Abstract
Current road traffic law in the UK is focussed the on persons driving or using the vehicle. With the introduction of vehicles of higher automation, the responsibility of vehicle drivers is likely to change. The application of road traffic law to individuals within automated vehicles and whether reform is needed is a key issue. Moreover, what exactly an individual within a partially automated vehicle should be able to do is also a key issue. This chapter analyses these key issues and further analyses whether responsibility could fall elsewhere when the Automated Driving System is engaged. This chapter focusses on the current road traffic law in the UK and Victoria, an Australian State, and discusses UK reform proposals from the Law Commission of England and Wales and Scottish Law Commission as well as reform proposals in Australia from the National Transport Commission. The chapter further considers whether responsibility could eventually rest with the automated vehicle itself with the potential for legal personality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
See, e.g. Bissell et al. (2020), pp. 116–134.
- 2.
There have been three Law Commission of England and Wales and Scottish Law Commission Consultations and a final report. See Law Commissions (2018), ‘Automated Vehicles: A joint preliminary consultation paper’ (LC 240), Law Commissions (2020), ‘Automated Vehicles: Consultation paper 3’ (LC 252), Law Commissions (2022b) ‘Automated Vehicles: Joint Report’ (LC 404).
- 3.
- 4.
Kiliaan Van Wees (2020).
- 5.
See, e.g the Road Traffic Act 1988.
- 6.
Cunningham (2008), p. 169.
- 7.
See the UK Department for Transport (2015) < https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code> accessed on 27 July 2022.
- 8.
We discuss these offences below.
- 9.
See Department for Transport (2022), Highway Code <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction> accessed on 23 August 2022.
- 10.
Department for Transport (2020), ‘Safe use of Automated Lane Keeping System on GB motorways: call for evidence’ <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/980644/Safe-Use-of-Automated-Lane-Keeping-System-ALKS-Call-for-Evidence-FINAL-accessible.pdf> accessed on 11 September 2022, and Department for Transport (2022) ‘Consultation Outcome: Rules on safe use of automated vehicles on GB roads’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/safe-use-rules-for-automated-vehicles-av/rules-on-safe-use-of-automated-vehicles-on-gb-roads#consultation-on-the-rules-on-use-for-automated-lane-keeping-systems> accessed on 11 September 2022.
- 11.
See, e.g. the Road Safety Act 1986.
- 12.
National Transport Commission <https://www.ntc.gov.au/laws-and-regulations/australian-road-rules#:~:text=The%20model%20Australian%20Road%20Rules,%2C%20pedestrians%2C%20passengers%20and%20others> accessed on 27 July 2022.
- 13.
Offences in the Road Traffic Act 1988 include causing death (Section 1, RTA 1988) or serious injury (Section 1A, RTA 1988) by dangerous driving. The UK Road Safety Act 2006 added new offences to the statute book involving causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (Section 20, Road Safety Act 2006 inserting Section 2B, RTA 1988).
- 14.
Section 319, Crimes Act 1958.
- 15.
Section 318, Crimes Act 1958.
- 16.
For the UK, see Section 4, RTA 1988 for ‘Driving, or being in charge, when under influence of drink or drugs’. For Victoria, see, e.g. Section 49 (1) of the Road Safety Act 1986 which states ‘(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he or she— (a) drives a motor vehicle or is in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of any drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle…’.
- 17.
In the UK, see Section 87 (1), RTA 1988; in Victoria, see Section 18, Road Safety Act 1986.
- 18.
Section 14 (3), RTA 1988, there are some exceptions under Section 14 (1), RTA 1988.
- 19.
Section 15, RTA 1988.
- 20.
See Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Note that in 2018 this was amended by Regulation 2 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 which inserted Regulation 110 (5A), to allow the use of a mobile phone when remotely parking a vehicle. Also, see changes to the Highway Code rules 150, 160 and 239. Also, see prior to these changes, the DfT (2017) ‘Remote Control Parking and Motorway Assist: Proposals for Amending Regulations and the Highway Code’ <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/669442/remote-control-parking-motorway-assist-proposals-for-amending-regulation-and-highway-code.pdf> accessed on 25 August 2022, and DfT (2018) ‘Remote control parking and motorway assist: proposals for amending regulations and the Highway Code: government Response’ <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/707095/ccav-consultion-response.pdf> 25 August 2022. It is important to note that the Law Commissions are consulting on changes in relation to remote driving. See Law Commissions (2022a) ‘Remote Driving: Issues Paper’.
