Abstract:Autonomous vehicles establish human driving abilities through computer emulation, with the user inputting a destination of their choosing via remote control or within the vehicle itself; the autonomous vehicle will determine its path and surrounding environment automatically, however its function is only limited to the necessary travel controls, thus it does not interfere with other vehicle mechanics. With this autonomy taking place, there are no instances of human error in driving however, hacking and viruses infecting the system can diminish its capabilities, and has the potential to cause unforeseen accidents. When travelling via an autonomous vehicle, if there were a traffic collision that caused bodily harm, it is highly debatable whether under the Automobile Accident Compensation Security Law article 3 (AACSL) the victim is allowed compensation is highly debatable at this point, however it is up to the user that has the sense of responsibility of applying the same standards of law as its non-autonomous vehicle drivers whether the user were not driving at that instant. This does have the same effect as the vehicle owner allowing another driver to operate the vehicle, where if the driver has an instance of vehicle collision then the holder of the vehicle has partial responsibility under the drivers’ moral obligation and Accident Compensation Security Law article 3. On the topic of autonomous vehicles, both parties partaking the incident who likely to commit to operational responsibility are involved, thus the laws can be applicable for both parties. Moreover on this topic if there is a third person other the vehicle owners involved in an incident that have suffered bodily harm then there is no doubt that the person under Accident Compensation Security Law article 3 is classified as ‘another party’. However if the vehicle holder is part of a collision incident and has suffered bodily harm, where in the tradition sense of the owner operating the vehicle cannot be classified as ‘another party’ can be classified a second party of the incident when in an operation of autonomous vehicles. This can be in effect when the owner of the vehicle has suffered bodily harm when in an autonomous vehicle cannot be responsible and did not partake in operating responsibilities thus making the owner a second party to the incident. Receivables and liabilities that are extinguished by confusion when the legitimate interests to be recognized as the relationship between the duration of the bond that is the premise of the exercise of rights for third-person debt that a person is a debtor even if the President and creditors belong to the same person not. Due to a traffic accident caused by an autonomous vehicles, if car holders have suffered personal damage the car holder shall have the rank as status of driver and others at the same time. The victim was a car accident claim for damages due to third-party insurance companies, about the duration of the bonds because they can exercise their right, we have to accept. Therefore, the holder of the autonomous vehicles is right to claim damages for the victim about the driver pursuant to Automobile Accident Compensation Security Law article 3, which has the status of others on the basis shall not be extinguished by confusion.

Psychological Consequences of Legal Responsibility Misattribution Associated with Automated Vehicles

The Twofold Role of Legal Liability Misattribution on Intention to Buy Automated Vehicles: A Survey in China

Plenty of blame to go around: Attributions of responsibility in a fatal autonomous vehicle accident

Not in Control, but Liable? Attributing Human Responsibility for Fully Automated Vehicle Accidents

When both human and machine drivers make mistakes: Whom to blame?

Human and machine drivers: Sharing control, sharing responsibility

Who is to blame for crashes involving autonomous vehicles? Exploring blame attribution across the road transport system

Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: an ethical analysis

The Awkward Middle for Automated Vehicles: Liability Attribution Rules When Humans and Computers Share Driving Responsibilities

Accident Liability Determination of Autonomous Driving Systems Based on Artificial Intelligence Technology and Its Impact on Public Mental Health

Drivers of partially automated vehicles are blamed for crashes that they cannot reasonably avoid

Approaches to Autonomous Driving Vehicle Traffic Accidents Liability in China

Why Is Artificial Intelligence Blamed More? Analysis of Faulting Artificial Intelligence for Self-Driving Car Accidents in Experimental Settings

Unsafe At Any Level: NHTSA's levels of automation are a liability for autonomous vehicle design and regulation

Negligence Failures And Negligence Fixes. A Comparative Analysis Of Criminal Regulation Of AI And Autonomous Vehicles

Liability for Autonomous Vehicles and Legal Maintenance of Traffic Laws: Focusing on a New Automated Vehicles Act in the UK

Driving a safer future: Exploring cross‐country perspectives in automated vehicle adoption by considering cyber risks, liability, and data concerns

When the automated driving system fails: Dynamics of public responses to automated vehicles

Liability design for autonomous vehicles and human-driven vehicles: A hierarchical game-theoretic approach

An Autonomous Vehicle Associated with theAutomobile Accident CompensationSecurity Law article 3

Driving into the Loop: Mapping Automation Bias and Liability Issues for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems