HData sharing between autonomous cars and authorities has sparked a new debate about how it will affect us in the future, raising concerns about the implications if not handled properly.
A wide range and complex set of issues – such as privacy, safety, practicality of driving on roads and keeping our networks up and running, as well as cybersecurity – need to be ironed out before autonomous vehicles (AVs) become commonplace. , which some people are worried about. Current debates are “trying to run before walking”.
Panelists at the recent Autonomous Vehicle Technology Conference (APAC21) in Melbourne talked about the idea of manufacturers sharing future vehicle-generated data from AVs with federal and state governments as a key element in transport reform moving forward. Is.
But Dr Shane Richardson, a forensic engineer at Delta-V Experts, a private accident investigation firm in Melbourne’s west, questioned whether companies like his currently routinely access airbag control module data from non-autonomous cars in Australia. Why not get it?
While praising the likes of Kia, Hyundai and Toyota, who share the data, he criticized the authorities for failing to make it a legal requirement (as it is in the US and is about to be in Europe) – And expressed concern about such obstacles. Further down the track are emerging technologies in autonomous vehicles.
If they won’t start doing it for non-AVs they won’t do it for AVs, and if they start with AVs it’s like learning to run before you can walk or jog. It is a legal requirement in the US and is about to happen in Europe,” he said The wheels.
“It’s not about the benefit of my business, it’s about the data being used to make safety information more accessible, it can be used to understand how crashes happen. Absolutely.” But it makes my job a little easier if it’s more easily delivered, but I can catch it in other ways. We’re choosing to be arrogant and the fact that we’re more regular cars than AVs. collide.”
Speaking at last week’s event, crash test authority ANCAP policy director James Hurnell said it was a question the car industry really needed to address.
“This is one of the issues we are looking at with the work that the National Transport Commission (NTC) is doing in relation to the information requirements that we will need from highly automated vehicles,” he said. “If you take a look at the work he’s done, what he’s identified is a range of requirements that will be imposed on increasingly automated vehicles.
“Now I get your point, that right now it’s not needed — it’s not an issue that I’ve personally considered, but absolutely an issue there as we wait for automated vehicles. It happens that we need consistency. Agreement about the kind of information we need from vehicles so that we’re monitoring their performance and safety over time as they operate over time. The method will change as they run the software.
“The NTC has taken the lead as directed by the Transport Minister and is trying to work through some of the nuts and bolts of the formal process – some of the questions we are asked about liability, insurance, access to are asked about. data, standards when they enter the market,” added Jonathan Spear, Chief Executive Officer of Infrastructure Victoria.
“And then they’re being considered for adoption in future years. And of course, part of that is at the federal level where there are vehicle acceptance standards in the country, and then part of that is at the state level for everybody. Safety regulations and the like will need to be adopted.
Over the past few years, the National Transport Commission (NTC) – tasked with leading a range of transport reforms from jurisdictions across Australia – has been working on a comprehensive overhaul of the regulation on the subject, which 700 It involves overturning existing laws.
Earlier this year, transport ministers across the country agreed to introduce new legislation by the end of this year, with a national law in place by 2026.
As part of this, a report published by the NTC on autonomous vehicle reforms in 2020 states that: ‘The vehicle industry has begun to share data for road safety (and other) purposes. Has expressed willingness to do.
‘However, industry has raised concerns about what vehicle data could be used for as transport and road agencies are both regulators and transport system operators. Industry reluctance is based on concerns about government use that affects them or their customers through enforcement or compliance actions, the inadvertent release of commercial intellectual property and impacts on customer privacy.’
As a result, a National Vehicle Data Working Group was proposed to develop a system of data sharing agreed upon by all parties for the purposes of network operations, investment, maintenance, planning and road safety. Can – which can include a roadmap, as well as how it will be governed and funded.
The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) as well as four manufacturers (representing a broad group of car dealers here) are members of the said group, and are understood to be willing to join at large. There have been – but “the devil is in the detail” and future discussions will focus on what is possible (technically and financially from a cost vs benefit perspective) and what the challenges may be.
Some of this also ensures that manufacturers are happy to provide ‘on an in-kind basis’ – as in for the wider public benefit – as opposed to what is used commercially by third parties. Can go to earn quick money.
“The FCAI wants international alignment, where appropriate, and national consistency with industry playing a role. We want government engagement with industry about future opportunities and challenges in this space – which of course Comply with Australia’s privacy principles. Protect consumer rights,” said FCAI CEO Tony Weber.
If we do not align ourselves with what is happening around the world, and instead choose to forge our own path, we risk delaying the arrival of AVs in Australia or Even manufacturers choose not to ship them here as our legislation does not. Find what you need in other markets.
Vehicles currently have event data recorders that run on a continuous loop but do not have much storage and only record for a short period of time when an accident occurs. The car manufacturer may provide this information for accident investigation purposes, but there is no legal requirement to do so – although it is common for regulators and police forces to provide this information on demand or, more stringently, It should be offered however there are privacy implications. In doing so.
The next step beyond EDR is what is called the Data Storage System for Automated Driving (DSSAD). The United Nations legally requires any car to have this if it is operating a level 3 or higher tech as it is necessary to determine who/what is responsible in the event of an accident. Was – car or human driver.
However, at the moment, DSSADs have been developed by UN Working Party 29 as lane-keeping systems only and will be added and upgraded over time – although Australia’s AV legislation in 2026 Once implemented, so is the discussion about data sharing and what is needed. Safety in particular, both internationally and domestically, will continue to advance beyond this date, with mandatory requirements for Australia expected to come through the Australian Design Regulations (ADR).
It is crucial for the FCAI, it says, that the concept of ‘road safety’ is properly defined so that data is not shared unnecessarily. For example, a rough/potholed road may not constitute important information in the same way that a warning about a pedestrian passing in front of a vehicle might.