Suchergebnisse

Once automatic vehicles are available, working from self-driving car (WFC) in the AV's mobile office will be a real option. It allows firms to socialize land costs for office space from the office lot to road infrastructure used by AV. Employees, in turn, can switch wasted commuting time into working hours and reduce daily time tied to working. We develop a microeconomic model of employer's offer and employees choice of WFC contracts and hours. Using data for Germany and the U.S., we perform Monte Carlo studies to assess whether WFC may become reality. Eventually, we study the impact of transport pricing on these choices. Our findings is, that WFC contracts are likely to be a standard feature of large cities given current wages, office, and current and expected travel costs. There is a clear decline of hours spent working in office. On average, WFC hours and distance traveled slightly exceed commuting figures.

AbstractEvery year, 1.35 million people are killed on roads worldwide and even more people are injured. Emerging self-driving car technology promises to cut this statistic down to a fraction of the current rate. On the face of it, this consideration alone constitutes a strong reason to legally require — once self-driving car technology is widely available and affordable — that all vehicles on public roads be self-driving. Here I critically investigate the question of whether self-driving, or autonomous, vehicles should be legally mandated. I develop an argument — premised upon Mill's Harm Principle — that any legislation mandating the use of self-driving vehicles on public roads is morally impermissible. The Harm Principle, under its most plausible interpretation, has it that the state is warranted in legislating against some activity only if that activity violates the rights of others. In brief, I argue that a human driver, who opts to drive herself on public roads rather than rely on self-driving technology, does not violate anyone's rights when she so acts. Consequently, when granting the Harm Principle, it follows that the state is not warranted in mandating the use of self-driving vehicles on public roads. If I am correct, the proponent of a self-driving vehicle mandate must reject the Harm Principle. Given its intuitive plausibility and central place in liberal philosophical thought, this is a weighty cost.

Self-driving vehicles are considered to be the technology that will change
the city, public and private transportation, as well as the concept of
mobility in general. The great obstacle to self-driving vehicles are legal
conditions, although the situation in this area is slowly changing. It is
indeed true that producers need to gain more experience in testing vehicles
without a driver on public roads before this technology is offered to the
general public. The expansion of autonomous vehicles will depend on the
public belief that the self-driving cars are considerably safer than those
manually-controlled. Lawmakers intercede in favor of a balance between
security and technological development. There should not be place for unsafe
technologies on the roads, but the solution is not to prevent the easier way
for vehicles that improve safety to reach consumers. If a man is not driving
the vehicle, that appoints responsibility to the manufacturer of the
self-driving operating system of the car in the event of a collision.
Clarification of the blame for the accident will sometimes entail complex
issues of allocating responsibility of man as the driver and those who
provide technology of autonomous vehicle. The issue of privacy of the owner
is also one of the current ones, because these data could be misused.
Protection of privacy of the passenger should be in balance with the gain
that the utilization of data brings. Self-driving cars may have to wait if
the existing legal framework does not offer sufficient legal certainty.

The good news: Regulators have exercised unusual restraint.

"Much of North American society has been built around automobiles. Our cities are designed around them. Our economy is propelled by them. The impact and benefit of autonomous vehicles to people, to the environment, and to society as a whole will be profound as they become more commonplace. The idea seems futuristic and far-fetched, but every day we come closer to realizing such technology in everyday life. Proper automation will allow vehicles to move more quickly and safely by removing the risk of human error, and the law will need to adapt to deal with this. Civil liability may shift from drivers to manufacturers. Criminal acts will be changed by a "new normal" surrounding criminal intent. How would all of this be affected, for example, by a person's decision to take control of the vehicle rather than rely on automation? What if the person relies only on automation? Both are potentially risky. Over the coming decades, the law surrounding motor vehicles is going to go through profound changes as autonomous vehicles become common. Issues of law deriving from advances in technology will arise. The definition of "autonomy" will arise as we move to find new solutions to age-old problems, which range from gridlock to human error. With the transition to, and ongoing evolution of, autonomous vehicles, the law will have to adapt accordingly. A new area of law will be needed and with it a new assessment of how current law can be adapted to that end. The authors hope that this book will be a ready resource as courts and litigants begin the journey down this new road."--Provided by publisher