Safety drivers to be held criminally responsible following 2018 fatality in USA?

Driverless cars – or autonomous vehicles – are a reality. What was once the preserve of science fiction are now on the roads in certain countries around the world. While this does not include the UK yet, it is surely only a matter of time. Government consultations are under way and legislation could be forthcoming as early as next year.

As road traffic lawyers, our interest is in what happens when something goes wrong. If the car is self-driving, when does the human occupant in the “driver’s seat” cease to be responsible for the vehicle? What happens when the car exceeds the speed limit for example? Who is to blame for what – the human or the car? If it is the human, how does the prosecution prove that? If it is the car, should the manufacturer face charges?

Something as mundane as minor contraventions of the speed limit are one thing. But what about when there is a tragic accident? The people who have a stake in manufacturing these autonomous vehicles may try to convince us that driverless cars are going to make our roads safer and prevent such accidents.

Autonomous vehicle technologies, of which automated lane keeping is the latest, will be life-changing, making our journeys safer and smoother than ever before and helping prevent some 47,000 serious accidents and save 3,900 lives over the next decade,’

Mike Hawes, chief executive, society of motor manufacturers &traders

Tell that to Elaine Herzberg and Rafaela Vasquez. Ms Vasquez was the safety driver for an autonomous UBER vehicle in Arizona USA which struck and killed Ms Herzberg in 2018. Notwithstanding that the car apparently had software problems and that UBER was determined to have “inadequate safety procedures, neither the car manufacturer nor UBER will face criminal charges. Ms Vasquez, however is being prosecuted for negligent manslaughter. If it was the UK, the charge would likely have been causing death by either careless or dangerous driving.

The facts of the case appear to be that Ms Vasquez was that the car was self-driving and Ms Vasquez was watching a video on her mobile phone instead of watchingt the road. Apparently, UBER had – for reasons not clear – had deactivated the automatic emergency braking system. However it is not clear whether that would have made any difference anyway. Although the system detected Ms Herzberg 5.6 seconds before the crash, it failed to determine “what” she was or that she was headed into the vehicle’s path.

The case goes to trial in February next year and is worth keeoing any eye on. Ms Vasquez certainly should not have been watching a video on her phone (if that is indeed what she was doing). But having watched the video, I’m not altogether convinced that it made any difference. It was pitch black. Ms Herzberg seemed to come out of nowhere. She was pushing her bicycle while crossing the road outwith a safe crossing area. She did not seem to know or care that a vehicle was approaching and apparently had methamphetamine in her system. Based on the footage, even a fully attentive driver would have had no chance of stopping in time.

Ms Vasquez has previous felony convictions and has spent 4 years in prison. Ultimately, here, American prosecutors have gone for the easy target, not the multinational companies. My feeling is that UK prosecutors will do exactly the same thing.