Companies, not drivers, to take responsibility for autonomous vehicle accidents

It outlines a new system of legal accountability whereby the person in the driving seat would no longer be a driver but a “user-in-charge”. A user-in-charge cannot be prosecuted for offences which arise directly from the driving task.

This means they would have immunity from a wide range of offences – from dangerous driving to exceeding the speed limit or running a red light. However, the user-in-charge would retain other driver duties, such as carrying insurance, checking loads or ensuring that children wear seat belts, and would still need to have passed a driving test and be fit to drive.

The Authorised Self-Driving Entity (ASDE) that had the vehicle authorised would have responsibility for it – this could be the company which manufactured the car or software developer. If the vehicle drives in a way which would be criminal or unsafe if performed by a human driver, an in-use regulator would work with the ASDE to ensure that the matter does not recur. Regulatory sanctions would also be available.

The report states: “Our proposals provide some flexibility over the identity of the ASDE: it may be a vehicle manufacturer, or a software developer, or a partnership between the two. However, the ASDE must show that it was closely involved in assessing the safety of the vehicle. It must also be of good repute and have sufficient funds to respond to regulatory action (including organising a recall).”

Some vehicles may be authorised to drive themselves without anyone in the driver seat, in which case the occupants would simply be passengers. Instead of having a user-in-charge, a licensed operator would be responsible for overseeing the journey, known as a No User in Charge (NUIC). There would also be requirements for passenger services to be accessible, especially to older and disabled people

The report recommends new criminal offences where an ASDE or NUIC operator misleads regulators or conceals safety-relevant information, including making the entity and its senior managers liable, and proposes an aggravated offence where a lack of candour leads to a death or serious injury

Marketing concerns

One area where the report says greater clarity is essential is the distinction between “driver assistance” features, such as cruise control which are already in common use, and “self driving”, which is when a car can drive itself.

The Law Commissions want to see new safeguards to stop driver assistance features from being marketed as self-driving, on the basis this would help to minimise the risk of collisions caused by

people thinking that they do not need to pay attention to the road while a driver assistance feature is in operation.

RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes said: “While self-driving cars offer the potential to make our roads safer and increase mobility for those who can’t currently drive, it’s vital motorists aren’t lulled into a false sense of security by the way some manufacturers describe their automated technology.

“We believe there’s a big difference between driver assistance features, such as adaptive cruise control, and genuine self-driving capability, so we support the Law Commission recommending that a clear distinction between the two is drawn when manufacturers market their vehicles.”

Next steps

The report has been laid before Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. It will be for the UK, Scottish and Welsh governments to decide whether to accept the Commissions’ recommendations and introduce legislation to bring them into effect.

Nicholas Paines QC, Public Law Commissioner said: “We have an unprecedented opportunity to promote public acceptance of automated vehicles with our recommendations on safety assurance and clarify legal liability. We can also make sure accessibility, especially for older and disabled people, is prioritised from the outset.”