Interim draft text for a light vehicle AEBS regulation prepared on behalf of the informal group on AEBS. It provides the state of play of the discussions held the informal group up to date. It aims at providing the experts of Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) the opportunity to react, comment and contribute to work performed by the informal group until now.

36. The expert from EC, Co-Chair of the IWG on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) presented GRVA-01-10 with a status report on the activities of the group on the drafting of a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to M1 and N1 vehicles as reproduced in GRVA-01-02. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians Advanced Emergency Braking (AEB) systems and highlighted the open issues discussed by the group on provision for manual AEB deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

37. The expert from UK, supported by the expert from the Netherlands, questioned the proposed value of the maximum differential test speed (42 km/h) that targets collision avoidance. He suggested 50 km/h instead of 42 km/h. He expressed doubts that a staged approach for vehicle-to-pedestrian and vehicle-to-bicycle AEB systems would be appropriate. The expert from OICA justified the value of the maximum differential speed for collision avoidance noting that Euro NCAP was requesting less than this value and justified the staged requirements especially for vehicle-to-bicycle AEBS systems because of the ongoing development process of such systems.

38. The expert from Canada suggested to specify performance-based requirements for all aspects to be tested, including the adhesion criteria of the track surface used for testing. GRVA noted the existing relevant precedent in UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 and the corresponding value proposed in the draft.

39. The expert from Italy mentioned the risk related to false positive AEB system activation and the need of a manual AEBS deactivation function. The experts from Germany and UK expressed support for provisions on automatic deactivation function in limited cases. They disagreed with the proposal for provisions allowing the manual deactivation of AEB systems.

40. The Chair highlighted the provisions related to the AEBS performance outside of the testing conditions.

Updated proposal for the goals and objectives of the AEBS informal working group, in particular to establish a new UN Regulation in lieu of the initial expectation for amendments to UN R131 on heavy vehicle AEBS.

41. The Co-Chair of the IWG presented GRVA-01-09 proposing changes to the ToR of the group as well as a mandate extension by one year. GRVA agreed to extend the mandate of the IWG on AEBS for one year until September 2019. GRVA agreed with the goal of the AEBS Chair to present an official document covering vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrian collision for adoption at the next GRVA session in January 2019. GRVA also asked the informal working group to present, at the same session, the requirements on vehicle-to-bicycle on the basis of available data.

Status report of the AEBS informal working group including presentation on the draft light vehicle AEBS regulation (document GRVA-01-02).

36. The expert from EC, Co-Chair of the IWG on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) presented GRVA-01-10 with a status report on the activities of the group on the drafting of a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to M1 and N1 vehicles as reproduced in GRVA-01-02. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians Advanced Emergency Braking (AEB) systems and highlighted the open issues discussed by the group on provision for manual AEB deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

37. The expert from UK, supported by the expert from the Netherlands, questioned the proposed value of the maximum differential test speed (42 km/h) that targets collision avoidance. He suggested 50 km/h instead of 42 km/h. He expressed doubts that a staged approach for vehicle-to-pedestrian and vehicle-to-bicycle AEB systems would be appropriate. The expert from OICA justified the value of the maximum differential speed for collision avoidance noting that Euro NCAP was requesting less than this value and justified the staged requirements especially for vehicle-to-bicycle AEBS systems because of the ongoing development process of such systems.

38. The expert from Canada suggested to specify performance-based requirements for all aspects to be tested, including the adhesion criteria of the track surface used for testing. GRVA noted the existing relevant precedent in UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 and the corresponding value proposed in the draft.

39. The expert from Italy mentioned the risk related to false positive AEB system activation and the need of a manual AEBS deactivation function. The experts from Germany and UK expressed support for provisions on automatic deactivation function in limited cases. They disagreed with the proposal for provisions allowing the manual deactivation of AEB systems.

40. The Chair highlighted the provisions related to the AEBS performance outside of the testing conditions.

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

Presentation submitted but not delivered during the session raising concerns over the performance of heavy truck AEB systems in recognizing obstacles, especially road work signage.

44. The expert from the ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in the Netherlands submitted a presentation and two videos (GRVA-01-43, GRVA-01-44 and GRVA-01-45) reporting on field tests performed with trucks equipped with AEBS systems. The Chair agreed to dedicate time to this presentation at the next session of GRVA

Video posted on YouTube by the Netherlands traffic authority and related to the presentation on AEBS performance (document GRVA-01-43).

44. The expert from the ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in the Netherlands submitted a presentation and two videos (GRVA-01-43, GRVA-01-44 and GRVA-01-45) reporting on field tests performed with trucks equipped with AEBS systems. The Chair agreed to dedicate time to this presentation at the next session of GRVA

Video by the Netherlands traffic authority uploaded to YouTube regarding tests conducted on the performance of heavy truck AEB systems. The video is related to the presentation on the performance of AEBS (document GRVA-01-43).

44. The expert from the ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in the Netherlands submitted a presentation and two videos (GRVA-01-43, GRVA-01-44 and GRVA-01-45) reporting on field tests performed with trucks equipped with AEBS systems. The Chair agreed to dedicate time to this presentation at the next session of GRVA

Proposal to

1. delete the requirement limiting the speed reduction during the collision-imminent warning phase
2. define a time range for the warning function to ensure adequate warning at lower speeds
3. introduce specific requirements for the achievable speed reduction for the cases of dry roads and wet roads
4. introduce speed reduction requirements at 70 km/h and 40 km/h for dry and wet roads, respectively
5. restructure provisions under “Specifications” and “Test Procedure” to enable testing at different speeds
6. prevent unintended AEBS deactivation
7. delete certain exemptions (to be addressed at national levels)

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.