Vehicle Automation:

Definitions, legal aspects, research needs

UNECE-Workshop:

German Federal Highway Research Institute

UNECE-Workshop: Towards a new transportation culture: technology innovations for safe, efficient and sustainable mobility

17 – 18 November 2014, Brussels

Tom M. Gasser

Report of the BASt-Expert-group:

BASt-Report „F83“: „Legal consequences of an increase invehicle automation: Consolidated final report of the project group“

Tom M. Gasser slide No. 2

Download (engl. Version, Part 1):http://bast.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2013/723/pdf/Legal_consequences_of_an_increase_in_vehicle_automation.pdf

17th Nov. 2014

Three operation mechanisms

Operation type A:

Informing and warningfunctions

Operation type B:

Continuouslyautomating functions

Operation type C:

Intervening emergency functions (near-

accident situations)

Take only indirect influence on vehicle control via the driver

Take immediate control overthe vehicle. Division of tasks between the human driver

Take immediate control over the vehicle in near-accident situations that de facto driver between the human driver

and the function(usually convenience functions – control always remains overrideable)

situations that de facto cannot be controlled/handled by the driver (usually safety functions)

Popular examples (today):

• Traffic sign recognition(display of current speed limit)• Lane departure warning(e.g. Vibration on the steering)

Popular examples (today):

• Adaptive cruise control (ACC)• Lane keep assist (via steering interventions)

Popular examples (today): • Automatic emergency braking (system triggered)

Tom M. Gasser slide No. 317th Nov. 2014

Definitions/BASt-project group:Degrees of continuous vehicle automation

rise

in d

egre

eofauto

matio

n

5 Autonomous / driverless vehicles?

4

Full automation: The system takes over longitudinal and lateral control completely and permanently. In case of a take-over request the driver does not respond to, the system will return to the minimal risk condition by itself.

3

High automation: The system takes over longitudinal and lateral control; the driver is no longer required to permanently monitor the

Tom M. Gasser

auto

matio

n

slide No. 417th Nov. 2014

3control; the driver is no longer required to permanently monitor the system. In case of a take-over request, the driver must take-overcontrol within a lead time.

2Partial automation: The system takes over longitudinal and lateral

control, the driver shall permanently monitor the system and shall be prepared to take over control at any time.

1Driver Assistance: The driver permanently controls either longitudinal

or lateral control. The other task can be automated to a certain extentby the assistance system.

0 Driver Only: Human driver executes the driving task manually

…is now common understanding:SAE-International Standard J3016

Sourc

e: h

ttp://c

yberla

w.s

tanfo

rd.e

du/b

log/2

013/1

2/s

ae

Sourc

e: h

ttp://c

yberla

w.s

tanfo

rd.e

du/b

log/2

013/1

2/s

ae-le

vels

-driv

ing-a

uto

matio

n

Challenge: Level 3 automation

Folie Nr. 7

!

Regulatory Law = National Road Traffic Codes

� Addressee is the (human) driver,

����drivers’ Duties:

National Road Traffic Codes Vienna Convention

Legal evaluation:Consistency with Regulatory Law

Source: SARTRE-Project(press release)

Drivers’ obligation is to permanently:

– monitor surrounding traffic and status of the vehicle

– readiness to override/ oversteer in case system control seems inadequate

Tom M. Gasser

Source: DVR

slide No. 817th Nov. 2014

Road Traffic Liabilities (according to German Law):

o Liability of the vehicle „keeper“: unaltered

Source: Creative Commons licence/ Patrick Duletzki via Wikipedia

Legal evaluation: Liability in Road Traffic (for Germany)

o Liability of the vehicle „keeper“: unaltered

o Insurances will be jointly and severally liable with the „keeper“: unaltered

o Liability of the driver: Restricted to fault�no longer applicable in case of highly and fully automated

vehicle operation

Tom M. Gasser slide No. 917th Nov. 2014

partial automation:

o „Defectiveness“: Decisive are user instructions

o Risk of the manufacturer: Is it possible to sufficiently differentiate between:reasonably foreseeable misuse � system abuse?

Legal evaluation:Product Liability

Source: EU-Project HAVE-it

Additionally for high and full automation:

����Damages during highly and fully automated operation mode lead to manufacturers’ liability (in case the accident is not solely caused byill-driving on the side of a third party or an override by the driver).

Tom M. Gasser slide No. 10

Source: SARTRE-Project (press release)

17th Nov. 2014

Cluster: Human –Machine-Interaction

Situation awareness

Transitions in critical driving situations/ at system limits (…)

Cluster: Human –Machine-Interaction

Situation awareness

Transitions in critical driving situations/ at system limits (…)

Cluster: Societal aspects

• e.g. Acceptance of the combined automation risk

• (…)

Cluster: Societal aspects

• e.g. Acceptance of the combined automation risk

• (…)

Research clusters

Cluster: Funktion development, safety, testing

• e.g. New approaches needed?

• (...)

Cluster: Funktion development, safety, testing

• e.g. New approaches needed?

• (...)

Cluster: Infrastructure and Traffic

• Need in respect of Traffic Information (e.g. „reliable information“)

• Infrastructural needs

• (...)

Cluster: Infrastructure and Traffic

• Need in respect of Traffic Information (e.g. „reliable information“)

• Infrastructural needs

• (...)

Tom Michael Gasser slide No. 1117th Nov. 2014

Brüderstraße 53

Federal Highway Research Institute

Tom Michael Gasser

German Federal Highway Research Institute

Brüderstraße 53

D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Phone + 49 (0)2204 43 646

Fax + 49 (0)2204 43 676

gasser@bast.de

Tom Michael Gasser

Co-operative Traffic and

Driver Assistance Systems