Implications of Connected and Automated Driving Systems, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape (2018)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 88 Section 5: International Activities Internationally, there is also much movement in C/AV/HAV development, policies and laws. This section will provide a snapshot into activities in Europe (the European Union [EU] as well as member states), Japan, Australia and Canada. AAMVA has also put together a working group that is looking at cross- border coordination with Canada and Mexico, who share borders with the U.S., and where it is expected that reciprocity of movement will continue with this new vehicle technology. Canada In Canada, no federal laws have yet been passed regarding C/AVs/HAVs as of the drafting of this memo. However, the Government of Ontario launched a pilot program for testing vehicles on Ontario’s roads in 2015. On January 1, 2016, Ontario allowed the testing of C/AVs/HAVs and related technology on their roads. According to the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario (MTO), this step will promote research and development by the 100 companies and institutions involved in the C/AV/HAV industry (MTO, 2015). The proposed pilot framework prescribed conditions to facilitate the testing of C/AVs/HAVs for the next 10 years (Government of Ontario, 2013, and internal panel comunique with research team). While in autonomous mode, vehicles will be subject to these regulations: • Restricted use for testing purposes only; • A driver must be present in the vehicle at all times and have a valid G class driver’s license; • Driver must be trained to safely operate an autonomously equipped vehicle; • Driver must remain seated in the driver’s seat at all times monitoring the safe operation of the AV, and be capable of taking over immediate manual control; and • May only be operated by those drivers approved by the ministry (i.e., employed by the manufacturers, software developers, etc.) and for testing purposes only. • A copy of the signed application form must be kept in the motor vehicle at all times; • Eligible participants must have insurance of at least $5,000,000; • All current Highway Traffic Act rules of the road and penalties will apply to the driver/vehicle owner; and, • Vehicles must comply with SAE Standard J3016 and any requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) that apply to ADSs for the vehicle’s year of manufacture. For the purposes of Ontario’s testing pilot, “automated vehicle” means: a motor vehicle, commercial motor vehicle, or a street car, with an ADS that operates at the SAE International driving automation Level 3, 4 or 5. Those eligible to participate in the pilot include auto manufacturers defined within the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada), technology companies, academic and research institutions and a manufacturer of parts, systems, equipment or components for ADSs. As of July 2017, Ontario has approved seven entities to participate in the pilot: The University of Waterloo, The Erwin Hymer Group, QNX, Continential, X-Matik Inc., Magna and Uber (Ontario Ministry of Transportaion, Automatee Vehicles Website, not dated.)

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 89 Mexico As of the date this technical memorandum was written, Mexico had not passed any legislation regarding C/AVs/HAVs. An AV was tested driving from Arizona to Mexico City in 2015, but news reports did not discuss any Mexican regulations surrounding this one-off pilot test. Japan Japan began work in the C/AV/HAV area in 1996 through its Advanced Cruise-Assist Highway System (AHS) Research Association, which demonstrated a convoy of vehicles. The Government of Japan, through its government ministries, is now working on authorizing C/AVs/HAVs on Japanese roads, with the government defining four levels of vehicle autonomy as their preliminary effort to catalyze and frame the self-driving conversation (Government of Japan, 2012, 2014a, 2014b, & 2016). Work has been done to make provisions for C/AV/HAV technologies, although there is still no classification of driver’s license for these vehicles. However, in 2013, Nissan’s AV Leaf was given an AV license plate and allowed to operate on Japanese roads (Motherboard, 2013). The vehicle is not completely autonomous, but rather utilizes autonomous driving features. The Japanese government also plans to pursue C/AV/HAV opportunities through public-private partnerships. Japanese private and public sectors are expected to invest a total of 10 billion yen ($83.4 million) to build facilities for testing these technologies (Nikkei Asian Review, 2014). The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) discussed other ways of pursuing autonomous driving in the country in an effort to move development of Japanese ITS toward a goal of reaching autopilot or SAE Level 4 autonomy in the early 2020s (MLIT, 2012). The MLIT created an Autopilot System Study Group on C/AVs/HAVs. They looked at some of the issues with self-driving vehicles and studied potential policies that would be appropriate for enabling C/AVs/HAVs. “Autopilot” driving demonstrations also occurred at CEATEC Japan and at the ITS World Congress in 2013 (Yamamoto, 2015). The Japanese Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (JCSTI) has also been proactive in encouraging C/AVs/HAVs. In November of 2014, the JCSTI, Japanese Cabinet Office, and Cross- Ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program, organized a workshop on C/AVs. The scope of the discussions included technologies, human factors, legal issues, and integrated applications of automated driving technologies, such as reduction of traffic injuries and next generation transportation services (JCSTI, 2014). The Cross-Ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program is another Japanese government project that is researching autonomous driving (JCSTI, 2014). Japanese authorities indicated that they would also implement multimodal transportation systems centered on pedestrian utility. Policymakers believe C/AVs/HAVs will be a supplement to these networks and create safer and more time-efficient transport options (JCSTI, 2014). However, Japanese legislation is still fairly prohibitive of vehicle autonomy, save for the authorized exceptions (i.e., Nissan Autonomous Leaf). The Road Traffic Act requires drivers to ensure safety at all times while the car is being driven (Nikkei Asian Review, 2015). This requirement can be problematic for the potential of self-driving cars because it is fairly similar to the pre-amended Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The strict approach seems to be continuing as of 2016. Guidelines on public road tests for self-driving vehicles, which were released in May 2016 by the National policy Agency in Japan, excluded HAVs without a steering wheel or driver (The Japan Times, 2016). The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry’s (METI) fiscal year 2017 Budget Request requested funds to encourage private sector investment in key focus areas. This included a requested 270-million-dollar

