Who is responsible for self-driving vehicles travelling on our roads? That's a question being raised across the Tasman, where researchers from the Charles Darwin University (CDU) looked into the issue. It is become an important one, as autonomous vehicles (AVs) such as Alphabet's Waymo and other robotaxi companies are appearing.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: the CDU researchers found that Australia's current traffic laws are largely inapplicable to self-driving vehicles, leaving authorities with limited powers to regulate automated transport on roads.
In the study, named Automated vehicles, the ‘driver dilemma’, stopping powers, and paradigms
of regulating road traffic that was published in Computer Law & Security Review, the researchers identified a significant "driver dilemma" in traffic legislation across Australia, where laws specifically address human drivers rather than autonomous systems.
"For over 100 years the primary addressee of road traffic law has been an entity known as the "driver." This was recognised in the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic and the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, and has been reflected in the domestic road traffic law of nation states," the researchers wrote.
"Until recently, whoever was the ‘driver’ was uncontroversial. The driver is identified as the human occupying the ubiquitous "driver’s" seat.
"However, the emergence of automated vehicles (AVs) presents a significant challenge to road traffic laws. "Driverless’" vehicles, and even vehicles where there is substantial automation of the dynamic driving task, problematise road traffic laws addressed to a driver."
In South Australia, the Road Traffic Act defines a driver as a "person," with officers authorised to direct these human drivers to stop vehicles or not move them.
Similarly, Queensland legislation defines drivers as "persons" and applies rules such as stopping at red lights specifically to human operators.
"The driver dilemma can be strongly identified in these stopping powers, all of which are addressed to the "driver'", " Dr Mark Brady, CDU senior lecturer in law and lead author of the study, said.
"Powers directed to drivers to stop vehicles are problematic when applied to automated vehicles where the automated driving system cannot at law be considered a driver."
The research team, which included academics from Queensland University of Technology and the University of Newcastle, found that passenger transport legislation offers a potential solution.
Most Australian passenger transport laws are vehicle-centric rather than driver-focused, giving authorities broader powers regardless of who is behind the wheel.
For example, New South Wales legislation allows authorities to stop taxis and hire vehicles irrespective of who is driving.
Dr Brady suggested passenger transport legislation could serve as a template for adapting road traffic laws to include automated vehicles.
"Passenger transport laws all have explicit objectives about the public interest in safe, efficient, and accessible passenger transport," he said.
"These vehicle-centric powers exist where there were significant public policy grounds to stop vehicles, irrespective of the driver's conduct."
Australia currently lacks a national framework for automated vehicles, though the federal government began developing one last year. The researchers warn that as automation increases, determining who qualifies as the "driver" becomes increasingly problematic for both international and national road traffic laws.
"There is a suggestion that the familiar "rules of the road" will not be needed in an automated vehicle future. However, in this future roadside enforcement would still need powers to stop vehicles," Dr Brady said.
Next, there needs to be a longer discussion around how future roadside enforcement of traffic laws will implement the powers to stop and redirect vehicles. Technology with communications protocols, and privacy aspects, and jurisdictional differences are some of the considerations.
New Zealand tests AV waters
Meanwhile, New Zealand authorities have started work to make AVs possible on our roads, the Ministry of Transport (MoT) told interest.co.nz although it's early days yet.
"AVs are currently permitted on New Zealand roads provided they comply with normal requirements, based on drivers and/or specific design features being present (such as steering wheels)," an MoT spokesperson said.
We are literally giving the tech a spin, locally.
"New Zealand Transport Agency runs a process to trial the adoption of AV technology."
"For example, NZTA granted an exemption to Ohmio, an Auckland-based company that designs and manufactures low-speed automated shuttles. Granting this exemption is a significant step for the deployment of automated vehicles in New Zealand. It is the first approval to operate an automated vehicle of any kind on a public road, other than for short public demonstrations," the spokesperson said.
"The Ministry of Transport is keeping a close watch on the development of autonomous vehicles (AV) technology and the regulatory response to it in other jurisdictions. We are also reviewing a range of vehicle regulations to ensure they are fit for purpose to improve the safety performance of the vehicle fleet and reduce regulatory burden."
"This work is outlined in the government’s Road Safety Objectives, which were released last year," the spokesperson added.
The above may seem like a costly exercise for society, but it's worth taking into to account that AV road behaviours are carefully recorded and studied - more so perhaps than the human equivalent. So far, as Ars Technica writes, the results look good, for Waymo at least.
Not only do Waymos crash way less than human-driven vehicles, most of the time it's not the AVs' fault. This of course translates into greater safety for people on the roads, but more importantly for the bean counters, 90 per cent lower insurance claims.
If AVs and self-driving cars continue to deliver on fewer accidents, how long will it be before insurers adjust to that, and demand substantially higher premiums for human driven vehicles?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.