GAR | GRRF-84-28

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Document Title	Proposal for amendments to GRRF-84-02
Reference Number	GRRF-84-28
Date	20 Sep 2017
Summary	Proposal to allow adaptation of speed and distance calculations in accordance with national speed limits since some nations enforce maximum speed limits below the 130 km/h used as the basis for the proposals on automated lane-change systems. Japan expects to refine the proposal in order to address mutual recognition concerns inherent in such recourse to national requirements. Japan further proposes clarification of the approaching vehicle (motorcycle) test target pending development of uniform test target specifications.
Source(s)	Japan
Rulemaking Area(s)	UN R79 Steering Equipment
Proposal Status	Superseded
Meeting(s)	GRRF \| Session 84 \| 19-22 Sep 2017 9. (b) Steering equipment: Automatically Commanded Steering Function
Related Documents
	GRRF-84-02		Proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 79 - Requirements applicable to ACSF of Category C1 (superseded)
	WP.29/2018/35		UN R79: Proposal for the 03 series of amendments
Downloads
UNECE server	.pdf format		.docx format
Excerpts from session reports related to this document
GRRF \| Session 84 \| 19-22 Sep 2017			50. The expert from Germany on behalf of the Co-Chair of the IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) presented GRRF-84-02 with draft provisions for ACSF of Category [C1]. GRRF discussed values in square brackets in the document related to the scenario considered for the purpose of testing the performance of ACSF of C1 category. In particular, the definition of the point at which, following the beginning of the Lane Change Procedure, the driver’s reaction should be understood did not achieve consensus and created difficulties to agree on what is referred to as reaction time in draft para. 5.6.4.8.1. The expert from Japan presented GRRF-84-28 proposing derogations in case the maximum speed allowed in the territory of a Contracting Party would be lower than 130 km/h. GRRF agreed to defer GRRF-84-28 to the IWG on ACSF. GRRF considered the note from the secretariat (GRRF-84-24) reproducing comments received from Tesla Inc. GRRF also discussed GRRF-84-23 tabled by the experts from OICA and CLEPA on Emergency Steering Functions. GRRF requested the secretariat to consolidate the proposals as reflecting the current position and guidance of GRRF (GRRF-84-36) and to add this consolidation to the provisional agenda of the next session of GRRF (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/26). GRRF also requested the IWG on ACSF to review this document until the next GRRF session. 50. The expert from Germany on behalf of the Co-Chair of the IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) presented GRRF-84-02 with draft provisions for ACSF of Category [C1]. GRRF discussed values in square brackets in the document related to the scenario considered for the purpose of testing the performance of ACSF of C1 category. In particular, the definition of the point at which, following the beginning of the Lane Change Procedure, the driver’s reaction should be understood did not achieve consensus and created difficulties to agree on what is referred to as reaction time in draft para. 5.6.4.8.1. The expert from Japan presented GRRF-84-28 proposing derogations in case the maximum speed allowed in the territory of a Contracting Party would be lower than 130 km/h. GRRF agreed to defer GRRF-84-28 to the IWG on ACSF. GRRF considered the note from the secretariat (GRRF-84-24) reproducing comments received from Tesla Inc. GRRF also discussed GRRF-84-23 tabled by the experts from OICA and CLEPA on Emergency Steering Functions. GRRF requested the secretariat to consolidate the proposals as reflecting the current position and guidance of GRRF (GRRF-84-36) and to add this consolidation to the provisional agenda of the next session of GRRF (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/26). GRRF also requested the IWG on ACSF to review this document until the next GRRF session.