Does the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic prohibit driverless cars?

Question

The 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic, which the United States and several other countries have ratified, states the following (emphasis added):

Chapter II, Article 8, Section 1 (reprinted in full):
Every vehicle or combination of vehicles proceeding as a unit shall have a driver.

Chapter I, Article 4, Section 1 (reprinted in relevant part):
"Driver" means any person who drives a vehicle, including cycles, or guides draught, pack or saddle animals or herds or flocks on a road, or who is in actual physical control of the same; "Motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle normally used for the transport of persons or goods upon a road, other than vehicles running on rails or connected to electric conductors.

Does this mean that countries subject to the treaty are not allowed to permit on-road testing of vehicles with highly automated driving functionality, which do not have human safety drivers (like what Waymo and many other companies already doing)?

Why might this treaty be seen as an issue in Japan but not the US?

Answer 1

Why might this treaty be seen as an issue in Japan but not the US?

In the U.S., when there is a conflict between a treaty and a statute enacted by Congress, the last enacted law controls. So, any U.S. law passed by Congress after 1949 could override the Geneva Convention of 1949 on this topic. I am not certain that Congress has passed such a law, but it seems likely that it has done so.

In Japan (and most countries), a domestic statute cannot override an international treaty which can only be abrogated in the manner set forth in the treaty.

U.S. law is also more likely to hold that a treaty is not "self-executing" than Japanese law, on average, so many treaties are not considered directly enforceable under U.S. law until an implementing statute is passed, even though other countries would consider the same treaty to be directly enforceable without implementing domestic legislation.

Of course, either country could argue that an "AI" was a person who just happened to give their instructions much earlier than a usual driver. But, that wouldn't explain a distinction between the U.S. and Japan. One could also argue that a self-driving car comes within the "electric conductors" exception.

Answer 2

Self-driving cars meet this requirement anyway

Let’s use Google as an example. Their self-driving cars are operated by software which is owned by Google. The “person” driving the car is therefore Google, more particularly the specific corporate subsidiary that owns the IP. Companies are people too.