California legislates on automated vehicle liability amid national concerns

In the wake of growing concerns about the regulation of automated vehicles, particularly following a pedestrian injury involving such a vehicle in San Francisco, the California State Legislature has introduced two bills aimed at clarifying liability in accidents involving driverless cars. The question of who is accountable when automated vehicles are involved is emerging as a pressing issue not only in California but across the United States.

Law professors William Hubbard and Colin P. Starger from the University of Baltimore School of Law have explored the limitations of existing state driving laws in their forthcoming article. They contend that the current legal framework is inadequate to effectively regulate automated vehicles, identifying a plethora of ambiguities and obsolete provisions that do not accommodate these new technologies. Their comprehensive analysis reviewed approximately 70,000 laws in Maryland, resulting in the identification of 303 regulations needing reform and an additional 539 laws that require revision due to their reliance on outdated definitions of “driver” and “operator.”

Hubbard and Starger illustrate the complex nature of this legal landscape by citing Maryland’s regulations, where laws are narrowly defined to apply specifically to human drivers, such as age restrictions and medical examinations for school bus operators. These stipulations, they argue, become problematic in the context of automated vehicles, which do not fit traditional definitions. They assert that the situation in Maryland reflects a broader trend across the nation, proposing that upwards of 42,100 laws may require reform to facilitate the effective deployment of automated vehicles.

The professors also assess the current status of state and federal efforts to adapt regulations for automated vehicles. Their findings indicate that anywhere from one-third to one-half of the states have initiated reforms, which range from allowing extensive use of automated vehicles to setting protocols for crash reporting that account for the unique capabilities of such vehicles. However, they express concern over the disjointed nature of these changes, noting that definitions of essential terms like “driver” vary significantly from state to state, leading to a “patchwork problem” of regulatory uncertainty.

On a federal level, Hubbard and Starger highlight the role of the U.S. Congress and federal agencies in ushering cohesive reform. Reports from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center have previously emphasised the need for updated regulations but have not provided explicit recommendations. Additionally, the federal government has the authority to grant regulatory powers to agencies such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, allowing them to investigate automated vehicle incidents and mandate reporting for crashes involving these vehicles.

In their article, they propose three potential regulatory pathways forward. The first option suggests leaving regulation to the states, although this approach is cautioned against, due to the lack of resources and coordination among state legislatures. The second option envisions a federal framework that preempts state laws, yet this strategy faces significant challenges including the monumental task of overhauling numerous state statutes and potential enforcement complications.

The third and what Hubbard and Starger term the “Goldilocks” solution, advocates for a collaborative partnership between federal and state authorities. They propose that federal bodies develop “best practices” for automated vehicle regulations and utilise financial incentives to motivate states to incorporate these standards into their laws.

Hubbard and Starger emphasise the necessity of refining the definitions of “driver” and “operator” to include automated systems as a crucial initial step towards meaningful reform. Moreover, they acknowledge that alongside redefining terminology, new regulations tailored specifically for automated vehicles may also be warranted.

The overarching message from Hubbard and Starger is a call to revamp outdated state laws, warning against relying on frameworks established long before the advent of automated vehicle technology. They advocate for a collaborative federal and state approach to enhance regulatory clarity, support technological advancements, and ensure public safety as the landscape of transportation evolves with these emerging technologies.

Source: Noah Wire Services