The autonomous vehicles or self-driven cars are a symbol of technological advancement and innovation in the 21st century. Autonomous Vehicles or Self-Driven Cars use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to operate the car. Autonomous cars are dependent on sensors, actuators, complex algorithms, machine learning systems and powerful processors. They can sense the environment through variety of sensors in different parts of the vehicle. For instance, Radar sensors monitor the position and distance of the nearby vehicle, cameras detect traffic lights, road signs, track other vehicles and look for pedestrians, (Light detection and ranging) LIDAR sensors measure distance, detect road edges and identify lane marking. They promise a more safer, efficient and convenient transportation as compared to the present mode of transportation with reduced traffic congestion, and increased mobility for individuals with disabilities. However, with great promise comes great responsibility, especially when it comes to the regulation of autonomous vehicles.
The Need for Regulation
The development of autonomous cars has raised numerous legal and ethical questions, thus arising the need for comprehensive regulation. Autonomous vehicles represent a departure from traditional vehicles, where a human driver is responsible if any liability arises. To address issues like public safety, protection of consumers, and liability issues, there is a need to regulate these self-driven vehicles.
In the case of Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2018), depicted the importance of regulation which centered around the alleged theft of self-driving technology by a former Waymo employee who later went to work for Uber. It highlighted that the self-driving technology can be potentially used without proper regulation. It further emphasised the urgency for legal frameworks to govern this field.
Current Regulatory Landscapes
Federal and State-Level Regulation
In the United States of America, the regulation of autonomous cars is a complex interplay between federal and state governments. At the federal level, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for regulating motor vehicles while the regulation of licensing, insurance and traffic laws comes under the states. This poses challenges for the autonomous vehicle manufacturers. A perfect example of this situation is the case of Tesla, Inc. v. State of California (2020) in which Tesla’s Autopilot system, that only provided limited autonomous driving capabilities, faced resistance from California state authorities because of the safety concerns.
Europe
The European Union (EU) has also various taken steps to regulate autonomous cars. The EU’s General Safety Regulation (GSR) makes it compulsory for all new vehicles to be equipped with advanced safety features like advanced driver assistance systems.
Additionally, Germany and the UK, have been working on regulations and guidelines for the regulation of autonomous vehicles. For instance, Germany has established a legal framework for self-driving cars, outlining how AVs should be tested and operated.
In UK, the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act, 2018 was passed in which Section 2(2) of statute mentions that the owner of the vehicle will be held liable for any accident involved. The same principle will be applied in case of death due to an accident and Section 4 of this act specifically mentions that if the autonomous vehicle is insured and the accident is caused, the liability of the owner decreases, but it does not mention the liability of the manufacturer of the car. Now in 2022, the proposed plan of UK of 2025 on Self-Driven Cars mentions that the manufacturer of the vehicle and not the owner will be held liable for any accidents in self-driven mode.
India
There isn’t any explicit law governing autonomous vehicles or self-driving cars in India at the moment. Currently, the “Indian Penal Code, 1960” (IPC) and the “Motor Vehicle Act, 1988” (MV ACT) govern any accidents involving motor vehicles.
The Motor Vehicle Act governs how vehicles are operated. In India, it prohibits the licensing and use of autonomous vehicles. The MV Act applies section 140’s “No Fault” liability theory to the issue of culpability for Death and Permanent Disablement. The car’s owner is responsible for paying the harmed party’s compensation. If the owner speeds or behaves in a way that endangers the public, there is a punishment of six months to two years depending on the situation and number of times such offence is committed as per section 184 of MV Act.
However, there is still an unanswered question: Should incidents involving self-driving cars be subject to the “No Fault Liability” principle, which holds the owner of the vehicle accountable?
The MV Act of 1988 stipulates in Section 144 that a permanent diabilty will be compensated with Rs. 25,000 and death with Rs. 50,000. However, a crucial point surfaced in the Haji Zakaria v. Naoshir Cama case: can the defendant be held accountable for damages even in cases where there was no reckless or careless driving involved? The Supreme Court held that in the event that there is no negligence, the owner of the car cannot be held liable. Thus, if we apply this ruling to the collisions involving autonomous vehicles, the negligence is done by the manufacturer and not by the owner of the car.
Numerous laws pertaining to reckless driving, causing death by negligence, inflicting harm, and causing serious harm are listed in the IPC. According to Section 279, for reckless driving; Any person found to be operating a vehicle or riding on a public pathway in a reckless or careless manner that puts human life in danger or is likely to cause harm to others faces the possibility of imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both, under section 304A for causing death by negligence; Anyone who causes death of someone by acting carelessly or rashly in a way that does not constitute culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. For Hurt (section 319); “Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt” and for Grievous Hurt (section 322); “Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said “voluntarily to cause grievous hurt.”
