sou · H6B316 · 2018-03-07 00:00:00 — a)Information must be included in the road traffic register which states the identity of the storage controller (normally the vehicle manufacturer or importer) for any vehicle that is de- signed to be operated both manually and automatically3. When such a vehicle is registered, the person submitting the applica- tion for registration must at the same time apply for a permit to store personal data and specify who the storage controller is. b)No amendments are proposed regarding product liability, which is also considered to include the software incorporated so that it becomes part of a product. Product liability is deemed to be sufficiently extensive with the current rules. The more advanced the automatic systems that are included in a product are, the more extensive this liability will become, particularly if defects in these may result in a loss of life or health. c)Guarantee obligations or other undertakings mean that any- one who provides an automated vehicle can accept more far- reaching financial liability for the vehicle and its systems than is currently the case. For example, compensation for financial loss on the part of the owner or user (such as penalties) can be determined by agreement. It is thought to be important for consumers and other purchasers or users of these vehicles to make sure of what would happen in the event of defect in the vehicle’s systems, but also of the service life of the systems and how upgrading and disposal on scrapping, for example, should take place. 3 Work is currently in progress at the on reviewing the Road Traffic Register Act (2001:558). It is reported that a new law relating to vehicle rules and the use of vehicles will be proposed before long. The role of the driver in automated driving The proposed definition of the role of the driver, where a driver may be in or outside the vehicle, operate the vehicle by remote control and operate multiple vehicles simultaneously, along with the fact that a vehicle may have more than one driver, raises questions on the role of the driver in automated driving. According to the proposal, most vehicles with automated func- tions must have a driver. This is generally applicable to vehicles to which an EU-harmonised driving licence requirement is applicable, such as cars, buses and motorcycles. There may also be driver require- ments in accordance with permits for trials for vehicles with national licensing requirements, such as class II mopeds (25 kilometres an hour) and tractors. In these cases, the driver holds responsibility for driving even when this is automated. If a vehicle is operated fully automatically, i.e. without a driver in accordance with a permit for trials, or if the vehicle is otherwise approved for operation on roads, the owner must stand responsible for its operation. It is important to distinguish between tasks that can be per- formed by both a physical driver and an automated driving system and tasks that can only be performed by a physical driver. The driver must have the right licence and otherwise be capable of driving in the case of automated driving where the driver is expected to take over driving on certain occasions, when the automated system is unable to perform tasks, or where the driver is expected to monitor driving. The driver – if one is present – may spend time doing other things to a certain extent while the automated driving system is and handling driving. However, during automated driving the driver must bear responsibility for taking over driving when so requested by the vehicle, provided that the vehicle is not designed to be able to handle the situation without assistance. Responsibility for certain tasks that the driving system is unable to handle also remains with the driver during automated driving, i.e. tasks that can only be performed by a physical person at present. The tasks for which the driver is already responsible at present and that an automated driving system cannot perform should remain in place, with unamended regulations. This may involve checking that children have protective equipment or meeting certain obligations after an accident. However, the driver has no obligation to be prepared constantly to take over driving, but only after the driving system requests this. Penalties introduced for vehicle owners Manual and automated driving will be mixed on most streets and roads in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the same rules should apply to the operation of vehicles regardless of the degree of auto- mation. If there is no driver who can stand responsible for com- pliance with road traffic rules, financial liability for any offences should be introduced. Therefore, a provision will be introduced concerning penalties for the owners of motor vehicles during auto- mated driving, when the vehicle is operated in contravention of the provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance. In other words, the vehicle owner must stand responsible for the vehicle’s offences during automated driving. If the vehicle commits an offence during automated driving, the vehicle’s owner must pay a penalty. This penalty is intended to replace the fines that may be imposed on drivers if offences are committed. Claims for damages may be filed against vehicle manufacturers in the event of insurance cases or accidents, for example. Breaches of applicable rules may of course be due to the fact that the vehicle’s driving system is not designed to cope with all situations that may arise, or to some kind of defect in the system. Current product liability involves far-reaching liability for defects in the vehicle’s technical systems, for example. The proposal includes no amendment to the liability for faulty products. That said, it may be stated that the manufacturer’s field of liability will increase consider- ably as driving automation is extended. Figure 1 shows how product liability for defects in respect of the dynamic driving