The driverless revolution

Stephen Hamilton

Partner, Mills & Reeve LLP

Unless otherwise stated, the contents of this document are copyright © Mills & Reeve LLP. All rights reserved. This document contains general advice and comments only and therefore specific legal advice should be taken before reliance is placed upon it in any particular circumstances. Where hyperlinks are provided to third party websites, Mills & Reeve LLP is not responsible for the content of such sites.

"The problem isn't technology, it's legislation, and the whole question of responsibility that goes with these cars moving around ... and

especially who is responsible once there is no longer anyone inside,“Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn

“One of the big issues is what happens if there is an accident. Who is responsible? There are a whole load of legal issues to sort out.”

Dr. Horst Glaser, Audi Research Team

The Roadblock?

Why it is all to do with the driver…o International law

o 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic (95 parties, not China)

o 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (73 parties, not the US, China and the UK)

– Broadly state:

“Every vehicle….shall have a driver”

“Drivers shall at all times be able to control their vehicles”

– Hand control to the vehicle, the driver ceases to be in control at all times

Copyright © 2014 SAE International J3016

Road Traffic Laws are a legal impediment to the introduction ofhighly autonomous vehicles and fully autonomous vehicles

“NHTSA will interpret driver in the context of Google’s described motor vehicle design as referring to the

SDS [Self-Driving System], and not to any of the vehicle occupants. We agree with Google that its SDV [Self-Driving Vehicle] will not have a driver in the traditional sense that vehicles have had drivers during the last more than one hundred years. … If no human occupant of the vehicle can actually drive the vehicle, it is more reasonable to identify the driver as whatever (as opposed to whoever) is doing the driving. In this

instance, an item of motor vehicle equipment, the SDS, is actually driving the vehicle.”

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 4 February 2016

NHTSA letter to Google

“While some of Google’s requested interpretations may be permissible given the facts presented here, we wish to make clear that many of the other requests present policy issues beyond the scope and limitations of interpretations and thus will need to be addressed using other regulatory tools or approaches.”

o Allows testing of AVs that do not require the presence of a driver– require a two-way communication link between remote operator and passengers

– require manufacturer to continuously monitor the status of the AV and the communication link

o Can obtain a permit for post-testing deployment of AVs on public roads

o the manufacturer must certify that it has conducted test and validation methods and its AVs are safe for deployment on public roads

o permit can be revoked if regulator determines the AVs are not safe

Michigan / California regulations (late 2016/early 2017)

A possible change to the law?Proposed amendment to the Vienna Convention:

Proposed by Sweden and Belgium to the Economic Commission for Europe, Inland Transport Committee, Working Party on Road Traffic Safety in March 2015

"driver" means any person who drives or a vehicle system which has the full control over the

vehicle from departure until arrival and is in conformity with the conditions of construction, fitting and utilization according to international legal instruments concerning wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles, driving a motor

vehicle or other vehicle (including a cycle), or who guides cattle, singly or in herds, or flocks, or draught, pack or saddle animals on a road.

Ethical questions?o The (unhelpful) trolley problem

o In any case, it is not a self-driving car issue:

– Is it ethical to leave the driver to decide - now that we don’t have to?

– Did we consider ethical dilemmas with the introduction of AEB?

– How did the vehicle get there?

– It’s a choice between two bad outcomes:

humans cannot choose.

– The outcomes are uncertain.

– The scenarios are theoretical.

– The law does not require ethical perfection.

Performance level?o The required performance standard

o Presumably better than the performance we expect from drivers?

– But, require perfection and we lose the benefits

National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS) conducted from 2005 to 2007 by NHTSA

General principle:The system should only steer around an obstruction if:

– the vehicle can rejoin its primary path or continue its journey in accordance with road traffic laws

and regulations without impacting another obstruction or

– the vehicle can come to a stop off the carriageway without impacting another obstruction

If the vehicle cannot achieve (a) or (b), the vehicle should activate emergency braking to minimise the

impact on the obstruction

Autonomous Critical Event Control

o Instead of driving, people do something else

o Sleep. Work. Play. Shop. Entertainment.

o Everyone becomes a passenger

o Convenience. Cost. Uber…

o Cars become transport

o Designed for use. Demand driven. Access to all.

Changes to the way we live?

How would our lives change if we had on demand access

to transport that could take us anytime, anyplace,

anywhere, for less than the current cost of running a car?

Is this a threat or an opportunity…

SAV = Shared Autonomous VehiclePSAV = Pooled Shared Autonomous Vehicle

o Will society accept that:

– The system is the driver

– Self-driving vehicles will still be involved in accidents, they will not be perfect

– There will be no human driver to blame

o An increasing focus on Transportation/Mobility as a service (TaaS/MaaS)

o Access for all, not reliant on a driver

o The end of the current driver ownership model?

The driverless revolution…

The contents of this document are copyright © Mills & Reeve LLP. All rights reserved. This document contains general advice and comments only and therefore specific legal advice should be taken before reliance is placed upon it in any particular circumstances. Where hyperlinks are provided to third party websites, Mills & Reeve LLP is not responsible for the content of such sites.