Document Number ACSF-04-15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Document title Results of NTSEL study on ACSF transition time
Date 25 Nov 2015

Presentation of results from Japan’s NTSEL research into the time required for the driver to transition from automated to manual steering modes and on driver/vehicle behavior throughout the transition period under various traffic scenarios.

Source(s) NTSEL and Japan
Status
Rulemaking area(s)
Meeting(s)
Related documents
ACSF-04-16 Japan proposal for ACSF automated-to-manual steering transition time requirements
Downloads: .pdf format .ppt format
Excerpts from session reports related to this document
ACSF | Session 4 | 25-27 Nov 2015

Main content of document from (J):
To study transition from ACSF to the driver using a driving simulator when the driver needs manual operation while using the ACSF on a highway. CPs have been part of the study

(OICA): Have the subtasks been switched off when the warning was issued?
(J):No.
(D): Presentation is very helpful for the discussion.
(SE): This was a very useful experience
(NL): The people in the study have been aware that something will happen. So the values seem to be the “minimum”
(D): situation in the test was very realistic, because the drivers where partly very drowsy (ed. because of jetlag…)
(SE): Why is (in slide 17) the response time of the driver without warning faster than with warning?
(J): Interpretation: The driver is more relaxed when he expects that the system will warn.
(OICA): at least it should be clear, that a is not possible, before a failure in the system occurs.
(Chair): it was not a failure, it was the misinterpretation of the system.
(Chair-J): the warning time is also the time, when the failure occurs and the system is still working.
(Chair): Summary of the discussion:
– 2s should be the minimum
– 4s are appropriate
(Chair-J): supports the 4s
(SE): maybe already 2s could be helpful as an “emergency system”

(see also the “warning table” in 7.4)