- 21.
Note that there are some exceptions to this, see, e.g. Section 300 (1) (a), Road Safety Road Rules 2017.
- 22.
Regulation 5 (1) General Product Safety Regulations 2005; Regulation 20 (1) General Product Safety Regulations 2005.
- 23.
This was discussed in Channon et al. (2019).
- 24.
Section 1 (4) of the Act states, ‘a breach of a duty of care by an organisation is a “gross” breach if the conduct alleged to amount to a breach of duty falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances’. Also, see, e.g. Channon et al. (2019), p. 95, who noted challenges concerning the ‘gross’ element.
- 25.
Amond (2013), p. 36.
- 26.
Amond (2013), p. 36.
- 27.
Amond (2013), p. 38.
- 28.
Cunningham (2008).
- 29.
Watson et al. (2015), p. 27.
- 30.
- 31.
There is a significant amount of research on specific punishment and deterrence in a road traffic context. See, e.g. Easten and Piper (2015) who look at whether Fixed Penalty Notices would deter careless drivers.
- 32.
We could mention the article from Nick Reed et al. (2021), p. 780, which mentioned that ‘Even where gross breaches of the standard expected of competent and careful human drivers occur, if this is not observed by others or by authorities, prosecution is unlikely’.
- 33.
Cunningham (2007), pp. 297–298.
- 34.
- 35.
Ryan Abbott (2020), p. 118.
- 36.
Van Wees (2020), p. 34.
- 37.
See Nastjuka et al. (2020) 2 citing Panagiotopoulos and Dimitrakopoulos (2018); Xu et al. (2018).
- 38.
See REGULATION (EU) 2019/2144 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 November 2019 on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulations (EC) No. 78/2009, (EC) No. 79/2009 and (EC) No. 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No. 631/2009, (EU) No. 406/2010, (EU) No. 672/2010, (EU) No. 1003/2010, (EU) No. 1005/2010, (EU) No. 1008/2010, (EU) No. 1009/2010, (EU) No. 19/2011, (EU) No. 109/2011, (EU) No. 458/2011, (EU) No. 65/2012, (EU) No. 130/2012, (EU) No. 347/2012, (EU) No. 351/2012, (EU) No. 1230/2012 and (EU) 2015/166, this came into force on 6 July 2022. In the UK, see Norbury and Webster (2021), p. 7.
- 39.
Law Commissions (2022b) ‘Automated Vehicles: Joint Report’ (LC 404).
- 40.
Chesterman (2021), p. 41.
- 41.
Ibid.
- 42.
Society of Automotive Engineers (2021), ‘Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles’ J3016 202104.
- 43.
Ibid.
- 44.
‘In all situations and conditions that a human driver could’ Law Commissions (2018) 13. Society of Automotive Engineers (2021), ‘Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles’ J3016 202104.
- 45.
As defined by the BSI, Dynamic Driving Task is the ‘Real-time operational and tactical functions required to operate a vehicle safely in on-road traffic’ BSI Group (2020) https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/CAV/cav-vocabulary/dynamic-driving-task/ accessed on 26 July 2022.
- 46.
See, e.g. BSI Group (2020) https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/CAV/cav-vocabulary/advanced-driver-assistance-system/ accessed on 26 July 2022.
- 47.
Law Commissions (2018) [3.16].
- 48.
Society of Automotive Engineers (2021), ‘Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles’ J3016_202104.
- 49.
See United Nations Regulation 157 (2021), ‘Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to Automated Lane Keeping Systems’,
- 50.
UN Regulation No. 157 (2021) at 2.1.
- 51.
UN Regulation No. 157 (2021) at 5.4.2.3.
- 52.
As noted by the DfT (2020), ‘Safe Use of Automated Lane Keeping Systems’, 9, an MRM is ‘A procedure aimed at minimising risks in traffic, which is automatically performed by the system after a transition demand without driver response or in the case of a sever ALKS or vehicle failure’.
- 53.
Law Commissions (2020) [4.33].
- 54.
Venturer Project (2018) <https://www.venturer-cars.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Year-3-Legal-and-Insurance-Report.pdf> accessed on 6 September 2022, 49.
- 55.
See, e.g. from the Australian National Transport Commission (2022).
- 56.
- 57.
