Main content of document from (D):
Purpose of this document is to describe a lane change test for ACSF systems

(OICA/CLEPA): Isn’t it better to make a static test, as explained in ACSF-03-05?
(D): The aim was to make the tests as simple as possible, but , a dynamic test is more realistic and so more appropriate.
(J): Isn’t it better to use the “national” max. speed
(D): Vehicles may be also exported to countries, where the speed limit is higher, so the functionality should be tested according with the proposed speed Δ.
(J-Chair): Confirms, also the higher speeds should be tested in Japan.

Homework: OICA to review this document.

Proposed amendment:
The vehicle shall be equipped with means to detect and classify obstacles and other road users at least 176m in front of the vehicle, 8m at the left and right side of the vehicle and 113m behind the vehicle.

(OICA): Are the values necessary?
(D): This is just a first text proposal to reflect the content of the presentation ACSF 03-05. It is necessary to define the performance of the sensors.
(NL): Values are necessary – “objects” should be defined more clearly
(SE): Should we define the values in the test?
(D): We do not have tests to cover that all. We test the rear range of the sensors in the new lane change test FU2 and the front sensors are tested also in the braking tests.
(EC): Requirements are necessary, wording should be improved (including “safety distance”)

Homework: D + CLEPA to make a new proposal, including values f(Vsmax) and definition of “objects”.