Automated Vehicles: Joint Report
Automated Vehicles: joint reportHC 1068SG/2022/15Law Com No 404Scot Law Com No 258
Law Commission of England and WalesLaw Commission No 404Scottish Law CommissionScottish Law Commission No 258Automated Vehicles:joint reportPresented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish MinistersOrdered by the House of Commons to be printed on 25 January 2022HC 1068SG/2022/15
Crown copyright 2022This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 exceptwhere otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit /version/3.Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtainpermission from the copyright holders concerned.This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents.Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us atEnquiries@lawcommission.gov.uk or info@scotlawcom.gov.ukPrint ISBN 978-1-5286-3149-5E02712832 01/22Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimumPrinted in the UK by the HH Associates Ltd. on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty'sStationery Office
The Law CommissionsThe Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission were set upby the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law.The Law Commissioners of England and Wales are:The Right Honourable Lord Justice Green, ChairProfessor Sarah GreenProfessor Nick HopkinsProfessor Penney LewisNicholas Paines QCThe Chief Executive of the Law Commission of England and Wales is Phil Golding.The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne's Gate, LondonSW1H 9AG.The Scottish Law Commissioners are:The Right Honourable Lady Paton, ChairDavid BartosProfessor Gillian BlackKate Dowdalls QCProfessor Frankie McCarthyThe Interim Chief Executive of the Scottish Law Commission is Charles Garland.The Scottish Law Commission is located at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh, EH9 1PR.The terms of this report were agreed on 8 December 2021The text of this report is available on the Law Commission's website ii
iv
ContentsLIST OF ABBREVIATIONSXVGLOSSARYXVIICHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION1The rationale for regulating automated vehiclesPreserving flexibility11Our terms of referenceA new regulatory frameworkWhat is an “automated vehicle” (AV)?Road vehiclesA focus on passenger transportAreas outside the scope of this report222333Our consultationConsultation Paper 1Consultation Paper 2Consultation Paper 34445Structure of this reportWhen should a vehicle be considered as able to drive itself safely?Safety assurance: initial authorisation and in-use safetyRegulating marketing about driving automationNew legal actors: the user-in-charge and NUIC operatorThe duty of candourInterference by third partiesCivil onal material published alongside this report8Acknowledgements and thanks9The team working on this review9CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCING KEY CONCEPTSA new vocabularyThe SAE TaxonomyThe SAE LevelsThe dynamic driving taskThe operational design domain (ODD)Automated vehicles, systems and features“Self-driving”Automated Lane Keeping Systems (ALKS)Explaining driving automation to the publicv11111212141415151617
“Road or other public place”18Three new legal actorsAuthorised Self-Driving Entity (ASDE)The user-in-chargeThe NUIC operator20202021New regulatory schemesThe Secretary of State’s safety standardApproval and authorisation as self-drivingIn-use safety regulationNUIC operator licensing2323232425A new Automated Vehicle ActDevolutionThe need for a joint approachRecommendation 1.25252627Overarching themesEqualityAccessibilityData27272931CHAPTER 3: THE LINE BETWEEN DRIVER ASSISTANCE AND SELFDRIVING35Why the line matters35Self-driving and monitoringThe definition in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018“Monitoring” in the SAE TaxonomyOur approach to monitoring in Consultation Paper 3Conclusion: an individual does not need to monitor3737373838Receptivity of a user-in-charge to a transition demand38Requirements for transition demandsA clear, multi-sensory signalSufficient time to gain situational awarenessThe consequences of failing to take over control39394042Responding to events in the absence of a transition demandThe SAE view: responding to system failures, such as a tyre blow-outThe German view: “obvious circumstances”France and Australia: responding to emergency vehiclesOur proposal in Consultation Paper 3Conclusion: no requirement to respond without a transition demand444444454646The monitoring test for vehicles without a user-in-charge47Recommendation: writing the threshold for self-driving into lawRecommendation 2.4849Permitted activities for the user-in-chargeGuidance in the Highway CodeProhibited activities495051vi
