Source: https://www.justice.org/what-we-do/enhance-practice-law/publications/trial-magazine/self-driving-cars-and-bumpy-road-ahead
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:09:06+00:00

Document:
As autonomous vehicles become a reality, they have great potential to reduce crashes and protect consumers from injuries on the road. But there are many unanswered questions about liability and regulation, and automakers are trying to draft the playbook.
No automation (level 0): The driver is in complete and sole command of the primary vehicle controls.
Function-specific automation (level 1): Automation of one or more specific control functions, such as electronic stability control or antilock brakes.
Combined function automation (level 2): Automation of at least two primary control functions, such as adaptive cruise control and lane centering.
Limited self-driving automation (level 3): Drivers can cede full control of all safety-critical functions so long as they are available for occasional control with sufficient warning time.
Full self-driving automation (level 4): The vehicle performs all safety-critical driving functions and monitors roadway conditions for an entire trip, occupied by people or not.
Existing AV technology relies on computer-mapping systems that generate a detailed 3-D map of the environment. When combined with high-resolution maps, radar, and cameras, these systems allow an AV to drive itself while avoiding obstacles and respecting traffic laws. Although the technology has significantly advanced, these systems are not yet capable of full AV operation.
Vehicle-to-Infrastructure. NHTSA is also investigating a vehicle-to-­infrastructure (V2I) system, where vehicles wirelessly “talk” to communications infrastructure rather than to each other. The infrastructure coordinates the movements of multiple vehicles over its grid. V2I technology currently focuses on warning motorists about features such as red lights, stop signs, bad weather ­conditions, approaching curves, and construction zones so they can alter their behavior.
Hardware and software algorithms. V2I and V2V systems are only part of the emerging technology. Automakers, software companies, and component manufacturers are moving forward with ­vehicle-based AV systems that use interconnected onboard technologies such as radar, lidar, cameras, and software to allow full, independent navigation.
In a collision involving an AV, who is responsible? Is it the passenger, owner, manufacturer—or all three? The calculus of duty is uncertain, and this issue lies at the heart of policy, legislative, and regulatory discussions.
But no-fault translates to “no responsibility” and no incentive for technology developers to promote the most rigorous design and testing protocols to ensure their products perform as expected. Even though some manufacturers may accept liability for their AVs, not all will.
It is important to ensure that manufacturers and their products are held up to the scrutiny of the product-specific, strict liability system. Otherwise, the ability to differentiate a safe product from a dangerous one, and the elimination of dangerous products from the market, will be stymied.
A firm and unreasonable demand for preemption. The RAND guide advocates using either implicit or explicit preemption to immunize developers and manufacturers from suit, so long as they adhere to minimum federal standards—standards that they had a hand in formulating.
AVs—as well as modern vehicles’ semi-automated control, information, security, and entertainment systems—threaten our privacy. Onboard computers already record how fast and where we drive, where we stop to shop, the number of passengers, our texts and emails, our contact lists, and the music we listen to.
Manufacturers collect this data in proprietary black boxes, which must be downloaded by a hardwired link to the manufacturer’s own system. Other companies, such as OnStar and TeleAid, wirelessly communicate with vehicles through third-party vendors. Consumers are not consulted, and those who do object and disable the features generally lose other connectivity benefits, such as GPS.
Unfortunately, our quest for convenience has made vehicle hacking much more convenient, too. Control and entertainment systems, including GPS, keyless entry, tire-pressure monitoring, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi, allow easy access to the vehicle’s central command and control systems.
AV technology has yet to fully manifest, and regulation is just beginning. There is no time to waste.
Christopher B. Dolan is an attorney with the Dolan Law Firm in San Francisco. He can be reached at chris@cbdlaw.com.
Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Safety 1n Num3ers (Aug. 2013), www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2013/Issue5/9723_S1N_Aug13_Iss5.html.
Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (July 2008), www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF.
Zack Kanter, How Uber’s Autonomous Cars Will Destroy 10 Million Jobs and Reshape the Economy by 2025, zackkanter.com (Jan. 23, 2015), http://zackkanter.com/2015/01/23/how-ubers-autonomous-cars-will-destroy-10-million-jobs-by-2025/.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Look Mom, No Hands!: Forging Into a Brave New (Driverless) World (Feb. 2013), www.detroitchamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/AutofactsAnalystNoteUSFeb2013FINAL.pdf.
Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles (May 2013).
Greg Miller, Autonomous Cars Will Require Totally New Kind of Map, Wired (Dec. 15, 2014), www.wired.com/2014/12/nokia-here-autonomous-car-maps/.
Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Vehicle to Vehicle Communications: Readiness of V2V Technology for Application (Aug. 2014).
Vehicle to Vehicle Communications: Readiness of V2V Technology for Application, supra note 7.
Google Founder Defends Accident Records of Self-Driving Cars, L.A. Times, June 3, 2015, www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google-cars-20150603-story.html.
Cal. Vehicle Code §38750 (2015); Nev. Rev. Stat. §482A.030 (2013) (Nevada defines an AV as a motor vehicle, and its definition of a motor vehicle operator can be found at Nev. Rev. Stat. §485.080).
D.C. Code §50-2351 (2013); Fla. Stat. §316.305 (2014).
Nev. Rev. Stat. §482A.090 (2013); Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law, Fla. Stat. §316.86(2) (2014).
Cal. Vehicle Code §38750(b)(3); Nev. Rev. Stat. §482A.060; Fla. Stat. §316.86(1).
Chris Nichols, Liability Could be Roadblock for Driverless Cars, San Diego Union Trib. (Oct. 13, 2013), www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2013/oct/30/liability-driverless-car-transovation-google/.
Nikolaus Lang et al., Boston Consulting Grp., Revolution vs. Regulation: The Make-or-Break Questions About Autonomous Vehicles (Sept. 2015), www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/automotive-revolution-versus-regulation-make-break-questions-autonomous-vehicles/.
Bryant Walker Smith, Proximity-Driven Liability, 102 Georgetown L. J. 1777, 1818 (2014).
James M. Anderson et al., Rand Corp., Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers (2014), www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR443-1.html.
John Villasenor, Brookings Inst., Products Liability and Driverless Cars: Issues and Guiding Principles for Legislation (Apr. 24, 2014), www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/04/products-liability-driverless-cars-villasenor.
Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57, 63 (1963).
Tracking & Hacking: Security & Privacy Gaps Put American Drivers at Risk (Feb. 2015), www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2015-02-06_MarkeyReport-Tracking_Hacking_CarSecurity%202.pdf.
Andy Greenberg, Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway—With Me in It, Wired (July 21, 2015), www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/.
Andy Greenberg, After Jeep Hack, Chrysler Recalls 1.4M Vehicles for Bug Fix (July 24, 2015), www.wired.com/2015/07/jeep-hack-chrysler-recalls-1-4m-vehicles-bug-fix/.
S. 1806, 114th Cong., §30129(b)(2) (2015).
Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015, H.R. 22, 114th Cong. (2015).
The Ctr. for Internet & Soc’y, Automated Driving: Legislative and Regulatory Action, http://tinyurl.com/8l23jrl.

References: §38750
 §482
 §485
 §50
 §316
 §482
 §316
 §38750
 §482
 §316
 v. 
 §30129