

Shared Automated Mobility: The Legal and Governance

Considerations

Malcolm Falzon

and Odette Lewis

Department of Spatial Planning & Infrastructure, Faculty for the Built Environment,

University of Malta, Msida MSD 2080, Malta

Department of Spatial Planning & Infrastructure, Faculty for the Built Environment,

University of Malta, Msida MSD 2080, Malta

Keywords: Automated Vehicles, Shared Mobility, Law, Governance,

Sustainability.

Abstract: Automated vehicle technology is a fast-growing phenomenon which has, in recent years, found itself at the

forefront of research projects being carried out in jurisdictions all over the world, and is a vital component to

the modern revolution of the transport sector in the race against climate change. However, attaining a world

with driverless cars and digital infrastructure, which eliminates the role of the driver, requires a detailed study

from multiple aspects, including from a legal and governance perspective. A holistic, proportionate, and

harmonised approach towards a dedicated body of legislation, which strikes the right balance between

safeguarding consumers and a free market, is crucial to reaping the full potential of this technology, as the

demand for alternative mobility solutions increases. This paper considers the legal impacts, which automated

vehicles are expected to have on mobility, analysing in particular the challenges posed, the adequacy of

existing legal systems, and the improvements that need to be made, on the basis of international research, with

a particular focus on Malta. Project MISAM (Malta’s Introduction of Shared Autonomous Mobility) was

launched specifically for the purpose of assessing the viability of enabling the use of automated vehicles in

Malta, including from a legal and governance perspective.

1 INTRODUCTION

Automated vehicles (“AVs”) operate themselves and

perform necessary driving functions with little to no

human involvement, using data collected through

sensors to take ‘educated’ decisions. The term ‘AV’

is in itself an umbrella term which encompasses

different degrees of automation corresponding to the

varying extent of human intervention required for

operation. SAE International defines six levels of

driving automation ranging from 0 (fully manual) to

5 (fully autonomous) (SAE, 2022).

1.1 The Call for the Use of AVs on a

Wide Scale

Road traffic accidents claim approximately 1.35

million lives each year, over half of which are

vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists,

and motorcyclists, and are the leading cause of death

for children and young adults aged between 5 and 29.

Between 20 and 50 million more suffer non-fatal

injuries. Major risk factors which contribute to road

traffic accidents include over-speeding, driving under

the influence, and distracted driving (World Health

Organization, 2021).

The overwhelming majority of road accidents are the

result of human error (Buck, Toscano & Tereskerz

Ltd., 2021). Without a doubt, using automated

technologies to decrease or even totally remove the

human element from the equation would offset such

error, thus reducing traffic incidents and road

fatalities. Computers are capable of retaining vast

quantities of information, running that information as

variable inputs to a hypothesis in order

to determine

the potential outcomes, weighing those outcomes to

determine which inputs produce the best overall

result, and taking an informed and arguably the most

favourable decision on the basis of that result.

Naturally, the same cannot be said for the human

driver. In fact, driver assistance systems such as lane-

keeping systems and automatic braking systems –

already a common feature in various modern car

Falzon, M. and Lewis, O.

Shared Automated Mobility: The Legal and Governance Considerations.

DOI: 10.5220/0011114200003191

In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems (VEHITS 2022), pages 445-454

ISBN: 978-989-758-573-9; ISSN: 2184-495X

445



models – have been shown to contribute to reducing

the incidence of accidents.

Increasing road safety is indeed one of the key

drivers for the widespread use of AVs. But that’s not

all. AVs represent a smart and sustainable transport

alternative. Aside from increasing mobility options

and facilitating commutes for persons unable to drive

or keen not to remain dependent on privately-owned

cars, through an increase in shared mobility the use of

such vehicles would contribute to a greener, more

sustainable way of life (European Parliament, 2019).

1.2 The Modern-day Trolley Problem

The ability of AVs to exist in and interact with the

physical world without the need for human

intervention poses a set of challenges to existing legal

systems. The notorious ‘Trolley Problem’, previously

just a philosophical riddle of the mind, has found

itself at the forefront of theoretical, technical and even

legal discussions surrounding the introduction of AVs

into society. Essentially, the Trolley Problem is an

ethical thought experiment which contemplates a

bystander’s perplexing task of making the choice to

save five people from being hit by a runaway trolley

by personally intervening to divert it to a different

track on which it will hit and kill one person. More

loosely, the term is used to refer to an ethically

bewildering trade-off between ‘ethically acceptable’

sacrifices and when these can be made (Foot, 1967).

In the context of AVs, how would an artificial-

intelligence-(“AI”)-powered vehicle, unable to brake

in time and with no sense of morality, make the

choice between crashing into the vehicle before it or

diverting its trajectory and crashing into a wall?