Recommendation 3.Recommendation 4.5252Preventing dangerous interventions by the user-in-chargeRecommendation 5.CHAPTER 4: SETTING A SAFETY STANDARD525355Possible safety standards: consultees’ viewsOption C: Safer than the average human driverOption A: As safe as a competent and careful driverOption B: As safe as a human driver who does not cause a faultaccidentAll three standards too lowEquity in the distribution of riskStandards must be measurable565758Safety standards: summarising the debate61Who should set a safety standard?62How would a safety standard be used?The role of the safety standard pre-deploymentThe role of the safety standard when vehicles are in-use636465Our recommendationRecommendation 6.Recommendation 7.656767CHAPTER 5: INITIAL APPROVAL AND AUTHORISATION5959606169Overview of our proposed approval and authorisation system69Stage 1: Approval stageTwo paths to approvalApproving an AV, not an ADSGB whole vehicle approvalsDomestic AV technical approvalRecommendation 8.717172747576Stage 2: AuthorisationThe authorisation authorityWhy is the authorisation stage necessary?Support for a second authorisation stageAuthorisation outcomes: the effect of failing to gain authorisationDifferent outcomes for different features?Recommendation 9.Authorisation assessmentThe safety caseAn equality impact assessmentDataRegistering the ASDEASDE requirementsDuties on the ASDE arising from authorisation7677777879808080818282838485vii
Recommendation 10.Recommendation 11.Recommendation 12.Recommendation 13.Recommendation 14.Recommendation 15.878787888888A new legislative frameworkAppealsRecommendation 16.Recommendation 17.88899090CHAPTER 6: IN-USE SAFETY ASSURANCEA new statutory schemeRecommendation 18.Should AV authorisation and the in-use scheme have the sameregulator?91919292In-use safety scheme: responsibilitiesEvaluating the safety of AVsRecommendation 19.Recommendation 20.Investigating traffic infractions involving AVsRecommendation 21.Recommendation 22.Communication with usersRecommendation 23.9595969697100100100102New powers to apply regulatory sanctionsExisting powers under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005WarningsCivil penaltiesRedress ordersCompliance ordersSuspending and withdrawing authorisationRestorative conferencesAppealsRecommendation 24.Recommendation 25.Recommendation 26.Recommendation 27.Recommendation h warrant powersRecommendation 29.111113Should the regulator have a consumer protection role?113Open to external viewsRecommendation 30.114115A forum to collaborate on road rulesConsultees’ views115116viii
ConclusionRecommendation 31.117117Collision InvestigationRecommendation 32.117118CybersecurityRecommendation 33.119120CHAPTER 7: MARKETING OF DRIVING AUTOMATION121Driving automation that is not self-driving122The current law122Experience in other jurisdictions123Two new criminal offences“Commercial practice”Offence 1: Describing unauthorised driving automation as “selfdriving”Recommendation 34.Offence 2: Misleading drivers that a vehicle does not need to bemonitoredRecommendation 35.Online marketing across jurisdictionsRecommendation 36.EnforcementRecommendation 37.Recommendation 38.123124CHAPTER 8: THE ROLE OF A USER-IN-CHARGE126129129130130131131133133135The definition of a user-in-chargeAn individualIn position to operate the vehicle controlsIn the vehicleAn ADS feature is engagedRecommendation 39.136136136136138139Qualified and fit to driveConsultation Paper 3 proposalsSupport for requirements to be qualified and fit to driveRecommendation 40.Causing or permitting an unfit or unqualified person to be a user-inchargeRecommendation 41.139139140141141143Being carried without a user-in-chargeThe mental elementRecommendation 42.What if an AV requiring a user-in-charge is made to drive empty?143143145145Provisionally licensed driversRecommendation 43.145146ix
