The definition of “vehicle control” is a major issue as automated transport moves closer to mainstream adoption, the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) says.

In a submission on proposed regulation ICA supports development of national enforcement guidelines in the near-term to clarify the meaning of control and how it applies to various levels of automation.

“The community must have absolute certainty regarding the responsibilities and obligations that flow from the operation of automated vehicles,” it says.

“This clarity is most notably required in circumstances where incidents involving an automated vehicle occur, leading to damage, injuries or fatalities.”

The National Transport Commission (NTC) has received 49 submissions in response to a discussion paper, and will make recommendations to the Transport and Infrastructure Council on November 4.

ICA strongly supports measures to amend the meaning of “driver” to include automated systems, ensuring a legal entity in Australia can be considered liable for a vehicle’s actions.

It says technical repair information must be made available from foreign manufacturers, and the insurance industry would welcome opportunities to assist by providing access to underwriting and motor policy experts.

The NTC discussion paper notes the current system involves registration both of the vehicle and the human driver through a separate licensing regime.

“If the driver is an automated driving system, how is the driver then regulated?” it asks. “Is regulation necessary?”

Other issues include disputed responsibility. A person may say they are not in control of the vehicle, while the manufacturer may argue the user must still monitor the system.

In a separate submission insurer IAG says Australian decisions should be consistent with European regulations, given the global automotive market.

It also calls for alignment of compulsory third party (CTP) schemes when considering who has control and operation of vehicles.

“This is a considerable undertaking [but] is necessary given that CTP schemes across Australia are different in their approach to ‘fault’ and ‘no fault’, and do not offer the same benefits to those injured in a motor crash,” IAG says.

“Current CTP schemes across Australia were not designed to accommodate the next developments we have seen in vehicle use and design, such as car and ride-sharing and driverless vehicles.”