Changing Driving Laws to Support Avs - NTC Discussion Paper - October 2017

Changing Driving Laws to Support Avs - NTC Discussion Paper - October 2017

Changing driving laws to support AVs - NTC Discussion Paper - October 2017

Submission by the West Australian Port Operations Taskforce - 24 November 2017

To the Director

National Transport Commission

Level 3/600 Bourke St.

Melbourne Vic 3000

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Western Australian Port Operations Taskforce (WAPOTF) is an industry consultative body which provides a forum for identification, discussion and resolution of port-related issues. Membership is drawn from across the international container supply chain industry and includes senior representatives of the road transport industry, customs brokers/freight forwarders, stevedores, container park operators, shipping lines, shippers, Fremantle Ports and relevant Government agencies. It has been in existence since 1987 and recently celebrated its 30th year.

Containerised sea freight is, internationally and in this country, at critical stages one of the most automated, large-scale, heavy-freight operations.Container terminals and even intermodal rail operations have seen significant automated vehicle (AV) operations for many years.

In Western Australia, we are in a phase of considering the development of a new container terminal harbour which, according to some estimates, may be in operation around 2030. This is around the time most industry experts believe there will be high levels of AVs involved in the landside supply chain. In addition to this, as we continue to experience increased levels of artificial intelligence and cognitive computing maturity, the WAPOTF believes that the existing North Quay area of the currentInner Harbour in Fremantleprovides, under the appropriate conditions, a largely unique potentialoperating test bed for landside automated vehicle operations.We are very supportive of efforts to ensure the timely development of conditions to allow automated vehicle operation.

A working group was established under the WAPOTF to consider the Discussion Paper released by the NTC.The working group focussed mainly on the implications to heavy vehicle movements in a port supply chain environment.

The group recognises that this paper is mainly focussed on passenger vehicles in normal road networks but specific considerations should also be made for heavy freight AV activities and the different environments in which it must also operate.

Through the discussions arising from this working group, the WAPOTF would like to make the Commission aware of the following:

Laws should reflect technological change

The WAPOTF believes that laws should remain flexible to technological change and advances, and not be prohibitive to future capabilities.

As examples:

  • The requirements noted in the Discussion Paper for drivers to be responsible for appropriate placarding of trucks (Long Vehicle, Dangerous Goods designations, etc.) can be done by automated systems.A controller at an office can ensure that the appropriate designation is displayed on, for example, variable messaging placards, remotely
  • Chain of Responsibility documentation requirements can be carried on a vehicle electronically, having been sent remotely, should there be a need to check them (real and proactive time access
  • Sensors can be added to trucks and safety equipment (e.g. transponders interacting with “smart” cradles on a truck) to show that a valid, appropriately loaded fire extinguisher and/or other safety and fire retarding devices, etc. have been loaded on a truck and are active for use in an emergency.

Laws should reflect transition strategies

The paper discusses, in detail, the complications of moving between levels of automation.Laws should not hinder, but rather facilitate the transition of AVs into wider areas of interaction with other elements of industry and the public.

For example, if an operational area, following appropriate risk assessment, can be expanded to include increasing levels of interaction with the public, then this should be facilitated.

With regards to North Quay here in Fremantle, there are ways in which increasing levels of interaction between operations, between operators and, ultimately, the public, could be facilitated with the appropriate allowances and assurances provided by the law.As an example, the following may be a means of proving AV interaction with increasingly sophisticated and varied human-controlled vehicle interaction:

  1. Internal transfers, not on open roads, between the rail terminal to an empty container parkwithin the Rous Head precinct of North Quay
  2. Internal transfers, not on open roads, between the rail terminal to sea container terminal within the Rous Head precinct of North Quay
  3. On-port logistics operations to sea and rail terminals and empty container parks within the Rous Head precinct of North Quay during restricted operating hours and with appropriate closures of roads to isolate the area
  4. On-port logistics operations to sea and rail terminals and empty container parks within the Rous Head precinct of North Quay during restricted operating hours
  5. On-port logistics operations to the sea container terminal with access off Tydeman Road during restricted operating hours
  6. Open interaction of AVs with general traffic

In essence, key routes can be “ring-fenced” by appropriate technologies to allow interaction between AV, non-AV and other road users progressively.

In essence, operators who wish to engage AVs to improve the efficiency of their operations by introducing AVs should not be hindered by overly onerous regulation and the laws should reflect this.

Stages of law change

The working group recognised that not all laws need to change at once to allow scaled introduction of increasingly sophisticated levels of AVs interacting with the public. Laws may be changed in the short term to allow initial stages of automated in controlled environments rather than the requirement to wait for full scale changes that facilitate full automation.

Incentivising the use of AVs

The working group recognised the significant efficiency benefits that will arise from the introduction of heavy AVs and would recommend that law changes are made to actually increase the timely take up of AVs.Other incentives to promote the take up of AVs to overcome the likely uncertainties that will arise in the transition period between human controlled and level 4 and 5 automation should be considered.

Automating the interaction of humans and AVs in operational circumstances

International container terminal and intermodal operations have developed a high level of automation and automated vehicle interoperability over recent years.This stops, however, at points where there are interactions with human beings; e.g. transfer of containers from automated systems to trucks and their drivers.

The laws should recognise that there does not need to be a blanket ban on automated vehicles interacting with human beings in operational circumstances.The AVs, themselves, are increasing the level of their recognition technologies to recognise humans and keep them safe.Alternatively, however, the laws should recognise that humans, themselves, can make themselves more “known”/”visible” to AVs.As an example, a human being may have a virtual fence (geofence) placed around them, or carry a transponder device that allows them to be “sighted” by an AV. This type of technology is already planned to be used in some Australian operations.

Recognising Heavy Vehicle Operator requirements and promoting efficiency

In a generalised statement, the working group wished to point out that much of the discussion revolves around passenger AVs.The greatest benefit to the economy, however, could be obtained by the timely take up of AVs in heavy vehicle operations. Everything should be done to focus the concentration of efforts on this sector through the appropriate involvement of industry in this process.The WAPOTF, recognising the largely unique environment provided by the North Quay precinct at Fremantle Inner Harbour, wish to express their willingness to be involved in this process and to assist in any efforts to fast track the testing of laws and operation modes in a live environment, to identify elements of the landside operations that would most benefit from AV deployment as well as real time access to critical information to streamline landside operations.

Law changes to be scenario tested

Any laws being proposed should be thoroughly “scenario tested” such that they don’t have the unintended consequence of fragmenting the services and as such increasing costs and implementation complexity.

That is to say, a law should allow for the “responsible party” to be such that it doesn’t impede the ability for users of the technology to share the same provider or type of technology or AV and still cater to being legally differentiated in a driver sense. Be it through software hand-offs between companies or some other possibly geo-fence type delineation.

In that way, it allows for (or even promotes) open source and/or the engagement of consistent technologies shared across interacting corporations. That will allow for consortium approaches that would reduce inter-corporation integration costs with issues that would ensue if laws complicate “ownership” of the AV and push insurers, lawyers and companies to “do their own thing” in an effort to keep the lines clearly defined under the law to reduce their liability – something they would rightly be expected to do.

The consequence of not considering this is potential AV “clutter” and much higher costs in an effort to ensure all the different technologies talk to each other to operate safely. You may have a scenario with multiple AV types trying understand different “languages” in an effort to work in the same designated areas safely, which the working group believes is not an ideal scenario.

Finally, we’d like to stress that the laws should consider allowing data interchanges to be open source. Every effort should be made to ensure that no impediments, proprietary or otherwise, are placed in the way of technology adoption and exchange of information.

Heavy Vehicle laws to consider compelling the use of technology to automatically comply with maritime and operational requirements

Heavy Vehicle operations have a series of laws that require adherence. The intended changes to laws to consider AVs could be used as a wider opportunity to consider the introduction of laws to advance the uptake of other innovative and/or automated technologies.

As an example, Chain of Responsibility legislation has certain requirements (compliance with overall and axle weights, etc.). It should also be remembered that Australia is required to meet a series of international treaty agreements. A recent one includes Verified Gross Mass weighing of containers. The introduction of AVs will require updated equipment on the part of Heavy Vehicle operators. This should be used as an opportunity to require those making the changes, particularly as we appropriate higher levels of automation, to introduce new technologies (e.g. on-board weighing, etc.) at the same time to automatically meet a series of transport and freight industry requirements.

New Heavy AV equipment should also be required to meet the highest noise and safety standards.

Response to Questions

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? Yes

(ii) ensure a legal entity (ADSE) is responsible for the actions of the vehicle when the ADS is engaged? Yes

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

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? Yes

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? Yes If the ADSE is not identified through the safety assurance system, how should the responsible entity be identified in legislation? No particular opinion. A review of alternatives utilised throughout the world should be performed and the appropriate entity should be determined by legislators.

5. Do you agree that when the ADS is engaged:

(i) an ADSE should be responsible for compliance with dynamic driving task obligations? Yes. Every time an ADSE is in a vehicle it will be responsible even though they may not have the ability to change the vehicles operations.

(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? Possibly. The legislation should recognise the pace of development of systems to perform certain key tasks and be flexible enough to consider these new technologies to complement the ADS task as they become available.

(iii) an ADSE should not be responsible for existing driver duties and obligations that are not part of the dynamic driving task? There are sensor and other communication technologies that already allow certain tasks to be performed automatically (e.g. signage or documentation adherence requirements) and their may be means of incorporating these responsibilities into the responsibility of an ADSE, rather than creating multiple entity responsibilities.

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

No particular opinion. Approach 1, advocated by NTC, i.e. ‘Expand the definition of driver in Acts that deal with the dynamic driving task to include the ADS when it is engaged and make the ADSE responsible for the actions of the ADS’ appears to be a viable option and is supported.

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

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, but not after this phase. We need to facilitate the environment where full automation takes the responsibility away from a human being as soon as possible. An alternative may be that, where the ADS cannot perform its full role, the vehicle comes to safe stop until an appropriate user can be found.

Do you agree that the fallback-ready user should be allowed to perform secondary activities? We are unclear on what secondary activities are and therefore offer no opinion.

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? See the answer to the first part of question 8.

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? Yes

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? If the vehicle has full or high automation, it should not necessarily be capable of being overridden by a person under the influence. There should be automated means to prevent persons under the influence from overriding such high automation functions.

13. How do you think road traffic penalties should apply to ADSEs? Corporate penalties should apply.The laws should be structured in a way, with appropriate penalties and incentive to ensure that ADSEs comply.

14. Do you think obligations and penalties on ADSEs in the safety assurance system should complement, or be an alternative to, road traffic offences? We need to come to a stage where it is clear who is responsible for what element of safe compliance with requirements and what consequences there will be for failure to comply.

We thank you for the opportunity to comment and look forward to discussing our thoughts at any forums or interviews organised by the NTC.

Graeme Wilson

Chairman

WA Port Operations Task Force

08-94303555