The immunity from dynamic driving offencesThe French approachWhat is dynamic driving?146147147The user-in charge’s immunity: recommendation“Engaged” or “correctly engaged”?Recommendation 44.148148149The liability of a user-in-charge for non-dynamic driving offencesInsuranceRoadworthinessParkingDuties following accidentsEnsuring child passengers wear seatbeltsLoadingRoute planningRecommendation 45.150150150151151152152153154Communicating the dynamic/non-dynamic distinction to usersCommitting dangerous driving offences through non-dynamic failuresThe effect of section 40A of the Road Traffic Act.A new offence for users-in-chargeRecommendation 46.Drafting the dynamic/non-dynamic distinction154155156156157157Criminal liability following handoverA specific defence where problems are brought about by the ADSRecommendation 47.158158159Failing to respond to a transition demandReacquiring driver obligationsRecommendation 48.Medical emergenciesRecommendation 49.159160160160164Professional users-in-charge and passenger services164CHAPTER 9: NUIC OPERATOR LICENSING165Policy development: From HARPS operators to NUIC operatorsConsultation Paper 2Consultation Paper 3165165166The need for a NUIC operator to oversee the journeyTerminologyWhat oversight duties will arise?Remote assistance compared to remote drivingIs the remote assistant role safety-critical?The challenges of running a remote operations centreRegulating the organisation or the individual?166166167167168169171Other NUIC operator dutiesMaintenanceInsuranceSafety-critical updates and cybersecurity172173173173x
Other duties: conclusion173Four models of NUIC operationModel 1: Combining the ASDE and operator rolesModel 2: A separate NUIC operatorModel 3: Privately-owned NUIC vehiclesModel 4: NUIC operation confined to a geographically limited location174174175176177Recommendation: All NUIC vehicles to have a licensed operatorRecommendation 50.178179Recommendation: Requirements for being a NUIC operatorGood reputeFinancial standingAn establishment in Great BritainDemonstrating professional competenceRecommendation 51.Recommendation 52.Recommendation 53.179180180180181182182182Recommendation: submitting a safety caseA potential NUIC operator must submit a safety caseRecommendation 54.183183184Recommendation: setting licence conditionsRecommendation 55.184185Recommendation: powers of the regulatorRegulatory sanctionsRecommendation 56.Power to request informationRecommendation 57.Inspection powersRecommendation 58.185185186186187187187How long should a NUIC operator licence last?Recommendation 59.187188The role of criminal offences and traffic management penalties188Who should administer NUIC operator licensing?Consultees’ viewsConclusionRecommendation 60.190190191191Issues not addressed in this reportTier 2 duties for freight servicesRemote driving191191192xi
CHAPTER 10: NUIC PASSENGER SERVICES193The current law193The challenges of running passenger services without a driver194Passenger services in other jurisdictions197An interim permit procedure for NUIC passenger servicesThe need for more evidenceDevolutionA new procedure to grant interim passenger permitsCharging faresWould vehicles need to be authorised?AccessibilityAn obligation to publish information on safeguarding and accessibilityTaxi and private-hire type services: the need for consentNUIC passenger services and bus service regulationConsultation with road authorities and the emergency servicesRecommendation 61.Enforcing the requirement for an interim passenger permitRecommendation nal accessibility standards and a statutory advisory panelRecommendation 63.Recommendation 64.205206206Longer term options for passenger services206CHAPTER 11: ASDES, NUIC OPERATORS AND THE DUTY OFCANDOUR209What we said in Consultation Paper 3Reasons for the new offencesProvisional proposalsSupport from consultees209209210211When would the offences apply?Information to both the authorisation authority and the in-use regulatorExtending the offence to NUIC operators as well as ASDEsA continuing duty to provide information?Defining “safety-relevant information”Misrepresentations and non-disclosures to overseas regulator212212212213214214Due diligence defence214The criminal liability of senior managersAlternative definitions of senior management“Consent or connivance”The nominated person who signs the safety caseCriminal liability of senior managers: the overall effect215216217217219A new offence for other employees?219Aggravated offence for death or serious injuryAggravated offences in road traffic law220220xii
Our provisional proposalConsultees’ viewsOur conclusion220221222A duty of fair ion 65.224225CHAPTER 12: NEW WRONGFUL INTERFERENCE OFFENCES227Summary of recommended changes to wrongful interference offences228Tampering with the mechanismRecommendation 66.228230Tampering with infrastructure230Unauthorised vehicle takingEngland and WalesRecommendation 67.Scotland231231232232Causing danger to road usersEngland and WalesScotlandShould section 22A extend to Scotland?233233234235New aggravated offence of causing death by wrongful interferenceResponses to Consultation Paper 3Recommendation 68.Mental state: intent to interfereRecommendation 69.An “approved work” defence236237238238238238CHAPTER 13: CIVIL LIABILITY241Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018: a brief overviewInjury to the insured personSecondary claims241242242Listing and authorisationRecommendation 70.242243Contributory negligence and causationContributory negligenceCausationConsultation Paper 3 proposalsResponses to Consultation Paper 3Conclusion243243243244244244Secondary claims under the Consumer Protection Act 1987Problems with how product liability law treats softwareNot essential for the introduction of AVsConsultation Paper 3 proposal245245245246xiii
