Vehicle Automation:
Definitions, legal aspects, research needs
UNECE-Workshop:
German Federal Highway Research Institute
UNECE-Workshop: Towards a new transportation culture: technology innovations for safe, efficient and sustainable mobility
17 – 18 November 2014, Brussels
Tom M. Gasser
Report of the BASt-Expert-group:
BASt-Report „F83“: „Legal consequences of an increase invehicle automation: Consolidated final report of the project group“
Tom M. Gasser slide No. 2
Download (engl. Version, Part 1):http://bast.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2013/723/pdf/Legal_consequences_of_an_increase_in_vehicle_automation.pdf
17th Nov. 2014
Three operation mechanisms
Operation type A:
Informing and warningfunctions
Operation type B:
Continuouslyautomating functions
Operation type C:
Intervening emergency functions (near-
accident situations)
Take only indirect influence on vehicle control via the driver
Take immediate control overthe vehicle. Division of tasks between the human driver
Take immediate control over the vehicle in near-accident situations that de facto driver between the human driver
and the function(usually convenience functions – control always remains overrideable)
situations that de facto cannot be controlled/handled by the driver (usually safety functions)
Popular examples (today):
• Traffic sign recognition(display of current speed limit)• Lane departure warning(e.g. Vibration on the steering)
Popular examples (today):
• Adaptive cruise control (ACC)• Lane keep assist (via steering interventions)
Popular examples (today): • Automatic emergency braking (system triggered)
Tom M. Gasser slide No. 317th Nov. 2014
Definitions/BASt-project group:Degrees of continuous vehicle automation
rise
in d
egre
eofauto
matio
n
5 Autonomous / driverless vehicles?
4
Full automation: The system takes over longitudinal and lateral control completely and permanently. In case of a take-over request the driver does not respond to, the system will return to the minimal risk condition by itself.
3
High automation: The system takes over longitudinal and lateral control; the driver is no longer required to permanently monitor the
Tom M. Gasser
auto
matio
n
slide No. 417th Nov. 2014
3control; the driver is no longer required to permanently monitor the system. In case of a take-over request, the driver must take-overcontrol within a lead time.
2Partial automation: The system takes over longitudinal and lateral
control, the driver shall permanently monitor the system and shall be prepared to take over control at any time.
1Driver Assistance: The driver permanently controls either longitudinal
or lateral control. The other task can be automated to a certain extentby the assistance system.
0 Driver Only: Human driver executes the driving task manually
…is now common understanding:SAE-International Standard J3016
Sourc
e: h
ttp://c
yberla
w.s
tanfo
rd.e
du/b
log/2
013/1
2/s
ae
Sourc
e: h
ttp://c
yberla
w.s
tanfo
rd.e
du/b
log/2
013/1
2/s
ae-le
vels
-driv
ing-a
uto
matio
n
Challenge: Level 3 automation
Folie Nr. 7
!
Regulatory Law = National Road Traffic Codes
� Addressee is the (human) driver,
����drivers’ Duties:
National Road Traffic Codes Vienna Convention
Legal evaluation:Consistency with Regulatory Law
Source: SARTRE-Project(press release)
Drivers’ obligation is to permanently:
– monitor surrounding traffic and status of the vehicle
– readiness to override/ oversteer in case system control seems inadequate
Tom M. Gasser
Source: DVR
slide No. 817th Nov. 2014
Road Traffic Liabilities (according to German Law):
o Liability of the vehicle „keeper“: unaltered
Source: Creative Commons licence/ Patrick Duletzki via Wikipedia
Legal evaluation: Liability in Road Traffic (for Germany)
o Liability of the vehicle „keeper“: unaltered
o Insurances will be jointly and severally liable with the „keeper“: unaltered
o Liability of the driver: Restricted to fault�no longer applicable in case of highly and fully automated
vehicle operation
Tom M. Gasser slide No. 917th Nov. 2014
partial automation:
o „Defectiveness“: Decisive are user instructions
o Risk of the manufacturer: Is it possible to sufficiently differentiate between:reasonably foreseeable misuse � system abuse?
Legal evaluation:Product Liability
Source: EU-Project HAVE-it
Additionally for high and full automation:
����Damages during highly and fully automated operation mode lead to manufacturers’ liability (in case the accident is not solely caused byill-driving on the side of a third party or an override by the driver).
Tom M. Gasser slide No. 10
Source: SARTRE-Project (press release)
17th Nov. 2014
Cluster: Human –Machine-Interaction
Situation awareness
Transitions in critical driving situations/ at system limits (…)
Cluster: Human –Machine-Interaction
Situation awareness
Transitions in critical driving situations/ at system limits (…)
Cluster: Societal aspects
• e.g. Acceptance of the combined automation risk
• (…)
Cluster: Societal aspects
• e.g. Acceptance of the combined automation risk
• (…)
Research clusters
Cluster: Funktion development, safety, testing
• e.g. New approaches needed?
• (...)
Cluster: Funktion development, safety, testing
• e.g. New approaches needed?
• (...)
Cluster: Infrastructure and Traffic
• Need in respect of Traffic Information (e.g. „reliable information“)
• Infrastructural needs
• (...)
Cluster: Infrastructure and Traffic
• Need in respect of Traffic Information (e.g. „reliable information“)
• Infrastructural needs
• (...)
Tom Michael Gasser slide No. 1117th Nov. 2014
Brüderstraße 53
Federal Highway Research Institute
Tom Michael Gasser
German Federal Highway Research Institute
Brüderstraße 53
D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach
Phone + 49 (0)2204 43 646
Fax + 49 (0)2204 43 676
Tom Michael Gasser
Co-operative Traffic and
Driver Assistance Systems