AI FORMATIVE + HALF LECTURE 1

What drove the creation of AEVA 2018?

(1) The misconception that AVs would be adopted sooner than current, leaving the possibility of a liability gap, and (2) pressure from insurers as to how AVs would be insured.

Where defines the definition of ‘self-driving’ cars?

Section 1 AVA 2024 (was previously defined in Section 1 of AEVA 2018) but now superseded by AVA 2024.

Why was it essential for the government to release AEVA 2018?

(1) To secure insurer support, and (2) to foster confidence among manufacturers, encouraging them to innovate and develop transport technologies in the UK, with the assurance they could exploit market opportunities supported by the law.

Why is AV innovation so important?

The UK government wanted to position itself as a leader in AV innovation, potentially attracting foreign investment.

Why was the traditional system of insurance and liability inadequate to address the challenges posed by AVs?

(1) The previous insurance framework was based primarily on human fault (2) The nature of AI involves multiple actors, making the element of causation difficult, (3) Product liability laws are inadequate as they require the claimant to prove a defect, which is difficult in complex AI systems. (Along with concerns from insurers and manufacturers).

What is the aim of AEVA 2018?

To provide a smooth path to compensation in the event of an accident involving AVs.

What two changes did Section 2 of AEVA 2018 make?

Section 2 introduced (1) strict liability over fault liability, and (2) the removal of liability from the conventional driver to the insurer of the AV.

What is fault liability?

If damage occurs to a third party, the driver is responsible, and the victim must prove the fault of the driver.

Why does fault liability work for humans and not AVs?

Because (1) a human driver is in control, (2) human decisions are explainable, and (3) humans have legal personality, therefore, they can be legally accountable.

The benefits of Section 2 AEVA 2018

(1) Simplifies and speeds up the process of receiving compensation for victims by diminishing the burden to prove driver fault, aligning with the government’s aim of providing an easier way to compensation for victims in the case of AVs.

What are the benefits of placing liability upon insurers?

In cases of accidents, victims (including the “driver”) would be subject to lengthy legal battles against manufacturers. Contradicting consumer protection laws. It is unjust to expect individuals to have the finances, knowledge and time to enter court with a retail giant. It is more feasible for insurers to compensate victims and pursue any subsequent claims against the manufacturers through their subrogation rights under Section 5 of AEVA 2018.

Insurers and Manufacturers are more…

Equal in terms of finances, knowledge and time.

Which section allows insurers subrogation rights?

Section 5 AEVA 2018

What defences do insurers have under Section 4 AEVA 2018?

(1) Software alterations made by, or with the knowledge of the insured person, and (2) the failure to install safety-critical software updates that the insured person knows or ought to know, are safety critical.

Do insurers defences interfere with the strict liability system, or are they reasonable?

The defences available to insurers under Section 4 AEVA 2018 do not fundamentally undermine the strict liability system, but they do introduce qualifications that could complicate claims and dilute the intended simplicity and certainty for victims.

What difficulties may arise with the terminology “caused by” under Section 2 AEVA 2018?

The Acts use of the term “caused by” may lead insurers to pursue litigation against victims, which is contrary to the Acts nature of easing the legal process for victims and streamlining the compensation process. This may also burden the courts with lengthy disputes, detracting from the clarity and efficiency the 2018 Act is trying to achieve.

Which Section discusses contributory negligence?

Section 3 AEVA 2018

Why has Section 3 been subject to criticism?

The government’s failure to address how contributory negligence principles apply to AVs. Such ambiguity has implications for insurers, manufacturers, and consumers alike, and there is a pressing need for clarity.

What clarity is required under Section 3?

(1) Should AVs be held to a higher standard than human drivers? (2) How quickly are they expected to stop if a pedestrian were to cross the road outside of a Zebra crossing, as seen in the instance of Elaine Herzberg’s death by an AV.

Caselaw for contributory negligence

Elaine Herzberg

What complications arise from the lack of clarity as to how contributory negligence will apply to AVs?

(1) Recovering compensation for victims may take longer as they investigate the users behaviour, and (2) uncertainty remains for insurers, who heavily rely on their funds being retrieved through defences such as contributory negligence, undermining the purpose of the Act.

How could AEVA 2018 be improved?

Finish

The context of AV regulation

Traditional law regulates (1) the vehicle design, and (2) the the drivers behaviour, separately, as machines and human actors were distinct. Now the ADS (automated driving system) is part of (1) the vehicles hardware/software and (2) performs the driving task, replacing the human driver. Thus, a new regulatory approach is required.

A level 3 car

Conditional automation

A level 4/5 car

High/Full automation

A level 0-2 car

Ordinary vehicle laws apply

Driving taxonomy

SAE levels

Issues with Level 3 cars

The 2024 Act needs to define at what point the car is a regular one, and when is it automated to attribute liability.

ALKS

A level 3 automated driving function - The vehicle can take full control of driving within limited conditions. During such, the system controls the vehicle and performs the driving task on motorways, but requires the driver to resume control when prompted.

Highway Code Rule 150

Rule 150 makes a clear distinction between driving assistance systems (like cruise control and lane assist) and self-driving technology. If you are driving a vehicle using only its assisted driving features (like cruise control and lane-keeping systems), the driver remains responsible at all times. However, if a vehicle is capable of self-driving, the user-in-charge is not responsible for the dynamic driving task and may divert their attention away from the road. The vehicle is in control of the way it drives. Although, the user must be ready to take control when prompted.

UN Regulation 157

A uniform provision concerning vehicles with ALKS

The 01 Series of Amendments to UN Regulation 157

In January 2023, ALKS Regulations were amended to allow lane changes and increasing the maximum speed from 60km/h to 130 km/h.

The LC said that every ADS put forward for authorisation, should be backed by an entity… which entity?

Automated Driving System Entity (ADSE)

Where did the LC discuss “how safe is safe enough?”

The 3rd LC paper

Without the amendment made to ALKS (the ability to change lanes and safely stop on the side of the road)

You won’t have the certification to operate as a self-driving car

The test for whether vehicles should be listed as self-driving involves asking…

Whether they are capable, at least in some circumstances, of safely driving themselves.

The 2024 Act hasn’t yet decided how many seconds the transition demand will be…

It is left to the secretary of state to decide what is a suitable amount of time to warn the UIC.

Section 7 AVA 2024

Transition Demand

Benefits of AVs

ALKS was amended because…

Stopping in the middle of a motorway would cause more issues than benefits, so it was amended to safely move the vehicle across the road to a safe place to stop.

Safety assurance will rely heavily on…

The ASDE and NUIC

Section 17 of AVA 2024

The Secretary of State may issue an information notice to an ASDE and/or NUIC, for investigative purposes as to the safety and adequacy of the regulation of AVs. Civil sanctions under Chapter 5 will be given if they don’t provide information / adequate information.

Marketing Restrictions (AVA 2024)

Sections 78 and 79

Section 78 (AVA 2024)

Restricts terms to prevent the misleading marketing of AVs.

Section 79 AVA 2024

Introduces an offence for creating driver confusion about the need to monitor the technology.

Section 82 AVA 2024

Introduces a permit system for “automated passenger services”.

Certification of AVs

Before AVs are authorised for road use, the vehicles must comply with domestic and international regulations to certify their adequacy and safety on British roads. The UK is also subject to the UNECE 1958 Agreement.

Section 2 AVA 2024 is difficult because…

How do we translate the abstract concept of “a careful and competent driver” into something that can be implemented by engineering?

The Department for Transport's CAM paper discusses…

The government’s plan for a UK domestic certification regime for testing and deployment

Manufacturers care about two aspects of certification

(1) showing that the AV can meet the standard of a careful and competent driver, and (2) the suggestion for a domestic regime predominantly used for testing.

Key Criteria for AV certification

(1) it must be capable of driving itself safely and legally, without any human oversight. The safety benchmark is ‘a competent and careful driver’. (2) the manufacturer, developer, or operator of the AV must be licensed as an ASDE, (3) safety assurance systems such as monitoring of real-world performance through data collection (Section 17), and recall powers if an AV no longer meets safety standards, NUIC vehicles must be overseen by a licensed NUIC operator, (4) Domestic testing, (5) Independent investigation body.

What is the ASDE’s role?

(1) To ensure the AV continues to meet safety standards post-deployment, (2) Handle software updates, maintenance obligations and incident responses, (3) comply with regulatory oversight.

What issues arise with NUIC operators?

Connectivity and Cyber-Security

3 New Legal Actors

ASDE, UIC and NUIC (operator).

Marketing Restrictions?

Prevents users from being misled into thinking a vehicle drives itself. It prevents vehicles from being described as self-driving unless the Secretary of State has authorised the vehicle as having a self-driving feature.

Marketing restrictions help…

Build trust in the regulatory system to ensure “self-driving” means something specific, not just a marketing term.

Why is “competent and careful driver” problematic?

The phrase is inherently subjective and context-dependent.

The safety principles must be…

Clear enough to guide technical developers, and phrased in a way to secure confidence among the public.

ASDE is defined in…

Section 44 AVA 2024

UIC is defined in…

Section 46 AVA 2024

NUIC is defined in…

Section 12 AVA 2024

Section 10 AVA 2024

A register of AVs must be kept by SofS. An AV authorisation takes effect when entered in the register. The ASDE must also be recorded.