First, given that road traffic systems are far more complex and unpredictable than aviation, governments should legally redefine “autonomous driving” as advanced assisted driving under high automation …Read MoreFirst, given that road traffic systems are far more complex and unpredictable than aviation, governments should legally redefine “autonomous driving” as advanced assisted driving under high automation and AI collaboration. Unlike airspace, road environments invole dense interactions among pedestrains, cyclists, human drivers, weather conditions, temporary road changes, and other irregular human behaviors. This level of complexity makes full autonomy inherently unreliable in many real-world scenarios. Treating autonomous driving as a complete replacement for human drivers therefore misrepresents both the technical reality and the safety risks. A more appropriate regulatory approach is to define autonomous driving as an intelligent assistance system that enhances, but does not replace human control.
Second, even when autonomous functions are activated, governments should require the presence of legally responsible human driver. At least one occupant should hold a valid driver’s license, maintain a good driving record, and be legally designated as the responsible driver capable of taking over in emergencies. This person should not be allowed to fully disengage from driving tasks, such as by completely removing their hands from the steering wheel for extended periods. Such a requirement acknowledges a fundamental limitation: current AI systems cannot bear legal responsibility or fulfill duties of care. Retaining human accountability ensures clear liability, improves safety oversight, and prevents the diffusion of responsibility in the event of system failure.
Third, governments should remain highly cautious toward fully autonomous passenger vehicles while allowing more flexibility for autonomous freight under controlled conditions. Fully autonomous passenger transport raisises significant safety, ethical, and public trust concerns, making widespread deployment, such as driverless robotaxis, premature and socially risky. By contrast, autonomous freight vehicles present fewer ethical complications and can be more effectively managed through restricted environments, such as dedicated or physically separated lanes. prioritizing isolated freight corridors allows governments to capture effciency gains from automation while miniminzing risks to the public and avoiding premature normalization of fully driverless passenger taxis. Read Less
First, given that road traffic systems are far more complex and unpredictable than aviation, governments should legally redefine “autonomous driving” as advanced assisted driving under high automation …Read MoreFirst, given that road traffic systems are far more complex and unpredictable than aviation, governments should legally redefine “autonomous driving” as advanced assisted driving under high automation and AI collaboration. Unlike airspace, road environments invole dense interactions among pedestrains, cyclists, human drivers, weather conditions, temporary road changes, and other irregular human behaviors. This level of complexity makes full autonomy inherently unreliable in many real-world scenarios. Treating autonomous driving as a complete replacement for human drivers therefore misrepresents both the technical reality and the safety risks. A more appropriate regulatory approach is to define autonomous driving as an intelligent assistance system that enhances, but does not replace human control.
Second, even when autonomous functions are activated, governments should require the presence of legally responsible human driver. At least one occupant should hold a valid driver’s license, maintain a good driving record, and be legally designated as the responsible driver capable of taking over in emergencies. This person should not be allowed to fully disengage from driving tasks, such as by completely removing their hands from the steering wheel for extended periods. Such a requirement acknowledges a fundamental limitation: current AI systems cannot bear legal responsibility or fulfill duties of care. Retaining human accountability ensures clear liability, improves safety oversight, and prevents the diffusion of responsibility in the event of system failure.
Third, governments should remain highly cautious toward fully autonomous passenger vehicles while allowing more flexibility for autonomous freight under controlled conditions. Fully autonomous passenger transport raisises significant safety, ethical, and public trust concerns, making widespread deployment, such as driverless robotaxis, premature and socially risky. By contrast, autonomous freight vehicles present fewer ethical complications and can be more effectively managed through restricted environments, such as dedicated or physically separated lanes. prioritizing isolated freight corridors allows governments to capture effciency gains from automation while miniminzing risks to the public and avoiding premature normalization of fully driverless passenger taxis. Read Less