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 90 investment to realize the “fourth industrial revolution” that would develop innovations in AI and other advanced technologies, including autonomous vehicles (METI, 2016). Australia The federal government of Australia has not introduced any legislation regarding C/AVs/HAVs, so, as in many other countries, the states are leading the charge on this front. However, in November 2016, the National Transport Commission of Australia (NTC) announced that while current regulations do not adequately support C/AVs/HAVs, the ministers had agreed to phased reform so that conditionally C/AVs can operate safely and legally on roads before 2020, and HAVs from 2020 onward. In an effort to provide certainty on the use of existing technology, transport ministers reaffirmed the existing policy position that the human driver remains in full legal control of a vehicle that is partially or conditionally automated, unless or until a new position is developed and agreed (NTC, n.d.). The recommendations and policy positions are set out in the Commissions’ policy paper, Regulatory Reforms for Automated Road Vehicles, which was released in November 2016 (NTC, 2016a). The policy paper outlined the near-term reforms, and medium- and long-term reforms that will be required. One area that the policy paper discusses is clarifying the meaning of control and proper control as well as the meaning of driver and driving. The policy paper also looks at vehicle design and standards, including modification and in- service compliance, liability, and safety assurances for vehicles that do not require a human driver (NTC, 2016a). In November 2016, the NTC released its National Guidelines for Automated Vehicle Trials: Discussion Paper (NTC, 2016b). The report discusses management of trials, safety management plans, insurance, data and information, cross border trials, heavy vehicle trials, and next steps. The NTC has asked for feedback on the draft guidelines by mid-January 2017—this includes feedback on a preferred option as well as responses to nine major questions (outlined in Figure 8). The summary of key proposals can be seen in Figure 9. NTC Draft Trialing Policy: Major Feedback Questions 1. Do you agree that national guidelines should provide the basis for conditions of an exemption? If not, why? 2. How should road transport agencies use the guidelines in relations to exemptions? 3. Should national guidelines take a safety management approach? If not, what other approach do you suggest? 4. Are there additional criteria that should be included in the guidelines? 5. Do you support the guidelines including prescribed insurance? If so, what kind of insurance should be prescribed? 6. If trialing organizations are required to collect crash data and share it with road transport agencies, what data should be required? 7. How should an automated vehicle “incident” be defined? What data should be required for such incidents? 8. How important is that state and territory road transport agencies facilitate cross-border trials of automated vehicles? How could governments enable cross-border trials? 9. Are there any unique issues for heavy vehicles that require special consideration in guidelines for automated vehicle trials? Figure 8. NTC draft trialing policy: major feedback questions. Source: NTC, 2016b

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 91 Summary of Key NTC Proposals for Guidelines for Trials of Automated Vehicles 1. Application of guidelines 1.1 Where a trialing organization requires an exemption to run an automated vehicle trial, the organization must demonstrate that they have addressed each issue set out in the guidelines. The guidelines have: • essential components that apply to every trial • optional components that may be included at the discretion of the road transport agency, depending on the nature of the trial. 1.2 Where a trialing organization does not require an exemption to operate, the organization is still encouraged to follow the guidelines to ensure that their vehicles are operating safely. 2. Management of trials 2.1 Trialing organizations must propose a specific ODD, including the location(s) proposed for the trial. 2.2 Unless a specific exemption has been granted by the relevant road transport agency, trialing organizations must comply with all existing: • road rules and traffic laws • vehicle standards • privacy and surveillance laws. 2.3 Trialing organizations should consider whether the trial requires them to: • develop a traffic management plan • inform road transport agencies of infrastructure or network requirements and how they will manage changes to infrastructure (such as roadworks) • engage with the public and other stakeholders. 2.4. Road agencies may designate these as essential criteria depending on the nature of the trial. 3. Safety management plan 3.1. Trialing organizations must develop a safety management plan outlining all key safety risks for the trial and how they will be mitigated or eliminated. The safety management plan must be provided as part of the application and should include specific consideration of: • security of the automated system • appropriate system failure warnings for the vehicle • appropriate transition processes for vehicles that can move between automated and manual driving modes • whether a human driver will be in the vehicle • any other relevant safety risks for the trial. Note that a human driver will be required in the vehicle unless a specific exemption has been granted. 4. Insurance 4.1 Trialing organizations must demonstrate that they have appropriate insurance 5. Data and information 5.1. Trialing organizations must collect and provide the appropriate road agency data on any crashes that occur as part of the trial. 5.2. Additional data provision could also include: • ongoing data updates • trial outcomes • data on network operation and conditions. Road agencies may designate these as essential criteria, depending on the nature of the trial. Figure 9. Summary of NTC proposals and guidelines for trials of automated vehicles. Source: NTC, 2016b

