## 3 Literature Review
### Liability and Safety Standards for Highly Automated Vehicles  
Safety standards are essential to ensure the reliability, predictability and proper functioning of advanced technologies such as HAVs. However, the absence of a clear and unified regulatory framework creates confusion, slows the adoption of these technologiesand increases the risk of accidents related to poorly designed systems. The lack of robust standards also complicates the evaluation of safety measures and the determination of liability in the event of system failures. [PERSON] et al. [40] highlight that current standards for HAV safety are inadequate, creating a constraint that prevents the transition from innovation to public acceptance. Their detailed analysis identifies several limitations, such as imprecise prescriptions for the control of user-system interactions, inadequate definitions of the operational design domains (ODDs), insufficient prescriptions on safety testing criteria and challenges brought about by machine learning, like algorithmic bias and flawed training data. Moreover, researchers put in evidence another relevant issue consisting of the lack of the standards uniformity. These limitations mean manufacturers face a fragile regulatory environment and have an increased risk of litigation. Such regulatory uncertainty reduces both the safety of HAVs and public confidence in them. For example, a driver preference management system must ensure that personalised interfaces are safe and adequately tested in all operational contexts. Failure to do so could lead to failures, which could result in the manufacturer being held liable. The manufacturer could be held liable for not ensuring that the interface customisation meets the minimum safety requirements. In particular, the lack of comprehensive and reliable safety test methods leaves several critical elements of HAV performance untested. To address such shortcomings, [PERSON] [41] recommends regulatory and certification standards that would provide greater clarity and transparency. These standards would also help detect product failures using objective criteria, as well as cost-benefit and risk-utility analyses to encourage responsible HAV development. A robust regulatory framework would establish better clarity and predictability regarding legal determinations related to HAVs, reducing uncertainty about compliance assessments and, hence, nurturing more confidence in autonomous vehicles. Without a unified approach, fragmented safety practises and regulatory ambiguities will persist, hindering innovation in the autonomous vehicle industry. For example, the lack of testing and certification standards to evaluate customisations does not allow HAVs to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements. This gap creates uncertainty around liability attribution in the event of accidents, as no objective criteria exist to assess whether the preference management system was adequate or not. Furthermore, determining liability in the event of accidents involving autonomous vehicles is a complex issue [42]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [43] note that in cases of sensor failure or system malfunction, or operational occurrences, it can be very difficult to determine who is liable. In all of these, a number of actors are involved, including designers, manufacturers, regulators and road managers. This division of liability makes it important for legal frameworks to clearly define who is responsible between a human and a machine, with full regard to public safety. [PERSON] [44] declares such complexity gives reason to call for urgent legislation that should clearly define how responsibility should be attributed in the case of accidents involving driverless vehicles. For instance, if the preference management system makes errors in customisation, for example, by omitting a warning about the need to take manual control of the vehicle, a possible accident could complicate liability distribution between the system manufacturer, the driver and the vehicle manufacturer.