{ "module": "ROAT-MOD-LAYERS", "snapshot_date": "2026-09-05", "panel": "historical-uk", "exported_from_hub": "2026-09-05T20:22:16.315Z", "source_sheet": "Layer Coding – AV History", "rows": [ { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-UK:1861", "regime_label": "1861 · Locomotive Act 1861", "panel": "historical", "series": "Historical UK", "year": 1861, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0264", "ROAT-2026-0275" ], "rationale": "Road locomotives were specifically constrained, but no mature vehicle-approval, liability, infrastructure or international-recognition architecture had formed.", "confidence": "High", "range": 1, "asynchrony": "Mild", "bridge": "Exceptionalisation through special operational constraints", "caveat": "Liability and infrastructure coding is based on absence of demonstrated technology-specific integration, not absence of general law.", "technical_approval": 0, "road_access": 1, "actor_allocation": 1, "liability_risk": 0, "behavioural_rules": 1, "infrastructure": 0, "international": 0 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-UK:1865", "regime_label": "1865 · Locomotives Act 1865 – Red Flag regime", "panel": "historical", "series": "Historical UK", "year": 1865, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0265", "ROAT-2026-0275" ], "rationale": "The law intensified operating and crew constraints while other regulatory layers remained largely unintegrated.", "confidence": "High", "range": 1, "asynchrony": "Mild", "bridge": "Exceptionalisation / precautionary direct-control regime", "caveat": "Do not equate restrictive regulation with low regulatory activity: N1 denotes bounded accommodation, not deregulation.", "technical_approval": 0, "road_access": 1, "actor_allocation": 1, "liability_risk": 0, "behavioural_rules": 1, "infrastructure": 0, "international": 0 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-UK:1878", "regime_label": "1878 · Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878", "panel": "historical", "series": "Historical UK", "year": 1878, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0266" ], "rationale": "Operational rules were recalibrated and infrastructure/bridge concerns received more structured treatment, while vehicle approval, liability and international layers remained immature.", "confidence": "Medium–High", "range": 1, "asynchrony": "Mild", "bridge": "Regulatory recalibration", "caveat": "Infrastructure is coded N1 because the regime reacts to roads/bridges but does not yet evidence system-wide infrastructural institutionalisation.", "technical_approval": 0, "road_access": 1, "actor_allocation": 1, "liability_risk": 0, "behavioural_rules": 1, "infrastructure": 1, "international": 0 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-UK:1896", "regime_label": "1896 · Locomotives on Highways Act 1896", "panel": "historical", "series": "Historical UK", "year": 1896, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0267", "ROAT-2026-0268" ], "rationale": "Reclassification and deeming integrate the technology into inherited carriage law without yet producing mature liability, infrastructure or international layers.", "confidence": "High", "range": 2, "asynchrony": "Significant", "bridge": "Classificatory bridge: light locomotive ‘deemed to be a carriage’", "caveat": "N2 does not imply comprehensive motor-vehicle law; it denotes transitional/intermediate integration. The classificatory bridge is coded separately as the mechanism supporting that state.", "technical_approval": 2, "road_access": 2, "actor_allocation": 2, "liability_risk": 0, "behavioural_rules": 2, "infrastructure": 1, "international": 0 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-UK:1903", "regime_label": "1903 · Motor Car Act 1903", "panel": "historical", "series": "Historical UK", "year": 1903, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0269", "ROAT-2026-0270" ], "rationale": "Operation, driver identity and behavioural governance become dedicated and stable before liability, infrastructure and international recognition catch up.", "confidence": "High", "range": 3, "asynchrony": "Strong", "bridge": "Dedicated licensing/registration institutionalisation", "caveat": "Driver licensing was initially identification-oriented rather than a mature competence-testing regime; N3 reflects dedicated legal institutionalisation, not full substantive maturity.", "technical_approval": 2, "road_access": 3, "actor_allocation": 3, "liability_risk": 1, "behavioural_rules": 3, "infrastructure": 1, "international": 0 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-UK:1926", "regime_label": "1926 · International Convention relative to Motor Traffic", "panel": "historical", "series": "Historical UK / international", "year": 1926, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0271", "ROAT-2026-0273" ], "rationale": "Approved type/vehicle examination, driver authorisation and international certificate recognition are institutionalised, while liability and infrastructure remain less converged.", "confidence": "Medium–High", "range": 2, "asynchrony": "Significant", "bridge": "Mutual-recognition / certification bridge", "caveat": "The liability score reflects the UK/European motor-risk environment rather than obligations created by the 1926 Convention itself.", "technical_approval": 3, "road_access": 3, "actor_allocation": 3, "liability_risk": 1, "behavioural_rules": 3, "infrastructure": 2, "international": 3 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-UK:1930", "regime_label": "1930 · Road Traffic Act 1930", "panel": "historical", "series": "Historical UK", "year": 1930, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0272", "ROAT-2026-0277", "ROAT-2026-0293" ], "rationale": "Road operation, driver conduct, compulsory third-party insurance and enforcement are routinised within a mature system of automobility; technical/infrastructure/international layers remain highly institutionalised but not coded as fully routinised.", "confidence": "High", "range": 1, "asynchrony": "Mild", "bridge": "System-level institutionalisation and risk pooling", "caveat": "N4 is not deregulation: the mature system is more institutionally dense than the 1865 regime.", "technical_approval": 3, "road_access": 4, "actor_allocation": 4, "liability_risk": 4, "behavioural_rules": 4, "infrastructure": 3, "international": 3 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-EU:2018", "regime_label": "2018 · EU type-approval baseline + Vienna/WP.29 bridge architecture", "panel": "longitudinal", "series": "EU / UNECE", "year": 2018, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0036", "ROAT-2026-0039", "ROAT-2026-0010" ], "rationale": "EU law can accommodate new vehicle technologies through type-approval exception/equivalence mechanisms, but full-ADS operational and actor layers remain largely national or inherited.", "confidence": "Medium", "range": 2, "asynchrony": "Significant", "bridge": "Equivalence/exemption + compatibility bridges", "caveat": "2018 is used as an analytical baseline; Regulation 2018/858 applied later and the score reflects the emerging architecture rather than one single commencement date.", "technical_approval": 2, "road_access": 1, "actor_allocation": 0, "liability_risk": 1, "behavioural_rules": 2, "infrastructure": 1, "international": 2 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-EU:2022", "regime_label": "2022 · EU ADS type approval + Vienna Convention Article 34bis", "panel": "longitudinal", "series": "EU / UNECE", "year": 2022, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0040", "ROAT-2026-0011", "ROAT-2026-0273" ], "rationale": "Dedicated ADS type-approval requirements reach N3 while Article 34bis bridges the driver requirement only where both technical rules and domestic operating law are satisfied; operation and actor allocation therefore remain less normalised.", "confidence": "High", "range": 2, "asynchrony": "Significant", "bridge": "Agency/deeming bridge + dedicated technical institutionalisation", "caveat": "Article 34bis entered into force on 14 July 2022; it does not designate the ADS as the legal driver and does not create uniform domestic operational law.", "technical_approval": 3, "road_access": 2, "actor_allocation": 2, "liability_risk": 1, "behavioural_rules": 2, "infrastructure": 1, "international": 2 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-EU:2026", "regime_label": "2026 · Consolidated EU ADS type approval + new UNECE ADS Regulation/GTR", "panel": "longitudinal", "series": "EU / UNECE", "year": 2026, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0177", "ROAT-2026-0217", "ROAT-2026-0218", "ROAT-2026-0227", "ROAT-2026-0011" ], "rationale": "Technical and international ADS regulation is comparatively mature, including the June 2026 UNECE ADS instruments, while road operation, actor allocation and infrastructure remain more fragmented. EU 2026/481 moves automated parking toward unlimited-series market access.", "confidence": "High", "range": 2, "asynchrony": "Significant", "bridge": "Dedicated technical harmonisation + persistent operational bridges", "caveat": "Technical approval is coded N3 overall because N4-like unlimited-series treatment currently applies to a narrower automated-parking