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 92 The NTC also has a series of projects underway that are preparing for more automated road and rail vehicles, including vehicle standards maintenance, load restraint guide maintenance, reviewing assessing fitness to drive, reviewing national standards for health assessments of workers, primary duties for chain of responsibility and executive liability, and land Transport Regulation 2020 (NTC, n.d.). Notwithstanding the lack of government regulations, the Government of South Australia introduced legislation for on-road testing of AVs in September 2015 (Government of South Australia, 2015a). The Motor Vehicles (Trials of Automotive Technologies) Amendment Bill provided for exemptions from existing laws to allow trials of AVs on public roads. Amendments to the existing law included… • a change in the definition of uninsured motor vehicle; • insertion of a new section for trials of automotive technologies; • authorization for the Minister of Transport to issue, publish, and adopt guidelines; and • authorization for the Minister of Transport to authorize trials of automotive technologies. The Bill required the Minister to report to Parliament within 6 months of the completion of an authorized trial and to prepare a report in relation to the authorized trial (Government of South Australia, 2015b). According to news reports, Australia was to start tests of AVs on its public highways in late 2015 (ABC, 2015) for the first time. Volvo was to conduct testing in Adelaide’s southern suburbs on the Southern Expressway on November 7 and 8, 2015 with multiple vehicles, including the use of Volvo’s XC90 models used in Sweden’s DriveMe project. The vehicles were to test overtaking, lane changing, emergency braking, and the use of on and off ramps. The New South Wales Government set up a website (www.future.transport.nsw.gov.au) in 2016 as a portal to improve the future of transport over the next 15 years: the website includes review of HAVs. The Future Transport Technology Roadmap was published in April 2017. The Roadmap includes transforming the transportation agency itself to adopt practices from technology leaders in other sectors. As part of the Future Transport Technology policy process, the Ministry has developed technology strategies including “enable[ing] connected, automated vehicle platforms.” An initial overview of the Ministry’s plan to tranisiont to C/AVs/HAVs includes no-regrets initiatives that will deliver value to a customer regardless of how technology plays out, and game changers consisting of enduring long term technologies that can withstand adjustments with future research, development, and technology maturity. European Activities Within Europe, many states have begun to investigate the integration of C/AVs/HAVs into their interconnected transportation networks through research and study groups. There have not been any specific laws or policies out of the EU on C/AVs/HAVs yet, but this is expected to be forthcoming in 2017–2018, as there are concerns (much as there are in the U.S.) that member states will create a patchwork of regulations that will impede the movements of people and goods within the EU. Under the EU governing treaties, there is latitude to create legislation on this front, as it falls within the four main pillars that underlie the EU: freedom of the movement of people, goods, services and capital. In addition, current EU laws provide some insight into how C/AVs/HAVs can be operated across EU transportation networks. Directive 2007/46/EC regulates how new vehicles should be designed and operated. The purpose of this Directive is to set up a fully harmonized EU-wide framework for the approval of motor vehicles, thus creating an internal market within the European Community and ensuring a high level of road safety, health protection, environmental protection, energy efficiency, and protection against unauthorized use. EU Roadworthiness Directive 2014/45/EU provides a basis for checking that vehicles

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 93 throughout the EU are in a roadworthy condition and meet the same safety standards as when they were first registered.211 A number of initiatives are under development to support a harmonized approach by amending international regulations and preventing fragmentation. In the most noteworthy of these, put in place by the United Nations (UN) Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP 29) is assessing proposals covering semi-automated driving functions (autopilot systems to be used in traffic jams, self-parking functions and highway autopilots), which will ultimately pave the way for more highly automated vehicles. An example of the challenges faced is given by the ongoing work to amend UN R79 on steering equipment that currently only allows automatically commanded steering functions up to 10 kph, while beyond 10 kph only “corrective steering function” is allowed. As such, some SAE Level 2, 3, 4 and 5 systems are not allowed with current requirements and an amendment is needed to accompany the development of automated systems. Discussions are ongoing at UNECE also to examine UN R13 on braking systems, which does cater for “automatically commanded braking,” but may require some examination to confirm its suitability. UNECE work in this area is fundamental to prevent legislative barriers that also limit the introduction into the market of lower levels of automation, which are ready to be deployed in the short term, as well as to pave the way for the place of higher levels of automation into the market. (European Parliament, 2016 p. 52-53) One of the arguments that has been put forward for why there has not been legislation/policy or faster deployment of C/AVs/HAVs is that the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic has prevented a more robust approach to the development and adoption of these technologies. Article 8 of the Convention contained language that incidentally prevented the serious development and testing of C/AVs/HAVs: “Every driver shall at all times be able to control his vehicle” (UNECE, 1968). As concern continued to mount in Europe about its lack of contribution to the progression of C/AVs/HAVs, EU member states began to