IATSS International symposium (project 2022A)
2023.2.24
Transcript
T. Imai: Good evening for every one who are joining us from Japan and good afternoon to ourcolleagues in Germany and in the UK. It is now 6 PM in Tokyo and we shall begin the international
symposium organized by the IATSS. I am Takeyoshi Imai and the project leader of the researchgroup for the various problems related to the automated vehicle that is supposed to run in the level
4 mode. In the IATSS we have been studying many matters related to automated vehicles over morethan 7 years. The depth of our study has deepened with the development of the national andinternational system for automated vehicle or AV. Firstly we study the problems related to level 3
and now we have been engaged in the studies of the various matters related to level 4. In Japan,
level 4 is due to be permitted as early as the 1st of April this year. That is why I believe that ourstudies, including this symposium are opportune. To understand this problem from an international
perspective, we have invited today our distinguished speakers, each specialists in this very field.
So let me introduce them briefly one by one.
Firstly, Dr. Mirja Feldmann from Germany.
She is now a regional Court judge as well as a university
lecturer in criminal law. She studied law and related
matter in Spain and in Japan, so, she can speak not only
German, English, Spanish but also Japanese. Her
working or research field is quite wide. For example, last year she came to Japan as the OCDE WG
lead examiner to represent Germany.
Secondly, Ms. Jessica Uguccioni from the UK.

She is the senior member of the Law Commission of England and Wales. In the LC, she is the leadlawyer for the review of the relevant legal matters for the autonomous vehicle review. She is also amember for the WP1, so she is a key person to construct a new legal framework for the automatedvehicle in the UK as well as in the UN.
Thirdly, Professor Mark Watson Gandhi from the UK.
He is a barrister at Three Stone Chamber and also a
distinguished professor at the University of Westminster
and the Université de Lorraine.In addition, he serves
very important roles in the UK Home Office and otherkey departments within the UK government. He is deeply versed in international civil law and theethical principles in many business areas.
Lastly, again, I am the professor of criminal law at Hosei
University. My short CV is written in the poster so if you
are interested in it, please take a look at it.

Right, let us begin the presentation part.
Dr Feldmann, please take you turn.

M. Feldmann:
Prof. Imai, everybody good evening. In Tokyo it is “good evening”. I am Mirja Feldmann. I am deeply
honoured and glad to be able to present here and today about automated driving.
From this point on, I will have my presentation slides

in Japanese but I will speak in English.
So, now I will talk, as I said, in English, but you have the slides in Japanese. I will tell you a little bit
about the latest evolution in Germany on the legislation on autonomous vehicles, but I will skip thefirst slide, because that is kind of a repetition as what I said 3 years ago in the same symposium.
But you can have a look at the slides if you want to repeat it.

Today, I would
like to provide youwith a follow-up
on the latest legal
amendments thatwere made inGermany
since
the Road Traffic
Act reform thathas taken place in2017, which I
talked about atthelast
symposium
3
years ago. In July
2021,
new
provisions on theoperationofvehicles with anautonomous driving function came into force. The idea behind was the following: although theGerman government is conscious that at some point in the future, there will be an EU regulationon these matters, they didn’t want to wait for their creation, but wanted to facilitate thecommercialization and regular operations of level 4 vehicles by establishing national law in themeantime. So, sections 1e) and 1d) and some other sections of the German Road Traffic Act were
set out to tackle SAE level 4 autonomous or automated driving. It is noteworthy here, that theseprovisions do not aim at individual use but rather at public transportation, transport of goods andemployees, etc.
Now, what is the main difference with the provisions included in the sections 1a) and b), 6 years
ago? When it comes to level 4 driving, in contrast to the earlier provisions, the presence of a driver
within the car is not required anymore. Making use of the power to use statutory instruments the newprovision conferred to the government, last year the federal ministry for digital and transport issued
the so-called “Regulation on the Authorization and Operation of Autonomous Vehicles”, and thisregulation contains, among others, detailed provisions regarding the so-called technical supervision,
its qualifications and liability, etc.
Getting back to the content of the new provisions, the legislator did not alter the existing liability
regime, which basically provides for the car holder’s liability. And this liability of the car holder does
not require any fault. And also, there is a driver’s liability where fault is presumed but the driver can
prove the contrary, that no fault was involved on his side.
Now, obviously, there won’t be a new driver’s liability in the context of driverless, autonomous driving.
So, the person injured or damaged could only raise a claim with the car holder. To make up for thisthe legislator introduced a provision according to which the car holder has to cover the so-called
technical supervision by a liability insurance, so when damage claims arise against the technicalsupervision because they have caused damages by infringing one of their duties and negligence or
intent can be proven, the claimant, then can not only raise a claim with the technical supervisionitself, but he can directly raise a claim with the insurance company, which is way better because of
their financial means.

Now I would liketo go a little bit
further into thedetails of the newlegislation, of theamendments. As I
said the legislator
introduced
section 1d) in theroad traffic act.
This
provisioncontains
somedefinitions, some
importantdefinitions.
In
its
first
paragraph,the“vehicle with theautonomous driving function” is defined. The law says that it has to be able to realise the driving task
without a driving person, in an autonomous way, within a so-called - well, in English you would say- “ODD”, but the German legislator says: “a determined operational area”. Then, the vehicle has topossess a technical equipment in accordance to what is set out in section 1e) paragraph 2 of theRoad traffic act.
The next definition that is contained in section 1d) is the definition of the “ODD”. The ODD can only
be determined in terms of location and space. That was a decision that the legislator took. So, what
does it mean? It means the ODD cannot be defined or determined by using other restrictions suchas weather conditions or else, so it is only limited to space and location.
The next definition in its paragraph 4 is the definition of the so-called “minimal risk condition”. Thatis, according to the legal wording “a condition the vehicle brings itself to, by its own initiative or thatof the vehicle's technical supervision”, and it involves standing or being stopped in a place as safe
as possible and activating the hazard flashes in order to provide the utmost safety for the vehicle
passengers, other road users and third parties.