Responses to Consultation Paper 3Recommendation 71.246247Uninsured vehiclesRecommendation 72.247247Data retentionOur proposalsResponses to Consultation Paper 3ConclusionRecommendation 73.248248249249250Data sharingConsultees’ viewsConclusionRecommendation 74.Recommendation 75.251251251252252CHAPTER 14: RECOMMENDATIONS253APPENDIX 1: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS279APPENDIX 2: TERMS OF REFERENCE285APPENDIX 3: MISLEADING MARKETING – CURRENT LAW289xiv
List of AbbreviationsABI: Association of British Insurers.ADS: Automated Driving System.ADSE: Automated Driving System Entity.AEV Act: Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018.ALKS: Automated Lane Keeping System.ASDE: Authorised Self-Driving Entity.AV: Automated Vehicle.AVP: Automated Valet Parking.BPRs: Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008, SI No 1276.BSI: British Standards Institution.CAV: Connected and Autonomous Vehicle.CCAV: Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles.CP1: Consultation Paper 1.CP2: Consultation Paper 2.CP3: Consultation Paper 3.CPRs: Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI No 1277.DDT: Dynamic Driving Task.DfT: Department for Transport.DPTAC: Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.DSSAD: Data Storage Systems for Automated Driving.DVSA: Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency.EDR: Event Data Recorder.GB: Great Britain.GDPR: United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679.xv
GPSR: General Product Safety Regulations 2005, SI No 1803.HARPS: Highly Automated Road Passenger Service.HGV: Heavy Goods Vehicle.HSW Act 1974: Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.IEEE: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.IVA: Individual vehicle approval.ISO: International Organization for Standardisation.MIB: Motor Insurers’ Bureau.MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.MSU: Market Surveillance Unit.NUIC: No User-in-ChargeNUIC operator: No User-in-Charge vehicle operator.ODD: Operational Design Domain.OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer.PSV: Public Service Vehicle.RoSPA: Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.SAE: Society of Automotive Engineers International.SMMT: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.StVG: Strassenverkehrsgesetz (the German Road Traffic Act).TfL: Transport for London.TfWM: Transport for West Midlands.UIC: User-in-charge.UNECE: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.VCA: Vehicle Certification Agency.xvi
GlossaryABI/Thatcham Report: Association of British Insurers (ABI) and Thatcham Research,Defining Safe Automated Driving. Insurer Requirements for Highway Automation(September 2019).ALKS Regulation: UN Regulation 157 on uniform provisions concerning the approval ofvehicles with regard to Automated Lane Keeping SystemsE/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.3/Add.156 (ALKS Regulation). It was made under theprocedures set out in the UNECE 1958 Agreement (below) and entered into force on 22January 2021.Approval authority: Under the UNECE 1958 Agreement (described below), eachContracting Party must specify an approval authority. The approval authority hasresponsibility for issuing approvals pursuant to a UN Regulation, though it maydesignate technical services to carry out testing and inspections on its behalf. Theapproval authority for the UK is the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).Authorisation authority: A new role recommended in this report. It will be the governmentagency responsible for the second stage (authorisation) of AV safety assurance in GreatBritain. When authorising the vehicle, the authorisation authority will assess each of thevehicle’s ADS features and specify those which are “self-driving”. The authorisationauthority will also assess whether the entity putting the vehicle forward for authorisationhas the reputation and financial standing required to be an ASDE. See Chapter 5.Automated Driving System (ADS): A term used in the SAE Taxonomy to describe avehicle system that uses both hardware and software to perform the entire dynamicdriving task on a