consider how to rectify this. Within member states’ conversations at national levels, the catalyst for faster development of C/AVs/HAVs in Europe was felt to sit within competitiveness, sustainability, efficiency, and harmonization across the states; climate change issues; and, to a lesser degree, safety (Schreus et al., 2015). In 2014, the governments of Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, and Austria submitted to the UN an amendment to the Vienna Convention on Road traffic to allow drivers to take their hands off the wheel of self-driving cars (SafeCarNews, 2014). Also in 2014, the UN Working Party on Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) proposed amendments to Article 8 and Article 39 of the 1968 Vienna Convention, aimed at ensuring that safety rules do not hamper the advancement of new technologies aimed at improving road safety. According to the amendment, “systems which influence the way vehicles are driven,” as well as other systems which can be overridden or switched off by the driver, are deemed to be in accordance with Article 8 of the Vienna Convention. The amendment was adopted by the UN on September 23, 2015, and entered into force on March 23, 2016. However, the European Parliament noted in the 2016 report that SAE levels 3 and above would still be incompatible with the Vienna Convention and that a further amendment process would be necessary to permit these fully driverless vehicles (European Parliament, 2016 p. 55). Another impediment to the slow uptake of C/AVs/HAVs in the EU is Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation 79, which contains requirements for a specific steering configuration (Lutz, 2016). An advanced driver assistance steering system is only allowed to control steering as long as the driver remains in primary control of the vehicle at all times (paragraph 2.3.4). Paragraph 5.1.6 also requires that 211 Research for European Parliament Tran Committee: Self-Piloted Cars: the future of road transport, 2016 at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/573434/IPOL_STU(2016)573434_EN.pdf

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 94 such systems shall be designed such that the driver may, at any time and by deliberate action, override the function. Paragraph 23.4 does distinguish between two types of assistance systems. • The “Automatically commanded steering function” (paragraph 2.3.4.1), which generates continuous control action assisting the driver in following a particular path, in low speed maneuvering or parking operations, is limited to 12 km/h (10 km/h + 20% tolerance), paragraph 5.1.6.1. • The “corrective steering function” (paragraph 2.3.4.2.) such as ESP (Electronic Stability Program) or lane assist is not subject to speed limitations. This function can change the steering angle to maintain the desired direction for the vehicle or influence its movement. Since this function may only operate for a limited duration, the driver must keep his hands on the steering wheel at all times. Current EU initiatives include research under the 7th Framework Program for Research and Technological Development. The EU Commission developed several projects under this framework, including AdaptIVE, which is a 42-month project on challenges in addressing automated driving. The project was expected, by December 2016, to have reviewed and defined the legal aspects of automation on EU public roadways; project results are expected in 2017. Project goals under AdaptIVE are to define and validate new methodologies for safety evaluation, demonstrate the feasibility of automated driving, and provide guidelines for cooperative controls (AdaptivIVE, 2016). CityMobil2 is another EU funded project that is developing a prototype automated transport system for urban areas with low passenger numbers. Again, this project’s goal is feasibility of the system, and gathering data to help drive the development of regulations or relax any current legal constraints. The project began in 2012 and has operated demonstrations in a handful of EU member states, but La Rachelle, France received one of the largest injections of monies for its project earlier on. Currently, the three cities hosting demonstration projects are Saint Sulpice in West Lausane Switzerland, La Rochelle, and Trikala in Greece. The technology is still in the early stages of development and policy, and legal questions were again seen as an impediment to quicker implementation. City2Mobil2 is also conducting research into this area. According to the City2Mobile web site, there is currently no policy regarding C/AVs/HAVs in France, so the project team has been in close conversation with French authorities to gain permission for such vehicles. The conversations and feedback from both parties resulted in the Transport Minister authorizing CityMobile2 (CityMobile, n.d.). Other routes for EU activities in C/AVs/HAVs have come through European Commission projects aimed at keeping the EU competitive from a market perspective. The European Commission Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content & Technology, also known as DG Connect, for example, created an autonomous driving forum called iMobility and forwards readers to the forum’s website when they search for automated driving. The EU also created a platform called FUTURIUM for debating the future and trajectory of autonomous driving on the continent (Schreus et al., 2015). While none of these initiatives had as an explicit focus the development of C/AV/HAV policies or regulations, they are recognition on the EU’s part of the serious changes coming to the transportation field as a consequence of C/AVs/HAVs. EU Member States Examples of prominent activities in EU member states are detailed below. This list is not exhaustive, and focus is on either the creation of legislation/regulations or projects that are researching such areas.