Then, we have the lastdefinition. It is included inparagraph 3 of section 1d)
and it is the definition of theso-called“technicalsupervision”. At a first glance,
it seems that the technicalsupervision could be an
institution, but the wording of
the definition then explainsthat the technical supervisor
has to be a natural personthat is able to deactivate thevehicle during its operationand to approve driving
maneuvers in accordance with section 1e). So, the important thing about that is that the law
establishes that the technical supervision has to be a natural person. Not a legal person, not an
institution, a natural person and that is important. And here I would like to add something else thatis not written on the slide now. It is interpreted that the technical supervision does not have tosupervise the vehicle permanently, but they only have to be ready to carry out the deactivation andto approve driving maneuvers if there has been an alert to do so by the vehicle.
So that means, in consequence, that the technical supervision might supervise several cars at thesame time. But it is necessary, in any event, that they can carry out the tasks regarding each andevery of these vehicles at all
times. That is important here
to note.
Now, who is responsible forthe organization of thistechnical supervision? There
we have some provisions
about
who
has
which
responsibility. In section 1f) of
the new road traffic act, wehave this provision that
establishes that the car holder
has to make sure that the
tasks
of
the
technical
supervision are fulfilled. So,
there it remains a little bit
unclear whether he has to do it by himself or whether he can delegate this task to somebody else.
Now the new definition establishes explicitly that the car holder can either carry out this task byhimself or he can authorize a person that is apt to do so. Plus, he has to provide for the necessary
equipment to carry out the tasks of the technical supervision. That means he has to provide aworkspace and also furnish it with the right equipment and especially appropriate IT systems.
Now I would like to go
into some details
regarding the tasks ofthetechnical
supervision.
Actually, only some of
theirdutiesareestablished by the law
and not really thetasks one by one. But,
from the requirementthat the technicalequipment has tocomply with the duties
that are set out
concerningthetechnical supervision,

you can deduct what the tasks of the technical supervision are.
One of the most important tasks is, of course, to deactivate the vehicle. So, it has to be possible forthe technical supervision, at all time, to deactivate the vehicle. Then, once deactivated, the vehicle
brings itself into the so-called minimal risk condition. During the legislative process in 2021, there
was some criticism on the fact that only the technical supervision should be able to deactivate the
car so another clause was introduced or another part of the clause was amended, saying that it isalso the passenger of the car/autonomous vehicle who will be able to deactivate the driving function.
That gives them some sense of control. The provisions about the deactivation also serve, according
to the intention of the legislator, to fulfill with the requirements set out by the international treaties,
the Vienna Treaty. For further details you can check with slides 14-15, due to the time limit I won’t
be able to explain that in detail here, but you can check for further details with these slides.

Then,
anotherscenario that is, I
would
say,
consideredvery
detailed in the law iswhat happens if thevehicle cannot abideby the traffic law
anymore. Situations
like these come up.
And then the following
steps would have tobe taken: The vehicle
proceeds
totheminimal risk condition
and then makes a
proposal regarding possible driving maneuvers to the technical supervision. It also provides somedata regarding the condition of the vehicle and the environment, for example, so the technicalsupervision can judge whether the maneuver proposed is feasible or not. After having made his
considerations, the technical supervisor has to order one of these maneuvers and the car executes
the said maneuver that had been ordered and carries it out. But the car also assesses beforehand
whether the maneuver puts at risk the passengers or third parties. In that case it should not carryout the maneuver.
So, you can conclude that the technical supervision does not always have the final say. What is notclear in my opinion, is whether this minimal risk condition has necessarily to be reached first andthen the proposal is made, or whether the car can alert in time, propose a maneuver and the technicalsupervision can order then one of these maneuvers, that is before the car has reach the minimal risk
condition. That remains a bit unclear.
There is anotherscenario. I don’t
want to go into
detailshere
because it isbasically
thesame steps thatare to be taken.
It is not about
not being able toabide by the
traffic law, but it
is about otherproblems suchasobstacles.
For
example,constantly red
traffic lights or vehicles that have stopped and suffered a breakdown and obstruct the road where
our autonomous vehicle is moving on.
Here he same steps (that I have just explained) would have to be taken. And then, there are somesmall things that are different: The technical supervision here is able to propose, to order a maneuver
without the vehicle´s having previously proposed a maneuver, but I don’t want to go into the details
here.

Now, as the last
topic, I would liketo move on to therequirements
regardingthetechnical
supervision as aperson let’s say.
The Road Traffic
Act itself only
sets out that thetechnical
supervision has
to be a natural
person, withoutestablishing any
details on theirskills and experience. There, the new regulation comes in and in section 14, you will find very
detailed prerequisites. First of all, it states that the person has to be appropriate with regard to
performing the task set out in section 1f) of the Road traffic Act. Now, what is deemed to beappropriate? That is established in a more detailed way in section 14 and we can identify thefollowing 4 elements. Firstly, they have to hold a university or college degree in one of the fields
described in the regulation: that is, for example, mechanical, automotive, electrical or aeronauticalengineer. Alternatively, it is sufficient to be a certified engineer or technician. Secondly, they must
undergo a tailored training for the type of vehicle with an autonomous driving function they will be incharge of. Thirdly, they have to possess a driver's license for the vehicle concerned. And lastly, they
have to be reliable. This judgment on reliability is made on the basis of having collected informationfrom a variety of German registers: That is the criminal record register, the driver's license registerand the register of driver fitness. During the legislative procedure, it was criticized that theserequirements were exaggerated.
This might be
the reason why
the regulation
also provides
forthepossibility
toappoint otherpersons, upon
agreement withthe car holder,to carry out
some, but not
the entire dutiesof the technicalsupervision.
The
prerequisites
regarding their
qualifications are not as strict here. They have to have 3 years of relevant experience in the field oftransport. They need to undergo a yearly training on how to handle the vehicle as well as on majorchanges concerning the vehicle and its autonomous functions. And they have to pass a practicalexam which has to include a simulation of a malfunction. Furthermore, in case they are supposed tooperate the car manually, they need to possess the corresponding driver´s license for the car classin question. In my view, it is quite surprising that the overall responsible, that is the technicalsupervision, does not have to undergo a training and an exam every year nor do they have to beexperienced in the field concerned.
Now, I think, my time is over. I thank you very much for your attention and I give the floor to the next
speaker.

T.Imai: Thank you Mirja. Your presentation is very informative for us to understand the very
complicated German legal system, that have been said to create the permission system forautonomous vehicle for the first time in the world. So it is very good opportunity for us to know it
through your presentation. Does anyone has a question to her presentation, at the moment?
Mirja, can you understand the question of Professor Urakawa?Just a moment, Caroline, can you
translate it in English to the other members
T. Imai: You can ask your questions in Japanese. Prof. Urakawa, is there anything? My apologies
for pointing at you.
Urakawa: Well, the concept of technical supervisor, it means we are into level 4, right?
T. Imai: Yes
Urakawa: So, in that case, the responsibility of the driver, the human driver, is completely
different,righ?
T. Imai: That is a difficult point.
Urakawa: The concept of driver will disappear but the technical supervisor doesn’t really stands inthe same place, it is a completely new category, isn’t it?
M. Feldmann : So, I would say that the main difference is that, for example, in level 3 you have tohave a driver inside the car who has to continue to drive once the car has reached a state, a condition
where it is not able to carry out its tasks anymore, that can be for various reasons. The technicalsupervision is a person who is outside the car and who does not - and that is the most important
thing he/she does not drive. There is no steering function. The technical supervision -at least that iswhat you can deduct from the law: - they just click. They click to deactivate the car, and then the
car itself brings itself into the risk minimal condition. Or, for example, they order a certain maneuver
but the car is the one that carries out the maneuver. So, there is no steering task at all. Actually, thesupervisor only gives, in Japanese you say “meirei” (命令) orders , he does not really drive, in thatsense.
T.Imai: Yes, I see. I would like to return to this very critical and basic matter.
Mr. Satoh, have your say in English, please.

