- Journal Archives
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
As of late last year Google’s driverless test cars have driven 300,000 miles with only two accidents. That itself would be impressive, but one of those two accidents occurred when the car was being driven by a human driver and the other was when it was rear-ended by, of course, a human-driven car. This, perhaps, should not be surprising given the fact that human error accounts for 90% of road accidents.
The cost of the human error is real. A 2008 report estimated the yearly cost of car accidents to be over $150 billion in the U.S. Traffic congestion alone is responsible for another $100 billion in costs. Air pollution resulting from cars stuck in congestion is estimated to claim the lives of over 2000 people a year and cost almost $20 billion.
Driverless cars promise to solve these problems. The technology behind driverless cars is real and present. Nonetheless, only three states allow for driverless cars, and none allow for cars to be automated without a driver sitting and observing behind the controls (removing the main benefit of paying for a driverless car for the driver). Why is this so?
A primary factor driving the slow adoption of this technology is concern over liability. As many recent articles have noted, there is great uncertainty in legislatures and industry over how to divide responsibility when something inevitably goes wrong. The lack of clear answers has precluded the adoption of rules and regulations allowing for companies to proceed with the testing and, eventually, the marketing of this technology.
But not many are asking if these precautions are worth it. Of course there is a benefit for having an established system of regulation and liability in place before these cars go on the street, but does it justify the costs of delaying implementation?
This is not the first time our country has faced similar issues. Public health officials have long known that vaccinations, while hugely effective for the population, sometimes result in adverse reactions in a small minority of those receiving the vaccines. As a result of lawsuits stemming from these adverse reactions, in the 1970s and 1980s drug companies stopped producing some vaccines because the market for them was not suitably profitable. The resulting vaccine shortage resulted in a potential public health crisis and government officials responded by passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The law called for a mandatory no-fault claim procedure for all vaccine injury claims. Similarly, in 1929 thirty-one nations came together to protect the fledgling aviation industry from liability-induced bankruptcy by passing what is now known as the Warsaw Convention. This agreement granted predictable payouts for injuries and deaths resulting from air transport. It should be noted that air travel is now the safest form of transportation. In fact, it is safer to travel by air than to sit in one’s own home.
Driverless technology can be as transformative for our economy and our public health as were vaccines and air travel. Standing between the technology and its implementation may be a similar federal law creating a standardized and predictable mechanism for liability. This could pave the way for companies to advance the technology needed to ameliorate the crushing costs of human-driven autos on our country.
Tagged with: technology
Recent Blog Posts
- If You Build It, They Will Come: Baseball and the Reopening of Cuba
- First Circuit Aligns With Third: Actavis Extends Beyond Cash Settlements
- Current Issues in Technology Law: Dr. Asma Vranaki Analyzes Data Privacy Regulation in the Context of Facebook Advertisements
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Rises in National Law Journal Rankings
- Dancing Babies: The Ninth Circuit May Have Protected Them from Computer Algorithms
- Starbucks’ Next Top Model: It Could Be You
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution