are falling behind.
According to research led by Charles Darwin University (CDU), current road rules in Australia mostly apply to human drivers—and that’s a big problem when no one is behind the wheel.
The study, published in Computer Law and Security Review, explores what researchers call the “driver dilemma.”
In simple terms, it’s about how traffic laws are written for people driving cars, not automated vehicles (AVs) that drive themselves.
The researchers—from CDU, Queensland University of Technology, and the University of Newcastle—found that most traffic laws assume a driver is a human.
For example, South Australia’s Road Traffic Act says a driver must be a “person.”
Police or other officers are allowed to give directions like “stop the car” or “don’t move,” but these rules are written specifically for a human driver.
In Queensland, laws are similar—rules like stopping at a red light are aimed at drivers, not the vehicle itself.
“This becomes a problem when dealing with self-driving cars,” said lead author Dr. Mark Brady, a law lecturer at CDU. “If there’s no human driving, who are these instructions meant for?”
However, the study found some good examples from another area of law: passenger transport laws. These laws, such as those used for taxis and hire cars in New South Wales, focus more on the vehicle than the driver. They give authorities the power to stop a vehicle, no matter who (or what) is driving it.
Dr. Brady believes these vehicle-focused rules could be a template for updating traffic laws for a driverless future. “These laws already consider public safety and the need to stop vehicles when necessary,” he said.
Right now, Australia doesn’t have a single national framework for automated vehicles, but the government is working on one.
Some people think traditional traffic rules might not be needed when all cars are automated. But Dr. Brady disagrees. “Even in a future with driverless cars, we’ll still need ways for police and authorities to safely stop vehicles,” he said.
As self-driving technology grows, this legal gap will become more important—and more urgent to fix.
Source: Charles Darwin University.
