The particular circumstances and the degree of autonomy of the vehicle are likely to determine the feasibility of a claim against the «operator». For example, if the technology is such that a person can simply type directions and then lean back while the car is running completely on its own, it may be harder to find faults in the person when the car collides with a pedestrian. What happens in another scenario if an autonomous vehicle has warned the occupant of a malfunction, but the occupant is unable to turn off autonomous mode and take control before an accident occurs? The responsibility of the occupant in this case is likely to depend on whether the occupant is seen more as the locomotive engineer of a train whose job is to monitor and react to certain circumstances, or rather as a passenger who has little or no control over the behaviour of the vehicle. Several high-profile self-driving car accidents have already occurred, but the parties have settled the resulting lawsuits confidentially. Therefore, there is still no precedent as to who is responsible in the event of a malfunction or accident of an autonomous vehicle. An example of this could be the current requirement in California, Nevada, Michigan and Florida that test pilots must be able to take immediate control at any time in the event of an emergency. Without exception, these regulations require a driver`s seat, steering wheel, pedals and a driver in the driver`s seat at all times. While adapted to the autonomous capabilities of some technologies, the need for a pedal steering wheel and driver`s seat could at most seriously affect the functionality of future autonomous vehicles, at least limiting the ability of manufacturers to design and test the cars of tomorrow. At the federal level in the United States, there are very few regulations to test and operate autonomous vehicles. Although the laws of Title 49, Subtitle VI of the United States Code and the regulations of Title 49, Subtitle B, Chapter V of the Code of Federal Regulations fill thousands of pages with federal standards for motor vehicles, many— if not all of these — of these standards have been designed for human drivers. However, with the recent snowball dynamic of technological innovation in autonomous vehicles, the federal government realized it needed to re-evaluate these rules. So far, the agent of change has not been Congress, but the Department of Transportation, and in particular the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration («NHTSA»).
Given that autonomous vehicles are largely experimental at this stage, it is still unclear what kind of personal data can be collected from these vehicles. Nevertheless, at least the location data associated with a particular vehicle is tracked and recorded. Location tracking has already proven to be a lightning rod compared to mobile phones. Some of the privacy considerations related to the use of self-driving cars are explained below. The United States is arguably the most advanced country in the world in terms of autonomous driving, but, as mentioned in the section above, this position could be compromised if a national regulatory and testing framework is not developed. If 50 states have 50 different regulations, it would be difficult for manufacturers to comply with all of them. It is not only the law that is catching up, but also the road network. We have invested billions of dollars [pdf] in transportation infrastructure designed for human vision, not computers at all. But changes to the laws that govern roads and infrastructure can be made, and these could go a long way in making driverless cars the rule rather than the rare exception. Perhaps the most important information that could be collected, particularly in combination with other information discussed in this section, is the identification of information about the owner or passenger of the autonomous vehicle. It is likely that the autonomous vehicle would have to retain owner and passenger information for various purposes. For example, the vehicle would likely need to store passenger information to authenticate the permitted use.
In addition, passenger information would also lend itself to a variety of amenities common to many cars available today, including customizable comfort, safety, and entertainment settings. It is likely that cars, based on set preferences and other information collected during operation, will be able to identify drivers, passengers and their activities with a high level of safety. These cars can see the road, pedestrians, traffic signs, other vehicles and other elements that can be found throughout the driving experience. You can talk to other cars about upcoming traffic and road conditions so that other vehicles can change their route accordingly. These technological feats are achieved through various computers, sensors, cameras, radar, LIDAR, networks and other electronic devices that are now constantly updated, but also make today`s car one of the most advanced products a consumer can buy. And certainly one of the most expensive. Right now, the legal landscape is a hodgepodge. Laws in California and Nevada, for example, allow self-driving cars on public roads as long as a human driver is on alert at the wheel, and other states allow testing on certain roads. European regulators have allowed limited testing of self-driving cars and even semi-trailers. The UK approved last year`s tests and has started reviewing road traffic rules to find out how to eventually approve a fully autonomous shuttle. Japan allowed its first test drive of a self-driving car in 2013, although much of the research conducted by Japanese automakers is taking place in the United States.
The future of autonomous vehicles and their applications is bright. But the amount of data and ambiguities of the federal government make the road bumpy for everyone. As increasingly traditional automakers look to evolve their autonomous vehicles and improve their driverless car programs, they need to ask themselves if and at what level they should work with leading companies in complementary technologies.