ADAS in Large Transit Buses
ADAS technologies encompass a range of equipment designed to assist drivers in making safer decisions and reducing the risk of accidents. These systems often include adaptive cruise control, automatic emergency braking, lane-keeping assistance, pedestrian detection, and collision avoidance systems for large transit buses. The ultimate goal is to improve safety for passengers, pedestrians, and other road users while optimizing operational efficiency for transit agencies.
Transit authorities across the globe have begun exploring integrating ADAS technologies and autonomous buses into their fleets. For example, several European and Asian cities have launched pilot programs to test automated or semiautomated buses. In the United States, similar initiatives are taking place. On September 22, 2022, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity to solicit proposals from organizations interested in advancing research into transit bus automation through demonstrations of ADAS technologies and automation of bus movements in transit bus yards. Later, on June 8, 2023, the FTA granted $11.6 million to six projects to research automation to improve safety and efficiency in bus service and yard operations, ranging from state departments of transportation to universities.
Safety and Operational Benefits
The primary appeal of ADAS technologies in transit buses lies in their potential to reduce human error, which, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is responsible for about 94 percent of all traffic accidents. For example, automated emergency braking can respond to obstacles faster than human drivers, potentially preventing collisions. Similarly, lane-keeping assistance and adaptive cruise control can reduce driver fatigue, a common issue in the transit industry.
Beyond safety, ADAS technologies offer operational benefits. Automated systems can optimize fuel efficiency, improve adherence to schedules, and reduce vehicle wear and tear through smoother driving patterns.
The Shift Toward Full Automation
While ADAS technologies focus on assisting human drivers, the long-term trajectory points toward fully automated buses. Companies like Volvo and ADASTEC are actively developing autonomous bus technologies. Fully automated systems could eliminate the need for a human driver, fundamentally changing the nature of public transportation.
This transition raises important legal and regulatory questions. Who will be held liable in an accident involving an autonomous bus? How will traditional liability principles adapt to a world where human error is no longer the primary cause of accidents? These questions are particularly pressing given the unique challenges of large-scale transit systems, including high passenger volumes, complex urban environments, and diverse stakeholder interests.
Traditional Liability Principles
Under traditional liability frameworks, the driver of a vehicle is typically the primary party held responsible for accidents caused by negligence or reckless behavior. In public transportation, a transit authority or company operating the vehicle may also bear liability under the doctrine of vicarious liability, which holds employers accountable for their employees’ actions within the scope of employment.
But where ADAS technologies or fully autonomous transit buses are concerned, buses operate with either minimal human supervision or none at all.
Impact of Automation on Liability
As automation shifts control away from human drivers, the focus of liability may move toward transit authorities, private companies, manufacturers, and software developers of ADAS technologies and autonomous systems. This shift raises several complex issues:
- Product Liability: Manufacturers may face increased exposure to product liability claims. Plaintiffs could allege that a defect in the automated system’s design, manufacturing, or programming caused the accident. For example, if a collision occurs because the bus’s pedestrian detection system failed to recognize a person in a crosswalk, the manufacturer could be held liable.
- Negligence Standards: For semiautomated systems that require human oversight, questions arise about the standard of care expected of drivers. For instance, if a human operator is present but fails to intervene when an ADAS makes an error, how should liability be apportioned between the operator and the automated system’s manufacturer?
- Strict Liability: Manufacturers of ADAS technologies and autonomous systems may be held strictly liable for harm caused by defects in their products, including design flaws, manufacturing errors, or software malfunctions. This shifts the focus from negligence to whether the product was defective and caused the harm, creating potential exposure for manufacturers of both hardware and software components.
- System Failures and Shared Liability: Automated systems often rely on a combination of hardware, software, and external inputs such as GPS and traffic data. A failure in any one of these components could lead to an accident. Multiple parties may share responsibility; for example, the bus manufacturer, software developer, and data provider.
- Regulatory Compliance: Automated transit systems must comply with evolving safety regulations. Failure to meet these standards could serve as evidence of negligence in a liability case.
- Negligent Selection of Technology: Transit authorities and private companies may face liability for failing to adequately vet the safety and reliability of automated systems. If they select or deploy technology with known risks or limitations, they could be held responsible for accidents resulting from these shortcomings, particularly when safer alternatives are available.
- Cybersecurity Risks: Automated transit systems are highly dependent on interconnected software and external data sources, making them vulnerable to cyberattacks. If a cybersecurity breach compromises the system—such as when a hacker gains control of the vehicle or disrupts critical sensors—the liability could extend to software developers, data providers, or transit authorities that failed to implement adequate security measures.
Insurance
Transit authorities may need to update their insurance coverage to account for the unique risks associated with automation. Traditional policies designed for human-driven vehicles may not adequately address scenarios involving software errors, hardware failures, or cyberattacks. Coverage will need to extend to risks such as system malfunctions, cybersecurity breaches, and liability shared among multiple parties, including manufacturers and software developers. Insurers may also develop specialized policies to address the complexities of automated systems, such as data loss or hacking incidents. At the same time, transit authorities might face higher premiums to reflect these expanded risks.
Conclusion
The integration of ADAS and autonomous technologies into large transit buses marks a transformative step in public transportation, offering enhanced safety and efficiency. However, these advancements also disrupt traditional liability frameworks, requiring a redefinition of how responsibility is assigned in the event of an accident. As automation shifts control from human drivers to complex systems, courts, regulators, and insurers must adapt to address the unique challenges posed by these technologies.
