Deploying automated vehicles

16 July 2014

share this:
In 2012, the Nevada DMV issued the first license to test autonomous vehicles on public roads in the US. The red license plates are only for autonomous test vehicles and are meant to make the cars easily identifiable.
Road Vehicle AutomationThis article is an excerpt from a book chapter by Bryant Walker Smith titled A Legal Perspective on Three Misconceptions in Vehicle Automation appearing in Road Vehicle Automation (Springer, 2014, Eds. Gereon Meyer and Sven Baker), and considers only one of the three misconceptions addressed in the full chapter.

Casual consumers of automated vehicle news—though not the many casual producers of this news—could be forgiven for concluding that driverless cars are ready to be sold to ordinary drivers. States are passing laws, companies are testing cars on public roads, and commentators are declaring that “the technology is here.” The corollary of this belief is that, if such vehicles are not yet ready, then fault must lie elsewhere—with consumers for not accepting them, with governments for not “legalizing” them1, or with lawyers for outright blocking them.

A 2013 radio interview is illustrative: The first guest, a reporter, asserted that “the technology is here” and that “right here and now we can have driverless cars.”

I replied that the research vehicles under discussion were neither designed nor demonstrated to operate at a reasonable level of risk under a full range of unsupervised driving scenarios.

1 Referring to the “legalization” of automated vehicles is misleading; see:

Smith, Bryant Walker, Automated Vehicles Are Probably Legal in the United States, Center for Internet and Society, 2012, forthcoming Texas A&M Law Review 2014.

After a short break, the host resumed the discussion by reminding listeners that “the technology for driverless cars is in fact available, and we’re trying to figure out why we don’t then have them.”

Automotive experts recognize that the path from research to product is long—and that there is a tremendous difference between, on one hand, a research system that well-trained technicians carefully maintain, update, and operate exclusively on certain roads in certain conditions and, on the other hand, a production system that poorly trained consumers neglect and abuse for two decades in almost any conceivable driving scenario. For this reason, production vehicles take years to be developed, tested, and certified to a complex array of highly detailed public and private standards.

2 For a discussion on the deployment of driverless specialty vehicles, see: Smith, Bryant Walker, A Legal Perspective on Three Misconceptions in Vehicle Automation (January 1, 2014). Road Vehicle Automation Lecture Notes in Mobility, Springer, p. 85, June 2014.

Recent state laws regarding automated driving embrace this important distinction between research-and-development testing and consumer operation: Nevada’s infinity-styled “autonomous vehicle” license plates, for example, are red for test vehicles and, one day, will be green for all others.

However, a yellow license plate may, at least metaphorically, be most appropriate for a set of potential deployments that do not fit comfortably in either category. The first deployments of low-speed shuttles2 are likely to be pilot projects.

3 Similarly, as part of the US Department of Transportation’s field study of dedicated short-range communications (DSRC)—a related but distinguishable set of technologies—nearly three thousand ordinary vehicles in Ann Arbor, Michigan were retrofitted with DSRC equipment.

Volvo Cars intends to place 100 automated vehicles on public roads in the Swedish city of Gothenburg by 20173. Internet companies that are comfortable with invitation-only beta rollouts of their software and hardware may adopt a similar approach for their updatable automotive products. And an individual who uses a vehicle that she herself has built or modified may likewise straddle the divide between testing and operating.

These hybrid deployments may push up against state and federal regimes that assume a more straightforward product path for research, development, production, sale, resale, and disposal. For example, while automakers currently self-certify that their vehicles as originally manufactured meet federal safety standards, this date of original manufacture may be less determinative of the safety of vehicles subsequently modified. Similarly, while state tort law often looks to the date that a product is originally sold to a consumer, as a practical matter this date may become less clear or less relevant to alleged harms.

Indeed, automakers concerned about the post-sale modification of their vehicles by third parties have lobbied successfully in Florida and Michigan (and unsuccessfully in California) to expressly limit their liability for injuries caused by such modification. These statutory provisions, however, largely restate existing principles of tort law, which makes both the insistence on and the opposition to them rather striking.

The complete lifecycle of early automated vehicles does present significant concerns. The mechanical life of these vehicles may be much longer than the functional life of their automation systems. Consumers in the secondary market may face a hodgepodge of proprietary driver assistance systems with different capabilities and limitations that cannot be easily intuited. And vehicles may long outlive some of the companies—whether small startups or legacy behemoths—responsible for their design, sale, and ongoing support.

For these reasons, what I have called “planning for the obsolescence of technologies not yet invented” should be a key consideration for automakers, regulators, and insurers.

Robohub is an online platform that brings together leading communicators in robotics research, start-ups, business, and education from around the world. Learn more about us here. If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

tags: , , ,

Bryant Walker Smith is an expert on the legal aspects of autonomous driving and a fellow at Stanford Law School.
Bryant Walker Smith is an expert on the legal aspects of autonomous driving and a fellow at Stanford Law School.

Related posts :




Robotics Grasping and Manipulation Competition Spotlight, with Yu Sun

Yu Sun, previous chair of the Robotics Grasping and Manipulation Competition, speaks on the value that this competition brought to the robotics community.
21 May 2022, by



Early Days of ICRA Competitions, with Bill Smart

Bill Smart, one fo the early ICRA Competition Chairs, dives into the high-level decisions involved with creating a meaningful competition.
21 May 2022, by

New imaging method makes tiny robots visible in the body

Microrobots have the potential to revolutionize medicine. Researchers at the Max Planck ETH Centre for Learning Systems have now developed an imaging technique that for the first time recognises cell-​sized microrobots individually and at high resolution in a living organism.
20 May 2022, by

A draft open standard for an Ethical Black Box

Within the RoboTIPS project, we have developed and tested several model of Ethical Black Boxes, including one for an e-puck robot, and another for the MIRO robot.
19 May 2022, by

Unable to attend #ICRA2022 for accessibility issues? Or just curious to see robots?

There are many things that can make it difficult to attend an in person conference in the United States and so the ICRA Organizing Committee, the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society and OhmniLabs would like to help you attend ICRA virtually.
17 May 2022, by



Duckietown Competition Spotlight, with Dr Liam Paull

Dr. Liam Paull, cofounder of the Duckietown competition talks about the only robotics competition where Rubber Duckies are the passengers on an autonomous driving track.
17 May 2022, by

©2021 - ROBOTS Association


©2021 - ROBOTS Association