Skip to content

Internet Explorer is no longer supported by this website.

For optimal browsing we recommend using Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Driverless

A podcast that analyzes legal issues surrounding autonomous vehicles.

search

AEye’s Different Vision for AV – Part 2 of 2

Blair LaCorte is president of AEye, a pioneer in artificial perception systems. Jay Campbell, co-founder of Tucker Ellis’s autonomous vehicle and intellectual property group and an intellectual property trial lawyer, interviews Mr. LaCorte about AEye’s systems based approach to artificial intelligence and perception, inspired by how the human visual cortex conceptually focuses on and evaluates the environment around a vehicle, driving conditions, and road hazards. By actively scanning the surrounding environment with a combination of LiDAR and cameras, AEye offers a unique and efficient paradigm for driverless technology.

View More

Resources
Blair LaCorte Named President of AEye

Professional Biography of Blair LaCorte

AEye’s website

Show Notes

0:44- The surprising challenge of AV safety
2:35- The migration of technology from autonomous vehicles to assisted driving
4:30- The rise of “mobility on demand”
6:30- The immediate future of autonomous vehicles 
10:50- How autonomous vehicles will change business and society
15:00- AV’s effects on economics of car ownership
16:30- Effect of “holdouts” on AV
17:30- AV’s effect on infrastructure

How Novel Is Tort Liability for Autonomous Vehicles? – Part 2

In this episode of Driverless, Tod Northman and Emmanuel Sanders continue their discussion with Professor Mark Geistfeld, the Sheila Lubetsky Birnbaum Professor of Civil Litigation at the NYU School of Law, about his groundbreaking performance-based approach to liability for and regulation of Autonomous Vehicles. Professor Geistfeld discusses the “regulatory sweet-spot” for Autonomous Vehicles, and the kinds of claims manufacturers and programmers can expect during this wave of Autonomous Vehicle deployment. Professor Geistfeld further addresses the “bystander problem” and suggests that the problem is not unique to Autonomous Vehicles, but one that transcends all areas of tort.

View More

Further Reading

Mark Geistfeld, “A Roadmap for Autonomous Vehicles: State Tort Liability, Automobile Insurance, and Federal Safety Regulation,” 105 Cal. L. Rev. 1611 (2017)
Mark Geistfeld, “The Regulatory Sweet Spot for Autonomous Vehicles,” 53 Wake Forest L. Rev. 101 (2018).
Mark Geistfeld, “How Liable Should Driverless-Car Companies Be for Accidents?,” Time, Apr. 16, 2018, at 13.
Mark Geistfeld, Tort Law and Alternatives: Cases and Materials (Foundation Press 10th ed., 2016) (with Marc A. Franklin, Robert L. Rabin and Michael D. Green).
Mark Geistfeld, Products Liability Law (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2012),
Mark Geistfeld, Principles of Products Liability (Foundation Press; Thomson Reuters 2d., 2011; 1st ed., 2006).
Mark Geistfeld, Tort Law: The Essentials (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; Aspen Publishers, 2008).
Professor Geistfeld’s biography

Show Notes

0:41    Benefits of federal regulation over regulation by tort.
5:30    Regulatory performance standards promote safety and innovation. 
8:41    Exposure to liability based on claims by AV manufacturers/countering user complacency.  
12:36    Appropriate standard for liability with regard to monitoring driver complacency. 
14:40    Issues relating to commercial car sharing. 
16:31    Claims by passengers in AVs against manufacturers.
17:21    Manufacturer/programmer liability to bystanders.

How Novel Is Tort Liability for Autonomous Vehicles? – Part 1 of 2

On this episode of Driverless Tod Northman and Emmanuel Sanders interview Professor Mark Geistfeld, the Sheila Lubetsky Birnbaum Professor of Civil Litigation at the NYU School of Law, about his groundbreaking performance-based approach to liability for and regulation of Autonomous Vehicles. Professor Geistfeld discusses the shortcomings of earlier approaches to Autonomous Vehicle liability, and the benefits of adopting a commonsense, performance-based approach. Professor Geistfeld further advocates for adoption of a performance-based regulatory framework, which will provide certainty to manufacturers and users of Autonomous Vehicles without hampering the innovation and improvement of this life-saving technology. 
 

View More

Further Reading

Mark Geistfeld, “A Roadmap for Autonomous Vehicles: State Tort Liability, Automobile Insurance, and Federal Safety Regulation,” 105 Cal. L. Rev. 1611 (2017)
Mark Geistfeld, “The Regulatory Sweet Spot for Autonomous Vehicles,” 53 Wake Forest L. Rev. 101 (2018)
Mark Geistfeld, “How Liable Should Driverless-Car Companies Be for Accidents?,” Time, Apr. 16, 2018, at 13
Mark Geistfeld, Tort Law and Alternatives: Cases and Materials (Foundation Press 10th ed., 2016) (with Marc A. Franklin, Robert L. Rabin and Michael D. Green)
Mark Geistfeld, Products Liability Law (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2012)
Mark Geistfeld, Principles of Products Liability (Foundation Press; Thomson Reuters 2d., 2011; 1st ed., 2006)
Mark Geistfeld, Tort Law: The Essentials (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; Aspen Publishers, 2008)

Professor Geistfeld’s biography

Show Notes

1:34    Professor Geistfeld’s initial Interest in AV.
3:36    Misguided approach of other scholars – Rebuilding tort from the ground up. 
6:23    Misguided approach of other scholars – Analyzing AV from the perspective of traditional motor vehicle accidents (reasonable driver standard).  
8:35    Adopting a system-wide performance-based approach to AV liability. 
12:06    What standard do we use to compare relative safety of autonomous vehicles?
13:04    Adopting a performance-based approach to regulating AV.
15:4    The benefits of more robust performance-based regulation/The pitfalls of not adopting more robust federal regulation. 
19:51    Developing a standard for performance-based liability/regulation – Requiring AV to perform twice as safely as human drivers.

AEye’s Different Vision for AV

Part 1 of 2

Blair LaCorte is president of AEye, a pioneer in artificial perception systems. Jay Campbell, co-founder of Tucker Ellis’s autonomous vehicle and intellectual property group and an intellectual property trial lawyer, interviews Mr. LaCorte about AEye’s systems based approach to artificial intelligence and perception, inspired by how the human visual cortex conceptually focuses on and evaluates the environment around a vehicle, driving conditions, and road hazards. By actively scanning the surrounding environment with a combination of LiDAR and cameras, AEye offers a unique and efficient paradigm for driverless technology.

View More

Resources

Blair LaCorte Named President of AEye

Professional Biography of Blair LaCorte

AEye’s website

Show Notes
5:50 – AEye’s unique approach to artificial perception through biomimicry of human visual cortex
6:10 – Active v. passive scanning
7:45 – Benefits of “intelligent scanning”
12:00 – The human visual cortex and its ability to process spacial and temporal data
13:50 – The visual cortex’s preprocessing of sense data
15:00 – AEye’s systems-based approach incorporating cameras and LiDAR
20:40 – The mechanics of LiDAR
21:30 – Meshing cameras and LiDAR
23:00 – Intelligent Detection and Ranging (iDAR) and active scanning
25:00 – The industry today and the limits of passive scanning

Thinking About Potential AV Litigation

Host and litigator Zach Adams, product liability attorney Jon Feczko and business and transactional attorney Tod Northman discuss what auto accident lawsuits will look like as autonomous vehicles start to share the roads with human-driven cars. In a wide-ranging conversation, each shares his vision of AV litigation.

View More

Studies Referenced

Show Notes

  • 1:14 – Hurdles to mass implementation of autonomous vehicles
  • 3:10 – I wouldn’t have had that accident – What happens when AVs cause accidents that careful human drivers would avoid?
  • 6:00 – How does the AV industry shift public perception about the safety of autonomous vehicles?
  • 10:38 – Limits to building the safety case for AVs using statistics
  • 14:10 – Are we there yet? How safe is safe enough?
  • 16:35 – How accidents involving AVs will be different
  • 20:26 – Who gets sued if an AV is involved in an accident?

Ethical Dilemmas Raised by Autonomous Vehicles Part 1

Proponents of autonomous vehicles tout myriad possible benefits ranging from dramatically increased safety to increased mobility for people who are unable to drive; however, autonomous vehicles will not come without tradeoffs. In the first of a two-part discussion, Cleveland State University Professor Robert A. Simons, Tucker Ellis associate Jeffry Carr, and Tod Northman – a transactional lawyer at Tucker Ellis – discuss ethical challenges that AVs will raise as the technology improves.

View More

Allocating Liability for AV Crashes; Data Privacy; and Risk

Part II of Professor Bryan H. Choi's Interview

We continue our interview with Professor Bryan H. Choi, who has a joint appointment to the Ohio State University College of Law and Department of Computer Science and Engineering. Professor Choi and host Zach Adams, a Tucker Ellis litigator, discuss allocation of liability for crashes involving autonomous vehicles, explore the data privacy implications of autonomous vehicles, then consider how to alleviate fear of technological risk, both real and perceived.

View More

Resources

Choi, Bryan H., Crashworthy Code, forthcoming in Wash. L. Rev. (2019)

Choi, Bryan H., A Prospect Theory of Privacy, 51 Idaho L. Rev. 623 (2015)

Choi, Bryan H., The Anonymous Internet 72 Md. L. Rev. 501 (2012)

Nissenbaum, Helen, Privacy In Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life (2009)

Omm, Paul, The Myth of the Superuser: Fear, Risk, and Harm Online, 41 UC Davis 1327 (2008)

Show Notes

1:22 Regulation for autonomous vehicles

4:12 Crashworthiness as an imperfect but useful approach to allocating liability

8:10 Who is responsible for implementing a system to regulate autonomous vehicles?

10:45 Insurance is a red herring

15:42 How to think about data privacy permutations from autonomous vehicles

18:00 Ownership of data in motor vehicles

27:00 Accountable algorithms and explainability

29:30 Vehicle hacking fears

32:45 Cybersecurity risks from remote operations

34:51 Perceived risks

35:45 Education will help alleviate fear of perceived technological risk

36:00 Warnings and giving people control over the technology will also help alleviate fear of hacking

Tales from Disengagement Reports & Another AV Unicorn

California remains Ground Zero for autonomous vehicle testing, notwithstanding its regulatory scheme that requires companies that wish to test autonomous vehicles to obtain a permit and to file annual reports of “disengagements” experienced during testing. It’s a thoughtful approach that yields more information than the Department of Transportation’s “encouraged” annual safety report. Host and litigator Zach Adams discusses the just-released disengagement reports for 2018. With over 40 companies now testing, this is a rich field. We unpack the Apple disengagement reports in particular depth and chew on Timothy B. Lee’s provocative article about Waymo’s strategy. Finally, it has been a record-breaking month for autonomous vehicle companies with more than $1.6 billion raised in February 2019, and Tod discusses TuSimple and Nuro’s successful raises.

View More

Resources

Driverless investment tops $1.6B so far this month (February 15, 9201) (Eugene Demaitre author)

GM Cruise Averaged 5,200 Miles Between AV Disengagements (February 18, 2019) (Anthony Alaniz author)

Google’s Waymo risks repeating Silicon Valley’s most famous blunder (February 14, 2019) (Timothy B. Lee author)

How collaboration in the future of mobility will bridge the old and new, EY website (February 19, 2019) (John Simlett author)

Self-Driving Truck Tech Startup TuSimple Raises $95 Million in New Funding, WSJ (February 13, 2019) (Jennifer Smith author)

The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Clayton Christensen author)

Twitter thread (on Apple disengagements) (February 18, 2019) (Oliver Cameron author)

Show Notes

1:15 GM and GM Cruise are investing smartly

3:30 GM Cruise’s compensation strategy

5:20 Parallels between GM Cruise and Argo.ai

5: 50 Digging into investments in GM Cruise

11:50 Form factor for EV and AV – Where are the trucks?

13:55 Tesla strings together profitable quarters

17:37 Tesla acquires Maxwell Technologies

21:18 Tesla shrinks its workforce but draws muted reaction

23:18 Aurora raises $530 billion in a Series B24:30 Amazon jumps into autonomous vehicles
28:35 Ike – which is pursuing driverless commercial trucking – raises money to add talent