing adoption of intelligent driving features, such as automatic parking and lane-keeping assistance, is accelerating the transition to a new era of "human-machine co-driving" [2]. - Companies are focusing on "equalizing intelligent driving" by integrating advanced technologies into more vehicles while addressing user safety concerns [2]. Group 2: Consumer Experience - A consumer shared that the psychological comfort provided by "Intelligent Driving Insurance" encouraged them to try automatic parking, although they later experienced a minor accident [3]. - The claims process for "Intelligent Driving Insurance" can be complex, raising doubts about the reliability of intelligent driving features and the insurance itself [4][5]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Issues - There are ongoing disputes regarding legal responsibilities and liability divisions related to "Intelligent Driving Insurance," questioning whether it serves merely as a risk transfer tool or as essential psychological support for consumers embracing new technologies [3][8]. - The lack of clear legal standards for determining responsibility in intelligent driving scenarios complicates the claims process, as current laws do not adequately address the division of liability between users and manufacturers [8][9]. - The insurance products marketed as "Intelligent Driving Insurance" are often not true insurance products but rather value-added services provided by automotive companies, with insurance companies acting as partners in risk assessment and compensation [5][6]. Group 4: Data and Responsibility - The absence of clear regulations regarding data ownership, usage rights, and protection complicates the interactions between automotive manufacturers, system suppliers, vehicle owners, and insurance companies [8][10]. - The current legal framework does not establish standards for the division of responsibility in accidents involving intelligent driving systems, leading to disputes over whether issues arise from system failures or user errors [9][10]. - Establishing clear rules for data storage and usage is essential for ensuring the integrity of accident data and maintaining the legal rights of all parties involved [10].

当智能驾驶事故频频登上热搜，车企竞相推出的"智驾险"是真保障还是新噱头？ 随着智能驾驶技术的快速发展，L2级辅助驾驶已成为新车的标配，L3级有条件自动驾驶也逐步进入商 业化试点阶段。然而，技术的进步并未完全消除公众对辅助驾驶安全性的疑虑，反而催生了一个新的问 题：当车辆在智能驾驶模式下发生事故，责任该如何划分？保险公司是否愿意承保？车企如何向消费者 证明技术的可靠性？ 智驾险，便是在这种背景下诞生的"新物种"。从华为联合赛力斯推出"智驾无忧服务权益"，到小鹏、小 米、蔚来相继发布智驾保障计划，车企接二连三的动作足以说明，围绕智驾险的产品竞速已经悄然开 启。 不过，从"小红书"等社交平台上的反馈来看，消费者对智驾险的态度呈现两极分化的状况——技术爱好 者更看重保障额度和服务范围，愿意为创新产品买单；而普通用户则更关注价格和实用性，对附加保障 的付费意愿有限，甚至有部分消费者认为，购买智驾险增加了经济负担，尤其是在新能源汽车市场，车 险价格本就较高，叠加智驾险的费用自然会更高。 这种分歧恰恰反映了当前智驾险面临的核心矛盾：它既是车企为技术背书的工具，也可能沦为一场"安 全感营销"的游戏。到底是实质保障，还是新瓶装 ...