‘Supervised’ self-driving cars are here – Australian law isn’t ready yet

In September, US electric car maker Tesla introduced semi-autonomous driving capabilities in Australia, which the company calls “the future of transportation.”

As the name suggests, fully autonomous (supervised) systems blur the line between human control and machine control. The current licensing and road safety framework is not designed to deal with this situation.

The federal government’s strategy for high-tech road transport, published last week, says little about how this new semi-autonomous technology should be managed.

As experts in cities, transportation, and how people use them, we have some concrete policy ideas about how to safely manage this innovation. Changes to licensing rules, safety testing, accountability and transparency.

What is “supervised autonomous driving”?

Tesla’s new system is the most advanced form of semi-autonomous driving available to Australian consumers.

Cars can follow routes from start to finish, handle intersections, change lanes, and react to traffic lights. These tasks go far beyond traditional “autopilot” or adaptive cruise control.

Tesla says the system “will drive you almost anywhere” “under your active supervision.” Although the product name has “fully autonomous driving,” the active monitoring part is important.

Initial testing in Australia by The Drive and CarExpert reviewers showed that while it’s a technically sound system, it’s far from perfect.

Cars recognize signs, but don’t always read them or interpret them reliably Change lanes slowly and may confuse nearby drivers Navigation can be unstable if satellite coverage is weak The system may sometimes pick the wrong lane or misjudge the right side May park awkwardly Sometimes while wearing dark sunglasses 2 Spanning two bays can confuse the cameras monitoring the driver and potentially disable the system.

The overall impression is of a vehicle that can drive itself most of the time, but that requires an actual driver to take over at a moment’s notice. And to be fair to Tesla, the company says the system “requires an attentive driver to maintain proper control of the vehicle and must be ready to take immediate action at all times.”

Are Australian regulations catching up?

The Federal Government’s new National Road Transport Technology Strategy outlines how Australia plans to prepare for connected and automated transport.

The strategy promises to develop a “coherent national regulatory framework” for autonomous vehicles. However, the report notes that implementation will depend on state and territory transport strategies, which provide more detailed plans for the introduction and deployment of new technologies.

In other words, this strategy recognizes automation but says little about how it will be managed.

What policies are effective?

Supervised automation occupies a gray area between human control and machine control. Australia’s current policy framework does not yet define how that space should be managed.

While there is no single solution, several areas stand out as modest, evidence-based steps that can help supervised driving technology mature safely.

1. Driver training and licensing system reform

Supervised automation changes the meaning of driving. The driver’s role shifts from active control to continuous monitoring. Research shows that people are not naturally good at this.

If a driver is not required to maintain continuous control, his or her awareness of his or her situation can quickly deteriorate. This can cause them to be slow or unresponsive when they need to be in control.

Reasonable updates to existing license tests may address this issue. State authorities may introduce additional knowledge questions or short modules covering these systems and their limitations.

These will ensure that all drivers using such systems have at least a basic understanding of how the system works and where human responsibility begins and ends.

2. Pre-deployment certification and transparency

Before semi-autonomous systems become widely available, they must demonstrate that they can operate safely under local road, climate, and traffic conditions.

There are currently no such verification requirements in Australia. Once a vehicle complies with Australian design regulations, manufacturers will be able to enable or change automation features through a software update. There is no need to submit supporting safety data or seek regulatory approval.

Manufacturers may be required to provide verified performance data before releasing updates. This may include how often and how well humans take over the system, how often and what happens to sensors, and measures of how effectively the system avoids crashes.

Trials of “beta” or experimental software are still possible, but only within regulatory-approved test zones and under controlled supervision.

A complementary step would be to incorporate minimum performance benchmarks for these systems within the Australian Design Code or ANCAP safety assessment protocols. These may include alert timing, system reliability, and transparency of system performance.

3. Accountability and data integrity

Currently, Australia has no obligation for semi-autonomous car manufacturers to share data on crashes, near misses, and when the system switches off or hands over to a human driver.

When an incident occurs, evidence often remains only with the company. This limits public oversight and independent investigation.

Here Australia can learn from regulations in other jurisdictions.

For example, the state of California annually publishes “disengagement reports” from all developers testing automated systems. The European Union requires manufacturers to retain and share data from critical safety systems for crash investigation and monitoring.

Several legal and regulatory questions also remain unanswered, including who is responsible for crashes, what are drivers’ obligations, and how insurance should work.

What now?

Australia faces the challenge of creating rules for the middle ground of “supervised autonomous driving”.

The technology itself is no longer experimental. They are also active on our roads. What’s experimental is how you manage it.

Building clear and unobtrusive guardrails now will help ensure that automated mobility is developed safely. We should not wait for a significant incident to reveal a gap and trigger a rush to regulate.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.