Some dismiss this possibility altogether, arguing

that there can be no such thing as the Trolley Problem

in the operation of a driverless car, since a properly-

functioning AV should be capable of detecting a

collision in advance and communicating with

surrounding vehicles to effectively orchestrate a

manoeuvre to avoid it (Eliot, 2020). Such arguments,

which ignore basic risk theory, also make a number

of assumptions: that all components of every AV

involved are operating properly and without delay,

that the mechanics of the car enable it to come to an

instant halt with zero stopping time, and that erratic

unforeseeable events simply do not happen. Although

automation may allow vehicles to take quicker and

more informed decisions, this can never totally

eliminate the possibility of an accident. A vehicle,

any vehicle, moving at a certain speed, even with the

most refined software and hardware, will require

some amount of time to come to a halt from the

moment the brakes are engaged. Furthermore, AVs

are not precluded from experiencing unpredictable

behaviour on the roads simply by virtue of their

automation – the possibility of a child running out

into the street from between parked cars, or being cut-

off by a human-driven vehicle, cannot be excluded.

Who, then, is to be held responsible when an AV

– an inanimate object which is not (at least not as yet)

a legal person – causes damage to a victim's person or

property? And against whom is that victim expected

to seek redress? Here, a responsibility gap arises.

2 THE NEED FOR AN

ADEQUATE LEGAL SYSTEM

With a view to addressing the legal issues presented

by AVs, legislators are faced with two options: (a)

retaining existing legislation and leaving the

assigning of responsibility in the hands of the courts;

or (b) actively and pre-emptively preparing for the

mass release of AVs through the development of ad

hoc legislation and re-consideration of existing

regulation. The adequacy of existing legal

frameworks can be determined from an analysis of:

(i) primary areas of law which would be directly

relevant to AVs and disputes arising therefrom (such

as infrastructure, traffic management, liability,

cybersecurity, privacy and data protection); and (ii)

secondary areas which, at face value, may not appear

relevant for the direct regulation of AVs but which

would nonetheless be affected by their use (such as

insurance, intellectual property, and the

environment).

Generally, existing legislation is considered unfit,

if not for the introduction of AVs, for their continued

development. Adapting legislation to cater for the

world of AVs is almost certainly not a matter of

merely altering definitions and widening scopes, but

is expected to require a dedicated framework of

interoperable ad hoc laws capable of protecting the

interests of consumers and stakeholders alike. In

addition, due consideration would need to be given to

changes to transportation systems particularly with a

view to adopting adequate safety standards.

2.1 Existing Frameworks

Fully-autonomous (Level 5) vehicles are not yet

being commercially produced, though companies

VEHITS 2022 - 8th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

446



such as Zoox and Google’s Waymo are developing

Level 5 prototypes for the purpose of testing on public

roads. It is argued that the lack of publicly-available

high-level AVs is partly attributable to the absence of

dedicated regulatory frameworks, with the effect that

the operation of AVs today would be regulated by

existing legislation on traffic, infrastructure,

licensing, type-approval, data protection, privacy,

insurance, and liability, to name a few. For as long as

laws are not updated or replaced to reflect the unique

characteristics of AVs, contention will arise on the

applicability and extendibility of existing regimes to

AVs.

2.1.1 Existing Traffic Legislation

Traffic laws set out rules and standards for the legal

operation of vehicles on public roads, imposing

mandatory requirements such as the licensing of the

driver and the vehicle, and sanctions for negligent or

reckless behaviour while driving, such as driving

under the influence of alcohol or drugs and running

red lights. There is a tendency, however, for the scope

of existing laws to be limited to ‘motor vehicles’,

having been drafted with the traditional vehicle in

mind. The complex nature of AVs and the different

operational risks and challenges they pose, are likely

to render a set of provisions specific to AVs, the

people who operate them, and the infrastructure on

which they operate, a necessity.

2.1.2 Regulating AI

The general complexity and endless possibilities of

automated technologies strengthen the need for ad

hoc legislation, so much so that the European Union

(“EU”) has long indicated its intention to develop a

Union-wide framework for AI – a core component of

any automated technology, including AVs – most

recently with its proposal for an Artificial Intelligence

Act.

Malta took its first steps towards the regulation of

AI with the establishment of the Malta.AI

Taskforce, bringing entrepreneurs, academics and

experts in the field together to work towards, amongst

others, the publication of an AI strategy and ethical

framework, introducing the guiding principles needed

to establish a firm legal foundation for AI (and hence

for the AI component of AVs) in Malta. Malta’s

strategy provides for a national AI certification

programme, overseen by the Malta Digital Innovation

Authority, which provides applicants with

certification recognising ethically aligned,

transparent and socially responsible AI. Any future

legislative framework addressing AVs would need to

consider whether such a certification system should

be made mandatory.

2.1.3 The International Arena

UN Regulation No 157, which came into force

internationally in January 2021, is the first binding

international regulation that includes Level 3

function, allowing signatory states to approve and

deploy vehicles equipped with automated lane-

keeping systems provided that their use is restricted

to roads where pedestrians and cyclists are not

allowed and to a maximum speed of 60km/h (Wise-

Act, 2021). Recent amendments to the Vienna

Convention on Road Traffic now explicitly provide

for automated driving. At a European level, the EU’s

abovementioned publication of a draft Artificial

Intelligence Act in early 2021 marks a major step in

the regulation of AI, in a standardised and harmonised

manner, across all Member States – a step which will

undoubtedly impact the regulation of AVs (European

Parliament, 2021).

