| Abstract: | Magistro baigiamajame darbe analizuojama ar neblaivus asmuo turi teisę valdyti autonominį automobilį, esamų įstatymų bei rūpestingumo pareigos kontekste. Pirmoje darbo dalyje nagrinėjama autonominių automobilių specifika. Visų pirma buvo nustatyta, kad kalbant apie neblaivaus asmens teisę valdyti autonominį automobilį, autorius nagrinės tik pilnai autonominį automobilį. Nagrinėjant autonominių automobilio vystymosi eigą bei prognozes, nustatyta, kad neblaiviam asmeniui JAV įstatymai nedraudžia valdyti autonominio automobilio, o EU, dėl įstatymų nebuvimo – draudžia. Toliau autorius išskiria autonominių automobilių valdymo ypatumus. Nustatyta, kad autonominių automobilių valdymo ypatumai – valdymas be žmogaus daromos įtakos, leidžia teigti santykį artimesnį naudojimui (keleiviui) nei valdymui, nes už žmogų viską daro autonominė sistema.
Antroje darbo dalyje buvo analizuojama alkoholio poveikis, transporto priemonės valdytojui rūpestingumo pareigos kontekste. Nustatyta, kad net ir mažas alkoholio kiekis trukdo vairuotojo rūpestingumo pareigos vykdymui. Toliau buvo analizuojama leistino alkoholio apribojimo vairuotojams teisinis reglamentavimas. Vykdant šią analizę buvo remtasi Lietuvos bei užsienio valstybių įstatymais. Nustatyta, kad maksimalus leistinas alkoholio kiekis priklauso nuo kelių būklės, avarijų skaičiaus bei kitų politinių ir ekonominių klausimų.
Trečioje bei ketvirtoje darbo dalyse, aprašomas metodologijos paruošimas, atlikimas bei gautų rezultatų aptarimas. Dėl autonominių automobilių specifikos, buvo naudojama atvejo analizė. Nustatyta, kad autonominis automobilis yra pakankamai saugus, kad juo galėtų naudotis regėjimo negalią turintis asmuo. Toliau buvo atlikinėjama lyginamoji analizė. Atlikus analizę, buvo išskirti keturi kriterijai, pagal kuriuos nustatyta, kad autonominis automobilis užtikrina geresnį saugumą nei paprastas automobilis bei reikalauja mažesnio rūpestingumo lygio. Siekiant užtvirtinti gautus rezultatus, buvo atlikta ekspertų apklausos analizė. Nustatyta, kad neblaivaus asmens teisė valdyti autonominį automobilį nėra absoliuti.
Penktoje darbo dalyje, autorius apibendrino magistro baigiamąjį darbą bei išdėstė savo nuomonę dėl neblaivaus asmens teisės valdyti autonominį automobilį. Nors techninių kliūčių nėra, tačiau teisė neblaiviam asmeniui valdyti autonominį automobilį nėra absoliuti. Siekiant nustatyti iki kokio lygio neblaivus asmuo turi teisę valdyti autonominį automobilį, reikia atlikti atskirus tyrimus, analizuojant: kelių infrastruktūrą, transporto, švietimo sistemas, politinio ir ekonominio tikslingumo klausimus.
This master‘s thesis analyses whether an intoxicated person has the right to use an autonomous vehicle in the context of current laws and the duty of care. The initial hypothesis is that an intoxicated driver has the right to use an autonomous vehicle. The work consists of five parts. The first part of the analysis focuses on discussing the unique features of autonomous vehicles. The second part of thesis analyses how different amounts of alcohol affects the driver in the context of duty of care. The third and fourth parts are focused on the methodology and methods used while anylising the topic. In the fifth part of the thesis, the author sumarizes his opinion on the anlysis and points out his thoughts regarding the topic.
In the first part of the thesis, the author discusses the commonalities and unique features of an autonomous vehicle. Firstly, the thesis compares different types autonomous vehicles, in order to determine the autonomous vehicle concept. It is established, that henceforth the author will focus on a fully autonomous vehicle. Secondly, once it is established which autonomous vehicle level is going to be used in the topic, the thesis dicusses the unique features of fully autonomous vehicle and its management features. The results showed that fully autonomous vehicles can be used in any kind of environment without any interaction of a person and is expected to provide extra movement of freedom for disabled people. It was also established, that it is not enough for autonomous vehicle to simply work as intended. The autonomous system has to be the safety net and provide the redundancy.
After identifying autonomous vehicle‘s unique features, the author analyses the development progress and forecast of laws in United States of America (hereinafter – USA) and European Union. The results show, that USA is one of the leading countries in autonomous vehicle development. The ability to enact separate laws from the federal government, allows states to try out different kind of laws in order to regulate autonomous vehicle use. Meanwhile, the European Union takes more of a conservative approach, by undergoing various experiments and researches in order to ascertain the safety of autonomous vehicles. It is also established that in USA, the laws does not prohibit an intoxicated person from using an autonomous vehicles, meanwhile in European Union, due to the lack of laws, it is prohibited.
After establishing the unique features of autonomous vehicle, in the second part of this work, the author conducts an anlysis on the duty of care and how it is affected by different amounts of alcohol and legal regulations. Firstly, taking into consideration that driving requires a great degree of care, the first paragraph analyses different regulations and case law to underline the importance of care for a driver. Afterwards,the author discusses Lithuania’s drink driving regulations. It is established, that the prohibition to drink driving has two aims: (1) to prevent casualties on the road and (2) to reduce alcohol consumption. Furthermore, it is established that even though the drink driving prohibition is supposed to reduce alcohol consumption, in practice, it does not fully achieve its aim. Secondly, as study shows, even a small amount of alcohol has an effect on driver’s duty of care. Countries, in order to prevent road casualties and an increased alcohol consumption, use different limitations on alcohol use for the drivers. After comparing several European country’s laws, it’s established that the allowed maximum alcohol limit for drivers depend on various different aspects, such as: road infrastructure, transport system, education system, number of road casualties, political and economic feasibility issues.
Having analysed the aforementioned topics, the third and fourth part of the thesis focuses on the methods used in analysing whether an intoxicated person has the right to use an autonomous vehicle. Firstly, due to the autonomous vehicles being a new technology, the author uses an extreme case study. Since fully autonomous vehicle does not have an analogy, an example of a blind person using an autonomous vehicle was used. The results found, that autonomous vehicles can be used by a legally blind person. Taking into consideration, that when talking about intoxicated person, a blind person is the closest analogy there is, it can be assumed, that an intoxicated person could also use an autonomous vehicle.
Secondly, in order to confirm the unique features of an autonomous vehicle, the author uses comparison analysis to compare an autonomous vehicle with a regular vehicle. The results found, that an autonomous vehicle: (1) does not require human interaction, (2) lowers the degree of care for the driver, (3) an intoxicated driver can not take control of the vehicle, therefore not being able to cause any harm to the society, despite using an autonomous vehicle while being intoxicated and (4) provides extra security. Finally, the author conduct an expert interview in order to confirm the previously found results. After comparing answers, it is established, that while an intoxicated person has the right to use an autonomous vehicle, the right is not absolute.
The conclusion, after undergoing an analysis on the topic, establishes that an intoxicated person has the right to use an autonomous vehicle, but the right is not absolute. It should be noted that this work does not analyse road infrastructure, transport system, education system, number of road casualties and certain political and economical questions. |