task (acceler- ating, braking and turning) will increase when these tasks are taken by the driving system. product liability for defects Source: Own picture When the technology takes over the driver’s tasks to an increased extent, the driver’s opportunities to influence driving and take re- sponsibility to a corresponding level will be reduced. Instead, we will see a corresponding increase in product liability for defects in the system; see Figure 1. The driver’s obligation to take over driving In the case of vehicles that can be operated both manually and auto- matically, and where the vehicle is designed to require the assistance of a driver in certain situations, an obligation for the driver to take over driving when so requested by the vehicle will be introduced. Gross negligence during automated driving on the roads Although the driving systems for automated driving will normally be designed to be law-abiding and drive carefully, the systems may have the opportunity to make choices for the user that put others at risk. Anyone using the vehicle may also manipulate a vehicle so that they can be driven in contravention of speed limits, for example, or select automated driving even where this is not appropriate. involve incorrectly installing an automated driving function at home, hijacking a vehicle (some hijacking cases may also constitute terror- ist incidents), using vehicles without necessary control, manipulating vehicle systems, etc. A new crime, gross negligence during automated driving on the roads, will be introduced to prosecute such incidents. The proposal means that anyone who uses an automated vehicle intentionally or grossly negligently in a that places the lives or property of others at risk is to be sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of two years for gross negligence during automated driving on the roads. It is also proposed that it should be possible to revoke a driving licence if the holder of the driving licence is guilty of gross negli- gence during automated driving on the roads. Unlawful driving and unauthorised operation of a vehicle during automated driving It is proposed that the provisions relating to unlawful driving or unauthorised operation of vehicles in section 3 of the Road Traffic Offences Act should be applied in a similar fashion to drivers during automated driving, and to anyone who employs, designates or uses such a driver or permits anyone who is not licensed to act as a driver during automated driving. The proposal means that anyone who uses an automated vehicle without being licensed to do so may be held liable for this. Drink-driving during automated driving The requirement for sobriety must be maintained for drivers during automated driving as well, which is why a provision on this will be introduced in the new law. Responsibility for certain tasks remains with the driver – if a driver is present – during automated driving. Among other things, the driver must be capable to take over or assist with the operation of the vehicle at the vehicle’s request (e.g. moving the vehicle or ordering the vehicle to move if it has stopped in an inappropriate location). Certain tasks also remain with the driver in the event of accidents, for example. Therefore, the driver is deemed to need a basic ability to handle the journey. This means that the driver must be licensed and otherwise capable of driving. It is proposed that any driver of an automated vehicle during automated driving should not be allowed to consume alcoholic drinks in quantities that result in a blood alcohol concentration of at least or 0.10 milligrams per litre of breath. If the driver has had a blood alcohol concentration of at least or 0.50 milli- grams per litre of breath, or if the driver is otherwise considerably affected by alcohol or any other substance, the crime is to be regarded as aggravated. The driver should then be sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of two years for aggravated drink-driving during automated driving. It is also proposed that it should be possible to revoke a driving licence if the holder of the driving licence is guilty of drink-driving or aggravated drink-driving during automated driving. Drivers’ liabilities in the event of road traffic accidents According to section 5 of the Road Traffic Offences Act, a driver must have specific obligations following an accident. Current techno- logy assumes that the driver is in the vehicle or in its immediate vicinity. With automated driving, the driver may be far away; in a control room, for example. This means that the condition “leave the scene” does not work with remote drivers. Therefore, a new pro- vision is required which indicates what a remote driver should do. Firstly, the vehicle needs to stay on scene, regardless of fault, until the driver/owner orders it to do otherwise. The driver must also ensure that the measures required because of the road traffic acci- dent are undertaken. This may, for example, involve ensuring that the vehicle is not impeding other traffic. Certain other provisions that are applicable in the event of traffic accidents will be more diffi- cult to maintain, e.g. requiring a driver to set out a warning triangle. However, this is a requirement that cannot be maintained even now; if a driver is seriously injured in an accident, for example. A remote driver must also be obliged to get in touch with the to provide details about the accident. Collection and storage of data in automated vehicles Given the introduction of penalties and provisions relating to the driver’s liability, sector-specific regulations are required for personal data with a view to investigating liability (both criminal and civil) during automated driving. Following an incident or accident, or contravention of road traffic rules, there is a need to clarify whether a driver or an automatic driving system was operating the vehicle at the time. Thus, the purpose of collecting and storing data should