2.2 Pertinent Legal Issues Expected to

Arise from the Operation of AVs

The uniqueness and novelty of AV technology

necessitates a thorough assessment of existing legal

frameworks with a view to addressing and mitigating

the legal issues surrounding it, particularly those

relating to data protection and liability.

2.2.1 Data Protection, Privacy and

Cybersecurity

Since AVs continuously collect and process data in

vast quantities, including personal data, it is vital that

adequate data protection principles are laid down and

observed by such systems. The EU General Data

Protection Regulation,

which binds all Member States

and third-party jurisdictions providing services from

or to such states, lays down six exemplary principles

for the protection of personal data, requiring the

collection, processing, and storage of data to be

conducted in a manner that is lawful, fair and

transparent, respecting integrity, confidentiality, and

data minimisation, among other things. The access

and use of the data collected by the system must be

restricted to its original intended purpose and the

processing of such data must comply with the

principles for the processing of personal data set out

therein. Additionally, any AV making use of personal

data is required to implement the necessary

Shared Automated Mobility: The Legal and Governance Considerations

447



safeguards to ensure its proper use, and reliable

processes for the protection of personal data must be

integrated into the AV systems by design and by

default (EU General Data Protection Regulation,

2016).

Like all IT systems, the AI component of AVs is

vulnerable to cyberattacks that can compromise the

safe operation and use of the vehicle and its data. A

2021 report published by the European Union Agency

for Cybersecurity and the Joint Research Centre

provides insights on the cybersecurity challenges

specifically connected to the uptake of AI in AVs, and

establishes a set of recommendations to improve

cybersecurity in AVs and mitigate potential threats

and risks (Dede et al., 2021).

2.2.2 Civil Liability

The copious amounts of data gathered and processed

by automated systems, which ‘teach themselves’ to

take appropriate decisions on the basis of data

gathered, give rise to a number of legal and moral

questions. One of the most pertinent relates to

liability: who is responsible for a decision taken by an

AV which results in damage to a third party? Without

any ad hoc regulation in place, these questions may

only be answered through an extended interpretation

of existing legislation, by widening the application of

established legal doctrines on liability. This is

problematic, since rules on liability do not

contemplate the prospect of holding liable an

inanimate object such as a computer. By way of

example, the Maltese Civil Code attributes liability to

“persons”. Therefore, if damage is caused by a robot,

and a robot is not considered to be a person at law,

then who should be held accountable for damage

caused by the robot?

The concept of indirect liability is particularly

important in the field of AVs: in the same way that

the legal person in charge of an animal or a child may

be held responsible for any damage caused by such,

so too could a legal person in charge of an AV be held

responsible for any damage caused by that system?

Were that to be the case, an injured party would be

eligible for the same legal remedies normally

available to him in matters of indirect liability under

the law of that state. This reasoning becomes

problematic, however, in the context of driverless

taxis, which transport passengers on a pay-per-ride

basis in the same way as traditional taxis – in an

accident involving a traditional taxi, liability is easily

attributable to the human taxi driver where fault can

be proven; however, in the case of a

 fully-

autonomous vehicle with no human driver, the

attribution of liability becomes questionable,

particularly since the accident would involve no

human intervention and the vehicle’s only passenger

is a consumer making use of the autonomous taxi

service. A possible solution would be to apply the

same notion of indirect liability by holding the legal

person who ‘employed’ the AV liable for any

damages caused by it while under his employment, in

the same way that an employer may be held indirectly

liable for the harmful actions of his employee.

However, such proposed solutions would need to be

interpreted in accordance with each respective state’s

jurisprudence.

Product liability laws may also be applied to any

person found to be responsible for damages caused by

an AV where it is proven to be a defective product.

The EU’s Product Safety Directive (2001) holds that

a product is only safe if it meets all statutory safety

requirements under EU or national law, while the

Product Liability Directive (1985) regulates the right

of recourse available to consumers for defective

products. Under both directives, liability is mainly

pegged to the manufacturer or producer of a product,

but can be extended to any distributor or supplier that

knowingly supplies unfit, defective or unsafe

products.

Determining the Adequacy of Existing Legal

Systems in Addressing Liability

With automated technologies already hitting local

markets, yet with no tangible prospect of AV-specific

legislation in the near future, how adequately

equipped are current legal frameworks to deal with

the proliferated use of automated cars and the legal

conundrums that it is bound to bring, such as when a

robot causes an accident? Under some liability

regimes, a party may be held liable in contract and/or

in tort and, where the victim is a consumer and the

accident involves a product, potentially also in terms

of product liability law. Generally, with a view to

instituting a claim for damages, an injured party must

contemplate: (A) who should be held responsible and

therefore who should be sued, and (B) what

correlation there is between that responsible party and

the damage caused, and what evidence exists to

support this nexus.

