Stone Age Laws in the 21st Century
What happens when we attempt to solve the issues of today with yesterday’s solutions? In the area of law and policy, we get courts attempting to address the issues presented by the Internet Age with laws stuck in yesteryear. Or, in the view of an Ohio Supreme Court Justice, laws “written in the stone age.” In addressing product liability rules, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Donnelly wrote:
“Indeed, the Act does not address many of the contemporary standards in technology, communications, and commerce - standards that have changed radically since 1988. The divide between the pre-Internet age and the current age is so profound that laws like this Act might as well have been written in the stone age. Notwithstanding all the foregoing, though, this court cannot modernize the Act by judicial fiat; we must apply the statutory scheme as it is currently written.” – Stiner v. Amazon.com, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4632, Justice Donnelly concurring (emphasis added).
Failing to address adequately the challenges of technology means that stale laws are just as distasteful as the week-old salad in your fridge. Judge Donnelly notes the problem, and he writes a separate opinion to encourage the Ohio legislature to write fresh laws suitable for the 21st Century.
Encouraging regulators to “up their game” to address the modern realities arising from technology, especially within the autonomous transport sector, has been slow, at best, from my observations. Competition for primacy in regulating autonomous transport exists among regulatory agencies across the globe; however, at what are the competitors aiming? Aiming at a competitor’s goal is not how to score one for your team.
For example, do any of the regulators or legislative bodies have staff or consultants who do more than read articles on the topic? And if they read articles or proposed regulations from other agencies or governments, by what standards will they know what is of sufficient value such that it is suitable for that ruling body’s culture, people, and transport systems? Cutting and pasting is easy. Knowing what to cut and paste and what to discard, that is the trick. I fear that regulatory bodies will persist in the tradition of trusting existing policymakers to solve tomorrow’s problems with yesterday’s understanding of technology, especially the technology that animates autonomous transport.
One of my chief concerns is that our regulatory agencies will miss the opportunity to lead in the autonomous transport sector. We need to move beyond the tendency to place stop signs at a dangerous intersection AFTER an accident or in the case of the autonomous transport sector AFTER an autonomous vehicle runs over a pedestrian. Being prescient about accidents or upcoming problems is not difficult mentally or algorithmically. It is difficult because doing so takes a WILL. A will to commit resources and staff to appreciate and understand the complexities of 21st Century technology so they are enabled to craft 21st Century solutions.
If you are ready to put stone age thinking into your rear-view mirror by gaining insights from someone who combines 21st Century experience in the autonomous transport sector with law and policy, then contact me at mitch@autonomousconsulting.biz.
