Burkhard Schafer’s research while affiliated with University of Edinburgh and other places

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE) has developed new aspects of its WP.29 agreement for harmonising vehicle regulations, focusing on the regulation of vehicle manufacturers’ approaches to ensuring vehicle cyber security by requiring implementation of an approved cyber security management system (CSMS). This paper investigates the background, framework and content of WP.29’s cyber security regulation. We provide an overall description of the processes required to become certified, discuss key gaps, issues and the impacts of implementation on stakeholders, and provide recommendations for manufacturers and the authorities who will oversee the operation. Putting the discussion into a broader theoretical framework on risk certification, we explore to the role of non-academic sources to shape public risk perception and to drive, for better or worse, legislative responses.

In December 2020 the law for drone pilots and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) use went into a transition phase in preparation for new EU international UAV regulation. That EU regulation comes into full effect as the transition periods defined in the United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation Authority Air Policy CAP722 expire during December 2022 (CAA, 2020). However, international homologation regulation will not address the patchwork of inconsistent drone use regulations that exist in the United Kingdom from the layering of local and subordinate authority byelaws over UK aviation law. We provide an extensive review of local authority regulation of drone use on public open and green spaces, finding that many local authorities are unaware of the issues being created through: (i) inappropriately couched or poorly framed byelaws; (ii) multiple byelaws covering the same area by virtue of overlapping jurisdictions; or (iii) the lack of readily identifiable policies for drone use on public land. Overregulation, inconsistent regulation and regulatory disharmony are causing confusion for recreational drone enthusiasts such that it is never clear which public- or crown-owned open and green spaces they are allowed to, or prohibited from, flying. While the government and local authorities might like them to, drones are not going away. Therefore, we conclude, the easiest way to ensure citizens stay within the bounds of drone law that is intended to ensure public safety, is to make that law comprehensible, consistent and easy to comply with.

Artificial intelligence (AI) features are increasingly being embedded in cars and are central to the operation of self-driving cars (SDC). There is little or no effort expended towards understanding and assessing the broad legal and regulatory impact of the decisions made by AI in cars. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to determine the perceived barriers, benefits and facilitating factors of SDC in order to help us understand the suitability and limitations of existing and proposed law and regulation. (1) existing and proposed laws are largely based on claimed benefits of SDV that are still mostly speculative and untested; (2) while publicly presented as issues of assigning blame and identifying who pays where the SDC is involved in an accident, the barriers broadly intersect with almost every area of society, laws and regulations; and (3) new law and regulation are most frequently identified as the primary factor for enabling SDC. Research on assessing the impact of AI in SDC needs to be broadened beyond negligence and liability to encompass barriers, benefits and facilitating factors identified in this paper. Results of this paper are significant in that they point to the need for deeper comprehension of the broad impact of all existing law and regulations on the introduction of SDC technology, with a focus on identifying only those areas truly requiring ongoing legislative attention.