i. LKAS and ACSF

The group agreed to limit its work to the steering function (lateral control of the vehicle).
NL found that LKAS does not need an informal group because it is rather a matter of clarification of the current situation (lots of such products are already on the market). However, ACSF is a rather big step in technology and challenges, hence an informal group may be more appropriate.

ii. Vienna Convention and ITS informal group

A debate took place on the necessity to take into account the revised version of the Vienna Convention. Yet, it was recalled that the [amendment on driver assistance to the] Vienna Convention is not yet ratified and it would not be wise to make premature decision.
J informed that ITS informal group at WP29 is producing draft Terms of Reference on automated vehicles:
- 1st step limited to “driver in the loop”,
- 2nd step extedned to “driver out of the loop”.
It will hence be a step by step approach, compatible with the approach proposed for the ad-hoc group.
The Chair recalled that some ideas in the frame of TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) appeared in favour of a possible GTR related to autonomous vehicle.

iii. Levels of automation

OICA clarified that Industry has currently no intention to discuss self-driving vehicles (autonomous vehicles), rather focusing on automated vehicles, i.e. discontinuous and continuous control. Only these vehicles can be regulated within UN R79.

The group [agreed] that autonomous vehicles are not in the scope of the adhoc group:

• It was suggested that some definitions are updated in the regulation, such that they are not in contradiction with the comon understanding of autonomous driving.
• In addition, “driver in the loop” is key to the discussions, as well as monitoring of the driving task by the driver.
• Definitions of CSF and ACSF include the wording “primary control” (see paragraph 2.3.4. od UN R79) and such wording may be source of confusion. OICA was keen to limit the discussions to the technical part, i.e. not touching items like e.g. legal aspects or driver’s behaviour. Thus, it was suggested that the group limit its work by assuming that the driver is present and monitoring the main driving tasks. OICA then clarified the difference between level 2 and level 3:
  • in level 2, the driver is assumed to be always and continuously in control and monitoring the driving tasks, while
  • in level 3, the driver is not, i.e. he may be temporarily performing another task, while assumed to be always capable of resuming control.
• CLEPA suggested to open the scope further to “level 3” such that the Industry target of introducing automated vehicles within the decade be achieved.
• The European Commission was open that the driver be out of the loop as long as the vehicle “is aware” that the driver is not in the loop.

OICA stressed that amendments to UN R79 could permit to pave the way toward amendments to national legal system in order to permit vehicle and use per level 3.
CLEPA showed a presentation:

• “the system of the future”, which shows a combination of existing systems, slightly improved (see document LKAS-02-06 Please note that this video file has not been made available ).
• Under the system manufacturer point of view, level 2 can be limited to the compliation of existing systems, functionning as failsafe systems, i.e. in case of failure, the driver takes control.
• However, for level 3, the systems must be re-designed such that in case of fail, the systems enters into a degraded mode. Because of this need for re-design, addressing level 3 in necessary ASAP.

It was suggested that the group limit its debates to level 2 at least temporarily, and see during the discussions what can be related to level 3.
NL supported to limit the group to level 2 for the time being.
Yet it was clarified by CLEPA that the Industry target is to achieve provisions for level 3.
OICA pointed out that the assumption of driver’s awareness per level 2 cannot be guaranteed by the manufacturer, hence additional safeguards per level 3 makes sense in the perspective of safety.
The European Commission pointed out that the results of the group should not last too much because that could prevent Industry from transitional period. Further development, beyond level 2, could be run in parallel, and provide results later. As UN R79 is mandatory in the EU.

The Chair summarized that

• Driver in the loop as a 1st step
• Other levels as a 2nd step
• Timeline for LKAS according to the table Annex 1, i.e. official document to be tabled by the adhoc group at 79th session of GRRF in February 2015.