VicRoads (2016), ‘Future Directions Paper: How Victoria will continue to support the development of automated vehicles’, <https://apo.org.au/node/71905> accessed on 28 August 2022.
- 58.
It is worth noting that in Victoria, the Section 177, Road Safety Road Rules 2017 prohibits a driver from stopping on a freeway (unless in ‘an emergency stopping lane’).
- 59.
Department for Transport Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (2020).
- 60.
Department for Transport Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (2020), p. 30.
- 61.
Department for Transport Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (2020), p. 30.
- 62.
Section 4 (2), RTA 1988.
- 63.
[1989] Q.B. 821.
- 64.
Ibid, 831.
- 65.
Ibid, 831.
- 66.
Section 4, Road Safety (Amendment (Automated Vehicles) Act 2018.
- 67.
Section 3AA(ba), RSA 1986 reads ‘a person who is a vehicle supervisor of an automated vehicle for which an ADS permit is in force and which is operating in automated mode at any time while the person is assigned by the ADS permit holder to perform duties as a vehicle supervisor in relation to the vehicle’. It is also important to note new criminal offences created in Victoria in relation to automated vehicles involving those driving or ‘being in charge’ of an automated vehicle without an ADS permit (Section 33I, Road Safety Act 1986) or ‘in breach of an ADS permit condition’ (Section 33J, Road Safety Act 1986).
- 68.
Department for Transport (2022), Highway Code <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction> accessed on 23 August 2022.
- 69.
Department for Transport (2022), Highway Code <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction> accessed on 23 August 2022.
- 70.
DFT ALKS Summary of Responses and Next Steps (2021), 28.
- 71.
It is worth recognising that the research on this topic is mixed. See, e.g. Sherrie Anne Kaye et al. (2021) who stated that there were not significantly longer takeover times (for younger drivers), compared with Erikson and Stanton (2017) (cited in Sherrie Anne Kaye et al. 2021) who found a longer take over time. However, differences between the two studies were noted in the Sherrie Anne Kaye et al. (2021), 26 article.
- 72.
See DfT ALKS Summary of Responses and Next Steps (2021), 35.
- 73.
The Law Commissions noted the challenges surrounding distinguishing Levels 3 and 4 of the SAE levels, Law Commissions (2022) [3.38] citing Law Commissions (2020) 43. Consequently the Law Commissions noted that their recommendations ‘do not attempt to distinguish between Level 3 and Level 4 systems’. Law Commissions (2022) [3.40]. Citing Society of Automotive Engineers (2021), ‘Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles’ J3016 202104.
- 74.
Law Commissions (2022) [8.7].
- 75.
Law Commissions (2022) [8.103].
- 76.
Law Commissions (2022). We can also see proposals by the Centre for Data, Ethics and Innovation in relation to UICs, e.g. that ‘sufficient time’ is provided to the UIC ‘to retain situational awareness’. Moreover, ‘ensuring safe operation’ if the UIC fails to resume control of the vehicle. See Centre for Data, Ethics and Innovation (2022), ‘Responsible Innovation in Self-Driving Vehicles’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/responsible-innovation-in-self-driving-vehicles/responsible-innovation-in-self-driving-vehicles> accessed on 5 September 2022, 22.
- 77.
Law Commissions (2022), [2.45].
- 78.
See Van Wees (2020), pp. 33–34.
- 79.
Law Commissions (2022).
- 80.
Law Commissions (2022), citing Lord Hodge in R&S Pilling (t/a Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd [2019] UKSC 16 and Section 143 (1) (a), RTA 1988. Moreover, certain offences could apply to the NUIC if they are the ‘owner’ or ‘registered keeper’ of the vehicle.
- 81.
See the UK Government (2022), ‘Connected & Automated Mobility 2025: Realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles in the UK’ (CP 712) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1099173/cam-2025-realising-benefits-self-driving-vehicles.pdf> accessed on 12 September 2022, 124.
- 82.
Ibid, 124.
- 83.
Note that this applies to vehicles at level three SAE. See, NTC (2020), 23. Also discussion of ‘fall-back ready users’ in Law Commissions (2022) 45-47’.
- 84.
NTC (2022), p. 43.
- 85.
NTC (2017), p. 66.
- 86.
NTC (2021), p. 22.
- 87.
NTC (2021). Cited by the Law Commission (2022), 46.
- 88.