sustained basis.Automated Driving System Entity (ADSE): We used this term in Consultation Papers 1and 3 to refer to the entity we now call an Authorised Self-Driving Entity (ASDE) (seebelow).Automated Driving System (ADS) feature: A part of an ADS designed to operate in aparticular operational design domain. As single automated vehicle may have severalfeatures: see Chapter 2.Automated Lane Keeping System (ALKS): An ADS feature which steers and controlsvehicle speed in lane for extended periods on motorway-type roads. See Chapter 2.Authorised Self-Driving Entity (ASDE): A role recommended in this report. It is the entitythat puts an AV forward for authorisation as having self-driving features. It may be thevehicle manufacturer, or a software designer, or a joint venture between the two. Wediscuss the ASDE role and its associated obligations in Chapter 5. We previouslyreferred to it as an Automated Driving System Entity (ADSE).xvii
Automated vehicles: A general term used to describe vehicles which can drive themselveswithout being controlled or monitored by an individual for at least part of a journey. Theyhave an ADS able to perform the entire dynamic driving task.Commercial practice: Defined in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations2008 as “any act, omission, course of conduct, representation or commercialcommunication (including advertising and marketing) by a trader, which is directlyconnected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to or from consumers, whetheroccurring before, during or after a commercial transaction (if any) in relation to aproduct”.Conditional automation: A term used in the SAE Taxonomy to describe an automateddriving system which can perform the entire dynamic driving task but with theexpectation that a user will be receptive and respond appropriately to requests tointervene and to certain failures affecting the vehicle: SAE Level 3.Consultation Paper 1: The first consultation paper in the joint review of automated vehiclesby the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission. It was published in November2018 and is available at: es/.Consultation Paper 2: The second consultation paper in the joint review of automatedvehicles by the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission. It was published inOctober 2019 and is available at: s/.Consultation Paper 3: The third consultation paper in the joint review of automated vehiclesby the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission. It was published in December2020 and is available at: es/.Cybersecurity Regulation: UN Regulation 155 on uniform provisions concerning theapproval of vehicles with regards to cybersecurity and cyber security managementsystem E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.3/Add.154. It was made under the procedures set out inthe UNECE 1958 Agreement (below) and entered into force on 22 January 2021.Driver support: Driving automation features such as adaptive cruise control or lanechanging features which support the driver. The driver is still responsible for the dynamicdriving task, including monitoring the environment.Driving automation: A generic term used in the SAE Taxonomy to apply to all six levels ofautomation. It covers the full range of driving technology, from driver support features toautomated driving features capable of carrying out the whole dynamic driving task.Dynamic Driving Task (DDT): A term used in the SAE Taxonomy to describe the real-timeoperational and tactical functions required to operate a vehicle in on-road traffic. Itincludes steering, accelerating and braking together with object and event detection andresponse. See Chapter 2.Fault accident: An accident where, if a human driver had driven the car instead of an ADS,the driver would be held liable for causing the accident in the civil law of negligence.xviii
GB whole vehicle approval: We use this term to refer to the three domestic schemes toapprove vehicles in Great Britain: individual vehicle approvals (IVAs), GB small seriesapprovals and GB Type Approval. See Chapter 5.Haptic: Involving the transmission of information through the sense of touch. Haptic alertsmay (for example) shake the seat or vibrate the seat belt.HARPS: Highly automated road passenger services. We used this term in ConsultationPaper 2 to refer to a service which uses highly automated vehicles to supply roadjourneys to passengers without a human driver or user-in-charge. In this report wediscuss the regulation of such passenger services through interim passenger permits, asset out in chapter 10.HF-IRADS: Human Factors in International Regulations for