The Supreme Court stated in its ruling in the 2019 case The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Ramchandra Ravidas that the two statutes: Indian Penal Code and Motor Vehicles Act are not the same. A person may be held accountable under both the IPC and the MV, which take a more comprehensive approach to criminal offenses and maintain traffic safety standards, respectively. However, it is important to note that the IPC does not apply to self-driving automobiles.
Regulatory Challenges
The regulation of self-driving cars poses a set of challenges. One of the key issues being setting out safety framework and determining liability in case of accidents.
The case of Brown v. Tesla, Inc. (2019) is an example of above-mentioned challenges. A Tesla Model X which was on Autopilot mode crashed into a highway barrier, which resulted in the death of the driver, Joshua Brown. The lawsuit posed several questions about the driver’s responsibilities while using Autopilot, Tesla’s disclosures, and whether Tesla could be held liable for the accident. The case highlighted the urgent need for clarity in regulations, especially regarding the role of human drivers and the responsibilities of manufacturers.
Ethical and Privacy Concerns
Self-driving cars also poses ethical and privacy concerns to the forefront which raises many questions like how autonomous vehicles will make decisions in situations where accidents are inevitable and who they should prioritize the safety of occupants, pedestrians, or some other factor. Furthermore, the extensive data collection required for self-driving systems raises privacy concerns, as this collected data can be potentially used for surveillance or commercial purposes.
In the case of Doe v. Autonomous Vehicle Manufacturer, Inc. (2021), a self-driving car was involved in an accident, and data collected by the vehicle’s sensors became a central part of the investigation which raised many ethical and privacy concerns. The case highlighted the need for data protection and privacy regulations for autonomous vehicles.
One of the most notable cases involving self-driving cars is the Uber accident in Tempe, Arizona, in 2018 which raised significant legal and ethical questions surrounding autonomous technology. An Uber self-driving vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian while the car was in a self-pilot mode. In the aftermath, this case brought attention to legal issues related to software limitations, safety protocols, and human oversight.
International Regulations
The market for autonomous vehicles is not limited to any one nation. Autonomous vehicle development and deployment are being carried out globally by companies such as Tesla, Waymo, and others. International collaboration and regulatory harmonization are necessary to allow the cross-border deployment of autonomous vehicles.
International laws governing automated driving systems have been developed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The purpose of these rules, also referred to as UN Regulations, is to establish international norms for autonomous cars, guaranteeing that they satisfy specific performance and safety requirements. A number of nations, notably South Korea and Japan, had already enacted these laws as of 2021.
The Future of Regulation
Self-driving car regulation is a continuing and evolving process. The legal landscape will continue to evolve as technology advances and becomes more pervasive. Governments and regulatory organizations must find a difficult balance between encouraging innovation and protecting the public.
Waymo LLC v. State of Nevada (2022) is a forward-thinking example. In this case, Waymo challenged specific Nevada restrictions that it claimed were unduly restrictive and hampered the deployment of autonomous vehicles. The conclusion of this case may have an impact on the course of self-driving car legislation in the future.
Conclusion
Self-driving automobile regulation is a multidimensional challenge that necessitates careful consideration of safety, liability, ethics, and privacy concerns. As self-driving cars become more integrated into our transportation networks, regulatory organizations and courts will play an important role in deciding their future. The instances discussed in this blog are only a snapshot of the complex legal landscape surrounding self-driving cars, and they highlight the significance of a comprehensive and developing regulatory framework to enable the safe and responsible development of this transformative technology.
References
- https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/what-is-autonomous-car.html
- https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2018/automated-and-electric-vehicles-act-2018-becomes-law
- https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2018/automated-and-electric-vehicles-act-2018-becomes-law
- https://lawreview.nmims.edu/self-driving-cars-and-india-a-call-for-inclusivity-under-the-indian-legal-position/
- Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2018.
- Tesla, Inc. v. State of California, 2020.
- Brown v. Tesla, Inc., 2019.
- Doe v. Autonomous Vehicle Manufacturer, Inc., 2021.
- United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) – UN Regulations for Autonomous Vehicles.
- The Guardian. (2018). Uber self-driving car saw pedestrian but didn’t brake before fatal crash, says report.
- Waymo LLC v. State of Nevada, 2022.
Shivalika