News and commentary about automated vehicles (AVs) focus on how they look and appear to operate, along with the companies developing and testing them. Behind the scenes are legal regimes—laws, regulations, and implementing bodies of different kinds—that literally and figuratively provide the rules of the road for AVs. Legal regimes matter because public welfare hinges on aspects of AV design and operation. Legal regimes can provide gatekeeping for AV developers and operators seeking to use public roads, and they can allocate liability when something goes wrong. Guiding and complementing legal regimes is public policy. Policy documents such as articulations of national strategies are sometimes used to address issues related to legal regimes and to demonstrate a jurisdiction’s support for AV development. Building on its long history analyzing AV policy issues, RAND (with support of its Institute for Civil Justice) collaborated with the University of Michigan Law School’s Law and Mobility Program to study the nature of different AV legal regimes around the world. It selected countries known to be active in this domain. The research team reviewed and shared scholarly and gray literature (which is a type of scholarship produced by an entity in which commercial publications are not the primary focus, such as white papers from a government agency), and it also consulted experts in these regimes from the public and private sectors. Under the supervision of the Law and Mobility Fellow (a lawyer), law students collected and studied materials associated with country-specific legal regimes and drafted summaries guided by RAND’s enumeration of key factors. Availability of information about legal regimes varies—access to documentation, especially in English, is uneven, even for officials in different countries working collaboratively on these issues. That constrained availability is reflected in published legal comparisons, and it motivated the research team’s systematic research, which drew from materials in English and other languages. This article summarizes the makeup of AV legal regimes of Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. It highlights some key contrasts, which will be developed further as the project continues. It focuses on law and policy relating to highly to fully automated vehicles (SAE Levels 4 and 5). Although guided by a common set of topics for each country, each profile reflects the material available and the factors that differentiate national approaches. The remainder of this article introduces the legal regimes of the covered countries in turn. It then provides an overview of key points of comparison and outlines future work.

This article advocates for federal legislation to implement a nationwide EV licensing system that would allow both EV manufacturers and dealers to sell and service their vehicles directly to consumers nationwide. This prospective legislation would preempt dealer franchise laws that prohibit or limit manufacturers from selling their vehicles directly to consumers. This article does not argue that direct distribution is the superior method of distribution; instead, this article argues that manufacturers should have the freedom to pursue direct distribution. As more EV companies enter the market, EV manufacturers need to have the flexibility to use a variety of distribution systems that best suit their business needs. Part II of this article provides background information on the history of dealer franchise laws and the current status of dealer franchise laws. Part III addresses the problems associated with the current car buying process and why some manufacturers prefer to sell their cars directly to consumers. Part III also addresses counterarguments from the dealer lobby. Part IV introduces potential federal legislative reform to preempt state dealer franchise laws to allow EV manufacturers to directly sell their vehicles to consumers.

The proliferation of “smart technologies” has created significant opportunities to leverage data to improve everyday life across sectors. In cities around the world, local governments and private enterprises, often partnering together, have launched projects that integrate smart technologies with Internet of Things (“IoT”) capabilities into public spaces in order to promote efficiency, safety, mobility, and innovation. At the same time, smart cities must balance the need for robust data in order to achieve these benefits with public concerns regarding privacy and data use. This paper examines the key attributes of smart cities, the essential role that data plays in fueling smart cities, and the importance of establishing appropriate guidelines to govern the management and use of the massive amounts of data that smart cities generate. This paper refers to such guidelines as “data governance” frameworks. Drawing on case studies from cities in both the U.S. and other countries, the paper discusses trends and challenges in data governance that are impacting the success of smart cities projects. Based on this analysis, the paper outlines key considerations that should be taken into account to develop data governance frameworks that will promote the success of smart cities and the benefits that they bring.

This blog is the forth in a series about facial recognition software in various forms of public and private means of transportation, as well as the greater public policy concerns of facial recognition tools. More posts about the relationship between transportation technology, FRS, and fundamental rights will follow.

This blog post is the third in a series about facial recognition software in various forms of public and private means of transportation, as well as the greater public policy concerns of facial recognition tools. More posts about the relationship between transportation technology, FRS, and modern slavery will follow.

In the midst of a tumultuous election week, app-based driving platforms Lyft and Uber are celebrating a victory in California. Voters there passed Prop 22, which classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors for employment and tax purposes. The initiative carves out an exception to Assembly Bill 5 (AB5),…

Micromobility usage was at an all-time high before March 2020. The culmination of decades of growth and industry involvement in the United States resulted in nearly 350 million rides taken on shared bikes and scooters since 2010. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) reported this astounding statistic…

This week a California Superior Court ruled that transportation network company (“TNC”) titans Uber and Lyft have to classify drivers as employees, rather than independent contractors. The suit, spearheaded by the state’s Attorney General, sought to bring the two ride-sharing companies into compliance with Assembly Bill 5 (“AB…

Last week I covered the various companies who are seeking to use aerial drones to deliver goods to your door. Today, in the third part to my series on delivery (you’ll find Part 1 here, and an even earlier post on delivery, from December of 2018, here),…

Although highly automated vehicles (“HAVs”) have potential to reduce deaths and injuries from traffic crashes, product liability litigation for design defects in vehicles incorporating autonomous technology is inevitable. During the early stages of implementation, courts and juries will be forced to grapple with the application of traditional product liability principles to a never before experienced category of highly technical products. Recent decisions limiting the use of the consumer expectations test in cases involving complex products prompted the authors to examine more closely the history behind and the future viability of the consumer expectations test in HAV litigation.