The future arrives Monday

The future arrives April 2 for autonomous vehicles when new regulations from the California Department of Motor Vehicles go into effect. Driverless cars are no longer science fiction; they are going to be an increasing part of our everyday lives.

In Arizona this month, a woman was killed after being hit by an Uber car in autonomous mode, although there was a "safety" driver in the vehicle. It was also reported that the driverless Uber may have disabled safety systems on the autonomous Volvo XC90 that killed the pedestrian. After this tragic death, questions remain as to whether the DMV will alter its timeline, but as it stands there has been no announcement. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey went ahead and completely shut down Uber's self-driving program in his state indefinitely following the accident and Uber has allowed its testing permit to expire in California. If it wishes to return, it will need to address the Arizona crash.

The DMV is set to begin issuing permits which will allow manufacturers and others to operate autonomous cars, or AVs, on California roads without any driver in the vehicle whatsoever. So, starting very soon you may see an empty vehicle sitting next to you at a red light or stop sign. Currently, the DMV has three AV permit options a manufacturer can apply for: a testing permit, which requires a driver; a driverless testing permit; or, a deployment permit.

The permit fee is $3,600, which allows each company to operate up to 10 AVs without test drivers. Add-on permits will be $50 for each additional block of 10 AVs. For companies in Detroit and Silicon Valley, that's barely a drop in the bucket. This creates a new frontier for drivers, regulators and consumer attorneys who will surely be facing brand new challenges in auto accident cases. The current, but ever-changing requirements from the DMV include a rule that AVs must be monitored and be able to communicate with law enforcement. They must also be equipped with a data recorder, that the manufacturer has conducted tests that show the vehicle is safe for deployment on public roads, and they must also meet industry standards to prevent and respond to cyberattacks. Many of these regulations are vague which creates a challenge because it puts the industry in a self-regulating situation when terms such as "industry standard" are used.

In this phase, these cars are not remotely controlled, only monitored in case of an accident. Eventually though, the car and technology companies want roads full of cars without human drivers. They envision a world of AVs transporting people and goods on city streets, highways and freeways. One of the biggest areas of concern for consumers is the transition phase. No technology has been introduced without mistakes and accidents, but rarely have these mistakes and accidents occurred with several passengers traveling at 60 mph. Drivers are unpredictable, so questions about how these AVs will respond to a driver who has dropped a cup of coffee remains to be seen.

While organizations such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have high hopes for AVs, a serious challenge is the transition between a society of drivers and a world of completely autonomous vehicles. There will be AVs on the road at the same time as vehicles with drivers fully in control and therein lies potential danger. Motor-vehicle accidents claim the lives of over 35,000 people per year, and those of us who represent people killed in car collisions understand the human toll. However, the AVs were designed by humans and so are far from perfect themselves.

Another question is liability. Currently, auto accident lawsuits are pursued in a pretty standard manner, but what happens when there is no driver in one of the vehicles? Or, what if an AV strikes a pedestrian, how will that be litigated? Will a judge or jury be swayed to rule against a driver because engineers (human engineers) designed a car with artificial intelligence? The liability issue is somewhat addressed in the regulations as they are currently drafted.

According to the drafted regulations Sections 227.04, 227.12, 227.14, manufacturers that seek permits for any test vehicle, operated with or without a driver, must provide evidence of the ability to "respond to a judgment or judgments for damages for personal injury, death or property damage arising from the operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads in the amount of $5 million in the form of an instrument of insurance issued by an insurer admitted to issue insurance in California."

The biggest issue of course, and the one most pressing to consumers, is safety. In the trade secret trial Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. (3:17-cv-00939), the general public got a first-hand look into how these companies behave. Both companies are in an all-out sprint, fighting to get their product to market, which means safety will undoubtedly take a backseat.

Ultimately, consumer advocates want laws that will hold AV manufacturers accountable. At a minimum, this means ensuring the rules of the road, which currently apply to cars with human drivers to also apply to AVs. The leadership of organizations, such as the American Association for Justice, are fighting for these types of standards nationwide.

Congress, as well as two-dozen states, is currently wrestling with the same issues California's legislators are. At the federal level, California Sen. Diane Feinstein chose not to support the AV START Act, which would ease federal regulations for the development of AVs and speed up the process for getting them on the road potentially even before federal safety regulations could be written.

The choice for Sacramento and Washington, D.C., consumers, attorneys and even the companies involved in the AV industry has to be safety over "progress." Driverless cars seem inevitable, but rolling them out too soon is a danger we can ill-afford. Having a technology with such potential is not worth it if it is at the cost of human lives. The one life already lost in Arizona is already too much and allowing life-threatening safety risks for the sake of progress hearkens back to an era where human life was less valuable than transcontinental railroads and the like. There is no rush to launch these vehicles now other than the pressure our elected officials are feeling from lobbying done by driverless car companies. This is a time to take a breath, because once those cars are officially out on the streets, they aren't likely coming off.