be to facilitate personal data processing to investigate legal liability if a vehicle can be operated both manually and automatically. As data as possible is to be stored, and it must only be stored for the ne- cessary time, to protect the individual’s privacy and integrity. There- fore, information on the vehicle’s location must not be collected. Therefore, certain information on driving must be collected and stored for an automated vehicle that is designed to be operated manu- ally by a driver and automatically by an automatic driving system. Personal data may be processed for the purposes of preventing, de- tecting, investigating or prosecuting crimes and so that individuals can exercise their rights in civil cases. An obligation will be introduced for anyone who has manufac- tured or provided such an automated vehicle to collect and store data on the following: –activation and deactivation of automated driving –the vehicle’s requests to the driver to switch from automated driving to manual driving, and –error messages from the vehicle during automated driving. For each of the details referred to above, the vehicle’s identity and the time of the incident must be collected and stored at the same time. In the event of a specific incident such as a road traffic acci- dent, information on the vehicle’s speed must also be collected. It is proposed that the data, as a rule, should be stored outside the vehicle within Economic Area (EEA), but be available to access in . This data may be stored in the vehicle for a short time while awaiting transfer. Vehicle manufacturers may instruct others to carry out storage. When a vehicle is registered with the road traffic register, a decision must be made at the same time on who is to collect, store and issue the data on request (the storage controller). The vehicle manufacturer must collect and store the data. The vehicle manu- facturer will be the storage controller, and is therefore the personal data controller as well. In this respect, an importer of vehicles is equivalent to a manufacturer of vehicles. A licence is required to collect and store personal data, and some requirements must be met but the licence holder. If data is not collected and stored, use of the vehicle during automated driving must not be permitted. The personal data must be stored for six months from the date on which the data was collected. One and the same storage time must apply to the data. When the data is no longer needed, it must be deleted by the vehicle manufacturer (storage controller), unless a request has been made by the competent authorities to issue the data but the data has not yet been issued. In this case, the data must instead be erased as soon as it has been issued. Vehicle manufacturers must undertake necessary and appropri- ate technical, organisational and administrative measures to protect the data. These measures must aim to achieve a level of security that is appropriate in terms of the available technical options, the cost of implementing such measures, the specific risks involved in processing personal data and the sensitivity of the personal data processed. This is already specified in the EU’s The supervisory authority must have the opportunity to issue regulations on further protective measures. Rules on protection for confidentiality purposes relating to the storage controller may be necessary to enhance this protection. Protection Authority must control the ve- hicle manufacturers’ collection and storage of data. The authority’s current advisory powers are appropriate and sufficient for this purpose. The government or the authority designated by the govern- ment may issue further regulations on data, data processing and data storage by the storage controller. The current provisions are not adapted for automated driving. This means that only the use of vehicle-mounted cameras that are present to enhance the driver vision, such as reverse cameras, are exempt from the scope of the Camera Surveillance Act, and hence from permit requirements. However, the outward-facing cameras in a modern ve- hicle will become even more necessary if the vehicle is to be operated by an automatic driving system. To become technology-neutral in this regard, the provisions relating to camera surveillance should therefore be amended so that the cameras present in an automated vehicle to be able to operate it are exempt from the scope of the Camera Surveillance Act. Cameras facing into the passenger compartment should probably normally be used by consent, and possibly with an information sign in the passenger compartment. For cameras mounted in or on the vehicle for purposes other than facilitating operation, the same rules should apply as for other cameras on the vehicle. Automated class II road As stated above, options will be introduced to permit operation of automated class II road on roads, cycle paths and foot- paths without a special permit for trials. The proposed definition of an automated class II public works vehicle is “a class II public works vehicle that is operated by an automatic driving system”. This comes under the general definition of a public works vehicle, namely “a motor vehicle that is designed primarily as a tool or for moving freight short distances”. An automated class II public works vehicle without a permit for trials may not exceed 20 kilometres an hour (walking pace on foot- paths). may prescribe national rules on the operation of these vehicles, and municipalities and other road owners will be authorised to announce local road traffic regulations on their use, e.g. limiting their operation to certain cycle paths or special rules such as lower speeds or operation only at certain times of the day. There will be no registration requirements for certain automated vehicles that may be introduced. A labelling requirement will be introduced so that these vehicles can be identified. will be authorised to prescribe the more detailed provisions concerning the