8 Amendments of Tilly METZ related to 2020/2014(INL)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas AI in transport is driving the evolution of the next generation of IT systems and its application involves using many types of technologies such as autonomous vehicles and traffic management solutions, particular attention also needs to be paid to interoperability;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that automated functionalities can bring significant safety improvements in the medium and long term; notes that AI could also be used for planning and guiding logistics and block chains, and for increasing efficiency, resilience, reliability and flexibility;
Amendment 26 #
2 a. Underlines the risks pertaining from mixed traffic (featuring both traditional and autonomous vehicles) that has shown to bear the highest accident risk, thus calling for more research and development by both public and private means and more testing, to enhance product safety and as a result road safety, but not least to also provide concrete data helping further development and also to adapt civil liability rules;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Underlines that a possible solution to address the existing gaps and shortcomings of rules could be the setting up of a framework for no-fault insurance for damage resulting from autonomous vehicles or the eventual reassessment of the Motor insurance Directive;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of defining a clear division of responsibilities between software developers, manufacturers of various components, service providers and operators and end users; , operators and end users in order to i.a. ensure best possible product safety, the appropriate allocation of risks, responsibility and liability relating also to operating software failures, network failures and risks and externalities relating to programming choices that are currently not adequately covered;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that for AI-related applications with a specific high-risk profile, there is a need for a risk-based approach depending on the levels of automation; risks relating to hacking and cybercrime need to be adequately addressed
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises the need to guarantee at least the same level of product safety as that currently existing ones, also taking account of the EU vision zero target, to ease the remedy to victims of accidents, to avoid increasing current litigation costs; and to avoid legal uncertainty, especially for businesses that are marketing their products in the EU and globally; and in this respect insists that there should be no limitation of liability regarding the nature and extent of the damage to be compensated in order to guarantee adequate victim protection
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. ACalls on the Commission to explore the possibility of establishing a EU body, made up of the various member state regulators to ensure oversight on European level in order to recommend actions to the Commission when liability rules are unclear or need to be adjusted or when AI systems used in transport violate fundamental rights; also asks the Commission to present guidelines to avoid fragmented regulatory approaches at national level, taking into consideration the Product Liability Directive and national liability regimes.