Driverless taxis are heading to the UK, but it’s still not clear who to blame when something goes wrong
- Written by Paurav Shukla, Professor of Marketing, University of Southampton
Driverless taxis are a bit like buses. You wait ages for one, and then a fleet arrives all at once. The US firms Waymo and Uber have both said their vehicles will be on the streets of London in 2026.
But as this transport technology[1] speeds towards the UK, it seems to be outpacing any widespread agreement over a basic social contract. Robots are due to arrive[2] on British roads without a clear sense of who is responsible when things go wrong.
Imagine you are in the backseat of a driverless taxi, responding to messages on your phone, when suddenly your AI chauffeur crashes into something – or someone. In the silent moments that follow, there is no driver to turn to.
Is the car maker to blame or the programmer who wrote the software? Perhaps it’s the app company that organised the ride. Is it the city authority that permitted the journey, or even you, the passenger, for failing to intervene?
For now, the answer isn’t clear to the public.
Most people don’t know who pays out, or who apologises, when a driverless taxi makes a mistake. And this isn’t just a legal technicality – it is the fault line under a trillion-dollar industry, which could be stopped in its tracks by uncertainty.
Our research[3] reveals that “liability communication” – how companies and authorities explain who is legally in charge and under what conditions – for autonomous vehicles (AVs) is a mess. It is fragmented, riddled with legal jargon and unclear.
This is partly down to the caution with which many western economies – including the US[4] – are approaching AV adoption. In the UK, the government’s pilot scheme is moving ahead slowly[5].
Others are racing ahead. China, for example, with its high tolerance for experimentation, has created a booming AV ecosystem, with over 32,000km of roads available for AV testing, and 16,000 test licences[6] issued. AV trials have been normalised while legal frameworks are still being drawn up[7].
But while the UK’s approach may seem sensible, caution without clear communication risks feeding scepticism rather than confidence in the future of driverless cars.
Making the case for safety also needs to be localised. Although enthusiasts highlight[8] millions of safe rides in the US, there’s no point referencing the safety record of AVs[9] in a city built around a grid system that is completely different to the narrow and winding old streets of the UK.
If safety is uncertain, uptake will probably stall[10], especially in messy streetscapes. And they don’t get much messier than London’s irregular roads.
Uncertainty also brings tension. Some politicians and companies appear fairly bullish, promising a safety revolution and tens of thousands of new jobs[11]. Meanwhile, London’s own taxi trade warns of chaos[12], citing stalled vehicles, accessibility worries and glaring safety gaps.
Our review shows that this tension is partly to do with poor communication, including gaps in messaging over things like safety and risk, or compensation and complaints. The language apparently aimed at consumers is often ambiguous or overly technical instead of being accessible.
There are other simple steps that UK authorities could take to make things less confusing. One is that every driverless taxi ride should begin with a short, plain-English briefing about who is legally responsible for the journey.
Read more: 'Robot' buses could bring more environmental benefits than public transport with drivers[14]
The wording should be composed with consumer groups and accessibility experts, not just lawyers and engineers. And before you even book, the app should explicitly state who insures the vehicle, the software and the ride itself.
A country that gets the communication about AVs wrong will fight every hiccup on social media, at town halls and in the courts. A country that gets it right will turn each minor incident into proof that the system, and the people behind it, are accountable.
To achieve this, liability communication needs to be treated as a safety feature, not a legal footnote. Only then will people be able to truly benefit from the AV promise of cleaner, safer, accessible urban mobility. But the wording needs to be designed for general consumers, not lawyers. Without this, AV adoption risks becoming a slow-motion pile-up.
References
- ^ transport technology (theconversation.com)
- ^ due to arrive (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ Our research (doi.org)
- ^ including the US (www.bloomberg.com)
- ^ moving ahead slowly (news.sky.com)
- ^ licences (www.spglobal.com)
- ^ still being drawn up (www.economist.com)
- ^ enthusiasts highlight (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ safety record of AVs (www.thetimes.com)
- ^ uptake will probably stall (theconversation.com)
- ^ new jobs (news.sky.com)
- ^ warns of chaos (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ Sergii Figurnyi/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
- ^ 'Robot' buses could bring more environmental benefits than public transport with drivers (theconversation.com)
