This proposal revises the changes proposed in document GRVA/2020/7 based on stakeholder feedback. The proposal introduces provisions for M₁ vehicle to allow for lateral accelerations up to 40% greater than the 3 m/s² limitation for a period up to two seconds in order to in order navigate unexpected changes in the radius of the curvature of a bend and avoid driving behaviour that may be unexpected and/or confusing to the operator and following vehicles.

Proposal for amendments to document GRVA/2020/22.

Proposal for an alternative to ensure user attentiveness when activating a remote-controlled parking system.

Proposal to modify the following elements:

1. paragraph 5.6.4.2.3., delete “temporarily”
2. paragraph 5.6.4.5.2.1., replace “actually” by “anticipated to be”
3. paragraph 5.6.4.6.6., B1 shall resume “in a timely manner”
4. paragraph 5.6.4.6.8.1., clarify the suppression criteria
5. paragraph 5.6.4.7., define distance tolerances for lane-change critical distances
6. Annex 8, Paragraph 2., Carry over the language already adopted for ACSF B1: “At the manufacturer’s discretion and with the agreement of the Technical Service, a lane with a width of less than 3.5 m may be used, if the correct function of the system on roads with wider lanes can be demonstrated.” and allow for lower temperature and wet surface test conditions, and
7. Annex 8, Paragraph 3.5.1.2. (j), amend the pass condition with regard to direction indicator deactivation.

Consolidated proposal incorporating comments from OICA/CLEPA, CITA, Germany, and AVERE (including most recent proposal to the 7th GRVA session).

This document proposes a new 04 series of amendments to Regulation 79 with regard to a system that aims at bringing the vehicle to a safe stop in case of driver unavailability, defining a “risk mitigation function”.

Proposal to permit manoeuvring assistance in defined low speed driving situations to reduce damages and injuries.

The intention of the proposed amendment is to clarify the existing text on continued support of an ACSF B1 if the boundary conditions are exceeded. It clarifies that under certain circumstances, e.g. if there are no lane markings present or if the vehicle has already drifted substantially out of the lane such that the lane may no longer be recognized, a continuation of support may no longer be possible or reasonable.

The intention of the proposed amendment is to clarify the existing text on continued support of an ACSF B1 if the boundary conditions are exceeded.

Proposal for provisions concerning:

1. B1 lane centering
2. ACSF activation conditions
3. Driver override
4. Clarification of ACSF standby-mode
5. Clarification of “ready-to-intervene"
6. Indication to the driver in case of suppression
7. Clarification of suppression criteria
8. Sensor test before activation.

Proposal for provisions concerning:

1. B1 lane centering
2. ACSF activation conditions
3. Driver override
4. Clarification of ACSF standby-mode
5. Clarification of “ready-to-intervene"
6. Indication to the driver in case of suppression
7. Clarification of suppression criteria
8. Sensor test before activation.

Proposal to amend Annex 8 (Test requirements for Corrective and Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF)), paragraph 3.5. (Tests for ACSF of Category C) in order to clarify that enabling of the system as part of the test procedure is only necessary when the system is not yet enabled.

Proposal to amend Annex 8 (Test requirements for Corrective and Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF)), paragraph 3.5. (Tests for ACSF of Category C) in order to clarify that enabling of the system as part of the test procedure is only necessary when the system is not yet enabled.

Proposal to amend Annex 8 (Test requirements for Corrective and Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF)), paragraph 3.5. (Tests for ACSF of Category C) in order to clarify that enabling of the system as part of the test procedure is only necessary when the system is not yet enabled.

Proposal to permit the manufacturer to specify its own formula for the calculation of s_critical. The current formula does not take the dynamic behaviour of vehicles into account and therefore requires gaps that under some traffic conditions don’t usually occur. Since there are different ways of addressing the dynamic behaviour of the vehicles with regard to the original formula, this proposal would allow the manufacturer to specify its own formula provided the safety principle is maintained.