Agree, in doing so the most appropriate actions are to concentrate on what more Australia can do in seeking solutions to reducing our road toll.
Comparisons with other nations are only meaningful in so far as we can compare like for like.
Europe as a whole is no bright light in road deaths. 15.5 deaths per 100,000 population in 2016.
In comparison Australia was 5.6 deaths per 100,000.
And it is not just the idiots who use their smartphones whilst driving that create safety issues.
As the saying goes âYou just canât help stupidâ.
I get your point but isnât this also a failure by the driverless bus? Part of being a good driver is anticipating when bad drivers and other road users are going to do something stupid.
Yes. Watching out for persons ahead of you, but how can anyone expect that someone is going walk into the side of a bus?
Because we all know about the phone-zombie phenomenon therefore why doesnât the software in the driverless car?
We donât know from the story what measures were triggered in the software by the impending collision with the pedestrian, if any.
A failure of the Supervisor on the bus then as it had one onboard as it was being tested. If the supervisor failed then who do you really have to blame?
Honest answer is not all collisions are avoidable because of random decisions by us humans. Falling blindly into a fenced ditch because they chose to be distracted by headphones and looking at a phoneâŠis it the ditchâs problem or the human who was so unobservant that they fell into it. Now if the person had been careful, watchful and tried to avoid the ditch but failed you might expect that the people who were responsible for the ditch may be held to account for not providing sufficient safety barriers or other suitable safety measures. When someone takes risks entering traffic without due care and attention they probably should consider themselves lucky that it was a slow moving vehicle they merged with, one that stopped immediately and automatically summoned help.
That too (in this case).
I was just surprised that a human being moving at constant velocity on a collision course with the vehicle did not seem to trigger an adequate response from the vehicle. The story lacks details though on that point.
Would the behaviour of the vehicle have been any different if the object on a collision course was another car and one travelling at 20 times the speed?
If they emerged from between parked vehicles or from a side street or a building that was kerbside they could easily not be detected by either human or tech âeyesâ. Just think of children running out into traffic before anyone could react or even suspect the action, this scenario has happened many times in the past. We expect children to be somewhat distracted at times because they havenât learnt the risks, but an adult who is supposedly âadultâ should not be so wrapped up in their entertainment while walking/running down or into a street that they pose a risk to themselves or others by their careless inattention.
Sure the âbusâ was involved and we must await whether further details become available to make better judgements about what should or should not perhaps occurred but the primary responsibility for the accident was the person who had headphones on and was looking at their phone rather than making good decisions about traffic safety.
From another article about the incident some more detail about what the woman did " as she crossed the street and âwalked againstâ the side of the bus. Golem (https://www.golem.de/news/nach-unfall-wiener-verkehrsbetrieb-stoppt-autonome-busse-1907-142653.html) reported a similar account from an eyewitness. Navya said the woman suffered âminor scratchesâ as a result of the incident". A translation from German of a relevant part of the Golem article "According to eyewitness reports, the 30-year-old passer-by ran sideways against the bus at 9:30 am on Thursday, carrying off skin abrasions. According to eyewitnesses, she wore headphones and looked at her mobile phone.
The two buses are equipped with sensors to detect obstacles. They then dodge or stop. The transport company now wants to investigate how it could still come to the accident."
The actual action of speed used in the German article was not âwalkedâ but âranâ but may be being used like we say âran into one anotherâ but could also be being used to mean ran as in running speed into the bus eg a jogger.
Thatâs good news.
Now for those sheep, kangaroos, wombats, and fl@*%ân galahs. 
I guess the bus was on a road so it might just be the roads fault it is not fenced to prevent pedestrians straying while not paying attention?
Yep and it needs to have non takata airbags to prevent people getting injured by the bitumen rising up to greet their faces, and a foam surface that stop peopleâs feet getting sore from impacts of walking and running, and needs to have signs that warn that while walking/running/crawling/dancing/laying on a road pedestrians may encounter vehicles using the same. No common sense is required nor personal responsibility.
