8. WBU: Review of WBU position from document REG58-QRTV-01-004 – WBU Comments on CLEPA-QRTV Report October 2014: WBU named the overall Sound pressure level as the most important item. Other very important factors of the Regulation to come are pitch shifting, the amount of broadband (enabling to recognize vehicle’s speed and its directivity), sound at stationary (50 dB(A) is not seen as an environmental concern) and the abstinence of a pause switch (does it make sense to turn a safety feature off?)

9. Germany: Presentation of document REG58-QRTV-01-005 (Germany) BaSt Study TU Dresden: The main findings from the study are:

• the SPL of the AVAS signal may be below background noise but audible nonetheless.
• Idling sound does not improve the audibility/recognizibility
• Stationary sound may lead to confusion as people may be unsure if or if not a vehicle has stopped or is still moving
• Frequencies between 250Hz and 400Hz are best suitable to detect braking and deceleration

10. The study was carried out with an average of 34 (deviation from 18 to 55 people depending on test situation) blind and sighted people with an average age of 33 years. WBU expresses its doubts that the studies cases are representative for all 285 Mio blind people and requests time thoroughly read the presentation.

11. Japan : Presentation of document REG58-QRTV-01-006 – QRTV JASIC 20141210: The main conclusions form the presentation are:

• There is a positive effect of not having stationary sound
• There is a safety risk with stationary sound arising from the masking effect

12. In Japan there are various local requirements in place that prohibit the unnecessary emission of noise and exhaust gases, prohibiting the engine to remain turned if not necessary.

13. WBU expressed its disagreement with those findings as stationary sound would increase the safety. France replied that the findings from Japan and Germany are based on scientific researches, while the request for stationary sound is based on subjective opinions. Germany supports France and proposes to make a final decision on the requirement for stationary sound at a later stage; once more reliable data is available.

14. A clear decision for the handling of stationary sound must be made in GRB. If there is no such standpoint, the document risks being rejected completely.