Satoh: Thank you very much for your presentation. My question is not clearly related to the legal
issue. However, it is important. My question is how many vehicles is the technical supervisor isallowed to monitor. Because, mostly, one by one, one supervisor watching only one vehicle, that is
not good business. So maybe two or three.
Are they any guidelines, or something, about this in German law, that is my question.
M. Feldmann: Thank you very much, Satoh-san, for your interesting question. In the German new
regulation, this is not written, let’s say, in a detailed way. But what is written, as I just explained, isthat the technical supervision can use other persons to help them. So, I think that is the way how
they could monitor several cars. for example, because they can use employees. As far as I can see,
there is no limit set out in the legislation on how many cars you can control at one time. But you haveto make sure that you can comply with all the duties regarding each and every single car. So, I thinkthat it is something that would have to be found out in practice. How it can be realized to monitor
several cars in one time and how you have to organize your employees to do that. But it is a very
good question because, as you said, it is not economically wise to only monitor just one car - then
you can drive yourself.
Satoh: Thank you very much
T. Imai : Thank you. We will go back to the topic in the discussion panel, because they are very
important and we have to consider them very carefully.
So, next is Jessica Uguccioni. Please take your turn.

J. Ugucioni: Hello everyone.
Thank you so much, Mirja, for yourwonderful presentation. Let me
share our presentation here.
Hopefully you are able to see thescreen. Hello everybody, my nameis Jessica Uguccioni, and I workwith the law reform agency in the
UK. And our team has beenadvising UK government about
bringing in new regulations for selfdriving vehicle since 2018. Those,
we kind of introduced before. Our
report was approved last year, tobe taken through with legislation.
So, government is looking foropportunities to basically bringsome of the changes into law. So,
what I was proposing to do today is
to share the main, some of the highlight from our recommendation to UK government for the changes
that would be coming up in the future, as well as the latest project that we have been working on,which is about remote driving, which is where you have a natural person, an individual that is actuallysteering directly, in the way Mirja was saying, the technical supervisor in Germany does not do. So
we are looking at different angles on driving
automation technologies.

Today I will share some of the definitions andterminology, aspects of the new legislation that
we are suggesting as well as the criticalquestion of the threshold of how safe thetechnology has to be before it is authorised.
How do we decide that? And finally, marketing,
and what rule you might want to put in place toensure that the marketing of driving automation
technology is appropriate and does notcompromise road safety.

So firstly, looking at definitions, andsome of the key actors that are involved.
We suggested that corporate
accountability should be at the very
centre of the regulatory regime. And theentity, the company that puts a vehicle
forward for authorisation as self-driving
would therefore be the key entity withresponsibility for its behaviour on theroad. This is a regulatory approach. It is
not focusing on criminal sanctions orcivil law sanctions as such.

Thank you. So, this is the, well we call it the authorised self-driving entity (ADSE) engages with theregulator and put a vehicle forward for authorisation as meeting the requirements the regulator put
in place for safe driving. That is the key entity in that regard. We also talk about a user in charge.
That is an individual that is in the vehicle, in the driven seat but very importantly does not have theresponsibility of the driver when the ADSE is engaged. We thought it was very important to change
the terminology once the ADS is engaged. We should not be talking about the individual that is in
the vehicle as a driver, because the responsibility for dynamic control is with the system. So, that’s
where the terminology of user in charge comes in.Importantly, they still need to respond to atransition demand. So they would become a driver and the end of a transition demand and they havethe responsibility over the non-dynamic tasks that driver to, like making sure that the children wear
seatbelts, or vehicle maintenance, for example, insurance obligations, and if there were to be an
incident, to make sure that they take all the appropriate actions in reporting it.
Those obligations remain with what we refer to as the user in charge. Of course, not all of vehicles
that are self-driving will have a user in charge. Some might not even have a driving seat in them,
they might just be for delivery of goods, for example, or indeed a shuttle that is only carrying
passengers. For these vehicle, what we suggest is that one needs to have an operator, and we callit a NUIC because it is no user in charge, just to make sure that there is binary category. So somevehicles will be approved with a user in charge, other vehicle will not have one but instead they will

have an operator that is responsible
for oversight of the vehicle, which is insome way very similar to the role of thetechnical supervisor. The difference isvery much a corporate responsibility, it
is not a natural person, so we go to
great lengths to make sure that we are
identifying more the functions, and nottying it down to an individual. The
duties include having oversight ofvehicles, supervising and insuring if
they are getting themselves in troubleon the road, the intervention be prompt
and there should be a protocol inplace, with emergency services forexample, to make sure that any
untoward event is dealt promptly.

So, the way that we approach the all authorisation process as part as an automated vehicle isassessing the safety of the automated driving system into an integrated whole, so though we talked
about in integrated ADS, what came back to us very strongly throughout our consultation is that you
cannot assess the ADS in isolation, it is very much assessed within the entire vehicle. It is the safetyof the vehicle that is assessed not just the ADS. And this vehicle might have a mix of different
features. So it might have some featuresthat are for user in charge but otherfeatures that might not be, for example
valet parking. So you might, on the
motorway engage an automated lane
keeping system for example, that might
be driving itself on the motorway, andthen you reached your destination, andthen you can engage a no user in charge
feature that goes and drives the vehicle toits parking lot space. So, there can be in
the same vehicle a mix of different
systems. And of course, they might not all
be engaged at the same time. So, it isessential that we have data andinformations to tell us what function is
engaged at any particular time

