Some news and comment from Thatcham;
The Law Commissions[1] have today (26 January 2022) published a joint report, recommending the introduction of a new Automated Vehicles Act to ensure the safe adoption of vehicles with self-driving capability. Matthew Avery, chief research strategy officer at Thatcham Research, an organisation which was part of the consultation for the Law Commissions’ report comments:
“The transition to safe introduction of automation with self-driving capabilities is fraught with risk as we enter the early stages of adoption. Today’s report is a significant step, as it provides important legal recommendations and clarity for the safe deployment of vehicles with self-driving features onto the UK’s roads.
“In the next 12 months, we’re likely to see the first iterations of self-driving features on cars on UK roads. It’s significant that the Law Commission report highlights driver’s legal obligations and they understand that their vehicle is not yet fully self-driving. It has self-driving features that, in the near future, will be limited to motorway use at low speeds.
“The driver will need to be available to take back control at any time, won’t be permitted to sleep or use their mobile phones, the vehicle won’t be able to change lanes and if the driver does not take back control, when requested, it will stop in lane on the motorway. It is critical that early adopters understand these limitations and their legal obligations.
QUESTION OF BLAME WILL PROVE A TRICKY MATTER
As ADAS tech improves, some drivers may argue that they were led to believe that the car would react in an emergency, and did not, therefore the car – or the software – was partially to blame in an accident.
He continues: “To ensure clarity around system capabilities and responsibilities there must be a clear separation between Assisted Driving, where the car supports the driver, and self-driving capability, where the car is responsible for the entire driving task. As such, we applaud the recommendations that compel carmakers to use appropriate terminology when marketing these systems, to prevent motorists from becoming convinced that their car is fully self-driving, when it is not.”
“Strong, independent safety assurance to build societal confidence, working in tandem with fast-moving and clear regulation is also essential to facilitating consumer understanding and adoption. It’s therefore reassuring to see that safety assurance, along with clarity around the driver’s responsibilities and liability should a collision occur, are key tenets of the Law Commissions’ report.
“The Law Commissions recommends that there must be access to data to understand fault and liability when a crash does occur. This will ensure rapid and efficient compensation, and the data will also allow car makers to identify where and how self-driving features can be improved to enhance future safety
“The insurance industry and the ABI have been working with the Law Commissions for several years, and we fully. We look forward to continuing to work with car makers and the UK Government to ensure the safe deployment of vehicles with self-driving capability.”
Visit Automated Vehicles | Law Commission to download a summary and full version of the report and News | Law Commission for the Law Commission press release.
EXTRA COMMENT FROM HORWICH FARRELLY
Yesterday the Law Commission (together with the Scottish Law Commission) published its report on automated vehicles (“AV”) following its third consultation. The report makes recommendations to the government and to parliament on the proposed legal framework to be adopted, in order to update the law far beyond the comparatively limited changes brought about by the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018.
Daniel West, Partner at Head of Product Liability at Horwich Farrelly comments:
“The introduction of autonomous electric vehicles is going to radically change the way we travel in motor vehicles in the future. With no ‘driver’ in the vehicle anymore, this has huge implications for who (or what) is in charge of the vehicle, and therefore liable in any road traffic accident.
“We welcome the Law Commission’s report in this area, however we feel that the report’s findings that product liability law is likely to play only a limited role may be optimistic and potentially ignores the following:
1. The fact that in many claims there will be damage to the AV itself which is not covered under the AEVA and may generate separate product liability litigation – perhaps in contract against the dealership.
2. The possibility insurers will be able to pursue not just vehicle manufacturers but also importers (into the UK, from 2021) and, in some circumstances, suppliers under the CPA – which could result in the types of multi-party and/or cross border litigation typically seen in product liability claims.
“We have produced a guide that helps explain the report and what it means for insurers and the motor market in the future.”
You can download the guide here: HF_Automated_Vehicles_Law_Commmision.pdf (mcusercontent.com)”
Be the first to comment