Seite - (000625) - in Autonomes Fahren - Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte

Regulation and the Risk of Inaction604 automated vehicles to travel at or above the prevailing traffic speed and delegating deci- sions about speed or aggression to the human users of these vehicles. Drivers, however, currently behave in ways that are neither lawful nor reasonable [20]. They drive too fast for conditions, they follow other vehicles too closely, and they fail to yield the right of way to pedestrians. They drive while intoxicated or distracted. They fail to properly maintain their vehicles’ tires, brakes, and lights. These largely unlawful be- haviors occasionally result in crashes, and those crashes occasionally result in serious in- jury. This tragic status quo suggests that the current approach to traffic enforcement should be reformed rather than transferred to automated vehicles. At this early stage in automation, transportation authorities would do better to optimize and then enforce rules of the road for all motor vehicles. Increasing the expectations placed on human drivers – by cracking down on speeding, texting, drunk driving, and other dangerous activities – could increase the appeal of automated vehicles at least as much as allowing those automated vehicles to speed. Automated enforcement could be a key tool for increasing compliance. Such enforce- ment currently relies both on roadway devices (including speed and red light cameras) and on in-vehicle devices (including alcohol locks, speed regulators, and proprietary data recorders). Private entities such as fleet managers and insurance companies already provide some of this enforcement indirectly through private incentives. The potential proliferation of outward-facing cameras on vehicles and drones in the air might also facilitate increased public and private enforcement of rules of the road. Increased enforcement could, on one hand, address equity concerns of discretionary enforcement and, on the other hand, raise privacy and liberty concerns. While these are important questions, a status quo in which laws are openly flouted even by the officers enforcing them is one that begs for reform. Indeed, more consistent and comprehensive enforcement could create pressure for a careful evaluation of existing law. Better access to and analysis of location-specific infor- mation about the driving environment (including roadway geometry, pavement, traffic, and weather) could enable the precise calibration of dynamic speed limits. These dynamic limits might then be communicated to drivers through variable message signs and, in the future, vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. Because reasonable speed also depends on the driver and her vehicle, posted limits might nonetheless have only limited utility. Pursuant to the basic speed law [20], a human driver should account for each of these variables implicitly and adjust her speed according- ly. Automated vehicles, however, may account for more of these variables explicitly – and reasonably. Consider, for example, the common requirement that the “driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked cross- walk or … unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided” [6]. Although pedestrians may not create an “immediate hazard” by “suddenly” leaving the curb [6], the statutory obligation to yield does suggest one possible bound on vehicle speed.