Now one of the key bars of difference and lines within the registry scheme that we are suggesting is“What constitutes as self-driving and what makes a vehicle an automated vehicle versus a vehicle
that is just driver assistance. We have seen a lot of this discourse also in respect of some of the very
advance driving systems, sometimes called Level 2+, although the SAE would, you know, obviously
not endorse that terminology because they don’t talk about degrees within the levels. But you know,
very sophisticated level 2 systems. It is not always easy for the consumer to know what that mightlook like and what makes something self-driving and crosses the boundary into something selfdriving. So we have suggested that instead, from a regulator perspective, instead of having degrees
of automation that we would refer to, either something crosses the line into self-driving, or it doesn’t,
right? It is a very clear line which is only determined by a regulator. It is basically determined bywhether your system has been authorised by the relevant regulator. And of course the regulator isgoing to have regards to the SAE level, because they are very informative from a technicalperspective, but we cannot use the SAE to determine peoples’ liability and to decide wether
something is self-driving. There has to be, we suggest a regulatory separate step for that.
What is quite interesting is also our work on remote driving and to figure out what actually does itmean to remote drive vs. remote assist. I think some of the example that Mirja was giving before
about pressing a button, and for example deactivating a vehicle. Under our reading, from a UK
perspective, that could be classified as driving. If you are relying on an individual to basicallyintervene in the driving task, that can be driving.
It is not just about whether there is the ability tohave longitudinal and latitudinal control.
Let me share with you the approach that wehave taken to our definition of self-driving,which is very much focused on the absence ofmonitoring requirement from natural person.
And you’ll see that we talked about an ADS
feature being authorised, so that makes it selfdriving, because it has been authorised. But
then we describe exactly what the criteria are inlaw. And the idea is that the ADS must be able
to control the vehicle, so that it can drive safely
and legally, even if an individual is notmonitoring the driving environment, the vehicle
or the way it drives. The key differentiator
between a driving assistant, on the one hand, and a remote driver, on the other hand is whether that
person has a role that is for immediate and safety critical intervention. If this individual that we arerelying on, that might be supervising the vehicle, if their intervention has to be immediate or safety
critical, then, that means the vehicle is not able to drive itself. It is being remotely driven, as far as
we are concerned, because that individual has such a high importance, and the vehicle therefore isnot self-driving, there is remote driving.
On the other hand, supervision is entirely in assistance, or entirely consistent with self-driving. So, if
someone is for example helping to classify obstacles, or as Mirja was saying, for example, if thevehicle sends an alert and then an individual has to respond and assist, and then provide a safe
path, that is fully compatible with self-driving. However, if the vehicle is not able to bring itself tosafety if that person doesn’t intervene, then that is where the problem lies, and that is where thecapability would not be self-driving, in our analysis. It is very much a problem of facts or degrees,
whether something can count as self-driving or whether it cannot and is actually more a remotedriving type of system.
Another key element that we have advised UK
government
about
as
part
as
our
recommendations, is the threshold at which we
ought to accept something as self-driving. And
what we sought to do in our recommendations
is to highlight that this is a political decision.
Although the actual technical requirements aregoing to be essential: there are going to be a lotof engineering and technical parameters
around what a vehicle has to be able to do, what
does the minimal risk condition look like, allthose things are extremely technical and we’ll
have standards for them. But at a higher level,
the decision about whether introducing thistechnology on the public road and spaces is
one that should be taken, is political, because these systems are still going to cause some fatalities,

there is obviously still a risk with them. And determining how good those systems have to be before
they are allowed on the roads is something that needs to be debated democratically and understood.
So, although the secretary of state will delegate a lot of their power, you know, in terms of deciding
wether a particular system meets the criteria. To regulators, ultimately, it is very much a politicaldecision, and we also highlighted the fact that the in-use regulation, so keeping a very careful eyeon the way that these vehicles perform, and the actual fatalities and incidents that might occur isincredibly important in the overall scheme. So that it is not enough to have demonstrated a particularability when the vehicle is first authorised but is it absolutely essential for the vehicle to be comparedto the performance of existing feeds of human driven vehicles to make sure that they are actually
improving road safety rather than introducing different risks.
And finally marketing, we will all have all seenat different junctures, various references fromcompanies that are marketing their system
and giving the impression that they probably
have bigger self-driving capabilities that they
actually do. And of course this can be a big
problem because it can lead to over-reliancefrom the public. And so, general legislation onmarketing of course exists: misleading
advertising is something that happens inabsolutely every field. But for us, it is verysafety critical here, and given that thetechnical requirements and understanding of
the system is quite challenging, certainly forthe generic marketing laws we have. We
suggested that it is worth having specific rules
about the marketing of driving automation
system. And in particular, we suggest that certain words, certain terminology should be exclusively
for systems that are authorised as self-driving. In particular, the word “self-driving” should bereserved to systems that have actually passed a third-party testing system to verify that they arecapable of handling the situation without the need for human monitoring. We suggest other terms
might be protected as well, possibly “driverless", using that for a driving assisting system could
obviously be very misleading.
In addition to protecting particular words, in the future, there might actually be some hallmarks,
symbols that are unique to vehicles that can drive themselves. In addition to that, having a moregeneral prohibition on any marketing technics that give people the impression that they do not needto monitor the road. So for example if you had an advert for a driver automation system whichshowed the individual taking up a book and just reading it like this, covering their face, when in fact
it was not an authorised system, then you maybe looking at the SAE terminology and studying that,as I do, a lot, but they would be breaking the law, because they would be encouraging people to dosomething that would be unsafe. We think that it is a very important element in the overall scheme.
And also because self-driving vehicles are taking longer to come on to our road, and the marketingof drive-assistance system is actually here now and it is causing problems to road safety today, so
we think it is a high priority area for us to look at.

So, that is it for me. I say a big thank you to you all and I would
love to have some questions.

T. Imai: Thank you Jessica. Your presentation is very clear and gives us the latest informations thatyou have got, as well as the policy planning amongst the UK government. I have also the same idea
regarding the definition of the levels. I mean, I know the limits of the SAE terminology, so it is very
interesting and I hope that your idea should be built in into the framework, legal framework in the
UK.
Does anyone would like to have a say?
T. Imai: Mr. Hatano, what do you think. My apologies for pointing at you, please.
Hatano: Sorry, I didn’t expect to be called.How to put it, of course the SAE definitions are not enough,well you can say that there are missing elements, but I have the impression that this has become
quite common understanding lately and globally. However, the SAE, especially the definition in theJ3016, is only just a definition. So, instead of asking for a uniformed fit-all definition in J3016, andcriticising which is a dead-end, the side referring to the SAE should add-on specific definitions toresolve the issue, or at least that is my understanding of this.
J. Uguccioni : I mean, I am a member of the SAE group, and I have been studying the SAE from thevery first time that I joined this field, when I started working in it back in 2018. So, I am not saying, I
wasn’t suggesting that they are lacking in general. The SAE levels were not designed to be laws,
they are not. I would not be right for them to be laws. I was just observing that, we talk about vehicles
being authorised or not. We have a binary system, which, when one looks at through legal
framework, I think they are not necessarily that different. But we still refer to, for example the lawsthat Mirja was telling us about as the general laws, different countries do that. But, yeah, I don’t
disagree. I think it is interesting, I think the comment is.I was just remarking something that iscommon knowledge, I was just sharing it again.
T. Imai; Thank you. At the moment, does anyone want to have a say?
Ok. Jessica, may I just ask you a very basic question regarding the NUIC. What should the NUIC
operator do when the vehicle runs out the ODD if we use the SAE terminology, because NUIC
operator is supposed to be working when the vehicle is supposed to be self-learning. So, if thevehicle runs out of the ODD, it cannot be said to be self-learning. At the time, we don’t know how
the NUIC operator would handle it.
J. Uguccioni: I think the all handling of what happens when a system exists the premises of where it
is authorised to operate i s something that has to be discussed within the safety case. So wesuggested that the before it is authorised, there has to be a safety case that is put forward to theregulator for the authorisation. That safety case would have to describe how the vehicle handles thatsituation and ensure that it does so in a way that meets the expectations of safety for regulator. Thatwould be how likely that is to happen, and how bad the risk is, as a risk assessment kind of element.
I think that is probably the key expectation in that scenario.
T. Imai: Thank you indeed,Jessica. Right, so, let’s listen to the 3rd respected person. Mark, could
you take your turn, please.
M. Watson-Gandy Hello! What ajoy, delight and pleasure to be able
to speak to you all. I come from aslightly different perspective to theother speakers. I come from theperspective of a litigator and,hopefully you can see a screen.

Wonderful. Who pays if something
goes wrong? Ultimately, thequestion, from my standpoint andcertainlyfrommyclients’standpoint, is who is going to pay ifsomethinggoes
wrong?
Conversely, you are the defendantor the insurer, whether we can find solution or argument so we do not have to t pay. Certainly, as
you know, insurers are in business. And it is not part of the business of an insurer to pay back if you
do not have to pay. The answer to those questions, from a common lawyer’s perspective, starts on
two levels. Two ways you can bring the claim. You can seek redress - remedies under statute (andyou have heard about the legislation in the UK and new legislative framework that are being thoughtout by Jessica). But that is not all.. You also could bring a claim in common law. For that, really
what you really looking at is the tort of negligence. In other words that there is a breach of duty ofcare which caused foreseeable loss and damage.
Traditionally a driver had a duty of care not to harm other road users. But when a driverless car is
involved, that simple question becomes more complicated. So who might have breached that dutyof care. Is it the user who is in charge of the car? Is it the manufacturer? The programmer? Is it themap provider? Is it the person
controlling the geo-space zone?

The UK has already got a statute to try to answer this. We have presently a bit oflegislation called the Automated & Electric Vehicles Act 2018, which fixes the responsibilityon the insurer of the vehicle owner. But, not always. It also begs questions on what really
happens in one of the excluded scenarios. For example - if the system - the program inside the car is not fully updated, presently under the scheme, the insurer gets out of that
automatic liability.
Or you leave the geofence zone.
Or if your system is hacked bymischievous 13 year old, or if
your system is not fully updated.
For the answer to the question,
we need to craft a solution using
the common law.
There is another issue that weneed to bear in mind. We have all
been talking about national
solutions. And national solutions
are all very well provided you
have no international element.
But things become a little more
complicated if there is aninternational element. After all the question that arises then is ….Which country’s Court is going tolook at the case? Which country’s law is going to be applied by that court?
To illustrate this, what I am goingto do is just give you an exampleof how this solved using theEuropean model. So, as regards
to the choice of law, that is tosay ”Which country’s laws deals
with the accident?”, that is the lawof the country where the damage
occurred. Except when both theclaimant and the defendant comefrom the same country, and/or
some country is manifestly moreclosely connected. As for thecountry whose court is to decidethe case, well that is the country
where the person who is beingsued is domiciled.
The substantive law covers thequestion “do I have a claim?” Italso addresses the question “whomight be vicariously liable”. A
vicarious liability is the liability ofan employer for his employees
and agents. An employer is jointly
and separately responsible for theactions of their agents or theiremployees provided they are
acting within their apparent orostensible responsibility. Under
English law, in a case called Lloyd v Grace, the employer is liable provided the employee is actingwith apparent authority even if they behaved maliciously or if they committed a criminal offence.
Indeed, even if they did an act that had in fact been prohibited by their employer.
The law as regards forum covers not just the choice of court. Also the procedure law is the law where
the Court is situated. That includes the rules of evidence and and also how the loss is going to bequantified. And whether there is going to be a limitarion on the damages being awarded. So, you
can potentially find yourself with different outcomes for a case depending on the international makeup of the case.

I will give you one example. A
case called Marshall v Motor
Insurer’s Bureau provides anillustration of quite how easily thiscan arise. This concerned an
accident in Paris, France. An
uninsured French car driven by aFrench national, collided with two
UK nationals who are standing
behind their broken down UK
registered Ford Fiesta motorcar,
insured by a UK insurer. The carthen shunts into a French
recovery truck, insured by aFrench insurer, throwing the
French driver of the French recovery truck though its window. The car then spins around and hits
one of the owners of the Ford Fiesta. The Court wrestling with that, said that the claims against theinsurers have to be dealt under French law, the evidence and procedure were to be dealt with underEnglish law and the assessment of damages decided under English law.
So can see what a mix, a hotchpotch of potentially conflicting laws, had to be applied, to try to
determine the outcome of what was just a simple, ordinary accident. Now transpose into that asituation where we are looking at a driverless car, where you have a Korean car manufacturer, an
American programmer and some Germans controlling the geo-space zone. Now that reallypotentially becomes a lot more challenging, exciting problem to resolve.

Other important issues that an insurer or
manufacturer will need addressed in any accident:“Was there somebody else responsible for theaccident that occurred?”. “Was the user of the carsomehow contributorily negligent?” “Was there
some sort of intervening act that in fact shows thatthe accident had nothing to do with the way theautomated car was driving?”

To answer that you need to share what was
happening in the car and around it. That in itself
creates an interesting question as regard on how
you balance the defendant’s rights and the issue
of privacy. How much needs to be, should
recorded and shared? Is there going to be arecording of where the driver was going? Ore
indeed of what the driver doing in the car? ... And
with whom? Or what the driver was saying?
And then follow on from that, the question of dataprotection rears its head. It is not just an ethicalproblem. It is also a legal problem. If we are to keep a black box recording what occurred before or
during the accident. What happens to the back box? Who is actually going to control that data? Howlong is it to be kept?
The vehicle user might have been doing something that he’d rather keep private in the back of thecar.
The idea that a third party might have control
over it, or access to it, might touch on issues
that he very much like to keep quiet. The otherquestion is how long that data is going to be
kept. This touches on a further issue: thequestion of consent to that data being stored. If,
perhaps, you could show consent for the
insured vehicle user, what about the passenger
too?

