wp26: certification directive for fully automated vehicles

WP26: Certification directive for Fully Automated Vehicles

CityMobil2 Kick-off meetingMaxime Flament, ERTICO – ITS Europe

13 Oct 2013ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26 1

Objectives of WP26» Investigate and propose solutions in order

to setup a legally valid framework for the deployment of fully automated vehicles in European cities (8 months demonstrations)

» Consult the competent bodies in the respective cities and consolidate the findings at a EU level

» Proposal to the European Commission to regulate the deployment of fully automated vehicles including the validation and homologation aspects. 2ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26 13 Oct 2013

WP26 Tasks» T26.1: Summary of past experiences (INRIA, ITR) » T26.2: Consultation to the cities and competent

regulatory bodies (ERTICO, INRIA)» T26.3: Proposal for certification of fully automated

vehicles in the CityMobil2 demo cities (DLR, ERT, INRIA)

» T26.4: Test of the proposed legal framework with the CityMobil2 cities (compliance and certification) (ERT, DLR, INRIA, ITR)

» T26.5: Identification of a EU level legal framework and recommendations (CTL, e-Trikala, ERT)

3ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26 13 Oct 2013


WP26 – Certification directive T26.1 Summary of past experiences

D26.1 Lessons learned

T26.2 Consultation to the cities

Questionnaire

Response from the

cities

D26.2 Legal

concerns

T26.3 Compliance and certification

D26.3 Proposal for legal

framework

Scope of WP26» Investigate and evaluate the available

legal frameworks at international, European, and national levels

» Map and consolidate the legal concerns of the local authorities of the participating cities

» Investigate the possibilities of the local authorities

» Provide a first set of measures to address the concerns and serve as building block for an eventual European framework


Targeted Member States


City concern: Legal framework


Existing legal framework» International conventions (Geneva 1949 and

Vienna 1968) on the road traffic provide generic framework

» European Level:› Directives transposed in national laws› Standards (European Norms EN)

» National (28 Member States) level:› Ratification of international conventions with some

country specific extensions› National adoption of the EN› Local decrees, “Arretés” and exceptions


Relevant Directives» European Directive 70/156/EEC (road vehicles)» European Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 relating

to lifts» Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic

communications» Directive 2006/42/EC on machinery» Directive 2007/46/EC establishing a framework for the

approval of motor vehicles» Directive 2008/57/EC on the interoperability of the rail» Directive 2010/40/EU on the framework for the

deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems


Standardisation process


City concerns: Legal framework» No specific Legal framework for automated

vehicles» Definition of “Automated Vehicle”› Robot? Machine? Guided Vehicle? Road

Vehicle? » Definition of “Driver”, “Person”, “Vehicle”› “A person who drives a vehicle” or “SW that

operates a hardware”› Where is the driver?

» Specific traffic code for automated vehicles› Simply respect the traffic code 11ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26 13 Oct 2013

City Concern: Liability


Contractual and Product Liability» Contractual liability (CL): relates to contracts

› CL is relatively similar in targeted MS but not the same› Many references to non-CL e.g. Tort Liability› “Common Sales Directive” would be needed to lower

adaptation costs» Product Liability (PL): relates to a products

› limited to products in the form of tangible personal property› Directive 85/374/EEC on product liability but still national

differences› Defines Notion of safety defect from a “weak” consumer PoV› Defines extent to which suppliers are imposed the same

liability as the producer


Contractual and product liability: Possible ways out in CityMobil2» The robot is considered as a simple product

› the robot is the object of the contract of sale between the seller/manufacturer and the buyer/user.

» Furthermore, the robot can be regarded as "consumer goods"› The buyer is protected by various provisions on

commercial guarantees and remedies in case of lack of conformity seen above.

› The robot looks like a mere object of exchange, a product or a commodity.

› The application of traditional rules on liability for breach of contract does not seem to cause any problem.


Tort Liability:Definition» Legal obligation of one party to a victim as a results

of a civil wrong or injury.» combination of directly violating a person's rights and

the transgression of a public obligation causing damage or a private wrongdoing

» requires some form of remedy from a court system» no uniform concept of tort law at EU level and many

countries have different starting points» “fault” vs “strict liability” system

› predetermined breach of duty, presumption of fault› liability will only be imposed on a driver if he acted with

fault, i.e. negligently or even intentionally (UK, DE)


Tort Liability: status quo is OK for demonstrations» The existing legislation, both at European

and (presumably) national level, does not seem to require any addition or modification in relation to the fact that the object of a contract is a robot.


Tort Liability:robots as personhood» New generation of robots are equipped with adaptive

and learning ability implying a degree of unpredictability in the robot’s behaviour.

» Considering the robot as a mere product, as an object as in the Directive on manufacturer’s liability, may be inadequate

» The robot’s conduct, although attributable at the program set by the programmer or the manufacturer, cannot entirely be planned in its specific details because of the increase of experience made by the robot on its own.

» What happens if damage is not derived from a defect of the robot, but from its behaviour?


Tort Liability: conclusionsThe legal framework should be traced to the traditional categories of liability: » Analogy between an animal and a moving

object (has already been used in the US Courts).

» The parental model might be assumed, assimilating cognitive robots to children.

» An additional solution may be to equip cognitive robots with an ethical code of conduct.


Answering the city concerns


Recommendations for CityMobil2 demonstrations1. Disclaimers towards users while using the

system (visual/vocal advertisement, leaflets, etc).

2. Specific contractual clauses between the cities and the car manufacturers/system providers.

3. Vehicle/system approval/certification. 4. Insurance to cover financial liability risks.5. Training of the users6. Develop/adopt a Code of Practice/Guidelines7. Follow international, European and national

standards (such as ISO 26262 series standards)8. Use of Operational and Event Data Recorders


Maxime [email protected]


Similarities to


wp26: certification directive for fully automated vehicles

Documents

ert3itfvha citymobil2

citymobil2 cities compliance

proposed legal framework

legal framework13

eu level legal framework

legal concernst26

citymobil2 demo cities

european cities