5 Ways Autonomous Vehicles Will Change Law That You Might Not Expect
Eric Tanenblatt, the global chairman of public policy and regulation at Dentons, discusses how self-driving cars may lead to change in zoning laws, public finance, and more.
March 05, 2019 at 02:53 PM
6 minute read
|
Autonomous vehicles aren't exactly a futuristic technology any longer. From San Francisco to Phoenix to Pittsburgh, these self-driving cars are already hitting the road in major U.S. cities, and experts estimate that 8 million autonomous vehicles will be sold in 2025, just six years away.
With this sea change imminent, it's no surprise that law firms are responding. Dentons, for instance, has spun up an entire autonomous vehicles team in the past couple of years, with attorney focusing on different angles of the emerging practice ranging from regulatory issues to litigation concerns to privacy questions. The firm has even launched a blog to cover the ever-changing AV world on a weekly basis.
But of course, with any major change, there are bound to be ripple effects that even the most forward-thinking attorneys haven't considered. Eric Tanenblatt, the global chairman of public policy and regulation at Dentons, recently sat down with Legaltech News to discuss the new AV paradigm. He explained just how wide-ranging change may be in the new autonomous vehicle-powered world with a number of ways the law may have to change.
|1. Zoning Laws
For most people, private cars sit idle about 90 percent of the time. When autonomous vehicle fleets hit the road, though, an optimized system will have cars running at least three-quarters of the day, if not more. This means that car care will change for fleet owners. But there's also a secondary consideration at play as well: what happens to all of those parking spots.
“What that means is that there won't be the need for parking decks, parking garages and parking lots to the extent we have them now,” Tanenblatt said. “That frees up the space for more economic development or green space, that's going to require local governments to change some of their zoning laws.”
He also noted that in some jurisdictions, there are laws on the books saying that when building a new commercial development, there needs a certain number of parking spaces. Those requirements would be superfluous in the new AV world, where instead, “there may be new requirements where you need to add drop off and pick up access, because there will be so many vehicles driving around.”
|2. Bond Backing
From his firm's public finance work, Tanenblatt has found that a lot of governments have bond indebtedness that is bonded with parking revenue. As an example, he noted that the city of Atlanta has bonds related to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, where 40 percent of the airport's revenue comes from parking.
But what happens when that revenue goes away, given the parking issues described above? “If 10 years from now we have autonomous fleets, and we don't need all those parking spaces at the airport, they're going to have to figure out how to plug that hole,” he explained.
This issue could become a long-term problem for some jurisdictions, even if a wide-ranging fleet of autonomous vehicles isn't imminent. “In some cases, you have 30-year bonds that are backed by parking revenue and 10 years from now, they may drop off.”
|3. Insurance Issues
Currently, 85 percent of accidents are a result of human error. And although it's inevitable that some accidents will occur as a result of autonomous vehicle error, overall most experts believe that a majority of those human error accidents will be wiped out. Naturally, the implications for the insurance industry are enormous.
“When you take the human out of it, and you have these connected autonomous vehicles, it's going to reduce automobile accidents, and you're already seeing some of the large insurance companies predicting that insurance rates will drop,” Tanenblatt said.
It's also notable who will need to hold insurance in the first place. Since many in the general population won't own cars themselves, they will not need to buy insurance. Autonomous vehicle fleet owners, on the other hand, will be purchasing the majority of insurance policies, changing the way insurance carriers both market their services and assess risk.
|4. The Federal/State Split
Historically, the federal government has taken the role of regulating cars, while states have regulated drivers through licenses and registration. “But in the case of autonomous vehicles, the cars are the drivers,” Tanenblatt noted. “So it's a different animal than what we have been accustomed to in the past.”
Currently, there are a patchwork of state rules governing autonomous vehicles. Some legislatures have passed laws, while other state governors have issued executive orders, and some states simply have no rules on them at all. Federal rules proposed in the House of Representatives last year did not pass, and no further traction has been made on a federal level to solidify jurisdiction over this technology.
“It's somewhat of a Wild West out there because every state is not passing the same laws as other states,” Tanenblatt said. “That's why the federal government's role is going to be so important.”
|5. Integrating Younger Attorneys
Even within a firm's own practice, autonomous vehicles can lead to change. At Dentons, the autonomous vehicle group touches a number of different practice areas and geographies simply because the tentacles of the new technology reach a number of different areas. “Whether it's data privacy lawyers, whether it's litigation lawyers, whether it's our public policy and regulatory lawyers … it's really across all regions and across all practice groups,” Tanenblatt explained.
That means opportunities for younger attorneys to get a foothold in this new area. Tanenblatt told the story of a younger attorney who joined the firm last summer who because of his interest in the subject and ability to “think digitally” was able to grasp some AV concepts easily and take on important work right away. It's a function of being engaged with the subject matter, he said.
Tanenblatt added, “If they're fortunate enough to work in an environment where they have a specialty like we do in the AV space, there's great opportunity for them to get involved, no matter what aspect of the law or regulatory work they're focused on.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1More Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, while Some Firms Offer Potential for Even More
- 2OpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
- 3Saying Your Goodbyes—Ethical Obligations When Transitioning to a New Firm
- 4Womans Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
- 5Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250