1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Document Title | Proposals concerning driver availability when a vehicle is operating under an automated mode | ||||||||
Reference Number | ACSF-05-06 | ||||||||
Date |
18 Jan 2016
|
||||||||
Summary | Proposal to define and require countermeasures to ensure that a driver remains available to assume control of a vehicle from an automated lane-keeping/steering system as conditions warrant. This document proposes definitions for a “driver attention recognition [system/function]” and/or a “driver attention confirmation [system/function]”. | ||||||||
Source(s) | Netherlands and Sweden | ||||||||
Rulemaking Area(s) | UN R79 Steering Equipment | ||||||||
Meeting(s) | |||||||||
Downloads | |||||||||
UNECE server | .pdf format | .docx format | |||||||
Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
ACSF | Session 5 | 20-22 Jan 2016 |
5.6.1.2.6 Driver availability recognition system Presentation of SE and NL (ACSF-05-06) (C-D): the infotainment system can be used to detect drivers activity, but also something else… Presentation of OICA (ACSF-05-10) (D): supports the OICA approach. Why should we be more stringent as at LKAS => it is not necessary to check every 10s (C-D): Proposal: Comment of the delegates: Homework: NL, SE, D, UK to improve the wording considering the “compromise” |
||||||||