Autonomous vehicles
The state firmly holds the steering wheel… of the driverless car
Tomorrow, a vehicle could be driven by a system, monitored by a remote operator, operated by a transport company, designed and updated by a manufacturer. The bill therefore attempts to assign responsibility to whoever actually exercises control, or who should have guaranteed the safety conditions. (Photo: Shutterstock)
Luxembourg wants to establish a legal framework for autonomous vehicles. Behind the technological promise, the bill tabled at the end of last week by Minister of Mobility and Public Works Yuriko Backes mainly outlines a new chain of responsibility, involving the manufacturer, remote supervisor, human operator, and authorized transport service.
The autonomous car will not just be a car without a driver. It could become a regulated activity, monitored remotely, subject to approval, registries, safety obligations, insurance, and, in the event of an accident, a chain of criminal liability. That is the full significance of the bill presented on June 25 by Yuriko Backes before the parliamentary committee. The government presents it as a pioneering text, intended to prepare for the arrival of automated road vehicles. But its most concrete contribution is not to proclaim that autonomous cars can drive. It is to set out the conditions, the safeguards, and above all under whose control.
In the ministry's press release, Yuriko Backes speaks of "a major step forward for Luxembourg," aimed at integrating automated driving technologies "in a modern, secure, and responsible way, serving people." The phrase is political. The bill itself is more revealing: it does not leave technology alone at the wheel.
"Conditionally" – the word that changes everything
The text first distinguishes between conditionally automated vehicles and highly automated vehicles. In the first case, the system can drive under certain conditions, but a human driver must be able to take back control. In the second, the vehicle can handle dynamic control on its own within its operational domain, without a driver on board. This is where the framework becomes most interesting.
For these highly automated vehicles, the bill mandates continuous remote management. In other words, even when there is no driver inside the vehicle, there must be a human and technical organization behind it. The autonomous vehicle does not operate alone: it is supervised.
This supervision is not open to just anyone. The text creates the figure of the "remote manager," a legal entity approved by the minister. This approval, valid for five years and renewable, specifies what the manager is authorized to do: monitor vehicles, provide remote assistance, or, in the most sensitive cases, take back dynamic control of the vehicle. This is far from the image of a simple app controlling shuttles from a screen. The bill rather likens this activity to an operational control function.
The remote manager must have an appropriate organization, technical means, sufficient infrastructure and communication systems. It must also implement cybersecurity, data protection, and system security measures. It must document its safety management system, keep it updated, and take out insurance covering damages resulting from its activities.
The heart of the text is here: autonomous driving becomes a trust-based activity. It requires an organized, verifiable, and insured chain. The remote manager must designate a permanent operational contact point, accessible without interruption during vehicle operation. It must also ensure that a competent operator is identified at all times for each vehicle. In the event of technical failure, loss of connectivity, or a critical situation, a minimal risk maneuver must be triggered to bring the vehicle to safety.
Proof and traceability
The bill does not simply state that systems must be safe. It organizes proof and traceability of that safety. The manager must keep a register recording remote management operations: operator identities, vehicles involved, assignment of vehicles to operators, intervention periods, actions taken, takeovers, minimal risk maneuvers, incidents, anomalies, and events affecting safety. In case of a problem, it must be possible to reconstruct what happened, who was in charge of the vehicle, at what time, and under what technical conditions the intervention took place.
The remote operator becomes a new professional figure. This is not a classic driver, but neither is it a simple passive monitor. The text requires that they hold, for at least three years, a valid license for the relevant vehicle category and have the necessary physical and mental aptitudes. They must undergo initial training covering system capabilities and limitations, usage conditions, procedures for remote assistance, takeover, and emergency management, as well as supervision interfaces.
This training must include practical exercises and assessment. Ongoing training must then maintain operators' skills, based on system evolution, operating conditions, and feedback. Technology advances, but the text assumes that the human tasked with supervising it must advance with it.
The status of this operator varies depending on what they do. When they are limited to remote assistance, they are not considered a driver. But when they take back dynamic control of the vehicle, they are treated as a driver and must obey traffic rules. This nuance is essential: responsibility follows the actual control of the vehicle. If the system drives, responsibility may fall on the manufacturer. If an operator takes over, it can shift to them. If a transport service commercially operates the vehicles, it also falls into the scope of obligations.
An activity subject to authorization
The bill indeed regulates automated transport services. A company wishing to operate shuttles, robotaxis, or logistics services with highly automated driverless vehicles must obtain authorization from the minister. It must hold a valid establishment permit for the transport of persons or goods, use authorized vehicles, designate one or more approved remote managers, set up an organization ensuring service continuity, incident management, and, where applicable, passenger safety. It must also have the necessary insurance and financial guarantees.
The authorization will not be general. It will specify the nature of the service, its geographical scope, authorized zones, routes, or schedules, the maximum number of vehicles operated simultaneously, passenger information obligations, and reports to be submitted to the minister. The service may be suspended or withdrawn if conditions are no longer met, in case of serious or repeated breaches, or if operation poses a risk to road or passenger safety.
The text also requires autonomous vehicles to record data necessary for evaluating system functioning and determining the circumstances of an incident or accident. These data may be requested by competent authorities. Again, the idea is simple: in a traditional car, the investigation looks at what the driver did. In an automated vehicle, it must also know what the system decided, what the remote operator saw, whether they intervened, and whether the manufacturer properly maintained the system.
A new version of criminal liability
The bill does not create an entirely new civil regime. Civil liability will remain governed by common law and existing rules on defective products. However, it adapts criminal liability to a novel situation: where the dynamic control of the vehicle is no longer necessarily exercised by a person sitting behind the wheel.
This is the real shift. Until now, the automobile rested on a simple fiction: one vehicle, one driver, one responsibility. Automated driving forces breaking this certainty. Tomorrow, a vehicle could be driven by a system, monitored by a remote operator, operated by a transport company, designed and updated by a manufacturer. The bill therefore attempts to assign responsibility to whoever actually exercises control, or who should have guaranteed the safety conditions.
The government places this reform within the national strategy "Automatiséiert Fueren 2028," which aims for a gradual deployment of new uses: highway autopilot, robotaxis, automated shuttles, automated parking, or logistics applications. The logic is explicit: to make Luxembourg a controlled experimentation ground, without waiting for all uses to be mature.
