header-logo header-logo

22 February 2023
Issue: 8014 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Health & safety , Technology , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Driverless cars: danger ahead

The Law Commission has highlighted serious safety concerns surrounding driverless cars, and has called on the government to impose a ban on remotely driving a vehicle from overseas due to lack of enforcement powers.

It also warned that, under the current law, there is no express prohibition on remote driving where the driver is beyond the line of sight—possibly in an operations centre miles away and using several screens and a control system to direct the vehicle on the road. It said clarity in the law on this was ‘urgently required’ and advised a prohibition measure be brought in ‘immediately’.

The advice paper, ‘Remote driving review’, published this week, proposes that short-term measures be introduced under which companies wanting to use beyond line-of-sight remote driving can submit a safety case to the Vehicle Certification Agency and apply for a vehicle special order.

In the long term, however, an Act of Parliament will be required to introduce a comprehensive regulatory regime for remote driving, the commission said.

The commission considered safety challenges such as connectivity issues, driver situational awareness, a possible sense of ‘detachment’ from the physical world, cybersecurity and terrorist attacks.

In terms of liability, it advised that remote drivers should be prosecuted for the same crimes as in-vehicle drivers, but should not be liable for problems beyond their control such as faulty equipment. Remote driving companies should instead incur regulatory sanctions and in serious cases, prosecution. It advised that all victims of road incidents caused by remote driving should receive no-fault compensation.

Nicholas Paines KC, public law commissioner, said: ‘Remote driving is an exciting technology, but before we see remotely operated cars on UK roads, we must address safety concerns through strong regulation.

‘Regulations must respond to other fundamental concerns around security threats and liability in the event of an accident.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll