The Lexicon of Self-Driving Vehicles and the Fuliginous Obscurity of ‘Autonomous’ Vehicles

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW Statute Law Review Pub Date : 2021-05-31 DOI:10.1093/slr/hmab016
James Marson, K. Ferris
{"title":"The Lexicon of Self-Driving Vehicles and the Fuliginous Obscurity of ‘Autonomous’ Vehicles","authors":"James Marson, K. Ferris","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmab016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Self-driving cars, also referred to as connected and autonomous vehicles, are not only in vogue among technology and car enthusiasts (among others) but they have been broadly considered to form a new and disruptive means of transport. The benefits of self-driving cars are replete with stories of inclusivity, safety, environmental benefits, and social connectivity. However, the reality of the words ‘self-driving’ and ‘autonomous’ in the designation of this form of transport are not only inadequately defined, they appear to be actively misleading individuals as to the capabilities of the vehicle and the responsibility that they as driver or person behind the wheel have when in use. Tesla is at the forefront of this debate given that it not only sells an option for its vehicles of full self-driving capability, but it also uses terms such as autopilot which, we argue, lead to misunderstandings by the public and may have resulted, directly or indirectly, to fatal car crashes. We conclude this paper with a recommendation that legislative change is enacted through use of an existing international Standard which will provide the definition and guidance that is necessary for the benefit of all stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statute Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmab016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Self-driving cars, also referred to as connected and autonomous vehicles, are not only in vogue among technology and car enthusiasts (among others) but they have been broadly considered to form a new and disruptive means of transport. The benefits of self-driving cars are replete with stories of inclusivity, safety, environmental benefits, and social connectivity. However, the reality of the words ‘self-driving’ and ‘autonomous’ in the designation of this form of transport are not only inadequately defined, they appear to be actively misleading individuals as to the capabilities of the vehicle and the responsibility that they as driver or person behind the wheel have when in use. Tesla is at the forefront of this debate given that it not only sells an option for its vehicles of full self-driving capability, but it also uses terms such as autopilot which, we argue, lead to misunderstandings by the public and may have resulted, directly or indirectly, to fatal car crashes. We conclude this paper with a recommendation that legislative change is enacted through use of an existing international Standard which will provide the definition and guidance that is necessary for the benefit of all stakeholders.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自动驾驶汽车的词汇和“自动”汽车的模糊
自动驾驶汽车,也被称为联网和自动驾驶汽车,不仅在技术和汽车爱好者(以及其他人)中流行,而且被广泛认为是一种新的、颠覆性的交通工具。自动驾驶汽车的好处充满了包容性、安全性、环境效益和社会连接性的故事。然而,“自动驾驶”和“自主”这两个词在这种交通方式的名称中不仅没有充分的定义,而且它们似乎在积极地误导人们对车辆的能力和他们作为驾驶员或方向盘后面的人在使用时所承担的责任。特斯拉站在了这场争论的最前沿,因为它不仅为自己的汽车提供了完全自动驾驶功能的选择,而且还使用了自动驾驶仪等术语,我们认为,这些术语会导致公众的误解,并可能直接或间接地导致致命的车祸。在本文的最后,我们建议通过使用现有的国际标准来制定立法改革,该标准将为所有利益相关者的利益提供必要的定义和指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The principal objectives of the Review are to provide a vehicle for the consideration of the legislative process, the use of legislation as an instrument of public policy and of the drafting and interpretation of legislation. The Review, which was first established in 1980, is the only journal of its kind within the Commonwealth. It is of particular value to lawyers in both private practice and in public service, and to academics, both lawyers and political scientists, who write and teach within the field of legislation.
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Criminal Law Bills: An In-Depth Critical Analysis of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Bill Four Years of Anti-COVID-19 Regulations in Greece: Overview of the Legislative and Regulatory Process and of an Exemplary Administrative Codification Two Uses of Purpose in Statutory Interpretation Climate Volatility, Foundational Freedoms, and the Environment Act 2021: The Transformative Potential of the Principle of Legality Protection of Athletes’ Rights in International Sports Organizations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1