Evolution of the Reasonable
Automated Vehicle
Bryant Walker Smith
Center for Internet and Society
Center ffor Automotive Research
cyberlaw.stanford.edu/bws

1

A question

What is the biggest obstacle toautomated vehicles?
A Technology?
A.
B Law?
B.
C. Public acceptance?
p
D. Something else entirely?
2

My answer

 Law, engineering, and the marketplace allreflect what “we”
we think is reasonable When a compelling technology isreasonably safe, law will accommodate it Law, engineering, and the marketplace canalso shape what we think is reasonable3

In short:

REASONABLENESS What is a reasonable vehicle?
 What is a reasonable driver?
 What
Wh t iis a reasonable
bl ddesigner?
i?
 They are not the same
 TheyTh willill changehover titime4Or even shorter:

REASONABLENESSREASONABLE
REASON5

Which means:

REASONABLENESS
propriety, rightness,justness, fairness,l h ness?
loch? __
6

It’s elusive!
 US state tort law: Companies are liable if theirproduct designspg are not reasonably
y safe US state traffic law: Drivers must drive

reasonably ISO 26262: “Safety” is the absence of

unreasonable
bl riski k
7

Who decides?

Engineers?
Ei?
CConsumers?
?
Lawyers?
Politicians?
Managers?
Regulators?
gVoters?
Reporters?
Drivers?
Juries?
Judges?
Prosecutors?
8

How?

C tb
Cost-benefit
fit analysis?
l i ?

Intuition?

Private values?
Community norms?

Money?

I d t standards?
Industryt d d ?
Consensus?

9The reasonable vehicle

100% chance that a pedestrian will step out in front of the car

0% chance that a pedestrian will step out in front of the car
10What’s it to you?
Chance of a crash
10%
1%
0.1%
0 01%
0.01%
0.001%
0 0001%0.0001%0.00001%
0.000001%
0.0000001%

Expected benefit of slowing down
$1,000,000¥100,000,000$100 000$100,000¥10 000 000¥10,000,000$10,000¥1,000,000$1 000$1,000¥100 000¥100,000$100¥10,000$10¥1 000¥1,000
$1
¥100
$
$0.10
¥10$0.01¥1(assuming one pedestrian fatality at $10,000,000 (¥1,000,000,000))(a 50x increase since 1973 in the assumed value of a life)

11

The full A slightly fuller picture

12

The reasonable driver Do you actually drive that cautiously?
 TheTh nett safety
f t gainsi ffrom antilock
til k brakes
b kwere less than expected, perhaps because
antilock brakes reduced driver caution
 Following the September 11thh attacks, ay g to driving
g resulted inswitch from flying~1,000 new roadway fatalities
13
Source: Clifford Winston, Vikram Maheshri, Fred Mannering, An Exploration of the Offset Hypothesis….
Source: Gerd Gigerenzer, Out of the Frying Pan…, Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2006

The reasonable designer
 Claim 1: “AutomatedAutomated vehicles could save

lives even if they are not perfect.” Claim 2: “Automated vehicles could savelilives
even if theyth are worse thanth hhumans.””

14

“Automated vehicles could save
lives even if they are not perfectperfect.”
Crashes today

Crashes tomorrow?

?
Vehicle as contributing factor
15

Failure“Automated vehicles could save lives
even if they are worse than humans
humans.”Time
16

Impacts of a crash?

17

Therefore:

REASONABLENESS What is a reasonable vehicle?
 What is a reasonable driver?
 WhatWh t iis a reasonable
bl ddesigner?
i?
 They are not the same
 TheyTh willill change
hover timeti18

What is reasonable will change

19

Adapted from www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811825.pdf

Plan for obsolescence now
Provide the technical and legal ability for
automakers and regulators to remotely
updated t vehicles
hi l (“(“virtuali t l recalls”)
ll ”)
 Technical capability (including security)
 LegalLl right
i ht ((contract,t t statute,t t t or regulation)l ti )
 Legalg obligationg((statute or common law)?
)www.volokh.com/2013/10/04/planning-obsolescence-technologies-yet-invented