Home / Current projects / Changing driving laws to support automated vehicles

Submissions

Submissions for NTC Discussion Paper - Changing driving laws to support automated vehicles - October 2017

Anonymous

3 Oct 2017

1) Do you agree that reform to existing driving laws is required to: (i) allow an ADS to perform the dynamic driving task when it is engaged? (ii) ensure a legal entity (ADSE) is responsible for the actions of the vehicle when the ADS is engaged?

Yes and yes.

BTW what is ADSE?? Already you are assuming people know what it is, this is very poor communication on your part.

2) Do you agree that if the ADS is engaged, legislation should provide that the ADS is in control of the vehicle at conditional, high and full levels of automation? If not, do you think a human in the vehicle should be considered in control of the vehicle, and at what levels?

Yes, but only if the ADS log file can be legally retrieved (remotely?) in the case of an accident. Otherwise the law would not be enforceable and legislation useless.

3) Do you agree that the proper control offence should not apply to the ADS, provided there are appropriate ways to hold the ADSE to account for the proper operation of its ADS?

What is the difference? The ADS is designed by the ADSE.

4) Do you agree that if a safety assurance system is approved that requires an ADSE to identify itself, the identified ADSE should be responsible for the actions of the vehicle while the ADS is engaged? If the ADSE is not identified through the safety assurance system, how should the responsible entity be identified in legislation?

The vehicle with ADS should not be allowed on the road if no ADSE is identified.

5) Do you agree that when the ADS is engaged: (i) an ADSE should be responsible for compliance with dynamic driving task obligations? (ii) obligations that are part of the dynamic driving task that the ADS cannot perform should be modified where appropriate, or the ADS exempted from the obligation? (iii) an ADSE should not be responsible for existing driver duties and obligations that are not part of the dynamic driving task?

Yes.

Yes.

yes.

But again only if the ADS log file can be legally retrieved (remotely?) in the case of an accident. Otherwise the law would not be enforceable and legislation useless.

6) How should legislation recognise an ADS and an ADSE? In assessing the options in section 5.6, please consider the following factors: (i) legislative efficiency (ii) timeliness (iii) impact on compliance and enforcement (iv) impacts on other schemes such as compulsory third-party insurance.

Similar to humans who are licenced to drive. If the human commits a traffic offence they are fined and lose points and can eventually their licence can be revoked.

With ADS the electronic nature of the system should provide for near real time analysis and checking by law enforcement.

6a) Are there other options that you prefer? Please provide details of how it would work.

Who is held liable when a vehicle under full automation makes a decision that leads to a collision, injury or death?

e.g. Vehicle is going to hit another vehicle, it needs to change direction to avoid the collision, but in doing so will hit a cyclist. How does the system decide who to hit?

If the rate of accidents, injuries or deaths increases, what key performance indicator will be used to trigger an action by law enforcement. And what will the action be?

7) Do you agree that driver obligations need to be assessed to ensure there are no obligations that cannot be fulfilled if an ADS is in control? If gaps are identified, should other appropriate entities—such as fallback-ready users, other vehicle occupants, registered operators and operators—be made responsible for the obligation?

Yes.

8) Do you agree that obligations on a fallback-ready user of a vehicle with conditional automation, who will be required to take over driving if requested by the ADS should include: (i) sufficient vigilance to acknowledge warnings and regain control of the vehicle without undue delay, when required? (ii) holding the appropriate licence for the vehicle type? (iii) complying with drug, alcohol and fatigue driver obligations?

Yes.

8a) Do you agree that the fallback-ready user should be allowed to perform secondary activities?

yes.

9) Do you think it is necessary to impose readiness-to-drive obligations on humans who will take over driving when a vehicle with high automation that includes manual controls reaches the limit of its operational design domain?

Yes.

10) Do you agree that no readiness-to-drive obligations should be placed on passengers in dedicated automated vehicles (designed to be ‘driverless’)?

Yes.

11) Should exemptions from the drink- and drug-driving offences concerning starting a vehicle and being in charge of a vehicle be provided to a person who is starting, or who is a passenger in, a dedicated automated vehicle?

No.

12) Should exemptions from the drink- and drug- driving offences concerning starting a vehicle and being in charge of a vehicle be provided to a person who is starting a vehicle with high or full automation that includes manual controls?

No.

13) How do you think road traffic penalties should apply to ADSEs?

As they do to humans plus withdrawal of the ADSE "license" if a certain limit is reached (or a defect in the ADS is identified.

14) Do you think obligations and penalties on ADSEs in the safety assurance system should complement, or be an alternative to, road traffic offences?

Compliment.

back