header-logo header-logo

22 February 2023
Issue: 8014 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Health & safety , Technology , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Driverless cars: danger ahead

The Law Commission has highlighted serious safety concerns surrounding driverless cars, and has called on the government to impose a ban on remotely driving a vehicle from overseas due to lack of enforcement powers.

It also warned that, under the current law, there is no express prohibition on remote driving where the driver is beyond the line of sight—possibly in an operations centre miles away and using several screens and a control system to direct the vehicle on the road. It said clarity in the law on this was ‘urgently required’ and advised a prohibition measure be brought in ‘immediately’.

The advice paper, ‘Remote driving review’, published this week, proposes that short-term measures be introduced under which companies wanting to use beyond line-of-sight remote driving can submit a safety case to the Vehicle Certification Agency and apply for a vehicle special order.

In the long term, however, an Act of Parliament will be required to introduce a comprehensive regulatory regime for remote driving, the commission said.

The commission considered safety challenges such as connectivity issues, driver situational awareness, a possible sense of ‘detachment’ from the physical world, cybersecurity and terrorist attacks.

In terms of liability, it advised that remote drivers should be prosecuted for the same crimes as in-vehicle drivers, but should not be liable for problems beyond their control such as faulty equipment. Remote driving companies should instead incur regulatory sanctions and in serious cases, prosecution. It advised that all victims of road incidents caused by remote driving should receive no-fault compensation.

Nicholas Paines KC, public law commissioner, said: ‘Remote driving is an exciting technology, but before we see remotely operated cars on UK roads, we must address safety concerns through strong regulation.

‘Regulations must respond to other fundamental concerns around security threats and liability in the event of an accident.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll