Beyond George Jetson: Commuting in a Self-Driving Car?

• Pages: 2-3
• Date: 01 January 2023
• Author: John M. McNichols
• Subject Matter: Civil Law

By John M. McNichols, L itigation News A ssociate Editor

Beyond George Jetson: Commuting in

a Self-Driving Car?

neers rst made sig nicant strides toward bring ing the idea

into reality. Aided by fu nding from the Defense Advanced

Research Projec ts Agency (DAR PA), university engineer ing

departments b egan to incorporate sensor technology a nd

artic ial intelligenc e software into new proto types, en abling

them to navigate city st reets like a human driver.

One such prototype , Carnegie Mellon’s “NavLab 5,”

achieved a major mileston e in 1995 when it completed a

nearly 3,000 -mile drive across the United St ates, covering

all but 50 miles in autonomous mo de. DARPA sought to

build on this moment um with “Grand Challenges” in 200 4

and 2005, offering s even-gure cash prizes for autonomous

vehicles that could conquer d ifcult desert routes. Alt hough

no one succeeded in t he original contest, a Stanford te am

won the second one (and $2 mill ion) in October 2005 when

its entry succe ssfully negoti ated the designated 132- mile off-

road course in under se ven hours.

A little more tha n a decade later, the technology had

advanced well beyond prototy pes into commercial use. In

December 2018, Waymo announced t hat it would allow

pedestria ns in the Phoeni x suburb of Chandler, Arizona, to

order self-drivi ng taxis. Although Waymo’s service was lim -

ited geographical ly, the idea gained expand ed reach three

years later when Cru ise began offering a simila r service in

San Francisco. C omparable driverless ta xi services have been

introduced in spe cied urban areas overseas as well, i nclud-

ing China and Japa n.

Despite the undeni able technological adva nces of such

offerings, an alysts have questioned whether the cars i nvolved

are appropriately deemed “self-d riving,” given that they are

© Getty Image s

he internet abounds w ith stories on mod-

ern technologic al marvels that were once the

stuff of scienc e ction. Drones, video phones, robotic

personal assist ants, and even treadmills for p ets, for

example, each made an appe arance in the early

1960s through t he animated series The Jetso ns. Despite all

the futuri stic conveniences in George Jetson’s ction al life,

however, he was not exempt from the workaday task of dr iv-

ing himself to t he ofce (albeit in a bubble-topped jet). But

today, for those who have resumed going to the of ce in the

wake of COVID-19, we may be close to relie f from the daily

rush-hour commute , as self-driving cars— ofcially known as

“autonomous vehicles”—continue to advance i n reliability,

popular accepta nce, and regulatory authorizat ion.

As with any new tech nology, the introduction of self-

driving car s on public roadways raises multiple questions

for both policym akers and ordinary citizen s. To what extent

can a car be “self- driving”? And if a car really does d rive

itself, who should be respo nsible when things go wrong?

And at what level of government should t hese questions be

addressed? Thus fa r, questions of liabilit y and regulation of

autonomous vehicles have largely bee n handled at the state

level. But as such vehicles cont inue to grow in use and popu-

larity, scholars and p olicymakers h ave begun to question

whether ordinar y tort law provides sufcient regulat ion or

whether a new and un iform set of standards is necessa ry.

How Did We Get Self- Driving Car s?

While the idea of a s elf-driving car is almost a s old as the

automobile itself, it was not unti l the 1980s that engi-

WINTER 202 3 • VOL. 48 NO. 2

2 | A BA LITIGATION SECTION

TECHNOLOGY

Published in Litigation News Volume 48, Number 2, Winter 2023. © 2023 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or

stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.