Introduction
With the rapid development of technology, autonomous (driverless) vehicles are becoming increasingly common. Although this new generation of transportation technology offers significant advantages such as reducing traffic accidents and increasing transportation efficiency, it also brings new problems in the field of law .
An autonomous vehicle is a vehicle that operates without a driver or with minimal human intervention. These vehicles navigate using sensors capable of perceiving their surroundings and artificial intelligence algorithms.
The historical development begins in the 1920s and gains momentum in the 1980s, with the first experiments conducted by universities and research institutions. In the early 2000s, Google’s autonomous vehicle projects made a major breakthrough in this field. Today, companies such as Tesla and Waymo are pioneers in the development of autonomous vehicles.
Autonomous vehicles have a very strong relationship with artificial intelligence; they use AI technologies (especially machine learning and deep learning) to analyze the environment, make decisions and drive safely. AI allows vehicles to drive safely without the need for human intervention.
Autonomous Vehicles and Legal Challenges
Autonomous vehicles are classified by levels 0-5 as defined by SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers). These levels indicate the level of autonomy of the vehicle and the need for driver intervention: As the level increases from zero to five, the driver’s control over the vehicle decreases and autonomous systems play a more active role.
Some legal systems argue that existing criminal law can be adapted to autonomous systems, while some experts believe that completely new legal regulations should be introduced. Traditional criminal law is based on the “fault principle”. The principle of fault implies that in order for the perpetrator to be punished for his/her act, he/she must be capable of fault and must be at least negligent in the commission of the act. However, it is difficult to apply the concept of intent or negligence in the case of an accident involving an autonomous vehicle. Therefore, certain changes need to be made to existing legal systems.
Determination of Legal Liability
There are different approaches as to who is criminally liable for accidents caused by autonomous vehicles. For example, if an autonomous vehicle crashes, can the software developers or vehicle manufacturers be held liable if the liability is due to errors in the design of the software or manufacturing defects? Should the manufacturer or the development team be responsible if accidents occur due to deficiencies in the software’s decision-making processes and algorithms?
Criminal liability for autonomous vehicles can be shared among multiple actors, ranging from vehicle software to manufacturers to vehicle owners.
If the autonomous vehicle crashes due to a bug in the software, the software developers or manufacturers can be held liable. The software of autonomous vehicles directly affects the decision-making processes and safety of the vehicle. The manufacturer’s liability is important, as improper functioning of the software can increase the risks of accidents. To be detailed, in the event that software developers knowingly allow the vehicle to be used despite knowing an error in the algorithm and foreseeing the risk of an accident, liability for probable intent or conscious negligence may arise, depending on the concrete case.In the event that programmers knowingly and intentionally leave a deficiency in the algorithm used by artificial intelligence and an accident occurs as a result of this deficiency, direct intent or probable intent may be in question. For example, if an algorithm lacks the necessary verification mechanisms to detect pedestrians and this leads to an accident, software developers may be held legally liable.
Vehicle owners are obliged to maintain autonomous vehicles and provide software updates. If the owner does not fulfill these obligations and this leads to an accident, the owner may be criminally liable. In Level 2 or 3 autonomous vehicles, the driver should always be ready to intervene, even if the vehicle is autonomous up to a certain level. If the driver fails to take control of the vehicle with probable or direct intent to intervene, despite the vehicle’s warning of manual intervention, the driver may be criminally liable in the event of an accident.
Third parties (other drivers, pedestrians, road conditions) can influence the decision-making processes of autonomous vehicles. If the accident is caused by the fault of third parties, they may be held criminally liable.
To summarize, the handling of driving by autonomous systems may also lead to the irresponsibility of the driver in terms of criminal liability, while raising the responsibility of vehicle producers.
Application Examples
In recent years, some legal incidents related to autonomous vehicles abroad have made it necessary to make legal regulations on this issue.
- Uber Autonomous Vehicle Accident (2018): Uber’s autonomous vehicle, which was in the testing phase, struck and killed a person trying to cross a crosswalk in Arizona. Although the vehicle was in autopilot mode, a safety driver was behind the wheel. A post-incident investigation found that the vehicle’s sensors detected the pedestrian, but the software that manages the system did not react quickly enough to avoid a collision. As a result, legal proceedings were initiated against Uber and the test driver. The test driver was charged with carelessness, but Uber did not take direct criminal responsibility.
The development of humanity means the development of law. These events and developments have made it necessary to include some legal regulations in Germany and America, which are the leading countries in the field of Autonomous Vehicles. Although such regulations have not yet been made in our country, increasing autonomous vehicles in our country will bring along such regulations.
Legal Evaluation on the Criminal Liability of Autonomous Vehicles
Criminal liability differs from civil liability based on breach of contract or tort. For a person to be criminally liable, he or she must have acted intentionally or negligently and thus both an act and a will must be present. At the same time, criminal law systems have the principle of “individuality of the perpetrator”, meaning that crime and punishment are imposed on individuals. According to this principle, legal entities are not criminally liable. In artificial intelligence-based autonomous systems, on the other hand, there is a structure in which algorithms make decisions instead of a direct person. This leads to the inadequacy of classical criminal liability principles. Unless a clear legal framework is established on the criminal liability of autonomous vehicles, different decisions in different cases will be inevitable. Therefore, in the face of this situation, autonomous vehicles should be addressed in terms of legal regulations. By expanding the scope of the existing laws through the existing legal system, the responsibility arising from autonomous vehicles should be determined or special legal regulations should be made for autonomous vehicles and artificial intelligence systems by creating a new legal framework.
Conclusion
As autonomous vehicles become widespread, the legal infrastructure needs to adapt to this new technology. Existing legal systems cannot fully cover driverless systems. Therefore, new legal arrangements should be made to determine criminal liability in a clearer and fairer manner. A balanced liability structure should be established between manufacturers, software developers and vehicle owners. In addition, international cooperation should be increased to improve insurance systems and resolve legal uncertainties.
Otherwise, legal uncertainties will create problems for both accident victims and the automotive industry. Detailed studies should be conducted on the predictability of errors and determination of responsibility, especially in systems that make decisions with artificial intelligence, and a legal framework should be established in line with the speed of technology.