A) Who to sue

Assigning responsibility is not a straightforward task;

assigning responsibility for damage caused by an AI-

VEHITS 2022 - 8th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

448



powered machine, such as an AV, becomes all the

more arduous due to the minimised, or even totally

absent, human element, and the AV’s ability to take

decisions in a human-like manner without the

personal capacity or assets needed to compensate a

victim in the event of a successful claim for damages.

While suing under contract relies on an interpretation

of the agreement between the parties, suing under tort

follows a fault-based system which assigns liability in

varying degrees according to the extent that the

accused party strayed from the standard of care

expected from it. Who, then, is the party at fault, and

therefore the party against whom a claim in tort must

be taken when an accident resulting in damages is

caused by an AV?

The robot? Having generally been drafted with

the natural person in mind, and since no product has

ever qualified as a ‘person’ to date, existing liability

frameworks are largely inadequate to contemplate

liability of AVs. Whether a robot can, or should, be

granted legal personality is another matter altogether.

The Owner of the AV? Should national laws

provide for the notion of indirect liability, the owner

of an AV may, by extension of his duty of care, be

held responsible for an accident involving that AV.

This is concerning in the context of the widespread

adoption of AVs, primarily owing to the numerous

entities involved in the creation and ongoing

‘education’ of an AV. The chances of a prospective

AV owner being held responsible for a decision taken

by the AV, through no intervention of his own, may

deter him from following through with investing in

the AV e. Additionally, it is presumably easier to train

and control an animal than it is to ‘educate’ and

control an AV, not only because of its size, but also

because it is embedded with software developed by

an external party and potentially laden with biases

upon which it takes decisions out of the owner’s

control.

The Vendor? The vendor-consumer relationship

is generally governed by the law of contract,

imposing on the seller an obligation to deliver to the

consumer a fit-for-use product, free from defects.

Being a self-teaching, self-deciding technology, the

learning process of AI-embedded systems lasts their

lifetime, and while this makes it easier for them to

adapt to changing scenarios, it raises a question as to

whether a vendor can be held liable for damages

caused as a result of a defect, which the AV

developed after the time that the sale was concluded

with its new owner.

The Producer/manufacturer? A producer may

be found liable for breach of contract where he fails

to deliver the product as described or where the

product is found to be laden with defects. However,

the consumer might not have a right of recourse

against the producer, since there exists no direct

contractual relationship between the consumer and

the producer. In such cases, the consumer would only

be able to sue the vendor under contract law, with

whom there is an established contractual relationship;

while the vendor may in turn take action against the

producer on the same basis. This does not mean,

however, that the consumer has no right of action

against the producer of the defective product. Indeed,

despite there being no contractual relationship

between the producer and the consumer, the

consumer may be able to sue the producer in terms of

a product liability law, which holds a producer liable

for any damage caused by a defect in his product.

The Service Operator? Service operators

offering shared mobility services to consumers

through the use of AVs may also be found liable

depending on a number of factors, such as the nature

of its role, the classification of the AVs being used,

the sector in which they operate, and whether

passenger intervention is required.

Essentially, the responsibility problem which

arises with the use of AVs operating with little to no

human oversight is that an accident caused as a result

of such technology can hardly be attributed to an

owner or driver, who was not in full control of the

vehicle and whose role has been reduced to that of a

passenger or bystander. For this reason, the most

suitable route under existing law for an injured party

to seek redress for damage caused by an AV may only

be determined once the source of the error which gave

rise to the damage is identified, though this may not

be so straightforward. What is helpful, if not

necessary, however, is that the injured party shows

that a sub-standard level of care was exercised, below

that expected of the reasonable man.

B) How to Prove It

Product liability law at EU level imposes strict

obligations on manufacturers – a product cannot be

placed on the market unless it is safe and conforms to

its description. In the same way that a consumer

would not expect his mobile phone to randomly

explode, neither would one expect an AV to

spontaneously crash into a wall or drive itself off a

cliff.

Under EU law, a successful claim for damages

caused by a defective product requires the injured

party to prove (i) the damage, (ii) the defect, and (iii)

a causal relationship between the damage and the

defect (Product Liability Directive, 1985). It may be

argued that an accident caused by an AV is in itself

first-hand evidence of a defect, particularly in the case

Shared Automated Mobility: The Legal and Governance Considerations

449



of fully-autonomous vehicles, which are designed to

operate without any human intervention. If this were

to be the case, then the only element that a victim of

an accident involving an AV would be required to

prove is the causal relationship, and this may be done

by attesting that the manufacturer failed to properly

inform its customer of any possible dangers of the

vehicle, or by providing evidence that the AV’s safety

systems did not meet suitable standards. An

interesting parallel may be found in the aviation

sector, where responsibility for recent fatal accidents

were attributed to the aircrafts’ manufacturers,

despite the very high level of automation.

The extent of liability of AV manufacturers may

also be impacted by the different degrees of

automation: the driver of a Level 3 AV is likely to be

attributed greater responsibility than the driver of a

Level 5 AV which requires no human intervention. In

other words, the higher the automation level, the less

likely it is that liability would be attributed to the

driver, whose role is more akin to that of a passenger,

with a greater chance of liability being placed upon

the manufacturer.

3 CONNECTIVITY

Traditional transportation systems are heavily reliant

on the ability of all road users to remain alert and to

efficiently communicate with, and respond to, traffic

signs and signals, light and weather conditions, other

vehicles and their drivers, pedestrians, and the

infrastructure as a whole. Much like humans in the

traditional transportation system, AVs operating

amongst traffic on public roads will undoubtedly find

themselves in situations where they are forced to take

split-second decisions, particularly in mixed-traffic

scenarios, where driverless vehicles and traditional

vehicles operate alongside one another on shared

roads. AVs must be capable of precisely

understanding the circumstances in which they find

themselves at any point in time, through the

processing of large amounts of data collected from

various sensors embedded into the vehicle’s exterior

and the continuous exchange of information with

other vehicles. A vital prerequisite for AVs to become

operable on public roads, therefore, is that they are

embedded with advanced communication capabilities

and a fast and reliable telecommunications network

on which to operate.

Connectivity has presented itself as one of the

biggest challenges to autonomy. 4G network

capabilities are insufficient to meet the urgent

demands required by automated devices.

5G provides

a level of connectivity ten times faster than existing

cellular networks and its use is expected to improve

efficiency and lead to a wider array of services for the

consumer, connecting not only humans, but also

infrastructure, machinery, and devices. 5G has the

capability to transform entire economies as it

permeates all sectors of society, bringing humanity

one step closer to a ‘hyper-connected’ world – its

principal limitation appears to be the cost of its roll-

out (Malta Communications Authority, u.d.).

However investment in this area is crucial to the

success of automated technology as a whole.

The European Commission’s ‘5G Action Plan’

takes a harmonised and coordinated approach

towards the deployment of 5G infrastructure across

Europe,

 promotes global standards, and sets out a

clear roadmap for investment. Advanced and

improved connectivity is a key target of the 2030

Digital Decade proposed by the Commission, with

commercial 5G services available in all Member

States as of Q1 2022 (European Commission, 2022).

4 DIFFERENT APPROACHES

AND REGULATORY OPTIONS

The swift pace of technological development renders

legal instruments in a state of constant revision, as

cumbersome legislative processes struggle to keep

up. Alternative regulatory options which support the

simultaneous development of technology and

regulation may be the remedy needed to strike the

correct balance, at least in the short term.

4.1 Regulatory Sandboxes

Regulatory sandboxes allow for the continuous

development of technology through testing and

practical experimentation, while keeping activity

within a physical and legal ‘safe zone’ which will

give regulatory bodies the time they need to

understand the sector and formulate laws accordingly.

In regulatory sandbox testing, the legislator uses law

as an experimental tool to provide a dedicated yet

restricted testing field, while retaining the power to

adjust it depending on feedback received. It would be

prudent to set up a sandbox for AV testing where

industry participants are able to operate prototypes

within a safe environment which reflects real-life

conditions experienced on public roads, such as

flooding, poor visibility of signage, and jaywalking,

so that service operators, manufacturers and

VEHITS 2022 - 8th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

450



competent authorities can determine the extent to

which physical elements such as local infrastructure

and roads, and regulatory elements such as legislation

and authoritative bodies, need to be introduced or

adjusted for the widespread operation of AVs.

4.2 Living Labs

Living labs are founded with the intention of creating

operational, user-centred ecosystems open to the

testing of innovative products and concepts, generally

across a defined territory (such as a city, region or

campus), which differs from the traditional testbed.

While testbeds assess the capability of a product to

operate safely and as expected, using individuals

merely as subjects for observation, living labs turn to

their users for valued input within an experiential

environment which immerses them in a realistic

social simulation. Living labs are useful tools for

policymakers who require a concrete basis for the

development of new regulations and the refinement

of existing ones and who, through the use of such

labs, are able to trial the potential impacts of proposed

regulations prior to their implementation and take

evidence-based decisions. A number of AV living lab

projects have been launched in various parts of the

globe, such as the Catalonia Living Lab in Spain, the

Smart Mobility Living Lab London in the UK, and

the BTC City Living Lab in Slovenia.

4.3 Policy Labs

Policy labs are platforms which bring together

policymakers, stakeholders, companies, and citizens

in the formulating of policies related to a particular

subject in an innovative and multi-disciplinary

fashion. Policy lab participants can range from

engineers and computer scientists to lawyers and

economists, working jointly on different test cases.