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 95 France France, under its “New Industrial France” program, proposed that self-driving cars could be allowed on public roads in 2015. In August 2016, the Council of Ministers ratified an amendment to the Vienna Convention under the rubric of this national program. The amendment allows cars to drive autonomously if the driver can override or switch the systems off at any time (Government of France at Elysee France/conseils des Ministries, 2016). While the council of ministers stressed that the amendment is an experimental phase, the goal was to give automakers a competitive edge to prepare for the mobility of tomorrow. It should be noted that the ratification of the amendment did not draft any explicit rules or regulations on the management of these vehicles on the road. It is expected that manufacturers will be asked to register with the French government before testing on public roads. Since 2015, the PSA group (a multinational manufacturer of vehicles) has held permission from the French government to test its four self-driving cars. Finland Finland’s road traffic legislation permits AV trials (Trafi Finnish Transportation Safety Agency website, April 2016). The statutory basis for this is The Vehicle Act, Section 66f (1090/2002); Government Decree on Vehicle Registration, Section 32 (893/2007); and the Vehicle Tax Act, Section 35(1)8 (1482/1994). The agency tasked with implementing the AV trials is “Trafi” the Finnish Transportation Safety Agency. Trafi’s model was developed to be clear and make the process as simple as possible; in many ways, it mirrors Michigan’s approach to testing HAVs. An enterprise or agency can apply to get a test plate certificate. The certificate is valid for one year. The holder of the test plate can operate a vehicle in road traffic on a temporary basis without being liable for car and vehicle tax on the AV. The application process is on-line. The test plate certificate costs 300 Euros (€) and the test plate is €9. An appendix to the application requires that the applicant enclose a trial plan that includes… • a general description of the trials, • technical specifications of the test vehicles, • information on the road area where the trails are intended to be conducted, • proof of insurance cover for third party liability, • a description of how road safety will be ensured. The first test plates were issued in July to the Metroplia University of Applied Sciences and VTT Technical Research Center of Finland. Testing was to occur in Helsinki in July and August of 2016, and Tampere in September 2016. The tests would involve electric buses in Helsinki and passenger vehicles in other cities/regions. Traffic arrangements on the test routes were to be planned individually between the authorities in charge of the road and those performing the trial. Trafi was also to draw up separate safety plans for each trial as well. Germany Germany passed legislation on December 13, 2016 (Act to Amend Articles 8 and 39 of the Convention on Road Traffic of November 8, 1968), which was similar to France’s in that it implemented an amendment to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The amendment allows the transfer of driving tasks to the vehicle, provided that the technologies are in conformity with UN vehicle regulations or can be switched off or overridden by the driver (German Federal Law Gazette, 2016). In September 2016, the German Minister of Transport, Alexander Dobrindt, announced that draft traffic laws were being developed that will require that the vehicle have a steering wheel and that a human must sit behind the steering wheel.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 96 Minister Dobrindt also announced a basis for future legal guidelines for C/AV/HAVs that would echo Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics. Manufacturers are expected to work towards this prior to formal legislation being passed. Minister Dobrindt has also created an ethics commission to work upon the specific legislative language for robotics (Wirtschafts, 2016). Prior to 2016’s legislative components, the German Transport Ministry held roundtable meetings with members from various transportation stakeholder groups twice a year to address the issues, in addition to assembling working groups to take a look at policy and legal questions (Schreus et al., 2015; Henkel, Nowak, Smirra, & Reiner, 2016; Norton Rose Fulbright, 2016). The Netherlands In June 2014, the Dutch government announced its intention to allow large-scale testing of C/AVs/HAVs on Dutch roads. The government acknowledged that, in order to make this possible, existing legislation needed to be amended. The Dutch had been involved in some trials on the main road network at a smaller scale, such as the Dutch Integrated Site on Cooperative Mobility in Helmond. In January 2015, the government proposed an exemption to rules allowing the larger scale testing, which would be approved once legislation was changed. The Ministry of Transportation published an exemption process for large- scale testing on public roads. In July 2015, the Netherlands Vehicle Authority (RDW) and the Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment, prepared regulations that make this legally feasible. The new legislation for automated driving on the public roads came into force on July 1, 2015. The system for application is online through the RDW website.212 There are three stages in how the RDW evaluates test applicants: 1. written evaluation, roughly comprising an overview of changes to the vehicle, and the impact these have on safety, and counter measures; 2. functionality testing (at a closed facility), of aspects the applicant seeks to test on public roads: the ‘happy flow test’; 3. a stress test at a closed facility. This tests system robustness, both in technical and functional terms. If this final phase is completed successfully, consideration will be given—in consultation with the road manager(s)—as to suitable locations to be opened up and what circumstances will apply. This may involve recommendations from knowledge institutes like the Road Safety Research Institute (SWOV) or cybersecurity experts. The exemption lists all relevant circumstances together with the licensed drivers, the duration of the exemption, and the vehicles (EUTruckplatooning.com website, not dated). Again, the Netherlands’ approach is somewhat similar to California’s approach to testing of C/AV/HAVs. Sweden In April 2016, the Swedish Minister for Infrastructure announced her goals for proposed legislation for C/AV/HAV trials (DriveSweden.net, 2016). This is expected to be drafted and passed into law by mid- year 2017, and followed later on in 2017 with draft legislation for full commercializing of C/AVs/HAVs. The minister noted that she did not believe international conventions prevented trials on roads, and she also noted that EU law did not prevent such trials either. 212https://www.rdw.nl/englishinformation/Paginas/Method-admittance-procedure- ITS.aspx?path=Portal/Information%20in%20English/Intelligent%20Transport%20Systems.