The European Cyclists Federation and International Federation of Pedestrians withhold support for Direction Indicator Projection (DIP) technology regulation. They contend available studies lack evidence of reduced conflicts or crashes in real-world conditions, raise concerns about behavioral adaptations that may redistribute rather than reduce risk, and note the technology does not address responsibility allocation where cyclists and pedestrians already have legal priority. Additional concerns include reliance on uncontrolled road surfaces affecting signal visibility and clarity, and risks of shifting safety burden onto vulnerable road users contrary to Safe System principles. They urge contracting parties to refrain from regulation pending robust research confirming the technology neither undermines priority rules nor introduces unintended behavioral risks.

Proposal to add editorial corrections to UN R48 series 06 to 09 based on GRE/2024/21/Rev.1 and WP.29/2025/114. Changes include inserting definitions for direction indicator projector, basic element, and direction indicator projection; adding requirements for direction indicator projections

Proposal to editorially correct approved proposal GRE/2024/21/Rev.1 and WP.29/2025/112. Editorial corrections amend paragraph 1 to include reversing projectors and direction indicator projectors in scope. New paragraph 3.1.2.10 requires drawings showing relative position of direction indicator projector and lamp. Tables 1 and 2 are amended to add reversing projector and direction indicator projector entries.

Survey of Vulnerable Road Users associations on Direction Indicator Projection, Independent third-party research from six countries confirms safety benefits and lack of confusion and analysis shows most VRU collisions occur in urban areas near junctions during vehicle turning.

The European Cyclists Federation and International Federation of Pedestrians withhold support for Direction Indicator Projection (DIP) technology regulation. They contend available studies lack evidence of reduced conflicts or crashes in real-world conditions, raise concerns about behavioral adaptations that may redistribute rather than reduce risk, and note the technology does not address responsibility allocation where cyclists and pedestrians already have legal priority. Additional concerns include reliance on uncontrolled road surfaces affecting signal visibility and clarity, and risks of shifting safety burden onto vulnerable road users contrary to Safe System principles. They urge contracting parties to refrain from regulation pending robust research confirming the technology neither undermines priority rules nor introduces unintended behavioral risks.

Proposal to add editorial corrections to UN R48 series 06 to 09 based on GRE/2024/21/Rev.1 and WP.29/2025/114. Changes include inserting definitions for direction indicator projector, basic element, and direction indicator projection; adding requirements for direction indicator projections

Proposal to editorially correct approved proposal GRE/2024/21/Rev.1 and WP.29/2025/112. Editorial corrections amend paragraph 1 to include reversing projectors and direction indicator projectors in scope. New paragraph 3.1.2.10 requires drawings showing relative position of direction indicator projector and lamp. Tables 1 and 2 are amended to add reversing projector and direction indicator projector entries.

Survey of Vulnerable Road Users associations on Direction Indicator Projection, Independent third-party research from six countries confirms safety benefits and lack of confusion and analysis shows most VRU collisions occur in urban areas near junctions during vehicle turning.

The European Cyclists Federation and International Federation of Pedestrians withhold support for Direction Indicator Projection (DIP) technology regulation. They contend available studies lack evidence of reduced conflicts or crashes in real-world conditions, raise concerns about behavioral adaptations that may redistribute rather than reduce risk, and note the technology does not address responsibility allocation where cyclists and pedestrians already have legal priority. Additional concerns include reliance on uncontrolled road surfaces affecting signal visibility and clarity, and risks of shifting safety burden onto vulnerable road users contrary to Safe System principles. They urge contracting parties to refrain from regulation pending robust research confirming the technology neither undermines priority rules nor introduces unintended behavioral risks.

Proposal to add editorial corrections to UN R48 series 06 to 09 based on GRE/2024/21/Rev.1 and WP.29/2025/114. Changes include inserting definitions for direction indicator projector, basic element, and direction indicator projection; adding requirements for direction indicator projections

Proposal to editorially correct approved proposal GRE/2024/21/Rev.1 and WP.29/2025/112. Editorial corrections amend paragraph 1 to include reversing projectors and direction indicator projectors in scope. New paragraph 3.1.2.10 requires drawings showing relative position of direction indicator projector and lamp. Tables 1 and 2 are amended to add reversing projector and direction indicator projector entries.

Survey of Vulnerable Road Users associations on Direction Indicator Projection, Independent third-party research from six countries confirms safety benefits and lack of confusion and analysis shows most VRU collisions occur in urban areas near junctions during vehicle turning.

The European Cyclists Federation and International Federation of Pedestrians withhold support for Direction Indicator Projection (DIP) technology regulation. They contend available studies lack evidence of reduced conflicts or crashes in real-world conditions, raise concerns about behavioral adaptations that may redistribute rather than reduce risk, and note the technology does not address responsibility allocation where cyclists and pedestrians already have legal priority. Additional concerns include reliance on uncontrolled road surfaces affecting signal visibility and clarity, and risks of shifting safety burden onto vulnerable road users contrary to Safe System principles. They urge contracting parties to refrain from regulation pending robust research confirming the technology neither undermines priority rules nor introduces unintended behavioral risks.

Proposal to add editorial corrections to UN R48 series 06 to 09 based on GRE/2024/21/Rev.1 and WP.29/2025/114. Changes include inserting definitions for direction indicator projector, basic element, and direction indicator projection; adding requirements for direction indicator projections

Proposal to editorially correct approved proposal GRE/2024/21/Rev.1 and WP.29/2025/112. Editorial corrections amend paragraph 1 to include reversing projectors and direction indicator projectors in scope. New paragraph 3.1.2.10 requires drawings showing relative position of direction indicator projector and lamp. Tables 1 and 2 are amended to add reversing projector and direction indicator projector entries.

Survey of Vulnerable Road Users associations on Direction Indicator Projection, Independent third-party research from six countries confirms safety benefits and lack of confusion and analysis shows most VRU collisions occur in urban areas near junctions during vehicle turning.