This concept actively involves all interested parties at

various stages of the policy development process, and

generally facilitates research evidence uptake into

policy and practice. One such example is the RISE

Research Institutes of Sweden – an independent,

Swedish state-owned research institute which offers

unique expertise, testbeds and demonstration

environments for future-proof technologies, products

and services, performs industry research and

innovation as well as testing and certification in

collaboration with the relevant institutions.

4.4 Advertising and Marketing as a

Tool for Public Acceptance

Advertising and marketing provide methods of

communicating the existence and availability of a

product, service or idea to consumers from the people

who create them. The lasting impact that an

advertisement can create is not only important to

consider, but vital to get right. In the context of AVs,

this is particularly necessary to minimise the

significant sense of scepticism and uncertainty which

surrounds this still-nascent technology, and accustom

its future users with its benefits.

5 A POTENTIAL STRATEGY?

In the absence of an AV-specific legal framework, a

robust and holistic strategy, which addresses the

impacts of AVs across all sectors on the basis of tried-

and-tested strategies for similar technologies, such as

drones, is vital. Any AV strategy should thus make

the following key considerations:

Maintaining Safety and Security – Safety is the

foundation of public acceptance and the overall

success of any AV project. A dedicated regulatory

body for AVs should be established with the task of

enforcing legislation, implementing standards and

recommendations, advising governments, and

ongoing monitoring;

Optimise the Economic Impact of AVs, by

introducing legislation and sector initiatives which

foster economic sustainability;

Enhance Connectivity and Facilitate Synergy

between Stakeholders – The safe and smooth

operation of AVs is dependent on an interconnected

network of flawless connectivity between AVs with

one another and with the infrastructure on which they

operate. But in a free market with numerous

stakeholders, a particular AV manufactured by a

producer will almost certainly differ from another

made by a different producer, rendering ongoing

communication between stakeholders a necessity;

Enact Effective National Law and Update

existing Legislation – In the absence of an AV-

specific framework at a supranational level, it is

crucial that local governments kickstart the process

towards the introduction of ad hoc legislation, tying

in with existing legal principles;

Balance Efficiency and Sustainability – Putting

in place a system for the setting and constant review

of standards geared towards the reduction of our

carbon footprint;

Shared Automated Mobility: The Legal and Governance Considerations

451



Regulatory Framework for Infrastructure –

Adequate infrastructure is a prerequisite for the

widespread and normalised use of AVs. Digital and

physical infrastructures must complement each other

and become aligned in order to create a safe and

robust ecosystem for intelligent transport.

Meaningful performance-based norms, standards,

and specifications need to be introduced, including

standards for the design, implementation, detection

and ongoing maintenance of traffic signs, road

markings and other infrastructural elements, at both

national and supranational levels, in order to avoid the

likelihood of AV accidents due to sensory and

detection issues attributable to the different physical

characteristics of the same traffic signs in different

jurisdictions. The ongoing maintenance will be key to

maintain the safety, security, and efficiency of the

system. Although a harmonised approach is

preferred, standards are likely to differ in practice, in

response to the needs of the particular jurisdiction. It

is recommended, however, that traffic management

centres are set up in all cases tasked with the

monitoring of AVs and their infrastructure,

addressing incidents and shortcomings as they occur;

Mobility as a Service – Autonomous shared

mobility services are expected to be a leading use case

of AVs. With this in mind, operative frameworks for

AVs should be strategized in a manner which allows

for AVs of different makes, shapes and sizes, to drive

on public roads in a collaborative and seamless

manner, able to communicate with each other and

take coordinated decisions. The co-existence of

multiple AV services and service operators requires a

number of considerations to be made, relating, among

other things, to communication, infrastructure,

licensing, type-approval, insurance and competition;

Citizens’ Dialogues – These public debates, held

between governmental representatives and members

of the public to discuss pertinent topics and matters of

interest, are frequently organised at EU level typically

in the form of question-and-answer sessions which

give EU citizens the opportunity to voice their

concerns and give feedback to decision-makers.

Holding citizens’ dialogues on AV policy-making

initiatives and projects will contribute to fostering

public acceptance and developing legal frameworks

that are both technically robust and ethically-aligned.

6 CONCLUSION

Although sections of current legislation may, at face

value, appear to be applicable to AVs, there are far

too many practical uncertainties for such products to

be introduced to local markets without further

legislative action. In the absence of dedicated legal

frameworks for AVs, it is clear that a roadmap is

needed at EU level in anticipation of their prospective

widespread deployment. Legislators and regulatory

experts will be faced with the conundrum of having

to determine whether to take the lead and assume

active control in determining the rules regulating the

creation and eventual deployment of AVs (ex ante, or

pre-emptive, approach), or rather allow sufficient

leeway for manufacturers to push technological

boundaries and proceed to mould an appropriate set

of rules around the resulting product, just ahead of

their widespread deployment (ex post, or reactionary,

approach). No consensus, locally or internationally,

has yet emerged on whether legislative initiatives

should take the form of individual amendments across

the entire spectrum, or a single dedicated legal regime

consisting of exemptions from the ‘traditional’

structure as well as the introduction of novel

provisions where necessary. A combination of the

two might be regarded as ideal, with an initial ad hoc

approach being gradually integrated into the corpus

iuris as automated vehicular technology becomes

increasingly normalised.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Project MISAM (REP-2020-017) is financed by

Malta Council for Science & Technology, for and on

behalf of the Foundation for Science and Technology,

through the FUSION: R&I Research Excellence

Programme’. The authors also thank Dr Emma

Xuereb, Associate, Camilleri Preziosi Advocates, for

her active involvement in the preparation of this

paper.