Law Commission (2022) [3.67].
- 89.
NTC (2022), p. 43.
- 90.
NTC (2022), p. 43.
- 91.
- 92.
Schellekens (2015).
- 93.
Chesterman (2021), p. 226.
- 94.
Law Commissions (2020, v). It is further worth noting some of the additional proposals in relation to ASDEs from the Centre for Data, Ethics and Innovation (2022). For example, the need for ‘explainability’, the CDEI noted that ‘the ASDE should design the AV so that it is possible to construct an explanation of the key decisions made by the AV when it is undertaking the Dynamic Driving Task (DDT) for a bounded test scenario’.
- 95.
Law Commissions (2020), p. 175.
- 96.
Law Commissions (2020), p. 185.
- 97.
Law Commissions (2022), pp. 274–275.
- 98.
Law Commissions ‘Automated Vehicles: Summary of responses to Consultation Paper 3 and next steps’ (2021).
- 99.
See, e.g. as stated in Recommendation 65, Law Commissions (2022) 274, ‘When putting forward a vehicle for authorisation as self-driving, it should be an offence for the ASDE to (1) fail to provide information to the regulator; or (2) provide information to the regulator that is false or misleading in a material particular where that information is relevant to the evaluation of the safety of the vehicle’.
- 100.
Law Commissions (2022), p. 222.
- 101.
Law Commissions (2022).
- 102.
Law Commissions (2020). [3.61].
- 103.
Ibid.
- 104.
Law Commissions (2020), p. 249.
- 105.
The UK Government (2022), p. 125.
- 106.
NTC (2020).
- 107.
National Transport Commission (2022), p. 10.
- 108.
See Law Commissions (2020).
- 109.
National Transport Commission (2021), p. 26.
- 110.
National Transport Commission (2021), p. 27.
- 111.
Burke (2022). More from Marcus Burke can, e.g. be found here https://www.ntc.gbring-new-challenges-data-access-and-insurance accessed on 10 August 2022.
- 112.
Burke (2022), p. 45.
- 113.
National Transport Commission (2022), p. 59.
- 114.
National Transport Commission (2022), p. 64.
- 115.
National Transport Commission (2022), p. 79.
- 116.
National Transport Commission (2022), pp. 64–65.
- 117.
See Ryan Abbott (2020) 127 on AI.
- 118.
Chesterman (2021), p. 125.
- 119.
Gless et al. (2016), pp. 423–424.
- 120.
Ryan Abbott (2020), p. 133.
References
Abbott R (2020) The reasonable Robot. Cambridge University Press
Amond P (2013) Corporate manslaughter and regulatory reform. Palgrave MacMillan
Bissell D, Birtchnell T, Elliott A, Hsu EL (2020) Autonomous automobilities: the social impacts of driverless vehicles. Curr Sociol 68(1):116–134
Burke M (2022) Regulation of in-service safety risks of automated vehicle. In: Meyer G, Beiker S (eds) Road vehicle automation 8 lecture notes in mobility. Springer
Centre for Data, Ethics and Innovation (2022) Responsible Innovation in Self-Driving Vehicles. <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/responsible-innovation-in-self-driving-vehicles/responsible-innovation-in-self-driving-vehicles> accessed on 5 September 2022
Channon M (2019) Automated and electric vehicles act 2018: an evaluation in light of proactive law and regulatory disconnect. Eur J Law Technol 10(2)
Channon M, McCormick L, Noussia K (2019) The law and autonomous vehicles. Routledge
Chesterman, (2021) We, the Robots: regulating artificial intelligence and the limits of the law. Cambridge University Press
Cunningham S (2007) Punishing drivers who kill: putting road safety first? Legal Stud 27(2):288–311
Cunningham S (2008) Driving offences: law, policy and practice. Routledge
Department for Transport (2017) Remote Control Parking and Motorway Assist: Proposals for Amending Regulations and the Highway Code. <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/669442/remote-control-parking-motorway-assist-proposals-for-amending-regulation-and-highway-code.pdf> accessed on 25 August 2022
Department for Transport (2018) Remote control parking and motorway assist: proposals for amending regulations and the Highway Code: government Response. <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/707095/ccav-consultion-response.pdf> 25 August 2022
Easten S, Piper C (2015) Fixed penalties for careless driving: the delusion of deterrence. Contemp Iss Law 13(3):175–192
Elvik R, Christensen P (2007) The deterrent effect of increasing fixed penalties for traffic offences: the Norwegien experience. J Saf Res 38(6):689
Gless S, Silverman E, Weigend T (2016) If Robots cause harm, who is to blame? Self-driving cars and criminal liability. New Crim Law Rev Int and Interdiscipl J 19(3):412–436
