The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has responded to the Department for Transport consultation on the safe use of automated vehicles on UK roads.
Rachel Cairnes, policy and public affairs advisor at ACSO, said: “On the proposed changes to the Highway Code, we agree it should be made clear that drivers of a vehicle with assisted driving features “MUST stay in control of the vehicle”. Drivers should remain fully accountable and respond for the vehicle, be aware of their surroundings and be alert to the need to regain control of their vehicle at any time. This is particularly important in regard to the questionable ability of assisted driving technology and/or equipment to detect vulnerable road users (VRUs). For example, in 2017 a test was carried out on the capabilities of Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) to detect motorcyclists and found the results to be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, as noted by the ACEM, the European Association of Motorcycle Manufacturers, some driver handbooks contain statements such as “the system may not detect small vehicles like motorcycles.
“In regard to automated vehicles, we are concerned with the following proposed change to the Highway Code: “While an automated vehicle is driving itself, you are not responsible for how it drives, and you do not need to pay attention to the road”.
“Echoing the findings of a report by Thatcham Research, there are concerns as to the extent the road behaviour of an automated vehicle can be predicted in any given situation. This includes how the system will respond to debris on the carriageway, pedestrian carriageway encroachment and closed motorway lanes. By stating that the driver is not responsible for how the vehicle drives and does not need to pay attention to the road, these risks are exacerbated by the driver’s potentially dwindling attentiveness.
“There is evidence to suggest that drivers do not understand fully the differences in automated system capabilities. For example, a 2018 study commissioned by Euro NCAP, Global NCAP and Thatcham Research showed that 70 per cent of car drivers believe it is already possible to purchase a car that can drive itself. In addition, a recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that drivers of Tesla cars with automated technology glanced more frequently away from the road, and thus paid less attention when Autopilot was active. The MIT researchers also found that 33 per cent of Tesla drivers did not have their hands on the wheel prior to taking control of the car from Autopilot, thereby reflecting drivers’ confusion as to the limitations of automated driving technologies.
“The amendments to the Highway Code should provide a clear definition of what constitutes an automated vehicle and the differences between automated vehicles and vehicles fitted with assisted driving features. While the proposed changes to the Code state that automated vehicles are those “that are listed by the Secretary of State for Transport”, it is unlikely that readers will conduct further research on this matter, not least when no link/ reference has been provided.
“Moreover, it should be made clear to drivers, whether in the Highway Code or in driver education and public awareness initiatives, that SAE Level 5 and 6 automated vehicles are not currently available in the UK. In the words of the academic Marjan Magenzieker, such vehicles are “decades away, if they will ever even materialise for large scale use”.
Cairnes continued: “We recognise that automated vehicles have the potential to improve transport across the UK and to reduce traffic collisions caused by human error. However, given the issues which currently exist with assisted vehicle technology, including safety limitations, we are concerned that automated vehicle technology remains nascent. This concern is heightened by the references to automated vehicles in the proposed changes to the Highway Code, whereby drivers are told they do not need to pay attention to the road as long as they follow the manufacturer’s instructions about when it is appropriate to engage the self-driving function.
“Although the proposed changes to the Highway Code are ‘future-proof’ – in that the wording is broad enough to encompass future innovations in automated vehicles – they are likely to cause confusion for road users as to what constitutes an automated vehicle (i.e., level 3 and above on the SAE International Standard J3016). This is particularly so given that the government has previously stated that automated lane-keeping systems (ALKS) may be “legally defined as self-driving, as long as they receive GB type approval and there is no evidence to challenge the vehicle’s ability to self-drive”.
“Vehicle automation and its impact on both the role of the driver and on UK law has significant implications for the UK’s legal framework as a whole. Of particular importance is whether liability for a traffic collision will shift from the driver of the vehicle to the manufacturer of the automated vehicle (or, potentially, parts of its supply chain). On a related point, serious questions arise as to how easily data may be made available to manufacturers, claimant representatives, insurers and other related parties to establish whether the driver or the automated system was in control at the time of a collision.
“Given the significant implications to the legal framework, we urge the Department for Transport to work with a broad range of stakeholders – including law firms, regulators, ombudsman services and consumer bodies – to ensure automated vehicle technology does not have a detrimental impact on access to justice for those injured in a road traffic collision.”
ACSO members can read the submission in full on the members’ area of the website.