Restricting movement of unmanned vehicles on public roads

In April 2024, a bill was proposed in California to restrict movement of vehicles weighing more than 4.5 tons without drivers on public roads (vans and heavier trucks). This bill is promoted by a trade union of truck drivers, who risk losing their job due to use of unmanned trucks.

In France, movement of such unmanned vehicles is allowed only on special roads, in China - in presence of a remote operator, in most states of the USA such a vehicle can be denied permission to move.¹

The OECD and ITF use classification of the automated transport vehicles highlighting 6² levels. The level of automation determines who takes control on driving from partial automation (level 0) to full automated unmanned driving on any roads (level 5). In the EU, as from 2024 all new vehicles shall be equipped with advanced emergency braking systems and keeping the lane of traffic, which makes it virtually impossible to purchase a new car without automation level 1.

The experience of EU, US, China and

France

The general trend is to develop safety requirements for Level 3 and 4 unmanned

Table – 6 levels of vehicle’s automation

³ International Transport Forum vehicles and higher standards for Level 5 vehicles:

1) Compliance with technical requirements for systems that replace driver control, i.e. signaling, steering, acceleration and braking (EU, California, France);

2) Real-time information systems on the state of the vehicle and the surrounding area (EU, France). In France, such data are used to analyze accidents, and the manufacturer of the automated vehicle is obliged to provide access to the data;

3) Driver monitoring system to assess whether the driver is able to take control of the vehicle, e.g. in case of risk of an accident (EU, France, California, Nevada). If a driver does not react, the vehicle must stop (California);

4) Defining conditions by manufacturer (geographical, weather, road, etc.) for unmanned driving (France);

5) Defining conditions for the automated system of the vehicle to activate an emergency maneuver in case of a risk of collision (France).

In this respect, in the EU, for Level 5 vehicles there is a requirement to have data recorders of events related to the movement of the vehicle (route, barriers, accident risks, driving data, etc.), systems for informing about safety of other road users (e.g. driver absence);

6) Switching on/off mechanism for automated driving (New York, Nevada);

7) Compliance with regulations to protect against cyberattacks, unauthorized intrusions and false commands (California, New York). In California, a vehicle must be equipped with a separate mechanism to collect and store data 30 seconds before hitting anything.

8) Marking of autonomous vehicles (China);

It is worth noting that China's approach is somewhat different from other countries. It provides for licensing of public passenger transport and freight transport services provided using vehicles of 3-5 levels of automation.

It is worth noting that China's approach is slightly different from other countries. It provides for licensing of public passenger transport and freight transport services provided using vehicles having 3-5 levels of automation. The operator should implement an operational security management system, including employee safety, threat investigation, network security management, and emergency response plans.

In order to enter such vehicles on the roads, countries impose the following conditions:

1) Highly or fully automated vehicles must drive only on specially dedicated lanes or routes (France, China), or the manufacturer must obtain a permission to use automated vehicles on public roads (US states).

In France, they appoint a special operator of such routes, who organizes the route, conducts a safety assessment of the route with authorized organizations, and obtains permission from the prefect to put the route into operation. In California and Nevada there are no dedicated roads for automated vehicles, however, manufacturers must obtain a permission to operationalize such vehicles on public roads (there may be a requirement for compulsory presence of a driver).

In China, at least an operator (driver or someone in charge of safety) must be present in autonomous vehicles, such as cargo autonomous vehicles, during transportation, and fully automated taxis can be used without drivers with the permission of local authorities in specially allocated places, however, using a remote control. One operator cannot control more than 3 vehicles;

2) The manufacturer must test an automated vehicles on public roads (California, New York, Nevada).

In China, the operator of autonomous vehicles is required to establish a transportation safety guarantee system before operating the vehicle, for example, by signing an agreement with manufacturers, safety inspectors, etc.;

3) The manufacturer must have $5 mln or more in insurance (California, Nevada, New York).

There are also requirements for road systems/lanes that are used for automated vehicle traffic:

1) Road systems/lanes must be designed to avoid accidents (France). New York demands a certificate from the vehicle designer to certify that the automated vehicle will be safer than a human driver;

2) There must be systems to detect malfunctions, risks of moving beyond the boundaries of the designated road, and informing the operator (France);

3) In case of an accident, there shall be an analysis of all risks and reasons of the accident (France, California, New York).

In France, all road accidents shall be reported by the system operator to the prefect, in New York and California (bill) by vehicle manufacturers to the state road authorities;

4) There shall be an annual safety audit (France).

As for liability of the person driving the vehicle, in France the driver is not criminally liable for offenses if the vehicle is operated by an automated system (for levels 3 to 5).

A driver is liable for an accident if: (1) assumes control of the vehicle; (2) fails to assume control of the vehicle when requested by the automated system; (3) the driver fails to comply with law enforcement orders. Being under the influence of alcohol is also penalized. A similar liability regime is proposed by California in April 2024.

China has adopted liability rules within⁴ the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone: (1) if the vehicle is driven by a driver, the driver is liable for the accident; (2) if there is no driver, the owner or manager (operator) of the vehicle is liable. If the vehicle caused damage due to a defect, the driver (owner or operator) pays compensation to the victim, and then, they are entitled to claim compensation from the seller, manufacturer or dealer of the vehicle.

Russia’s experience

Russia has twice proposed laws on HAVs (highly automated vehicles) in 2021 and 2022 (today there is only regulation acting in respect of experimental legal regimes).

Under draft laws, it was proposed to place the responsibility for road traffic accidents on the HAV’s owner with the burden of proving the absence of fault or the fault of other participants (operator, developer, dealer) was also placed on the HAV’s owner. In the US states and France, the driver is not liable if the vehicle was being driven by an automated system at the time of the accident. The Ministry of Transport stated that it would prepare updates to the draft law in 2024.

The RF Government Decree of 09.03.2022 No.309 (experimental legal regime for HAVs) also states safety measures: HAV's must include a control system that enforces traffic rules, monitors traffic conditions, interacts safely and predictably with other road users, can diagnose its own malfunctions, etc. For each HAV the risk of liability for harm to life, health or property of other persons shall be insured for RUR 10 mln under experimental legal regime (ELR).

The HAV's owner (operator) under the ELR is obliged to conduct continuous remote monitoring, if the HAV is moving without a driver in the cabin (only with remote routing and dispatching), level 4 of vehicle automation is regulated.

Thus, Russia has a limited ELR regulation allowing to drive on dedicated roads without a driver subject to remote monitoring of the vehicle. In foreign countries, the driver is liable for the accident (there are cases of exclusion of liability), then, like in Russia, the owner of the vehicle (or manufacturer is liable for misinformation). However, it is not clear, whether the dispatcher will be liable (controls the vehicle remotely) or the dealer (HAV’s technical check-up and maintenance), if the accident was due to their fault.

From the monitoring issue No. 4, April 2024. Download the full issue (PDF) · issue page at the Gaidar Institute