Automated Driving Systemsgroup position paper submitted on 18 September 2020 to the Global Forum for RoadTraffic Safety.Highly automated vehicle: A term used in the SAE Taxonomy to describe a vehicleequipped with an automated driving system which can perform the dynamic driving taskwithout requiring a user to be receptive to requests to intervene. Also known as SAELevel 4.Human factors research: The study of how humans behave, both physically and mentally,in relation to particular environments, systems, products or services. Also sometimesreferred to as ergonomics.Individual vehicle approval (IVA): The approval scheme for vehicles and trailers whichhave been imported, assembled or manufactured as individual vehicles. The schemechecks that vehicles meet required technical, safety and environmental standards. TheDriver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) administers the scheme in Great Britain.Interim passenger permit: A new provision recommended in this report. The permit wouldbe granted by ministers for passenger services using NUIC vehicles. See chapter 10.In-use regulator: A new role recommended in this report. The in-use regulator will havestatutory duties and powers to maintain in-use safety once AVs are deployed on GBroads. See Chapter 6.Minimal risk condition: A term used in the SAE Taxonomy to describe a stable, stoppedcondition to which a user or an ADS may bring a vehicle to reduce the risk of a crashwhen a given trip cannot or should not be continued.No user-in-charge (NUIC) vehicle: A new category recommended in this report. It refers toa vehicle equipped with one or more ADS features designed to perform the entiredynamic driving task without a user-in-charge.Operational design domain (ODD): A term used in the SAE Taxonomy to describe thedomain within which an automated driving system can drive itself. It may be limited bygeography, time, type of road, weather or by some other criteria.xix
Provisional GB Type Approval: The interim scheme in place of EU whole vehicle typeapproval since 1 January 2021 following the UK’s exit from the EU. It is expected that in2022, a comprehensive GB Type Approval scheme will replace the provisional scheme.Remote oversight: Using connectivity to allow a human to oversee vehicles even if they arenot in the vehicle. It refers to tasks conducted by staff while NUIC vehicles are in use,such as identifying unexpected objects and managing emergencies. See Chapter 9.Risk mitigation manoeuvre: A manoeuvre which is sufficient to reduce the risk of a crash,if the user-in-charge fails to respond to a transition demand. In Chapter 3 we explain thatwhat is sufficient would be set by regulators.SAE Taxonomy: Society of Automotive Engineers International, J3016 Taxonomy andDefinitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road MotorVehicles, It was first published in 2014 and last revised, in collaboration with theInternational Standards Organisation (ISO), in April 2021.Safety driver: A person who, as part of their employment, test drives vehicles equipped withdriving automation technologies.Self-driving features: Under the scheme outlined in Chapter 5, the authorisation authoritywould specify that an ADS feature is self-driving. The authority must be satisfied that thefeature can control the vehicle so as to drive safely and legally, even if an individual isnot monitoring the driving environment, the vehicle or the way that it drives. Once avehicle is authorised as having a self-driving feature, and that feature is engaged, thehuman in the driving seat would no longer be responsible for the dynamic driving task.Small series type approval: An approval scheme with technical and administrativerequirements commensurate with smaller production runs. The UK’s approval authorityfor small series type approvals is the VCA.Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE): A global association of engineersand technical experts in the aerospace, automotive and commercial-vehicle industries.Its taxonomy established six levels of driving automation in technical document J3016.Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT): A trade association representingmore than 800 automotive companies in the UK.Software Update Regulation: UN Regulation 156 on uniform provisions concerning theapproval of vehicles with regards to software updates and software update managementsystem E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.3/Add.155. It was made under the procedures set outin the UNECE 1958 Agreement (below) and entered into force on 22 January 2021.Transition demand: An alert issued by an ADS to the user-in-charge to take over thedynamic driving task, communicated through visual, audio and haptic signals, whichgives the user-in-charge a transition period within which to respond. Absent a response,the ADS performs a risk mitigation manoeuvre bringing the vehicle to a stop. This term isalso used in UN Reg 157 on Automated Lane Keeping Systems, to refer to a “logicaland intuitive procedure to transfer the Dynamic Driving Task (DDT) from the system(automated control) to the human driver (manual control)”.xx
Transition period: The period of time between the start of the transition demand and thetime when the user-in-charge is expected to take over the dynamic driving task.Type approval: Type approval is the confirmation that production samples of a type ofvehicle, vehicle system, component or separate technical unit meets specifiedrequirements. The process involves the testing of production samples and the evaluationof the measures in place to ensure conformity of production. Once type approval is givenby an approval authority it allows the manufacturer to produce the vehicle type in anunlimited series, providing vehicles continue to meet the specified requirements.United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): The organisation wasestablished in 1947 to promote economic cooperation and integration among its memberstates. The UNECE provides a multinational platform for policy dialogue, negotiation ofinternational legal instruments and development of regulations and norms. It administersthe UNECE 1958 Agreement (below).UNECE 1958 Agreement: An international agreement governing the approval of motorvehicles in 56 countries. It was agreed in 1958 and has since been revised three times.The full title and citation for the third rev
Recommendation: All NUIC vehicles to have a licensedo perator 178 Recommendation 50. 179 Recommendation: Requirements for being a NUIC operator 179 Good repute 180 Financial standing 180 An establishment in Great Britain 180 Demonstrating professional competence 181 Recommendation 51. 182 Recommendation 52. 182 Recommendation 53. 182
In this paper, we use the term "automated driving systems" (ADS) to refer to vehicles with SAE Level 3 automation or higher. We use the term "automated vehicle technologies" (AV) when referring to automated vehicles in general. The following terms and technologies are referenced throughout this paper: Automated Driving Systems (ADS) are
Model Year 2015 Fuel Economy Leaders / 5 2015 Model Year Vehicles / 6 Diesel Vehicles / 29 Electric Vehicles / 31 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles / 33 Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles / 35 Fuel Cell Vehicles / 35 Hybrid Electric Vehicles / 36 Ethanol Flexible Fuel Vehicles / 38
automated driving: Highway autopilot, highly automated freight vehicles on dedicated roads, automated public rapid transit/shuttles in mixed traffic, robot taxis, and driverless maintenance and road works vehicles. The report describes the automated driving
Table of Contents Introduction 1 Brief Background on Automated Vehicles 1 The Role of State Highway Offices 4 State Behavioral Highway Safety Programs and Partnerships 4 State Highway Safety Offices and Automated Vehicles 5 Current State Automated Vehicle Activities 6 Legislation 6 Testing and Deployment 6 Automated Ve
vehicles powered by alternative energy (basically, electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and fuel-cell electric vehicles) are twice as energy efficient as current ICE vehicles. 4 Srivastava et al (2010) report that the plug-in hybrid vehicle is the next candidate for replacing existing ICE vehicles. The plug-in hybrid vehicle can .
sold — including automated vehicles — will be connected by multiple means. There are a variety of estimates as to when Level 4 and 5 automated vehicles will begin to operate on public roadways, ranging from the early- to mid-2020s to the mid-2030s and beyond. This transition period from human drivers to fully automated vehicles may present
While some have postulated that automated vehicles are probably already legal in the U.S1., Google began advocating that states need to clarify existing laws and start creating regulations for automated vehicles. In June 2011, Nevada became the first state to pass legislation that facilitated testing of automated vehicles on state roadways.
Weasler Aftmkt. Weasler APC/Wesco Chainbelt G&G Neapco Rockwell Spicer Cross & Brg U-Joint U-Joint U-Joint U-Joint U-Joint U-Joint U-Joint U-Joint Kit Stock # Series Series Series Series Series Series Series Series 200-0100 1FR 200-0300 3DR 200-0600 6 L6W/6RW 6N