Kaye S-A, Lewis I, Demmel S, Trespalacios OO, Griffin W (2021) Young drivers’ takeover time in a conditional automated vehicle: The effects of hand-held mobile phone use and future intentions to use automated vehicles. Transport Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 78:16–29
Law Commissions (2018) Automated Vehicles: A joint preliminary consultation paper. (LC 240)
Law Commissions (2019) Automated Vehicles: Analysis of Responses to the Preliminary Consultation Paper. (LC 240)
Law Commissions (2020) Automated Vehicles: Consultation paper 3. (LC 252)
Law Commissions (2022a) Remote Driving: Issues Paper. <https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2022/06/Remote-driving-LC-Issues-paper.pdf> accessed on 25 August 2022
Law Commissions (2022b) Automated Vehicles: Joint Report. (LC 404)
Nastjuka I, Herrenkinda B, Marroneb M, Brendela AB, Kolbea LM (2020) What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective’ Technological Forecasting & Social Change 161:120319
National Transport Commission (2017) Changing driving laws to support automated vehicles
National Transport Commission (2020) A national in service safety law for automated vehicles
National Transport Commission (2022) The regulatory framework for automated vehicles
Frank Norbury, Evan Webster (2021) LOCKING OUT THE DRINK DRIVER: Using alcohol interlocks to reduce drink driving in the UK. Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety Report
Reed N, Leiman T, Palade P, Martens M, Kester L (2021) Ethics of automated vehicles: breaking traffic rules for road safety. Ethics Inf Technol 23:777–789
Schellekens M (2015) Self-driving cars and the chilling effect of liability law. Comput Law Secur Rev 31:506–517
UK Government (2022) Connected & Automated Mobility 2025: Realising the benefits of self-driving vehicles in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/responsible-innovation-in-self-driving-vehicles/responsible-innovation-in-self-driving-vehicles
Van Wees K (2020) Technology in the driver’s seat: legal obstacles and regulatory gaps in road traffic law. In: Van Uytsel S, Vasconcellos Vargas D (eds) Autonomous vehicles: business technology and law (Perspectives in law, business and innovation). Springer
VicRoads (2016) Future Directions Paper: How Victoria will continue to support the development of automated vehicles. <https://apo.org.au/node/71905> accessed on 28 August 2022
Barry Watson, Vic Siskind, Angela Watson, J.J. Fleiter (2015) Assessing specific deterrence effects of increased speeding penalties using four measures of recidivism. Accid Anal Prevent 84: 27-37
Weinreb LL (1986) Desert, punishment, and criminal responsibility. Law Contemp Probl, pp 47–80
Zeleznikow J, Foster N, Sourdin T (2021) Regulatory approaches to managing artificial intelligence systems in autonomous vehicles in Australia. Int J Law Inf Technol 29(2):79–100
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Websites
Websites
-
BSI Group (2020) https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/CAV/cav-vocabulary/dynamic-driving-task/ accessed on 26 July 2022
-
BSI Group (2020) https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/CAV/cav-vocabulary/advanced-driver-assistance-system/ accessed on 26 July 2022
-
National Transport Commission <https://www.ntc.gov.au/laws-and-regulations/australian-road-rules#:~:text=The%20model%20Australian%20Road%20Rules,%2C%20pedestrians%2C%20passengers%20and%20others> accessed on 27 July 2022
-
National Transport Commission, https://www.ntc.gov.au/news/introduction-automated-vehicles-bring-new-challenges-data-access-and-insurance accessed on 10 August 2022
-
Venturer Project (2018) < https://www.venturer-cars.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Year-3-Legal-and-Insurance-Report.pdf> 49, accessed on 12 August 2022
-
Vic Roads https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/vehicle-safety/automated-and-connected-vehicles/testing-of-automated-vehicles accessed on 10 August 2022
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Channon, M. (2023). Road Traffic Law and Application to Automated Vehicles. In: Noussia, K., Channon, M. (eds) The Regulation of Automated and Autonomous Transport. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32356-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32356-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-32355-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-32356-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)