Driverless cars and other autonomous vehicles (AVs) are no longer just futuristic concepts—they are becoming a central part of modern transportation debates. With the potential to reduce traffic fatalities, decrease emissions, and offer greater mobility for underserved populations, the benefits are hard to ignore. But this transformative technology brings with it complex legal and regulatory challenges, particularly around safety and liability.

Safety: A Public Health Opportunity

Each year, nearly 40,000 people die in road accidents in the United States. A staggering 94% of serious crashes are attributed to human error. Autonomous vehicles could dramatically improve this picture by eliminating dangerous behaviors like drunk, distracted, or drowsy driving. Equipped with 360-degree sensor systems and lightning-fast reaction times, AVs promise consistent adherence to traffic laws and smoother vehicle-to-vehicle communication.

While critics raise valid concerns—malfunctioning sensors, algorithmic faults, or hacking risks—the net safety gain is potentially enormous. Fewer accidents would not only save lives but also lower healthcare costs and insurance premiums.

Environmental Impact and Smarter Roads

The environmental case for autonomous vehicles is just as compelling. The average car emits over four metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. AVs, thanks to their efficient and consistent driving patterns, can significantly reduce fuel consumption and emissions. Studies suggest that optimized acceleration and smoother traffic flow could reduce fuel use by 18% and CO₂ emissions by up to 25%.

These improvements also reduce traffic congestion, saving time and increasing economic productivity.

Mobility for All

AVs also hold immense promise for Americans who currently lack the ability to drive—older adults and people with disabilities. As the U.S. population ages, this enhanced mobility becomes not just a convenience but a necessity. Access to driverless transport could unlock economic participation for millions who currently struggle with commuting or accessing vital services.

A Legal Framework That Lags Behind

Despite the technological advancements, the regulatory and legal landscape remains patchy and inadequate. There is currently no federal legislation that explicitly permits autonomous vehicles without human drivers on public roads. Most regulation is at the state level, leading to a fragmented approach.

A major legal barrier to AV deployment lies in the question of liability. Existing fault-based insurance systems assume human responsibility. In AV-related accidents, determining fault—whether it lies with the manufacturer, the software provider, or the vehicle owner—can become highly complex. Courts face a new frontier: deciding whether an algorithm acted “negligently” and how to measure machine “reasonableness” in legal terms.

The Chilling Effect of Legal Uncertainty

This ambiguity has serious consequences. Insurers may be unwilling to issue policies. Manufacturers, particularly smaller innovators, might hesitate to bring products to market. The result could be a tragic paradox: a life-saving technology stalled by fears of relatively rare, but inevitable, incidents.

A Way Forward: The Case for a Compensation Fund

To address this legal impasse, experts propose a federally supported Victim Compensation Fund for injuries or deaths caused by autonomous vehicles. Similar models have been used before—after the 9/11 attacks, a federal fund provided compensation to victims who waived their right to sue. Private compensation funds have also been established in response to environmental disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The idea is not without precedent. The U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program provides a comparable mechanism for people harmed by routine vaccines. Applying this concept to autonomous vehicles would offer a no-fault, court-free path to justice for victims and clarity for manufacturers.

Balancing Innovation and Accountability

A compensation fund would not solve every issue associated with AVs. Criminal and civil accountability mechanisms would still apply in cases of willful misconduct. And because participation in the fund would be voluntary, courts would continue to play a role in shaping legal norms for those who opt out.

Still, a well-structured fund could ease public concerns, reduce investment risk for companies, and support a smoother transition toward widespread AV adoption.

Conclusion:
Autonomous vehicles may hold the key to safer, cleaner, and more inclusive transportation. But without clear legal mechanisms, their future remains uncertain. A national victim compensation fund could bridge the gap between technological potential and legal reality—offering justice to victims, clarity to courts, and confidence to innovators.

the source used to create the column: brookings