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 97 The minister outlined that the Swedish Transport Agency would be responsible for issuing permits to carry out trials, which would be based on some conditions, including limitations to time and geographic areas. The agency would supervise the performance of trials and would be able to revoke permits. The agency would also be able to impose requirements for marking of vehicles. Data collection and storage should ensure consistency with national/international regulations and the tests’ organization should indicate how road safety will be ensured under trial conditions. The testing agency should also provide reports on incidents. Liability should be tested in trials where an HAV handles all driving functions, including safety, and the driving system would be regarded as the vehicle driver. When the vehicle is in self-driving mode, criminal liability shall be borne by whoever applied for the permit. An HAV (i.e., SAE levels 3 and above) could be driven by a physical driver on certain routes, and under these circumstances the physical driver would bear criminal liability (i.e., SAE levels 0–2). Compensation for traffic accidents would continue to be applied under the current regulatory framework to all levels of C/AV/HAVs. The minister did not believe that a constitutional amendment was required. Data from the vehicle would be used for accident investigation, and whoever was granted the permit for trials would be responsible, on request, for submitting to the policyholder of the C/AV/HAV, data available from the vehicle’s sensors to investigate the insurance case. Insurance companies, the minister noted, could obtain access to data through a civil law agreement with the insured. One interesting item to note was camera surveillance, which would require new regulations and need to be incorporated into the trial legislation. According to the minister: Visual data obtained from the outside of the vehicle shall be permanently and irrevocably anonymized before storage. Against this background I consider that the camera surveillance that takes place in trials of self-driving vehicles, in places to which the public has access, can be exempted from the permit and disclosure requirements. The interception of communications or audio recording must not be carried out using microphones outside the vehicle. Camera surveillance of a place to which the public does not have access shall be exempted from the requirement for consent in relation to people who are outside the vehicle. This may, for example, cover the performance of a trial in a car park where only self-driving vehicles may park. Consent shall be required in respect of surveillance which takes place inside a vehicle. The Swedish Data Protection Authority shall supervise the camera surveillance carried out by self-driving vehicles. (DriveSweden.net, 2016). The minister did not believe that it was possible to lay down specific infrastructure requirements in the trial legislation for the various trials. Depending upon the trials, a test organization may choose, however, to ask for infrastructure adaptations. The minister’s starting point was that the test organization would discuss this with the road authority, on finding suitable routes for tests. Finally, on the work environment, the minister noted that trials using vehicles would still fall under the employer’s responsibility to ensure that the driver has knowledge and skills required to carry out the trial and that the work environment is safe.213 In many ways, Sweden’s proposed approach is similar to California’s approach, and to the 2016 NHTSA’s policy guidelines on state roles/responsibilities. Sweden has also been conducting C/AV/HAV projects since the beginning of 2015. Drive Sweden is an initiative launched by the Swedish government (funded through its energy agency and innovation agency rather than its transportation agency) in the Spring of 2015. One of the projects within Drive Sweden is Drive Me which was the country’s first large-scale autonomous driving project conducted in Gothenburg. The collaborative project, which is a partnership between the Swedish Transport Administration, the 213 Adapted from: http://www.drivesweden.net/en/news/sweden-proposes-very-progressive-legislation-self-driving-vehicle-trials

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 98 Swedish Transport Agency, Volvo, Lindholmen Science Park, and the City of Gothenburg, will have 100 vehicles driving autonomously on the city’s public roads (Swedish Transport Administration, n.d.) Sweden has also been studying CVs through the Safe Road Trains for the Environment (SARTRE) Project funded by the European Commission under the Framework 7 program. It aims to develop strategies and technologies to have platooning vehicles on public highways (SARTRE, not dated). United Kingdom In 2013 the UK’s government pledged, as part of its National Infrastructure Plan, to review its legislative and regulatory framework to enable trials of C/AVs/HAVs on the UK’s roads (ANWB, 2015). The government announced the driverless cars competition on July 30, 2014, and encouraged individual municipalities to work with technology developers to test their vehicles in their cities. This was followed up with a December 2014 announcement that four cities (Greenwich, Bristol, Milton Keynes and Coventry) were awarded up to £10 million to test driverless cars (ANWB, 2015). In February 2015, the Department of Transport UK released a summary report and action plan for how to handle autonomous driving by creating a Code of Practice. The proposed idea of the Code of Practice is intended to promote safety and set clear guidelines for responsible testing (Department of Transport UK, 2015). The Department of Transport in a detailed review of regulations in February 2015 reported the following: • Driverless vehicles can legally be tested on public roads in the UK today, providing a test driver is present and takes responsibility for the safe operation of the vehicle and that the vehicle can be used compatibly with the road law; • A Code of Practice will be published in this spring for those wishing to test driverless vehicles on UK roads; • Domestic regulations will be reviewed and amended by the summer of 2017 to accommodate driverless vehicle technology; • Officials will liaise at an international level with an aim to amend international regulations by the end of 2018. (Government UK, 2015a) In July 2015, the government issued guidance