At one side of the spectrum, you have those who swear by driverless vehicle technology. As far as they’re concerned, the future of motoring lies in the hands of computers – eliminating humans from the equation eliminating human error at the same time.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, equal numbers are frankly terrified by the prospect of automated vehicle technology. They believe that to eliminate humans from the equation is to effectively dice with death.
Somewhere in the middle of all this, you’ll find the lawyers and legal experts. Many of which are unconvinced driverless technology will ever gain any real traction worldwide.
Just a short time ago, the seemingly inevitable took place in Arizona. A pedestrian was tragically struck and killed by a driverless car owned and operated by Uber. Not that this was the first time an automated vehicle had been involved in a fatal accident – Tesla’s autopilot feature was also blamed for the death of a driver back in 2016.
In the case of the Uber driverless car incident, it was ruled that the car itself and the company was not at fault. Nevertheless, it once again highlighted one of the most important questions many lawyers have been asking right from the start:
When an automated vehicle is involved in an accident, exactly who is to blame?
The simple fact of the matter being that it is fundamentally impossible to produce any kind of computer technology that is guaranteed 100% flawless. Or to put it another way, any automated vehicle could at any time technically suffer something of a malfunction, which could result in an accident – fatal or otherwise.
On the surface, it seems relatively obvious. The company responsible for the hardware and/or software in question takes responsibility in the event of a failure. But what about the potential for hacking? Or perhaps a mechanical failure that directly or indirectly results in an electronic failure? Maybe even an atmospheric disturbance or phenomenon that has an unexpected effect on the components within the car?
The problem being the way in which the existing legal framework regarding responsibility in the event of an accident just isn’t designed to cope with the complexities of autonomous vehicles. Until enormous changes are implemented therefore, it is entirely possible – if not probable – that lawyers will seek to keep autonomous vehicles away from public roads entirely.
Even today, effectively and accurately assigning blame in the case of an accident isn’t easy. The owner of the vehicle, the individual or organisation that carried out its most recent repairs, the MOT agency that missed a critical fault, the original manufacturer of the vehicle – all potentially responsible to one extent or another.
Throw automated vehicle technology into the mix and things suddenly become exponentially more complicated.
So whether or not pilotless vehicle technology ever truly gets off the ground remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the likelihood of automated vehicles suddenly taking over as the new standard in the near future at least remains minimal at best.