sublayer, not to all ADS deployment.", "technical_approval": 3, "road_access": 2, "actor_allocation": 2, "liability_risk": 2, "behavioural_rules": 2, "infrastructure": 1, "international": 3 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-UK:2024", "regime_label": "2024 · Automated Vehicles Act 2024 – enacted architecture", "panel": "longitudinal", "series": "Great Britain", "year": 2024, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0171" ], "rationale": "The Act creates dedicated self-driving authorisation, ASDE and NUiC operator roles and reallocates responsibility, while full operational use depends on subsequent safety principles and implementation measures.", "confidence": "High", "range": 2, "asynchrony": "Significant", "bridge": "Dedicated actor/authorisation architecture + licensing bridge", "caveat": "Scores distinguish enacted legal architecture from operational commencement; the principal authorisation scheme was not yet fully deployable in 2024.", "technical_approval": 3, "road_access": 2, "actor_allocation": 3, "liability_risk": 3, "behavioural_rules": 2, "infrastructure": 1, "international": 1 }, { "regime_id": "ROAT-JUR-UK:2026", "regime_label": "2026 · Pre-full-implementation phase: passenger permits + draft safety principles", "panel": "longitudinal", "series": "Great Britain", "year": 2026, "records": [ "ROAT-2026-0171", "ROAT-2026-0214", "ROAT-2026-0301", "ROAT-2026-0302" ], "rationale": "Actor and responsibility architecture is already dedicated, but the full authorisation regime is planned for 2027; 2026 passenger-service permits and trialling provide conditional operational pathways while the Statement of Safety Principles is still being finalised.", "confidence": "High", "range": 2, "asynchrony": "Significant", "bridge": "Permit bridge during staged implementation", "caveat": "Automated passenger services are more mature than the general authorisation layer; the row codes the overall GB regime rather than the most advanced sub-use-case.", "technical_approval": 3, "road_access": 2, "actor_allocation": 3, "liability_risk": 3, "behavioural_rules": 2, "infrastructure": 1, "international": 1 } ], "findings_table": [ { "Finding": "Historical peak asymmetry around 1903", "Empirical implication": "Operation, driver/actor and behavioural rules reach N3 while liability/infrastructure/international recognition remain N0–N1.", "Article use": "Strong evidence that normalisation is not one transition; the regulatory system can be highly developed in some functions and rudimentary in others.", "Status": "SUPPORTED – first-pass coding" }, { "Finding": "Historical convergence by 1930", "Empirical implication": "The layer range narrows as liability/risk pooling and system-level road governance catch up.", "Article use": "Supports defining normalisation as convergence toward stable embedding, not deregulation.", "Status": "SUPPORTED – first-pass coding" }, { "Finding": "Modern EU/UNECE technical lead", "Empirical implication": "Technical approval and international harmonisation are N3 while operation, actors and infrastructure remain N1–N2.", "Article use": "Direct empirical support for layered/asynchronous normalisation and the dual-pillar claim.", "Status": "SUPPORTED – current 2026 sources" }, { "Finding": "Great Britain shows law can lead implementation", "Empirical implication": "Dedicated actors and responsibility rules reach N3 before full operational authorisation and final safety principles are in force.", "Article use": "Important falsification of a simplistic pacing problem: asynchrony is multidirectional, not merely technology-fast/law-slow.", "Status": "SUPPORTED – current 2026 sources" }, { "Finding": "Legal bridges cluster in high-asymmetry periods", "Empirical implication": "1896 reclassification, EU Article 39, Article 34bis and UK passenger permits appear where one layer needs to function before adjacent layers are fully institutionalised.", "Article use": "Supports treating legal bridges as mechanisms for managing inter-layer mismatch rather than as isolated drafting techniques.", "Status": "PROMISING – requires broader case test" } ], "purpose": [ "Empirical Test v1 – Layered / Asynchronous Regulatory Normalisation", "Coding principle: N0–N4 measures the degree of legal embedding of the technology in each functional regulatory layer, not regulatory intensity. Scores are ordinal and heuristic. N2 denotes transitional/intermediate integration and is coded independently of the bridge or gate mechanism identified in column M. The range (max–min) is used only as a descriptive signal of inter-layer asymmetry, not as a statistical index." ] }