WP26: Certification directive for Fully Automated Vehicles

1. WP26: Certification directive for Fully Automated Vehicles CityMobil2 Kick-off meeting Maxime Flament, ERTICO – ITS Europe ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

2. 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. ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

3. 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 forcertification 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) ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

4. 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 ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

5. 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 ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

6. Targeted Member States ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

7. City concern: Legal framework ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

8. 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 ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

9. 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 ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

10. Standardisation process ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

11. 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 ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

12. City Concern: Liability ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

13. 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 ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

14. 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. ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

15. 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) ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

16. 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. ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

17. 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? ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

18. Tort Liability: conclusions The 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 additionalsolution may be to equip cognitive robots with an ethical code of conduct. ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

19. Answering the city concerns ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

20. Recommendations for CityMobil2demonstrations • Disclaimers towards users while using the system (visual/vocal advertisement, leaflets, etc). • Specific contractual clauses between the cities and the car manufacturers/system providers. • Vehicle/system approval/certification. • Insurance to cover financial liability risks. • Training of the users • Develop/adopt a Code of Practice/Guidelines • Follow international, European and national standards (such as ISO 26262 series standards) • Use of Operational and Event Data Recorders ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

21. Maxime Flament m.flament@mail.ertico.com ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26

22. Similarities to ITFVHA CityMobil2 WP26