In response to a pedestrian injury involving a driverless car, California’s legislature introduces bills to clarify accident liability, as legal experts call for nationwide regulatory reforms.
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of 303 regulations needing reform and an additional 539 laws that require revision due to their reliance on outdated definitions of “driver” and “operator.”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
- https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/california-driverless-cars-traffic-tickets-law-compromise/3667276/ – This article discusses the new legislation in California aimed at regulating driverless cars, including the issuance of ‘notices of noncompliance’ instead of traffic tickets, and the ongoing efforts to clarify liability and enforcement.
- https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/a-woman-was-found-trapped-under-a-driverless-car-it-wasn-t-the-first-car-to-hit-her-1.6588576 – This article reports on a pedestrian injury involving a driverless car in San Francisco, highlighting the safety concerns and the need for clearer regulations on automated vehicles.
- https://www.thefafirm.com/blog/driverless-cruise-robotaxi-hits-pedestrian-whos-liable/ – This blog post discusses the liability issues surrounding accidents involving driverless cars, using the example of a Cruise robotaxi incident in San Francisco.
- https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB915/id/2877432 – This link provides details on California Senate Bill 915, which aims to regulate autonomous vehicle services, including local control and safety measures, reflecting the broader legislative efforts to address the regulation of automated vehicles.
- https://www.noahwire.com – Although not directly accessible, this is the source mentioned in the query, which would contain the original article by law professors William Hubbard and Colin P. Starger on the regulatory challenges of automated vehicles.
- https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/california-driverless-cars-traffic-tickets-law-compromise/3667276/ – This article also mentions the regulatory gaps and the need for common-sense measures to ensure safe interactions with emergency responders, aligning with the call for refined regulations.
- https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/a-woman-was-found-trapped-under-a-driverless-car-it-wasn-t-the-first-car-to-hit-her-1.6588576 – The incident described here underscores the complexity of determining liability in accidents involving automated vehicles, a key point in Hubbard and Starger’s analysis.
- https://www.thefafirm.com/blog/driverless-cruise-robotaxi-hits-pedestrian-whos-liable/ – This blog post delves into the legal and regulatory implications of such incidents, echoing the need for clear and updated regulations as proposed by Hubbard and Starger.
- https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB915/id/2877432 – This bill highlights the efforts to give local jurisdictions more control over autonomous vehicle services, reflecting the ‘patchwork problem’ of regulatory uncertainty mentioned in the article.
- https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/california-driverless-cars-traffic-tickets-law-compromise/3667276/ – The article discusses the role of the California DMV in hammering out details of the new law, similar to the federal and state collaborative approach advocated by Hubbard and Starger.
- https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/a-woman-was-found-trapped-under-a-driverless-car-it-wasn-t-the-first-car-to-hit-her-1.6588576 – The investigation into the accident involving the Cruise driverless car illustrates the need for cohesive federal and state regulations to handle such incidents effectively.
