1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Document Title Results of NTSEL study on ACSF transition time
Reference Number ACSF-04-15
Date
25 Nov 2015
Summary 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
Rulemaking Area(s) UN R79 Steering Equipment
Meeting(s)
Related Documents
ACSF-04-16 Japan proposal for ACSF automated-to-manual steering transition time requirements
Downloads
UNECE server .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)