遠端駕駛在台灣交通法規政策下的挑戰與制度建議

Abstract

中文摘要

本研究系統性地探討了遠端駕駛技術在台灣交通法制與政策環境下所面臨的結構性困境，並在彙整組內多次討論後提出了具備在地化實踐可能的制度建議。研究指出，目前台灣針對遠端駕駛的規範多停留在技術實驗階段，缺乏正式的商業化營運法源，核心問題源於現行法規仍死守「駕駛人必須在車內」的空間同一性假設，導致遠端操作者在法律地位、注意義務認定以及執法程序上陷入不確定的法律灰色地帶。

在深入分析技術與人為風險後，研究發現 5G 通訊雖能提供即時影像，但超過 200 毫秒的延遲以及間接操作導致的感知劣化，在台灣機車流密集且道路環境複雜的現實下，極易放大安全風險。透過橫向對比日本的垂直物流經驗、新加坡的豪大雨環境標準、英國的安全案例制度以及德國正式將遠端操作者入法的最新進程，本研究主張台灣不應盲目模仿，而應採取「混合式推動策略」。

在政策建構上，研究強調應先從法律位階正名遠端操作者的駕駛地位，並拋棄傳統單一歸責邏輯，轉而建立包含操作員、營運商、硬體商、電信商與政府的「五主體責任評價矩陣」，輔以強制黑盒子紀錄來解決事故發生後的判斷爭議。此外，為了讓制度與技術同步演進，本研究建議採行「場域分級管理」與「通訊強韌度標準」，從低風險的園區逐步擴散至市區道路，並推動國家級的建築物聯網標準以解決垂直移動障礙。最終結論指出，遠端駕駛不只是技術更新，更是推動台灣交通治理由傳統物理在場模式邁向現代數位治理的重要契機。

Abstract This study systematically explores the structural dilemmas of remote driving technology within Taiwan’s traffic legal and policy environment, offering institutional recommendations derived from extensive group deliberations and localized practicalities. The research indicates that Taiwan’s current regulatory framework for remote driving remains confined to the technical experimentation stage, lacking a formal legal basis for commercial operation. The core issue stems from existing regulations (such as the Act Governing the Management and Punishment of Traffic Violations) which strictly adhere to the "spatial identity" assumption—the requirement that a driver must be physically present inside the vehicle. This creates a legal "gray zone" regarding the legal status of remote operators, the determination of duty of care, and the feasibility of roadside enforcement. Through an in-depth analysis of technical and human-related risks, the study finds that while 5G technology provides real-time video streaming, end-to-end latency exceeding 200 milliseconds and the degradation of situational awareness due to indirect operation significantly amplify safety risks—particularly within Taiwan's dense motorcycle traffic and complex road conditions. By cross-referencing international practices—such as Japan’s vertical logistics experience, Singapore’s extreme rainfall standards, the UK’s "Safety Case" system, and Germany’s recent legal recognition of remote operators—this study advocates for a "Hybrid Implementation Strategy" rather than a mere imitation of foreign models. Regarding policy construction, the research emphasizes the necessity of first legitimizing the legal status of remote operators. It proposes abandoning the traditional single-point attribution logic in favor of a "Five-Party Liability Evaluation Matrix"—encompassing the operator, the operating company, the hardware provider, the telecommunications provider, and the government—supported by mandatory "Black Box" data logging to resolve post-accident disputes. Furthermore, to ensure the synchronous evolution of policy and technology, the study recommends a "Phased Field Management" approach and "High-Resilience Communication Standards," scaling from low-risk closed campuses to urban roads. It also highlights the need for a national "Vehicle-to-Building (V2B)" standard to overcome vertical mobility barriers for robots. Ultimately, the study concludes that remote driving is not merely a technical update but a critical opportunity to transform Taiwan’s traffic governance from a "physical presence" model to a modern "digital governance" paradigm.