potentially necessary design, content and location of the label. This label should include information that facilitates identification of the vehicle and contact with its owner. The Road Traffic Ordinance and Road Signs Ordinance will be adapted for automated driving To make it possible to apply the provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance during automated driving as well, a provision will be introduced stating that the provisions relating to traffic on roads and off-road shall also apply, where appropriate, to vehicles during auto- mated driving. A rule will also be introduced stating that the pro- visions for road users in the Road Traffic Ordinance shall apply to automated vehicles, where appropriate. The Road Signs Ordinance will also be amended so that provi- sions for road users and drivers shall apply to automated vehicles, where appropriate. The opinion of the committee is that the proposed amendments to the Road Signs Ordinance do not, in themselves, constitute any extended liability for the road owners to provide road users with guidance, control and information. The regulations on professional freight and passenger transports are largely harmonised within the EU. The investigation will submit no proposals on these elements, but assumes that will work to encourage the devising of joint rules within the EU that promote development of innovations and new market solutions relating to professional traffic. Among other things, this relates to the develop- ment of rules on driving and rest times in the case of automated driving. The national interpretation of the term “driver” that is proposed means that relatively far-reaching automated vehicle trials are possible, and that – for example – convoy trials with a driver in the first vehicle only who is operating the entire convoy will be possible when the technology has made sufficient progress and this is deemed to be sufficiently safe. It will also be possible to test and introduce other far-reaching automated driving functions, such as remote con- trol and rearranging of vehicles and automated docking in loading bays or parking spaces. Where should automated vehicles be operated? It should be possible to operate automated vehicles, with permits for trials or approved for use on roads in any other , on roads in accordance with what is currently permitted for the type of vehicle, regardless of the level of automation. It should be determined, within the scope of trials, where and how trials are to be carried out following consultation with the municipality and the road owner. Rules may be necessary in the form of local road traffic regulations for certain types of vehicle or certain types of traffic. Therefore, certain authorisations to introduce local road traffic regulations relating to automated vehicles which supplement the available options will be introduced. The opinion of the committee is that the road infrastructure has a traffic capacity that is currently difficult to use. Although road traffic levels are very high at certain times, there are also times where roads and streets are very quiet. Partial use of the road network for freight transport or road maintenance at night, for example, may be difficult at present as the needs of drivers determine when most roadworks are carried out. Automation will facilitate operations such as gritting cycle paths at night, suspending certain road sections during certain quiet times for automated freight transport to town and city centres or trading estates with automated slow freight deliveries directly to the door in urban areas. Subjecting road traffic involving automated vehicles to certain time limits will allow the road capacity to be used more optimally and control traffic to avoid heavy goods vehicles having to drive through towns and cities. Per- mitting smaller, slow vehicles on footpaths and cycle paths under certain circumstances also provides opportunities to devise inter- modal freight concepts, combining these vehicles with other forms of transport such as conventional . Automated class II road An automated class II public works vehicle may be operated without a special permit for trials at speeds not exceeding 20 kilometres an hour all roads and in all areas where class II road may be operated at present. Normally, a permit for trials is required to at higher speeds, up to 30 kilometres an hour, or otherwise the vehicle must be approved for operation on roads at this speed. General options for operating automated class II road at no more than 20 kilometres an hour on cycle paths and at walking pace on footpaths will be introduced. It is proposed that the provisions relating to pedestrians should also apply to automated class II road travelling at walking pace. may announce national regula- tions stating that automated class II road may speeds of up to 30 kilometres an hour, if this is deemed to be safe. may also announce national regulations on the demands that can be specified when operating automated class II road , e.g. a specific maximum weight or size when operating on cycle paths or equipment to promote visibility and safety. The road owner may use local road traffic regulations to prescribe whether and how these vehicles may be operated, and that they should at speeds of less than 20 kilometres an hour, e.g. at walking pace. Adaptation of the road infrastructure for automated vehicles Driverless vehicles can only be introduced to a limited extent in the short term, and before the international regulations support the technology. The committees of the view that consistency, clear design and marking and digitised infrastructure information are important for this technology, but it may also facilitate matters for connected vehicles with automated functions in more general terms. However, further information is needed on what more specific, long- term infrastructure conditions may facilitate matters for vehicles with automated functions or advanced driver aids.