T. Imai: Okay. Thank you very much, Mark. Well, due to your presentation, we can understandhow important the way of compensation for the accidents resulting from automated vehicles aswell as data protection privacy and other perspectives.
Does anyone would like to have a say.
Lawyer Ito, how is it? My apologies but Japanese is fine.
Ito： It has been a while.Thank you very much for your presentation, it was very interesting to me.
Well, it might not be related to this topic, but I am interested in the impact on the proposal of revisingEU product liability which was produced last year on September. When the level 4 comes to themarket, when the EU directive was really revised, do you have any idea about the interconnection
or something.
M. Watson-Gandy: This is maybe a question that is better asked of our first speaker, but it issomething that is going to be of significant impact for, I think, car manufacturers selling to Europe
and indeed elsewhere. Because, ultimately what we are trying to do is to have a homogenous
product which is acceptable everywhere. From my standpoint, as a litigator, if there has been abreach of local product safety requirements, that opens the door to a potential action.
So, from my standpoint, I would very much also watch the space. Of course, as the UK because of
Brexit is not longer governed by the EU product regulation. However, the reality is: I suppose the
manufacturers will be watching this space very closely and it would be foolhardy not to watch andensure your product complies.
T. Imai: I see. Thank you very much
Anyone else? As we are more in the civil law sphere. Mrs. Suzuoki, if you have a question, please.
Suzuoki: I thought it is very important to see what types of cases arise, you gave the concrete
example of the French driver hurting the UK national, and to see the types of cases forautonomous vehicle. I felt again very strongly the importance of seeing how other countries resolve
those cases.
Mark Watson-Gandy: For driverless cars, road traffic accidents, collisions between driverless carsand cars which are driven by sentient drivers. And also the issues that arise when the automationof the driverless cars ceases; stage 4 envisages a driving within a geofenced zone. But of course
the reality is: what happen when you fence outside this geofenced zone? Does the car automaticallystop, or as it happens on the motorway at 100 km an hour, are you left to your own devices andstruggle to grab the steering wheel in time. When does the responsibility hand over? And also, there
are always going to be dead zones, within those areas, what occurs? I think litigation is going to beparticularly prevalent, when things are not working properly. The case where a car or a system isbeing hacked, where somebody hasn’t updated their system, where somebody has decided to
improve their system by buying in an extra-service by a third party provider which may or may not
be fully compatable. Those are all areas where, if something goes wrong, there is going to be some
hard fought litigation and tough questions for judges to determine. Who should take theresponsibility? Who should bear the cost? Fun times ahead for us all.
Imai: Referring to Mrs. Suzuoki’s question, let me add a few words. You said at p7 of your slides thatthe claims against their insurer were to be checked under French Law. Could you explain the reason
a little more because I think that the defendant car was not insured and the claimants are UK
nationals. In this case, the manifestly more closely related law to the claimant seems to be theEnglish law. Isn’t it correct?
M. Watson Gandy : This was an interesting case. The reason I referred to is that it illustrated that
there were a lot of choices as regard which law should apply to the issue of responsibility. The court
said that the starting point is where did the damage occur, which was in France, rather than whichcountry was manifestly more closely connected. To try to provide litigants with a degree of certainty
they set the bar quite high before one could use the more closely connected exception.
That decision was important in the case. Under English law, the Motor Insurance Bureau pays out
on claims where an accident is caused by a driver who has no insurance, irrespective of where theaccident occurs. Under French law, the question was which car caused the harm, rather at looking
at it from it from the standpoint of whether an uninsured driver was to blame.
Imai: Thank you very much for your lecture.

Now, it is 24 past 7 pm. So we shall take a break for 10 minutes. The panel discussion starts at
7:34 pm in Tokyo.
T. Imai: Ok. So, it is 7:34 pm in Tokyo, let’s begin the panel discussion, alright?.
Firstly, let me organise the questionnaire. Mr. Takayama? If you would please…
Takayama: Let me ask a question. My first question is, can I make a couple of questions, or one
question only?
T. Imai: please, plural question is OK
Takayama: My first question is for the prof. Feldmann. If I correctly understand, in the German Law,
the car holder has to make sure that the technical supervision goes well. And, what is the definitionof a car holder? So, what if the car owner leases a particular automated vehicle to an actual operator?
Or what if the operator is like a big company and it owns kind of a large number of automated vehicle.
And that company allocates, let say 20 vehicles to branch A, and 20 to branch B. In that case thecar holder has to make sure that the technical supervision goes well. Is the car holder company itself
or the branch manager who actually holds and operates the automated car?
T.Imai: Yes, very interesting question. Mirja, please.
M. Feldmann: Thank you very much for your question. Yes, the concept of the car holder in Germany
can be a little bit tricky. But it does not necessary have to be the owner of the car, but they are theones who are in charge of the responsibility for the car. So, it is not necessarily the driver, but theperson who is mainly involved with the car. I think it is possible that a company is the car holder. It
does not have to be a natural person. A company could be the car holder. Because also in the law,
there is no sort of personal liability but it is a so-called “Gefährdungshaftung1” so the car holder isliable just because of the fact that he is the car holder. He takes the responsibility of a dangerous
good or dangerous means such as a vehicle. That is why it is perfectly imaginable that a legal person
can be a car holder.
Takayama: I understand. And that legal person can be a holder even though the company leases
the car from a leasing company. Then the leasing company is just an owner of the car but it does
not actually operate that car, but the company leasing the car is an operator.
M. Feldmann: I think in that case, the company that leases the car would be the car holder
Takayama: I Understand.
Feldmann: Because they are in charge of the car that… they might insure the car, they are theones that operates the car mainly.
Takayama: Ok
Feldmann: So there is a difference between the owner, the holder and the driver.
Takayama: I understand, thank you very much. Can I ask just one, can make another question toProfessor Watson Gandy.
M. Watson Gandy: Oh dear, I just saw how hard the last one was (laughs). I really got happy that I
had got away lightly.
Takayama: This is Just a comment I think. You were discussing about the conflict of laws.That wasvery interesting. But, at the same time, I think that currently a lot of cars are exported and imported
from one country to another country. Let’s say that a German manufacturer produces a lot of cars,
and some parts of the car are exported to the UK and other part are exported to France. I think that
the ADS has to be tailored, designed, customized to match to the local laws, regulations and law
conditions. Then, I think this is a question for the manufacturers, even thought the vehicle is1strict liabilitymanufactured in Germany, but, you know, those with a particular ADSs in the UK , or in France,
those are designed/customized in particular countries where the particular cars are operated. Thenthe conflict of laws’ discussion is maybe even more complicated. This is just a comment but if you
have any views on this.
M. Watson Gandy: No, no, I entirely agree. We drive on a different side of the road to that inGermany. So, you could see a very interesting a problem arising, if they don’t tailor it to the local
market.
Takayama: Thank you very much. I think that sort of show the arising issues in the coming years.
T. Imai: Thank you. Jessica, let me ask you the following question which Professor Yoshida would
like to ask you but now he can’t ask in person.
Let me read it. In the UK, the road traffic act was changed last year to established a hierarchy ofroad users. Under the current traffic laws, how should collision between driverless vehicles andpedestrians be handled. In this case, the concept of negligence does not apply to the vehicle (I also
think so) but only to the pedestrian. In addition, if the pedestrian is a child who cannot be held
responsible for his or her actions, it is possible that the child may not be found to be at fault. In thatkind of case, the scope of liability for collision for autonomous vehicle needs to be clarified in advance(I agree). I would like to hear about any areas of progress in the UK debate. (It is very interesting tome).
J.Uguccioni : Yes. I think the key provisions that were introduced in the UK in respect of anyone who
is harmed by a vehicle that is driving itself, which I should add of course that we don’t yet have any
vehicle that has been listed as being capable of driving themselves in the UK. That there is no suchvehicles on the road at the moment. But, when such a vehicle might be authorized, the compensation
scheme is done on a no-fault basis in the automated and electrical vehicle act.
As Mark very ably described, there are of course complication in ways of which some might argue
that the vehicle might not have caused a collision, you know, if the degree of negligence of thepedestrian was incredibly strong, one could argue that. But, our conversation with insurance doesn’t
seem to go in that direction, at least at the moment. If there was a pedestrian that was involved in acollision, even if they have a very high degree of fault, I think there isn’t any argument that theelectrical vehicle act of 2018 would apply. In terms, of being able to coming to play, of course there
can be a reduction in damages, and that is provided for in the act itself. But, the idea behind it,
certainly with children, Mark would be able to possibly say more about that, but children wereregarded as highly protected even before the changes of our Highway Code and the hierarchy ofroad users. So certainly, if a child was involved, I think there would be no questions asked that somecompensation could be awarded under the current scheme. I don’t know, Mark, if you want to comein on that.
M. Watson Gandy: I was going to chip in if I disagreed, but I don’t. The liabilities are on the section
2-1, the exception on section 4. But, it is very much a “watch this space” area.
T. Imai: It is very difficult to report it to Professor Yoshida.
Jessica has just put it, not only negligence but also causation is a very tricky problem when there isa collision with other types of vehicles. I think that negligence, fault or causation regarding theautomated vehicle’s accident should be carefully considered. We should change our mind to
calculate how risky it would be to go on by using a self driving mode.
But, I am sorry to Jessica, I forgot to send my paper regarding those kind of things, I will send it to
you afterwards.
Anyone else? Professor Hasegawa, are you here? You can ask in Japanese if you like. The specialty
field might a little bit different. Of course, you can ask in English.
K. Hasegawa My name is Ko Hasegawa and I thank you very much, all of the speakers. I am a legal
philosopher, so I am not well versed in this field. But, it is very nice for me to run about important
problems of topical regulations for automate vehicles. One of the things I ‘m thinking, at thebackground of your legal expertise, it seems to me from the view of legal team, there are several

