1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Document Title | Proposal to harmonize requirements for emergency controls on power-operated service doors | ||||||||
Reference Number | SDWEE-05-05 | ||||||||
Date |
24 Feb 2011
|
||||||||
Source(s) | Germany | ||||||||
Rulemaking Area(s) | UN R107 Coach and Bus Construction | ||||||||
Meeting(s) | |||||||||
Downloads | |||||||||
UNECE server | .pdf format | ||||||||
Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
SDWEE | Session 5 | 2-3 Mar 2011 |
SDWEE-05-04: IRU confirmed that this item touches a big problem for the operators because some passengers use the emergency exit devices for getting out of the vehicle at traffic lights. Paragraph 7.6.5.1.1. is the main source of problems for IRU, with no proposal for improvement yet. The informal group had an exchange of view on the most efficient way to address this problem and re-visited the paragraph 7.6.7.2. in order to accurately include all the possibilities. Conclusion: Revision of document SDWEE-05-04 adopted, to be included in 02-07-Rev.3. SDWEE-05-02: Mr. McKenzie (OICA, CLCCR), as author of the proposal, recalled that it is up to the manufacturer to achieve the goal as the requirement is not prescriptive. The informal group agreed to respect the decision of the last meeting to favour pictograms in all case, with supplementary explanatory wording when necessary. It was agreed to introduce the relevant provisions in a new paragraph 7.19 rather than in paragraph 7.6. which addresses exits only. Mr. McKenzie kindly produced document SDWEE-05-02-Rev.1 which was reviewed in depth by the experts. In particular the experts acknowledged that the requirement for “photoluminescent” signs could preclude other systems. Concerning the pictograms, it was considered reasonable that the regulation defines a pictogram for each type of emergency exit, i.e. door, window, roof hatch, floor hatch. Mr. McKenzie volunteered to prepare a proposal in that sense for the next meeting. Conclusion: SDWEE-05-05: Some debate in addition took place on whether the regulation should mandate a direction of movement (clockwise vs. counter clockwise). While there was no consensus about the proper direction to mandate, it was agreed that the direction would have to be indicated by appropriate signage. The experts in addition agreed that the required angular displacement of 90° would cover the total possible control opening movement, i.e. a movement of 45° each direction for opening would be compliant. The group in addition agreed to regulate the dimensions of the control, based on some information to be provided by the manufacturers. Conclusion: SDWEE-05-03: SDWEE-02-07-Rev2: Paragraph 7.6.1.5.: proposed amendments deleted, the text will remain as currently in the Regulation. Paragraph 7.6.1.7.: The other changes agreed by the experts can be found as well in the document SDWEE-02-07- Rev.3. |
||||||||