REFERENCES

Altunyaldiz, Z. (2020). Legal aspects of “autonomous”

vehicles. Committee on Legal Affairs and Human

Rights, Council of Europe. Retrieved from

https://assembly.coe.int/LifeRay/JUR/Pdf/DocsAndDe

cs/2020/AS-JUR-2020-20-EN.pdf.

BTC. (n.d.). BTC Smart City Living Lab Brochure.

Ljubljana, Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.btc.si/

wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BTC_LL_Brochure.pdf.

Citizens' Dialogues. European Commission. Retrieved

from https://ec.europa.eu/info/about-european-commi

ssion/get-involved/citizens-dialogues_en.

Civil Code, Chapter 16 of the laws of Malta.

Commercial 5G services now available in all 27 EU

countries. European 5G Observatory, European

VEHITS 2022 - 8th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

452



Commission. (2022). Retrieved from https://5gobser

vatory.eu/commercial-5g-services-now-available-in-al

l-27-eu-countries/.

Communication – 5G for Europe: An Action Plan and

accompanying Staff Working Document, accessible at

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commu

nication-5g-europe-action-plan-and-accompanying-sta

ff-working-document.

Communication from the Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A

European strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport

Systems, a milestone towards cooperative, connected

and automated mobility (30 November 2016),

accessible at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/

EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0766&from=

EN.

Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the

approximation of the laws, regulations and

administrative provisions of Council Directive

85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of

the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of

the Member States concerning liability for defective

products (Product Liability Directive).

Davnall R, “Solving the Single-Vehicle Self-Driving Car

Trolley Problem Using Risk Theory and Vehicle

Dynamics” (2019) 26 Science and Engineering Ethics

431. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/

content/pdf/10.1007/s11948-019-00102-6.pdf.

Dede, G., Naydenov, R., Malatras, A., Hamon, R.,

Junklewitz, H., & Sanchez, I. (2021). (rep.).

Cybersecurity Challenges in the Uptake of Artificial

Intelligence in Autonomous Driving. European Union

Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), Joint Research

Centre (JRC) (European Commission). Retrieved from

https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisa-jrc-cy

bersecurity-challenges-in-the-uptake-of-artificial-intel

ligence-in-autonomous-driving/.

Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product

safety (Product Safety Directive).

Eliot, L. (2020). AI Ethicists Clash Over Real-World

Aptness Of The Controversial Trolley Problem, But For

Self-Driving Cars It Is The Real Deal [Blog].

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2020/07/27/ai

-ethicists-clash-over-real-world-aptness-of-the-controv

ersial-trolley-problem-but-for-self-driving-cars-it-is-t

he-real-deal/?sh=377744165095.

European Automobile Manufacturers Association. (2019).

(rep.). Automated Driving – Roadmap for the

deployment of automated driving in the European

Union. Retrieved from https://www.acea.auto/upl

oads/publications/ACEA_Automated_Driving_Roadm

ap.pdf.

European Commission, Coordinated Plan on Artificial

Intelligence 2021 Review (2021). Retrieved from

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/coordin

ated-plan-artificial-intelligence-2021-review.

European Commission, Directorate-General for

Communications Networks, Content and Technology,

Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI (2019).

Publications Office. Retrieved from https://data.

europa.eu/doi/10.2759/177365.

European Commission. (2022). Harmonising spectrum for

enhanced connectivity: ready for 5G and innovation.

Shaping Europe’s Digital Future. Retrieved from

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/harmonis

ing-spectrum-enhanced-connectivity-ready-5g-and-inn

ovation-0.

European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2019 on

autonomous driving in European transport

(2018/2089(INI)), accessible at https://www.europarl.e

uropa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0005_EN.pdf.

Evans, T. (2018). (rep.). A common EU approach to

liability rules and insurance for connected and

autonomous vehicles: European Added Value

Assessment. European Added Value Unit, European

Parliament. Retrieved from https://www.europa

rl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/615635/EPR

S_STU(2018)615635_EN.pdf.

Foot, P. (1967). The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine

of the Double Effect. Oxford Review, 5.

https://philpapers.org/archive/FOOTPO-2.pdf.

Hinrichs-Krapels, S., Bailey, J., Boulding, H., Duffy, B.,

Hesketh, R., Kinloch, E., Pollitt, A., Rawlings, S., van

Rij, A., Wilkinson, B., Pow, R., & Grant, J. (2020).