matters which are assumptions or requisites for the legal topic of regulations for the automatedprogram vehicles. It seems to me that, for example , very important values, such as safety ofsmoothness, efficiency or comfort, or something like that, are much important goals to think about
concrete problems. And also the definition, for example, of the technical adviser or the driver, arealso very much related to the realisation of the values in some concrete situations. So, it seems tome that the 3 or so dimensions are very important. One is sort of the actor dependence What is theoption of the regulator, driver or manufacturer, or the technical adviser, or the people. And, secondly,
it is the action/situation dependence. Which means the, of course there are system failures, or somecollision between automated vehicle, and also emergency situation that are represented in problem
such as so-called trolley problem, and so it depends on the situation. And also, finally, I’d like to, so
3 dimensions. Machine quality is very important, what kind of quality does the autonomous vehicle
has. So, some sort of combination of those actors would be very relevant when there is such avarious background to think about concrete problems. My question is, do you have any ideas or
thoughts about this sort of combination of values or principles, particularly some approach areclassificatory approaches, which mean again the combination of those values, factors. So, I would
very much appreciate if I could learn something from the speakers. Particularly Professor Watson
Gandhi, has referred to this question more explicitly on the question of responsibility to many parties,
so Professor Watson Gandhi, if you have any thoughts about this problem of backgrounds, values
or relevant factors. And also I would like to listen about others speaker’s opinions.
M. Watson Gandy: I think that what we just heard nicely encapsulates the holistic issues that we’refacing. And I think the reason the subject is quite so exciting is because it forces us to enter therealm of what, in my time, would have been science fiction and now is very real, a reality that isslowly unfolding in front of us. One of the solutions that has been toyed with in the UK is to fix the
responsibility on the insurer. But that of course, takes us to the next question: where does the insurerthen look to, to get his/its money back from. The answer is that they will be after the people involvedin the creation of the cars, those who bear responsibility of the geo-fenced zone, and those who bear
responsibility for any intervening activities that are happening in the car. We are throwing into playa whole raft of potential new defendants to that secondary claim. It is an exciting area.
I am going to pause there and let Jessica much intervene because they are the next step of actually
us crafting a solution to these, it is an incredibly exciting problem
J. Uguccioni: No I agree, I think what I would add is that it increases the range of considerations to
be taken into accounts and the range of interests are so diverse that we felt that it was importantwhen we introduced the system of self-driving onto our roads on any significant basis, we shouldhave a regulatory scheme in place, a licensing scheme in place and an in-use regulation scheme so
one has of course the litigation aspect that Mark was highlighting, which is operating in the
background. But I think the primary focus has to be that the systems are safe. I think these are thekey consideration because the comfort levels and the smoothness of the ride can vary between
different providers. And people would not object to that. But they would object if suddenly a child
was not being detected, or if the road rules were not being complied with. If any of these things
happen, it is very important that the regulatory scheme is designed in a way to capture those very
quickly and be able to detect, and rectify them without any delays. And of course, if there areresponsibilities that need to be determined, they will be in the background. But the primary focus has
to be on rectifying the problem rather that blaming. Because that could just take too long. You know,
there’s a driving ticket today if the vehicle goes through a red light. At the moment, the real functionis, the driver might get a driving tickets days later at their home and then they might challenge it. It
can take a really long time. We want, instead of that happens for the regulator to be alerted rightaway, and for that vehicle and to understand why was the vehicle riding a red light and to be able tohandle it, in a rather speedy fashion, rather than going to a all system of allocation of responsibility.
That is where we need to change the balance of road traffic, when we are talking about self-driving,from what is now a primarily a criminal system to primarily regulatory scheme where we areassessing the competence of computers, we are assessing the competence of artificial intelligence.
That is a complement to Mark’s work.
K. Hasegawa: Thank you very much.

