KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
OFFENCES COMMITTED BY ROBO TAXIS – WHO IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE?
Robotaxis are no longer something confined to science fiction or trials on the other side of the world. Transport for London has granted private hire vehicle licences to a fleet of autonomous cars intended for supervised use in London.
But the question we are being asked is: “What happens if one commits an offence?” What happens if it speeds, goes through a red light or, worse still, knocks over a pedestrian or cyclist? What happens if it collides with your car and you maintain that you were not at fault? Who will be criminally charged?
The current position
Historically, if a criminal offence arose from the way a vehicle was driven, responsibility fell immediately upon the driver of that vehicle. That remains the position for vehicles which have driver-assistance or autonomous capabilities (a Tesla, for example) but still require a human driver. In those circumstances, the buck still stops with the driver.
There are well-established examples of that principle in practice. A driver cannot avoid penalty points for speeding simply because the satnav displayed the wrong limit. The court expects the driver to observe the road signs and street lighting, rather than relying blindly upon the speed shown by an electronic system.
Likewise, we have dealt with cases at Patterson Law in which drivers were convicted after an autonomous function in their vehicle failed to operate properly. One example involved a gentleman driving an ordinary vehicle fitted with lane assist. He engaged the autopilot mode, but the system failed to negotiate a bend. The vehicle continued straight ahead and collided with an oncoming vehicle. He argued that he was not at fault because the vehicle had caused the collision. The court found against him because he remained the driver and retained responsibility for the control and direction of the vehicle.
The transitional phase
The position becomes more complicated with the robotaxis that are now being introduced onto UK roads.
70
Although these vehicles are capable of driving themselves, they are not operating as completely driverless vehicles. The current London rollout still requires a trained and licensed safety driver to remain onboard and capable of taking control if necessary. In many respects, that means the current position remains comparatively straightforward because there is still a human being present who is responsible for the vehicle.
However, where it will become complex is in the future with the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which has been designed to prepare for a future in which vehicles are authorised to drive themselves. The legislation begins to distinguish between the actions of the human supervisor and the driving decisions taken by the automated system itself. That distinction becomes important under the future.
It is unclear whether these new laws are going to be in force in time for this trial, but it’s unlikely they will be.
The future position This is where it may become much more complex.
The Automated Vehicles Act 2024 provides the framework for vehicles that may be authorised to drive themselves, but the main regulatory scheme is not yet fully in force and remains dependent upon provisions, secondary legislation and authorisation processes. The Act provides for two different types of authorised automation feature: a user-in-charge feature and a no- user-in-charge feature.
For the present supervised trials, the person behind the wheel is the driver or safety driver and remains legally responsible under the existing law. A statutory ‘user-in-charge’ will be a different role under the future regime: an individual in a position to exercise control of an authorised automated vehicle while an authorised user-in-charge feature is engaged, but who is not actually controlling the vehicle at that time.
When brought into force, section 47 may generally protect the ‘user in charge’ from being criminally liable for offences that the vehicle committed without their input. However, there will instead be different offences for users-in-charge.
SEPTEMBER 2026 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78