and a code of practice on C/AV/HAV technology testing (Government UK, 2015b). This Code of Practice provides guidance for anyone wishing to conduct testing of HAV technologies on public roads or in other public places in the UK. It details recommendations which the government believes should be followed to maintain safety and minimize potential risks. The test driver under the guidance must be licensed and trained and supervise the vehicle at all times and be ready and able to over-ride automated operation. Test drivers and operators supervising public road testing of C/AVs/HAVs will need skills over and above those of drivers of conventional vehicles. For example, it will be important to ensure they have an excellent understanding of the capabilities, and potential limitations of the technologies under test, and to already be familiar with the characteristics of the vehicle, preferably through extensive experience of tests conducted on closed roads or test tracks. Testing organizations should have robust risk management, process and training procedures in place for test drivers and operators, and should ensure they hold the appropriate UK driving license, or recognized equivalent (Government UK, 2015b). The vehicles must be must be roadworthy and must, if used on a public road, meet the relevant national in-service requirements. A test vehicle that is over 3 years old (or 4 years old in Northern Ireland) must also have a valid inspection certificate (called a MOT). An electronic data recorded is also required in the vehicle, and should record…

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 99 • whether the vehicle is operating in manual or automated mode, • vehicle speed, • steering command and activation, • braking command and activation, • operation of the vehicle’s lights and indicators, • use of the vehicle’s audible warning system (horn), • sensor data concerning the presence of other road users or objects in the vehicle’s vicinity, • remote commands which may influence the vehicle’s movement (if applicable). The code also details guides for cybersecurity, software levels, process for transition between automated and manual modes, and failure warning requirements. In February 2017, the UK introduced the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which sets out how liability for accidents involving HAVs will be apportioned.214 Under the bill, the UK government would be responsible for keeping a list of all HAVs in the UK.215 Insurance liability is listed in Section 2 and under subsection 2 (1) where (a) an accident is caused by an automated vehicle when driving itself, (b) the vehicle is insured at the time of the accident, and (c) an insured person or any other person suffers damage because of the accident. Under these circumstances, the insurer would be liable for that damage. Under sub-section 2 (2) where: (a) an accident is caused by an automated vehicle when driving itself, (b) the vehicle is not insured at the time of the accident, (c) section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks) does not apply to the vehicle at that time— (i) because of section 144(2) of that Act (exemption for public bodies etc.), or (ii) because the vehicle is in the public service of the Crown, and (d) a person suffers damage as a result of the accident, the owner of the vehicle is liable for that damage. Damage is defined as death or personal injury, and any damage to property other than (a) the automated vehicle, (b) goods carried for hire or reward in or on that vehicle or in or on any trailer (whether or not coupled) drawn by it, or (c) property in the custody, or under the control, of (i) the insured person (where subsection (1) applies), or (ii) the person in charge of the automated vehicle at the time of the accident (where subsection (2) applies). Where damage is caused or arises out of any one accident, the amount of liability of the insurer or owner is limited to the amounts set out in the Road Traffic Act 1988. Liability cannot be limited or excluded by a term of any insurance policy. Notwithstanding, the imposition by this section of liability on the insurer or vehicle owner does not affect any other person’s liability in respect of the accident. Contributory negligence under section 3 where an insurer or vehicle owner is liable under section 2 to a person (“the injured party”) in respect of an accident, and (b) the accident, or the damage resulting from 214 Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (HC Bill 143). , https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016- 2017/0143/cbill_2016-20170143_en_2.htm 215 HC Bill 143, part 1, Automated Vehicles; liability of Insurers Etc., Section 1.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 100 it, was to any extent caused by the injured party. Contributory negligence is also subject to any reduction under the law reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 that would apply to a claim by an injured party. Section 4 covers an accident resulting from unauthorized alterations or a failure to update software. An insurance policy under subsection 4 (1) can limit or exclude insurance lability for damage suffered by an insured person in an incident where the accident occurs because of (a) alterations to the vehicle’s operating system made by the insured person, or with the insured person’s knowledge, that are prohibited under the policy, or (b) a failure to install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system that the insured person is required under the policy to install or to have installed. However, under subsection 4 (2) any liability exceptions are restricted such that any exclusion or limitation for damage by an insured person who is not the policy holder will apply only if (a) alternations made to the operating system at the time of the accident were known by the person to be prohibited under the policy; or (b) a failure to install software updates is known by the person is required under the policy to either install themselves or have installed. Subsection 4 (4) applies to any amounts paid by an insurer for damage suffered after an accident, by someone not covered under the insurance policy, if the accident is a direct result of (a) alterations to the vehicle’s operating system made by an insured person, or with an insured person’s knowledge, that were prohibited under the policy, or (b) a failure to install software updates to the vehicle’s operating system that an insured person was required