Autonomous vehicles

Autonomous vehicles

A key area in the development of the law for autonomous vehicles, also known as automated vehicles, driverless cars, or self driving cars, has involved identifying the language that should be used to define such vehicles and establishing a “clear bright line” between vehicles that satisfy the test for self driving or not. The Law Commissions, in their joint report, Automated Vehicles (see further below), described automated vehicles as:

‘…a vehicle that is designed to be capable of “driving itself”: to operate in a mode “in which it is not being controlled and does not need to be monitored by an individual, for at least part of a journey”.’

The Law Commissions identified that these terms should be reserved for vehicles where “the human in the driving seat (if any) may relax and divert their attention, knowing that they are not responsible for anything that happens while the automated driving system (ADS) is engaged”.

They contrasted self-driving cars with technology that is designed to assist human drivers but still requires the human behind the wheel to monitor the vehicle and the driving environment. This approach is endorsed in

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest TMT News

No Set-Off Clause Effective Against Defence of Circuity of Action (Alaska Airlines v Virgin Aviation)

Commercial analysis: The court granted summary judgment in favour of Virgin Aviation (Virgin) on a claim for sums due under a contract with Alaska Airlines (Alaska), notwithstanding a defence of circuity of action based on a claim in unjust enrichment. The court found that the basis for the unjust enrichment claim was flawed as a matter of construction. However, in the alternative, the court held that the no set off clause would have precluded Alaska from relying on a defence of circuity to resist summary judgment. Written by Joshua Crow, barrister at One Essex Court.

ASA rulings—15 October 2025

One complaint has been received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about a Red Tractor television advert which, it was alleged, exaggerated the benefits of Red Tractor endorsement by implying broader environmental care and compliance. The ASA has upheld the complaint. This decision has been one of the longest-running ASA investigations (more than two years), and Red Tractor has been highly critical of the outcome.

Paddington bear wins injunction against knockoff souvenirs

Law360, London: The owner of Paddington Bear has won a temporary injunction against a London souvenir distributor it has accused of copyright infringement, weeks before it is set to launch a new musical.

CAP and BCAP update guidance on under-18s protection in gambling advertising

The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) have updated their guidance on protecting under-18s in gambling and lotteries advertising. The updated guidance follows three years of experience applying the 'strong appeal' test introduced in 2022, which replaced the previous 'particular appeal' standard for content that might unduly attract under-18s attention. Key updates include clarification on social media following, establishing that at least 100,000 social media follower accounts registered to under-18s across platforms is indicative of strong appeal to minors. The guidance introduces a new Context section explaining how appeal varies by setting and execution, provides further clarification on distinctions between 'adult-centric' and 'non-adult-centric' sports, and includes additional detail on social media's role in the evolving marketing landscape. The changes reflect learning from rulings, stakeholder input and research review since the stricter standard was implemented.