Searching for the Holy Grail – but who’s driving the car?

the negotiator

Dennot Nyack

THE LAW COMMISSIONS OF England and Wales, and Scotland have issued a report on the legislation required for autonomous vehicles (AVs), imaginatively titled ‘Automated Vehicles: joint report’.

This report has clarified a number of definitions relating to AVs. The main item currently in the news regarding the publication was that “victims who suffer injury or damage will not need to prove that anyone was at fault. Instead, the insurer will compensate the victim directly.” But I believe that the report is wider in its scope and recommendations, so let me examine them.

In 2018 I wrote about a presentation on AVs delivered by Christian Wolmar, the award winning transport specialist writer and broadcaster. As I was a professional licenced private hire driver at the time, this subject was close to my heart and pocket.

Up to then Uber and other minicab companies were touting to their investors that AVs were the ‘Holy Grail’ that would bring huge profits. Since then, numerous court cases, the death of Elaine Herzberg by an autonomous Uber car in Phoenix, Arizona, and the slowdown of research in this area has seen this destination to profit remain on the horizon.

I believe that AVs are coming. In what form and by when is not known. How their arrival will affect professional drivers also remains unclear. Accident liability is one of the inhibiting factor that have to be considered by all minicab companies that seek to use AVs, whether they are the local firm based next to the kebab shop on the high street or the international behemoth occupying the top floors of a tower block in Docklands.

The Law Commissions made a number of recommendations to government for the introduction of AVs. An AV is defined by law as one “operating in a mode in which it is not being controlled, and does not need to be monitored, by an individual.”

The main points of the report are to propose the responsibilities between the various groups and individuals responsible for the operation of AVs. For example, it proposes the introduction of a specific

Automated Vehicles Act that clarifies and sets out new laws relating to AVs. In addition, the “driver”, if there is one, will not be liable where the vehicle is in automated driving mode. In such a situation, drivers are to be considered as “users in charge” or some similar description.

Where AVs are authorised for use without a user-in-charge, such as a when used as a minicab or hackney carriage, responsibilities for overseeing the journey will be undertaken by an organisation described as a licensed “no user in charge” operator (NUICO). Presumably this means companies such as Uber and can be extended to vehicle manufacturers too.

The Commissions go on to state that if, in such a situation, the AV were to meet with an accident or other serious event, the vehicle must be backed by an Authorised Self-Driving Entity (ASDE). Such events would be dealt with as a regulatory issue to be resolved between the NUICO and the ASDE. The emphasis here, recommended by the report, would be on understanding what happened and applying that learning to improve future safety.

In 2018 Christian Wolmar stated that the technology is “nowhere near there”, a view I disagreed with at the time and still do. (I’m with Mr Wolmar – Ed).

I believe that AVs are on their way, sooner rather than later. The Commission’s detailed report is part of the legal and technical ecosystem designed to pave the way for the arrival of AVs, whenever they emerge.

Needless to say professional & black cab drivers and their unions will need to prepare for the introduction of such vehicles. What precisely such preparedness will look like is unclear.

Dennot is a AGM trade union member and was a former representative of the GMB’s professional drivers. He is also an author and broadcaster with a strong knowledge of the private hire industry and an equality and diversity specialist. email: dennotnyack@yahoo.com mobile: +44 0740 625 276