under the policy to install or to have installed, The amount paid by the insurer is recoverable from the person to the extent that the policy provides for this. This right of recovery in subsection (5) is further limited from the insured person who is not the holder of the policy. It will apply only in relation to (a) alterations to the vehicle’s operating system which, at the time of the accident, the person knew were prohibited under the policy, or (b) a failure to install software updates which at that time the person knew he or she was required under the policy to install or to have installed. Section 5 sets out the rights of the insurer to claim against the person responsible for the accident. Sub section 2 imposes on an insurer, or the owner of a vehicle, liability to a person who has suffered damage as a result of an accident (“the injured party”), and (b) the amount of the insurer’s or vehicle owner’s liability to the injured party in respect of the accident (including any liability not imposed by section 2) is settled, any other person liable to the injured party in respect of the accident is under the same liability to the insurer or vehicle owner. (2) For the purposes of this section, the amount of the insurer’s or vehicle owner’s liability is settled when it is established— (a) by a judgment or decree, (b) by an award in arbitral proceedings or by an arbitration, or (c) by an enforceable agreement. (3) If the amount recovered under this section by the insurer or vehicle owner exceeds the amount which that person has agreed or been ordered to pay to the injured party (ignoring so much of either amount as represents interest), the insurer or vehicle owner is liable to the injured party for the difference.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 101 (4) Nothing in this section allows the insurer or vehicle owner and the injured party, between them, to recover from any person more than the amount of that person’s liability to the injured party. (5) For the purposes of— (a) section 10A of the Limitation Act 1980 (special time limit for actions by insurers etc. in respect of automated vehicles), or (b) section 18ZC of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (actions under this section), the right of action that an insurer or vehicle owner has by virtue of this section accrues at the time of the settlement referred to in subsection (1)(b). However, as the UK has introduced a general election, this bill has not passed through the two chambers in the UK parliament to become law. Singapore Singapore began authorizing limited AV permits in 2015. In February 2017, Singapore saw a bill to amend its Road Traffic Act216 introduced into the Singapore Parliament. This would authorize HAVs to be tested on all public roads. Testing is authorized currently only on small segments of roads around two tech hubs in the city. The Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Amendment Bill) lists in its policy preamble that the bill supports innovations in the transport sector, while safeguarding commuters’ interests, in particular, safety.217 The Land Transport Authority, in a factsheet regarding the Road Traffic Amendment Bill, noted that this would provide a more responsible regulatory framework to support AV trials, and provide flexibility to create and amend rules to facilitate trials when needed. The bill would amend the Road Traffic Act by defining AV technology as: Any particular technology that relates to the design, construction or use of autonomous motor vehicles or other relates to advances in the design or construction of autonomous motor vehicles. Autonomous motor vehicle is defined as a motor vehicle equipped wholly or substantially with an autonomous system (driverless vehicle) and includes a trailer drawn by such a vehicle. Autonomous system for a motor vehicle is a system that enables the operation of the motor vehicle without the active physical control of, or monitoring by, a human operator. The bill adds new Sections 6 C, D and E to the principal Act regarding trials and use of AVs. It authorizes the minister to make rules to regulate trials of AVs and their use on a road. The addition to the Act requires the person authorized under any rules to undertake a trial to have liability insurance in place and ensure it is in force at all times, and deposit with the Authority a security of a type to be prescribed by the rules. The bill would also add that for any trial, a notice of the trial’s elements to ensure adequate publicity must be paid for by the entity conducting the trial. Within this notice, the entity must denote areas where the trail will take place and the name of every participant who will be conducting the trial. The Authority can also limit the period for an approved trial and prescribe other limitations based on weather or other climatic circumstances. The Authority can also proscribe construction design or use of technology, equipment, or devices in relation to the AV used in the trial. This can include requiring equipment to capture and store sensor data or video footage and a failure alert system that can take immediate manual control. The Authority can make rules for suspending a trail that it determines is no 216 Singapore Statutes online at http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3Aba3acbce-2ce4- 4b3f-8011-5bfae19cfbbc%20%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0 217 Land Transport Authority of the Singapore government. https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=cb1d0f2e-a254- 45e2-acd7-bf96b843b017

NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 1: Legal Landscape 102 longer in the public interest or if the person authorized to conduct a trail has contravened or failed to comply with any conditions within the authorization.218 Section 5 D authorizes the Authority to make exceptions and to consult with other ministries for any laws that the minister is not charged with responsibility for. The new Section 6 E sets out offences for interfering with an AV trial. The first offence fine is set to not exceed $5,000 (Singapore Dollars) which is $3,621 U.S. dollars at the time of this memo’s drafting. This section does not amend the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act at Section 50A. The bill did not pass out of Parliament, which, as of this memo’s drafting, was adjourned. 218Parliament of Singapore website at https://www.parliament.gov.sg/sites/default/files/Road%20Traffic%20(Amendment)%20Bill%205-2017.pdf