T. Imai: Mirja, can you have your say, because you have prepared for the slides showing how
difficult it is to resolve the dilemma situation even in Germany. Could you just touched on it.
M. Feldmann: Yes. Talking about dilemma, I explained at one of the last symposiums that we hadan ethical Committee that talked about the guidelines we should follow when it comes to dilemma
situations. Now, the new Road Traffic Act incorporated some of these guidelines, actually they
incorporated 3 of them. One is you should reduce, or possibly reduce or avoid damage. And that
was a little bit more clarified by the new regulation, I think, because it says that avoiding the damage
should be done by either emergency breaking or by a manoeuvre which avoids the damage,but, atthe same time, does not compromise the safety of third parties, road traffic users and passengers ofthe vehicle.
Then also they included another requirement. These are all, I want to point out, requirements thatare addressed to the technical equipment of the vehicle, the technical function. There is one thatsays when you cannot avoid a damage, but this damage refers to values, we would say “Rechtsgut”
but I think that this term does not really exist in English terminology, but in Japanese you would say“houeki”(法益)。If there is a gap between them, then this gap should be taken into consideration by
the system and hereby the top priority should be given to the human life. So this means when you
have a situation where you are about to cause A damage to some material thing and the alternative
would be that you cause damage to somebody’s physical integrity, you should go for damaging thething and not the physical integrity of a natural person. Then, a third rule was set out, and it saysthat in the event of not being able to avoid compromising the safety of human lives, several human
lives, then you are not allowed to take into consideration personal characteristics of these individualsuch as age, gender or others, like medical conditions. I think that they did not incorporate in thelegal provisions - which is quite German - the prohibition of offsetting. Which means if you are about
to damage 3 people and you could avoid that by for example changing the lane and hitting only two
people, this, under German law, cannot be justified because you cannot outweigh or offset lives,
even though there is a difference in quantity.
There is another prohibition that the German Ethics Committee was also talking about. It is about
the prohibition of sacrificing a third party that has not been involved in the scenario. Here, I think thatthe regulation now establishes something that could be read or interpreted as having incorporated
this prohibition because it says that if several lives are compromised, then, in such situations, you
are not allowed to give the priority to the car passengers. Or in German, it says it the other way
around. I don’t know how we would say that in English. It is the opposite of priority: You are notallowed to give this non-priority to the third person/party or other road users. So, that means, if theautonomous vehicle is heading towards an obstacle and if it crashes with this obstacle, all thepassengers die, then it is not allowed, in my view, to change the lane and hit an oncoming car, with
2 other persons, or, for example to go on the pedestrian walkway in order to save the lives of thepassenger on-board.To kill a third party, let’s say pedestrians that are walking on this pedestrian
walkway, that would be forbidden; you are not allowed, in my view, to program the car in that way,according to the legislation, as I interpret it. But there haven’t been any comments on it so far in our
discussions. So, there are detailed regulations now on dilemma.

K.Hasagawa: Thank you very much for all the speaker.
T. Imai: Mark and Jessica, could I ask you a very short question provided by Professor Yoshida. It
reads as follows.
Could you share the trend of discussions in the UK regarding legal liability on a cooperative system,
namely automated vehicle with a driver which used data provided by other infrastructures or otherroad users, or people driving nearby.
I am not so sure but maybe he would like to know the combination of the driving entities and otherentity, and how could we dispatch the responsibility. If I correctly understand. Jessica, please.
J.Uguccioni: Yes. I think in terms of systems relying on external data sources like weather-reports
or in respect of how the highway is functioning, we absolutely expect that to be the case. We don’t
think that that changes the licensing scheme that we have suggested in the sense that it is still up to
the entity that is putting the vehicle on the road to demonstrate with the safety case the integrity ofthe data and the system that is going to be relying on. So, if something goes wrong and they weregiven data that was inaccurate and then they made, you know, there was a decision by theautomated driving system that wasn’t correct, I don’t think it wouldn’t be a ground for them to beabsolved of responsibility. Like the regulatory scheme still very much relies on basically, as we
defined it to the recipient that the regulator can interrogate and interact with. Of course, they mightthemselves then have recourse against others. But, as we said, the regulatory system is not one ofblame. It would be about identifying where the problem is and fixing it, rather than people pay money,or putting a financial penalty on them. This emphasis is very much on correcting errors rather thanfinancial penalties. I think that is the kind of approach that we are envisaging for the scheme. But ofcourse, it is not yet in place so there will be a lot to work out in terms on how we would function inpractice. But that is the intention with the scheme. Mark, I don’t know if you want to add anything.
M.Watson Gandy: Just to add that, of course, the financial implication will be a material going
forward. Because losses will occur. And people will want to attribute that. But it is still very much amatter of “watch this space”. And I am certainly watching what Jessica will be producing withexcitement. It is a much more sophisticated approach to a very exciting problem. It looks that we aregoing to get something very interesting and very well considered.
T. Imai: Mirja, is there any similar question in Germany? The responsibility of those who compose
plural entities: Natural person, service provider, data provider, and so on.
M.Feldmann: I think there is also some discussions going on, but the law now focuses on, let’s say
maintaining the existing liability system.
T. Imai: I see, Thank you. Ok. Thank you very much.
Well, I am sorry to say that the closing time is approaching. I do want to continue the discussion
about the trolley problem raised by Professor Hasegawa, but now I have to pass the baton to Mr.
Kawai, the managing director of IATSS.
Mr.Kawai, please.
Final Remarks by Mr. Kawai, director of IATSS
Thank you, Dr Feldmann, Dr Uguccioni, Professor Watson-Gandy and Professor Imai.
It was a great discussion, very insightful and inspiring. On behalf on the board of directors of IATSS
and as the executive director of its secretary, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to thepanelists of today’s discussion, members of the IATSS project, and all the participants online today,
for your invaluable contributions in the form of knowledge and expertise which made this symposium
successful. In the principle inspired by the founders of Honda motor company, nearly 50 years ago,
we, the international academy of traffic and safety sciences have been pursuing our goal of making
solid contributions to the realisation of an ideal mobile society. Judging from the archeologicalmovement of human migration, it is apparent that a desire to move between geographical locations
is one of the most fundamental drives, no point intended, of human beings. As long as humans
continue to go forward, reaching this goal is our aim to contribute to the further improvement and thewell being of human society. One of the most important, and latest concern in this field is, without adoubt, development of a legal and social framework that is needed in the merging of the automatic
driving technology with the modern culture. In this context, today’s discussions were timely andsignificant, offering valuable insights and suggestions from the participants belonging to various
related fields. Through activities such as today’s symposium, and working together with IATSS
member, we are one step closer to our ultimate gold.
Thank you again the panelists, projects members and all the participants for your continuing support.
Thank you.
Imai: Thank you Mr. Kawai
Before we end, I also would like to again express my great appreciation to our distinguished speaker
and Caroline, please give them a big applause by way of zoom function.
Thank you.
Thank you indeed and good night.