Autonomous Driving Legislation and Liability Issues

Legislation and liability issues are considered the key obstacles standing in the way of autonomous vehicles becoming widely adopted. Current legislation is fragmented, with rule making often passed on a local, less competent level independent from national or international legislation. In the United States, California is leading the way, not only approving legislation for testing but also preparing rules for commercially operating autonomous vehicles on public roads. Isolated initiatives in other regions such as Sweden and Japan are largely related to projects from home car brands Volvo and Nissan. However, governments in countries such as the United Kingdom and Singapore are actively promoting autonomous driving as a key future intelligent transportation technology. Closely linked with the lack of legislation, the uncertainty surrounding liability keeps many car OEMs from aggressively pushing autonomous technology many of which are already heavily involved in liability cases related to recalls. 

This study reviews current legislation and liability issues related to both co-pilot and robotic autonomous vehicles. It also provides insight into automation legislation in the wider IoT.

Table of Contents

  • 1. AUTONOMOUS DRIVING: BARRIERS TO ADOPTION
  • 2. AUTONOMOUS DRIVING LEGISLATION
    • 2.1. Types of Legislation
      • 2.1.1. Automated Parking
      • 2.1.2. Co-pilot versus Robotic Vehicles
      • 2.1.3. Single- versus Multi-mode Driverless Vehicles
      • 2.1.4. Testing versus Normal Operation
      • 2.1.5. Vehicles versus Motorcycles
      • 2.1.6. Passenger Cars versus Trucks
      • 2.1.7. Public Roads versus Private Terrain
      • 2.1.8. Mandates
      • 2.1.9. Other
    • 2.2. Existing Legislation
      • 2.2.1. UN Convention on Road Traffic
      • 2.2.2. United States
      • 2.2.3. California (United States)
      • 2.2.4. Nevada (United States)
      • 2.2.5. Florida (United States)
      • 2.2.6. Michigan (United States)
      • 2.2.7. Washington, D.C. (United States)
      • 2.2.8. United Kingdom
      • 2.2.9. Japan
      • 2.2.10. Stockholm (Sweden)
      • 2.2.11. Germany
      • 2.2.12. Singapore
    • 2.3. Future Legislation
      • 2.3.1. China
      • 2.3.2. Europe
    • 2.4. Autonomous Vehicle Legislation Research
      • 2.4.1. The CIS and the Legal Aspects of Autonomous Driving Program
  • 3. AUTONOMOUS DRIVING LIABILITY
    • 3.1. Legal and Liability Aspects: OEM versus Driver (Companies versus Persons)
    • 3.2. Car Sharing and Declining Vehicle Ownership
    • 3.3. Auto Insurance
    • 3.4. Liability of Things
    • 3.5. Liability of Third-party Vehicles
    • 3.6. Governments and the Liability Linked to Connected Road Infrastructure
    • 3.7. Putting Matters into Perspective
    • 3.8. The Case for Collective Liability
    • 3.9. Beyond Liability: Ethical Considerations
    • 3.10. NHTSA Guidance
    • 3.11. Evidence
    • 3.12. Security and Criminal Liability
    • 3.13. Liability Cases and Brand Image
  • 4. AUTOMATION LEGISLATION AND LIABILITY IN THE WIDER IOE
    • 4.1. Driverless Vehicles
    • 4.2. Relevance and Importance of IoE Automation Legislation
      • 4.2.1. Economic Impact
      • 4.2.2. Convenience and Quality of Life
      • 4.2.3. Safety and Security
      • 4.2.4. Social Policies
      • 4.2.5. Environment

Tables

  1. Convention on Road Traffic, Article 8 Amendment for Autonomous Driving

Charts

  1. Driverless Vehicle Shipments by Region, World Market, Forecast: 2017 to 2035

Figures

  1. ABI Research Survey Results, Autonomous Vehicle Market Adoption Barriers
  2. The Connected Car and the IoE: Cross-industry Cooperation
Autonomous Driving Legislation and Liability Issues Image Purchase

Research Information

Price
Log In or Register
Publish Date
3Q 2014
Code
AN-1688
Research Type
Regulatory Analysis Report
Pages
15