Abstract
In the current paper, we discuss the need for regulation at EU level of Connected and Automated Driving solutions (henceforth CAD) based on multiple considerations, namely (i) the need for uniformity of criteria across European Member States, and (ii) the impact that regulation—or the absence of it—has on the proliferation of specific technological solutions. The analysis is grounded on legal and economic considerations of possible interactions between vehicles with different levels of automation, and shows how the existing framework delays innovation. A Risk-Management Approach, identifying one sole responsible party ex ante (one-stop-shop), liable under all circumstances—pursuant to a strict, if not absolute liability rule—is to be preferred. We analyse the solution adopted by some Member States in light of those considerations and conclude that none truly corresponds to a RMA approach, and differences will also cause market fragmentation. We conclude that because legal rules determine what kind of technological application is favoured over others—and thence they are not technology-neutral—uniformity across MSs is of essential relevance, and discuss possible policy approaches to be adopted at European level.
Highlights
The paper discusses how liability rules influence the kind of technology that emerges and prevails and, based on the critical analysis of the existing legal framework at European level, concludes that, in the field of autonomous driving, reform is needed, and that it should be grounded on a Risk-Management Approach, overcoming the need of an exact apportionment of liability through complex litigation
RI = f (, l) = (1 − ) ⋅ l where represents the technological advancement of all related infrastructures, and when highest equals 1, 1 ≥ ≥ 0, and l is coefficient that determines, respectively, what percentage of the performance of the vehicle is imputed to the producer, for it does not fall under any defence or exemption of the directive, and, what percentage of malfunctioning of the infrastructure is borne by its manager, thence 1 ≥ l ≥ 0
Taking into account that the transition towards connected and automated driving solutions (CADs) will occur over time, and vehicles displaying different levels of automation will co-exist and interact on public roads, we attempted to undergo an analysis of what incentives extant liability rules provide to all parties involved
Summary
The paper discusses how liability rules influence the kind of technology that emerges and prevails and, based on the critical analysis of the existing legal framework at European level, concludes that, in the field of autonomous driving, reform is needed, and that it should be grounded on a Risk-Management Approach, overcoming the need of an exact apportionment of liability through complex litigation Such an approach would favour market penetration of increasingly autonomous vehicles—to be deemed beneficial in an economic and social (in terms of accident reduction) perspective—so long as it was implemented at European level, to avoid divergence among Member States ( MSs), that would instead cause market fragmentation. The two types of automation lead to very different approaches to mobility—maintaining car ownership or replacing it with service-solutions—with further effects on traffic, the way urban spaces are shaped, and how the automobile industry will evolve
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
