Japan and the World Figuring Out Law for Driverless

Japan is busy getting ready for the 2020 Olympics and not just with athletic facilities. In addition to its vow to supply Olympic guests with driverless taxis, some of the country's legislative minds are examining the laws that govern motor vehicle travel and what needs to be changed to allow for commonplace driverless traveling. New Japanese legislative language is being considered.

The Asia Review article also declares changes that amendments to the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic must be in place before driverless vehicles pop up on roads throughout the world. The Convention, according to the article, assumes that a human driver will be present to operate each vehicle. 

Where's Murphy now? 

The Japanese, apparently, are being thorough, looking at different aspects of what could go wrong on any particular day with a driverless vehicle - or, presumably, a connected caravan of vehicles. Hacking and accidents, yes, but also a terrorist or common criminal physically messing with the vehicle or its occupants, and, of course, terrorist hacking as well. Let's not forget the less-than-glamorous run-of-the-mill crash, which, we all assume, will be much less frequent with driverless technology, but will (I assume) sometimes happen.

Back to the Treaty

There are two treaties, the Vienna Convention and the Geneva Convention, though the latter has more signatories and the United States has only signed on to the Geneva.

The Geneva Convention on Road Traffic (thank you Wikisource) explicitly states:

• Every vehicle or combination of vehicles proceeding as a unit shall have a driver.
• Convoys of vehicles and animals shall have the number of drivers prescribed by domestic regulations.
• Drivers shall at all times be able to control their vehicles or guide their animals. When approaching other road users, they shall take such precautions as may be required for the safety of the latter.

One legal commentator, Bryant Walker Smith, has stated that "driver" and "control" can be interpreted to allow for remote control of one person somewhere connected to the traveling vehicle, but personally, I have a problem with such a loose, attenuated employment of language. Better, in my opinion, to have clear language specifically crafted with driverless vehicles in mind.

Plus, to support my opinion, the Geneva convention is primarily used to allow for drivers to be able to legally drive outside of their home country's borders. It was specifically set up for the convenience of human drivers. 

One exception to my opinion - If a law does not mention that a driver must be present or in control, then just leave it as is and add sections as necessary.