Self awareness is typically valued in team building. That âwe all need to be part of the teamâ has been a long encouraged mantra.
Self reliance or situational awareness appears to be less valued, although as a survival skill it Is likely more useful.
Have we lost touch with our need for core survival skills?
Whilst I am totally opposed to idiots who use their mobile phones whilst driving, this article takes stupidity to a whole new level.
I guess it is much more dangerous to hold your mobile out the window at the drive through than to extract your wallet out of your hip pocket, open it, extract a card, wave it out the window, replace the card in the wallet, close the wallet and replace the wallet in your hip pocket.
Or for females, to extract their purse from their handbag, open it, extract a card, wave the card out the window, replace the card in their purse, close their purse and put their purse back in their handbag.
And in any case, do the traffic rules apply to private property?
If so, does that mean that you cannot pickup your mobile whilst parked in your garage or on your driveway with the engine running and the handbrake applied.
From what I have previously read, at least in Qld, it is legal to use your mobile whilst parked with the handbrake applied, irrespective of whether the engine is running.
Unbelievable.
As far as I know when on private property you can speed (eg Drag Racing at venues or fair grounds), you can drive while unlicenced and/or underaged, you can do spin-outs (eg drifting exhibitions), operate a mobile phone, and a number of other what would be considered illegal acts on a road or public property. If you of course cause harm to another person if on private property you can be charged. As an example of underage driving while on private property that is why a child of very few years can drive a car to the front gate to catch the school bus in remote stations or drive around the paddocks.
Not exactly a speeding fine, but if you live in Vic and pay for your takeaway using your googlepay or applepay, beware. They followed up that their good officers are expected to use discretion, eg you might get off if you have the right smiling face, or get fined if you donât look the part to the officer accosting you.
Victoria Police responded to the poll, revealing it was an offence to use your phone to pay in a drive-through and it carries a whopping $484 fine and four demerit points.
They explained that in order to use a phone as a payment method the vehicleâs engine would have to be turned off.
âIf you intend to use your mobile phone to pay at the drive-through window, apply the hand brake, switch the engine off and then access your mobile phone,â Victoria Police wrote.
If this is not over-the-top ridiculous I am more out of touch than I thought.
Would issuing infringement notices for paying at the drive-through using your mobile be in the public interest?
I suppose the same interpretation applies when you pull into a roadside rest stop, or a public car park. Itâs in the middle of summer, when you pull out the phone to make a call, car in neutral, park brake applied, air con on!
Of course it would be OK if you were parked with the engine running and eating KFC with fries and a pepsi at the wheel. 
(I have a letter from the ACMA suggesting it is!)
Perhaps there needs to be some consistency in just how ridiculous enforcement might be!
Sometimes I wonder if an enterprising politically connected entrepreneur might be working on an auxiliary A/C unit that will run on batteries while the engine is off to suit the enforcers.
Government might also be working with CSIRO on an Aussie special standard phone that if turned on in a motor vehicle kills the engine right after sending an SMS to the local fine issuing agency.
That would be the model proposed with the always on and connected in the background GPS unit, just in case someone needs to know where you are, or have been all day in the car?
It would be interesting if there was a specialised traffic/transport lawyer out there with a view.
This might be an overreach of powers as drivethroughs are generally on private land. Would the same apply to say a person on a phone in a private carpark, on their home driveway or a farmer driving a registered tractor through a paddock when in the phone and the property is open to the public.
Iâll side that it is one of many, many overreaches when governments can lodge fines. In this case government hangs its hat on
What is a road related area
(1) A âroad related areaâ is any of the following
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(/c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking motor vehicles;
(e) a place that is a road related area by virtue of a declaration under section 3(2)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986 â
but does not include a place that is not a road related area by virtue of a declaration under section 3(2)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986 .
Note
Motor vehicle is defined in the Road Safety Act 1986 .
(2) A reference in these Rules (except in this Division) to a road related area includes a reference to any part of a road that is a shoulder of the road.
Note
Shoulder is defined in rule 12.
Impressive cross referencing too!
