Experts say safety, legal issues will impact AVs

James A. Popio, vice president of Smithers Rapra and Smithers Pira North America, agreed with most of Mr. Petersen's observations, but added one of his own.

"Getting to full autonomy is going to be tough," he said.

There are excellent reasons to adopt AV technology, according to Mr. Popio. It has the potential to reduce vehicle-related injuries and deaths by 50 to 90 percent, and it could drive cost savings by reducing traffic jams and promoting ride-sharing, he said.

On the other hand, AV systems could add $7,500 to the price of a car, he said.

"How does AV work if only 10 percent of the cars on the road are automated?" he asked. "And how long will it take to produce effective standards for AVs?"

There are no rules, no tests and even no signage for AVs, according to Mr. Popio.

The European Commission established its AV guidance program, GEAR 2030, in January 2016, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued its Federal Automated Vehicles Policy in September 2016, according to Mr. Popio. But there is no government-defined AV-testing procedure anywhere in the world, he said.

Infrastructure will also be problematic, according to Mr. Popio. Billions of dollars will be needed to wire the nation's 4 million-plus miles of paved roads and 250,000 intersections, at a time when many states are struggling to fund basic highway maintenance, he said.

The tire of the future will play a crucial role in the adoption of AVs, he added, saying it will be an invaluable data source, thanks to the coming proliferation of intelligent tire technologies.

Tires not only will have pressure-monitoring systems, but also radio-frequency identification and sensors for load detection, wear, self-inflation, traction, maintenance alert, fleet tire management and vehicle telematics, he said.

Yet intelligent tires pose difficulties for the tire aftermarket, according to Mr. Popio.

"These tires are as sophisticated as an iPhone," he said. "Are you going to throw them away?"

Imagine that your vehicle comes with an intelligent tire that has a worn tread, he said. How will the replacement be handled?

"If one tire fails, do you have to replace them all?" he asked. "Technicians will have to be specifically trained to handle this."

Some of the biggest questions electronic communication raises for the future are legal ones, according to attorneys Chad Mowery and Joseph Ruscak from Akron law firm Roetzel & Andress L.P.A.

"Most court cases are mostly discovery," Mr. Mowery said. "Over the past several years, the biggest heartburn hasn't come from depositions or written interrogatories but requests for production of documents."

This, according to Messrs. Mowery and Ruscak, is because of emails. Typically, people write emails much more casually than formal letters, which can cause enormous trouble when the email is communication on a research topic.

In emails, people tend to exaggerate more or be more sarcastic than in formal letters, the attorneys said. The problem this can create in a courtroom, they said, is emphasized by a recently unveiled email from an auto maker, which referred to a model in development as a "deathtrap," "widowmaker" and "rolling sarcophagus."

"You should always try to keep your written communications as fact-based as possible," they said. "When using adjectives, you should choose ones that describe the actual happenings and not ones that attempt to exaggerate a situation or shock someone solely for the purpose of grabbing attention."