Reframing the governance of automotive automation: insights from UK stakeholder workshops

Abstract

How should policymakers engage with the possibilities of self-driving cars? There has been prominent discussion of proposed benefits and safety concerns. However, considering the scale of investment and speed of development, the social complexity of systems involving self-driving cars has received inadequate attention. Self-driving cars are currently being tested on open roads. The anticipation necessary for good governance can be informed only in part by such experiments. There is a need to broaden the set of issues that are considered relevant. In this paper, we report on the first systematic process of engagement with stakeholders in the UK. We organise the findings of these workshops in terms of questions that might inform the ongoing debate about the governance of self-driving cars. These questions are grouped under four headings: technological and market developments, use of and reaction to technology, wider impacts and the role of the public sector. Our conclusion is that this debate urgently needs to be broadened in order to build trustworthiness and maximise the public value of this emerging technology. The possibilities of self-driving cars suggest the need for a more active form of governance for responsible innovation.

Governance cultures and sociotechnical imaginaries of self-driving vehicle technology: Comparative analysis of Finland, UK and Germany

“…Finally, there is an urgent need to develop experimentation processes used for different stages and by different responsible actors, while reformulating procedures for openly collaborative technological development. In particular, it is necessary to have wider societal inclusion and empowerment of the missing "outsiders" (Van de Poel, 2000), as has already been identified before (Blyth et al, 2016;Cohen et al, 2018;Mladenovi c, 2019). More useful frameworks for enabling the practice of critical citizen engagement and participatory deliberation will be an essential component of such development (Flipse and Puylaert, 2018;Macnaghten and Chilvers, 2014;Mladenovi c, 2019;Mladenovic and McPherson, 2016).…”

Automated vehicles: exploring possible consequences of government (non)intervention for congestion and accessibility

“…In the UK, as part of the same project for the DfT in 2016, two workshops were held. Details of these workshops are provided in Cohen, Jones, and Cavoli (2017) and the exercise is discussed more fully in Cohen, Stilgoe, and Cavoli (2018). In addition, two further workshops were organised in 2017 in the context of the CREATE project.…”

Connected and autonomous vehicle injury loss events: Potential risk and actuarial considerations for primary insurers

“…Regulatory bodies have a safety and economic duty to ensure the timely introduction of ADAS‐enabled vehicles and CAVs. A free market approach to CAV governance could be suboptimal and fail to realize the safety potential of these technologies, and would result in fractured transport legislations from lagging municipalities (Cohen et al, 2018). A “laissez‐faire” governance approach would also result in significantly lower market penetrations of safety‐ and technologically optimized vehicles for nonaffluent road users.…”