We read about advances in new technology almost every day, whether it’s augmented reality gaming, artificial intelligence, or a medical breakthrough.
Advances in technology are capable of changing our lives forever and leave us in awe as we ponder just what inventors will dream up next, and which gadgets will make their way into our homes and daily routines.
One area where advances in technology are coming on leaps and bounds is in vehicles.
Most newer cars on the roads have some semi-automated features, such as lane assist or traffic aware cruise control. But the highest specification vehicles are capable of driving themselves entirely. These are usually called automated, autonomous, or self-driving vehicles.
The potential benefits of driverless cars are promising, given that studies show that human error is the main cause of crashes on the roads.
But with any technological advances comes great responsibility to ensure they are truly safe and will not cause injury or be detrimental to our health.
The law also needs to act as a safety net if something does go wrong, to ensure people injured through no fault of their own, including by self-driving cars, receive the compensation they need to get their lives back on track.
But as technology develops at pace, the law is racing to keep up.
APIL has raised its concerns about the law keeping up with advances in technology with the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles as they consult on safety principals for autonomous vehicles.
In our response to the consultation, we took the opportunity to highlight an injustice in the legislation relating to automated vehicles.
The law on liability established in the Automated and Electric Vehicle Act 2018 (AEVA) introduced strict liability in certain circumstances, meaning a person injured in a collision with an automated vehicle can recover their loses from the defendant motor insurer without needing to prove fault on the part of the driver.
As the regulations are worded currently, this provision is available only in cases where a vehicle with fully autonomous capability is being driven in fully autonomous mode. The difficulty is that injured motorists, passengers, and certainly pedestrians can find it near-impossible to prove that a vehicle was being driven in fully autonomous mode at the time of a crash. The requirement for a claimant to prove a vehicle was driving itself is disproportionate and unfair.
The law should be amended so the burden of proof moves from the injured person to the defendant. It should be for defendant insurer to prove a vehicle was not driving in fully autonomous mode, rather than on the injured person to prove that it was.
At present injured people are let down by the narrow scope of the current law on liability, which means they may be forced to pursue complex and costly product liability claims under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to receive the compensation they need. For many ordinary people this route is simply not viable due to the high costs involved. For one thing, a manufacturer holds the information on its products. Establishing a case for a person injured by a product can be incredibly lengthy, and require a lot of work.
The Government at the time obviously recognised that injured people are vulnerable when it introduced the provision of strict liability in the Automated and Electric Vehicle Act.. Injured people indeed should not be expected to jump through unreasonably high hoops to claim the compensation they need. To force them to try to prove that the vehicle was driving itself undermines the point of having a strict liability provision.
APIL is seriously concerned that, as the law stands, many people who are seriously injured on the roads will not be able to obtain the compensation to which they should be entitled.