The European Commission welcomed LKAS-02-05 as automatic driving is a subject that is currently discussed at EU level, yet found that the subject goes a bit beyond the usual Type Approval regulations.
CLEPA also welcomed the document
OICA presented a short PPT presentation on lane changing maneuvre on highways. The driver must voluntarily activate the system.
OICA supported CLEPA, and supported opening UN R79 to this technology.
NL found the document a good starting point but found necessary to get more precise requirements.
J pointed out that the requirements can be different according to the systems. The expert recalled that the aim is to maintain road safety via an “if fitted” regulation. He acknowledged that this proposal mainly provides design requirements.

The Chair, as S representative, found it a good start: lane keeping and lane changing system.
J found lane changing assist a very important system and was keen to put the necessary resources to provide the relevant requirements, primarily focusing on highway situation. The expert wondered whether such system, in particular for emergency lane change, are covered by the Vienna Convention.
OICA made the comparison with ESP, where the driver must provide an input, but the system intervenes only when the driver cannot anymore master the situation. Concerning the text, OICA found the structure improved compared to the document presented at GRRF-78, e.g. regarding the modified definition of Automatically Commanded Steering Function
The secretary pointed out that there is a need to open the regulation for permitting the Industry to start designing the technology.
CLEPA found the proposal wise as restricted to certain use cases, and the expert was of the opinion that the regulation could evolve in the future with the evolution of the technology.
OICA informed that regins do not have the limitation of 10km/h and that there is a need that the UN region can take profit of the new technologies. The expert voiced that UNECE should not be left behind, but should rather open up to such new technologies, with appropriate requirements to ensure safety.

The group went through LKAS-02-03 document.

Paragraph 5.1.6.2.4. (b):
- The group convened that the transient from auto mode to manual mode is a key to the system safety. As there is a need for a certain time, J found the 2 seconds a minimum. There is a need also to find a consensus wording avoiding different interpretations. Yet the different situations should be taken into account, and there is no guarantee that the system can predict the future such in advance.
- There was a debate about the origin of the 2-second value, in comparison of the limits adopted at AEBS. Some experts indeed feared that the 2-seconds requirement is too demanding.
- Other case: degraded mode
- Sub-paragraph (b) in J approach was clarified: it addresses both fault and non-fault conditions; while (b) in CLEPA approach only addresses non-fault conditions (fault conditions are addressed in sub-paragraph (c) ).

Paragraph 5.1.6.2.4. (c):
- Agreed that the CLEPA proposal addresses the fault conditions

Paragraph 5.5.2.
- OICA informed having very much challenges with regard to PTI and OBD, and suggested that this PTI item is extracted from AEBS up-to-date regulation.
- J was keen to explain a proposal for OBD.
- NL supported a text aligned on that of AEBS, having no connector, rather a simple warning lamp. The delegate insisted that PTI should remain a quick and simple check.
- CLEPA challenged as well the Japanese approach: no standardized connector, data, protocols, etc.
- The European Commission informed about high probability that the EU requires an OBD-X (safety related OBD)