Comments on NTC Draft -

Regulatory Barriers to
More Automated Road and Rail vehicles Issues paper

February 2016

4 March 2016

IAN OXWORTH
Project Director
EASTLINK
2 Hillcrest Avenue
PO Box 804
Ringwood, VIC,3134
T 03 9955 1936
F 03 9955 1701
M 0414 488 774

General Comment:

The document as presented provides an excellent review of the current status and a possible way ahead to overcome some of the legislative and operational issues confronting a road operator.

The feedback information provided below is high level first pass only. To be effective it may require substantial investigation into the impact of the detail and changing circumstances over the period that the different Levels of vehicle will come onto the market.

Chapter 2 - Consultation

Responses to the consultation questions are shown below.

What are automated vehicles?

Question 1 – Do you support the use of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International Standard to Classify automated road vehicle functions?

RESPONSE: YES. But may require detail on operational environments including connectivity.

Do you have any issues with using the SAE International Standard?

RESPONSE: NO, agree to its use.

Role of government

Question 2 –What do you think the regulatory role of governments should be to support the introductionof automated vehicles in Australia?

RESPONSE:Private Road Operators (PRO) need to be included here, para.2 of Sect.4.

When and how to regulate – As a private road operator there has to be some degree of certainty on the obligations of the PRO when/if a vehicle is operated at a higher automation level and has an incident in either mixed or single level operations. If the Legislation/Regulation follows the implementation/release of the vehicles, who is accountable?

Issues with regulating the driver

Question 3 – Have we identified the key issues relating to the Australian Road Rules and state and territory?

RESPONSE: Yes.

Road safety and traffic laws? Are there other issues that should be assessed as part of the NTC review?

RESPONSE: These need to be consistent across each state and Territory where practical.

There needs to be clarity as what is a driver and or non-operational passenger in a level.5 vehicle and possibly in Level.4 vehicle, the driver may not be viable to respond in some circumstances (old age / infirmity).

Issues with regulating the road vehicle

Question 4 – Have we identified the key issues relating to the Australian Design Rules and other vehicle standards?

RESPONSE: YES

Are there other issues that should be assessed as part of the NTC review?

RESPONSE: The road environment needs to be considered when approving the vehicle.

Issues with regulating heavy vehicles

Question 5 – Have we identified the key issues relating to heavy vehicles?

RESPONSE: YES

Are there other issues that should be assessed as part of the NTC review?

RESPONSE: The road environment needs to be considered when approving the vehicle.

Liability

Question 6 – Have we identified the key issues relating to the liability of drivers, manufacturers, service providers and road managers?

RESPONSE: NO –

  • Private Road Operators have not been considered here, they are obligated to provide at this time an unknown environment for the Level.3-5 vehicles and in theory they could be held responsible for some incidents if the infrastructure is found deficient. To enable the Level.3-5 vehicles additional road infrastructure is ideally required (V2V and V2X capability) corrected road signage and line marking, GSM availability, etc.
  • Responsibility for roadside data updates (for 5.9GHz), where applicable, normally via Road Authority and Private Road Operator.
  • Liability of non-operator occupant (aged/infirm) of a Level.5 vehicle, are they liable?
  • Another additional area possibly in “Liability” is Software updates, who is liable for these as the proper function of the vehicle is dependent on these. If an incident occurs and the vehicle is not up to date, who is responsible. Ideally these should be automated to ensure all vehicles are compliant.
  • Issue.13 – Conditional Automation in a level.5 vehicle and possibly in Level.4 the driver may not be viable to respond in some circumstances (old age / infirmity)

Are there other issues that should be assessed as part of the NTC review?

RESPONSE: When approving/Certifying a vehicles operating level, the road environment needs to be considered unless the Approval/Certification is to cover all classes of road environment.

Privacy and access to data

Question 7 – Have we identified the key issues relating to privacy and access to data by government agencies?Are there other issues that should be assessed as part of the NTC review?

RESPONSE:No, not everything.

  • As Private Road Operators using DSRC or video for tolling purposes the datasets created and stored are already covered by privacy regulations and shared to enforcement as requested. In an ideal world this equivalent data will be required for future Road User Charging and/or Congestion Charging implementations. The legislation / code needs to take into account.
  • Additional services and facilities such as “E-Call” and other similar safety system will need to clearly identify time/place and possible owner information.

Supporting on-road trials

Question 8 – Have we identified the key issues relating to on-road trials of automated road vehicles? Are there other issues that should be assessed as part of the NTC review?

RESPONSE: In general yes, but to assist all Road Operators including Private Road Operators a uniform set of criteria / legislation for testing is required (if possible).

More automated rail

Question 9 – Have we identified the key issues relating to more automated rail operations? Are there other issues that should be assessed as part of the NTC review?

RESPONSE: Not our area of operations, but if the methodology used for rail is proposed for road the difference in complexity of the road operations I believe considerable research and testing would be required to show the rail system to be viable for roads. The methodology used for aircraft/airspace control may be more appropriate.

Other issues

Question 10 –Are there additional issues or risks that should be considered in the NTC’s assessment of regulatory barriers to more automated vehicles?

RESPONSE: YES

  • More emphasis has to be placed on the way in which the legal system is going to be able to cope with the significant changes in liability, ownership over all the potential impacts of Autonomous vehicles on society structures.

Additional Points of Comment

  1. NOTE: The overall legislation and Technical/ Legal requirements for the vehicle cannot be carried out independent of the operating environments unless the vehicles are deemed to be capable of operating in all possible existing environments.
  2. The document has reasonably good coverage of the vehicle/MMI side of things but not the Vehicle to infrastructure aspects.
  3. Table.1 should have inclusion or comparable table showing the infrastructure legislation requirements.
  4. Table.2 Regulatory Areas in the Life-cycle of a Road Vehicle, Operation of the vehicle”. Needs further clarification on “Infrastructure Requirement”, does this only apply to vulnerable road users?
  5. Chapter.3 – Highly Automated – In reference to ‘’the system monitors the driving environment” – does this also mean the roadway including signage, mapping, line marking, communications? Needs to be clarified.
  6. Further into that discussion as a Road Operator clarity is required by the legislating authority as to what are the obligations of the road operator.