Using policy labs as a process to bring evidence closer

to public policymaking: A guide to one approach.

Palgrave Communications, 6(1). https://doi.org/10

.1057/s41599-020-0453-0

Ilková, V., & Ilka, A. (2017). Legal aspects of

autonomous vehicles – an overview. 21st International

Conference on Process. Retrieved from DOI:

10.1109/PC.2017.7976252.

Mallia, J. (2019). Understanding Malta's Artificial

Intelligence framework. Times of Malta. Retrieved

from https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/understan

ding-maltas-artificial-intelligence-framework.747060.

MASA - A living lab for automated driving. Modena

Automotive Smart Area (MASA). Retrieved from

https://www.automotivesmartarea.it/?lang=en.

Masini, J. (2017). The readiness of the Maltese legal system

at addressing the ethical and legal implications of self-

driving vehicles. University of Malta.

Nord, S. Automated vehicles are more than self-driving

cars. RISE Research Institutes of Sweden. Retrieved

from https://www.ri.se/en/what-we-do/our-areas/auto

mated-vehicles.

Office of the Prime Minister, Malta: The Ultimate AI

Launchpad - A Strategy and Vision for Artificial

Intelligence in Malta 2030 (2019). The Government of

Malta. Retrieved from https://malta.ai/wp-content/

uploads/2019/11/Malta_The_Ultimate_AI_Launchpad

_vFinal.pdf.

Office of the Prime Minister, Malta: Towards Trustworthy

AI, Malta’s Ethical AI Framework (2019). The

Government of Malta. Retrieved from

https://malta.ai/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Malta_To

wards_Ethical_and_Trustworthy_AI_vFINAL.pdf.

Shared Automated Mobility: The Legal and Governance Considerations

453



Pillath, S. (2016). (issue brief). Automated vehicles in the

EU. European Parliament. Retrieved from https://

www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/

573902/EPRS_BRI(2016)573902_EN.pdf.

Policy Lab for policy and regulatory development. RISE

Research Institutes of Sweden. Retrieved from

https://www.ri.se/en/what-we-do/expertises/policy-lab.

Projects - University Living Lab. University Living Lab,

The University of Manchester. Retrieved from

https://www.universitylivinglab.org/projects.

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and

of the Council laying down harmonised rules on

artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and

amending certain Union legislative acts (COM(2021)

206 final), accessible at https://eur-lex.europa

.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:e0649735-a37 2-11eb-

9585-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.

Punev, A. (2020). Autonomous vehicles: The need for a

separate European legal framework. European View,

19(1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/17816858209120

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and

of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of

natural persons with regard to the processing of

personal data and on the free movement of such data,

and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data

Protection Regulation).

RISE Research Institutes of Sweden - Home. RISE

Research Institutes of Sweden. Retrieved from

https://www.ri.se/en.

Road traffic injuries. World Health Organization. (2021).

Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-

sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries.

SAE International. (2021). SAE Levels of Driving

Automation™ Refined for Clarity and International

Audience [Blog]. https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-

update.

The CAD Knowledge Base (continuously updated database

with AV regulations in EU and non-EU countries).

Connectedandautomateddriving.eu. (2022). Retrieved

from https://www.connectedautomateddriving.eu/

regulation-and-policies/national-level/.

Towards 5G. Malta Communications Authority. Retrieved

from https://www.mca.org.mt/initiatives/towards-5g.

Traffic Regulation Ordinance, Chapter 65 of the laws of

Malta.

UN Regulation No 157 on uniform provisions concerning

the approval of vehicles with regards to Automated

Lane Keeping Systems 2021/389, accessible at

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/389/oj.

Vehicle - Zoox. Zoox. Retrieved from https://zoox.com/v

ehicle/.

Waymo. (2018). Waymo 360° Experience: A Fully

Autonomous Driving Journey [Video]. Retrieved 16

March 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=B8R148hFxPw.

Waymo Driver. Waymo (subsidiary of Alphabet Inc, the

parent company of Google). Retrieved from

https://waymo.com/waymo-driver/.

What is a Living Lab?. The University of Edinburgh.

(2021). Retrieved from https://www.ed.ac.uk/

sustainability/programmes-and-projects/student-leader

ship-for-sustainability/living-lab-projects/what-is-the-

living-lab.

Wider Impacts and Scenario Evaluation of Autonomous

and Connected Transport (WISE-ACT). (2021).

(working paper). Thematic Report – WISE-ACT WG1,

COST Action CA16222. Retrieved from https://wise-

act.eu/reports-publications/#1592817777293-0a92441

9-15b2.

Zoox. (2021). Putting Zoox to the Test: Autonomous Track

Testing [Video]. Retrieved 16 March 2022, from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOblDiPflc.

1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic.

5G Action Plan. Shaping Europe’s digital future, European

Commission. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec

.europa.eu/en/policies/5g-action-plan.

VEHITS 2022 - 8th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

454