6. GRSG considered in detail GRSG-114-16, tabled by the expert from Italy, that proposed new provisions for the possible approval of innovative equipment other than a platform to improve the accessibility of people with reduced mobility, particularly on coaches. The expert from the United Kingdom expressed concerns about coaches equipped with such optional equipment. He explained that these vehicles could not be type approved as they would not fulfil the full accessibility requirements of the Regulation e.g. the access of wheelchair users. The expert from Finland supported the position and underlined that such lifts cannot be considered as equivalent equipment to a platform, as the wheelchair user would have to vacate the wheelchair. The expert from Germany underlined that there is no need to type-approve such optional equipment, which could be retrofitted to different types of vehicles. Finally, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in October 2018 and to keep GRSG-114-16 on the agenda as a reference document.

9. The expert from Italy recalled the purpose of GRSG-114-16 and the discussion of GRSG at its previous session on new provisions for the possible approval of alternative equipment to improve the accessibility of people with reduced mobility, particularly on coaches. He introduced a revised proposal (GRSG-115-26) and underlined that the provisions for the installation of a lift were not aimed at replacing the current mandatory requirements on the vehicle accessibility for people with reduced mobility. The expert from the United Kingdom welcomed the proposal, but underlined that this alternative equipment was usually not part of the vehicle and could be considered as an after-market solution upon the choice of the coach operator. The expert from Finland stated that such a lift could not substitute a wheelchair ramp or platform. The experts from Germany and the Russian Federation endorsed that position and questioned if such a lift could even be type approved as a component or a separate part under UN Regulation No. 107. The expert from UK added that such devices needed the intervention of the driver and, in some cases, challenging manoeuvres by the disabled person. He also questioned the universality of the device for different angle of access (i.e. steeper steps). Taking into account multiple possible technical solutions, a number of experts preferred that such alternative equipment not be part of the Regulation and, therefore not in the scope.

6. GRSG considered in detail GRSG-114-16, tabled by the expert from Italy, that proposed new provisions for the possible approval of innovative equipment other than a platform to improve the accessibility of people with reduced mobility, particularly on coaches. The expert from the United Kingdom expressed concerns about coaches equipped with such optional equipment. He explained that these vehicles could not be type approved as they would not fulfil the full accessibility requirements of the Regulation e.g. the access of wheelchair users. The expert from Finland supported the position and underlined that such lifts cannot be considered as equivalent equipment to a platform, as the wheelchair user would have to vacate the wheelchair. The expert from Germany underlined that there is no need to type-approve such optional equipment, which could be retrofitted to different types of vehicles. Finally, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in October 2018 and to keep GRSG-114-16 on the agenda as a reference document.

9. The expert from Italy recalled the purpose of GRSG-114-16 and the discussion of GRSG at its previous session on new provisions for the possible approval of alternative equipment to improve the accessibility of people with reduced mobility, particularly on coaches. He introduced a revised proposal (GRSG-115-26) and underlined that the provisions for the installation of a lift were not aimed at replacing the current mandatory requirements on the vehicle accessibility for people with reduced mobility. The expert from the United Kingdom welcomed the proposal, but underlined that this alternative equipment was usually not part of the vehicle and could be considered as an after-market solution upon the choice of the coach operator. The expert from Finland stated that such a lift could not substitute a wheelchair ramp or platform. The experts from Germany and the Russian Federation endorsed that position and questioned if such a lift could even be type approved as a component or a separate part under UN Regulation No. 107. The expert from UK added that such devices needed the intervention of the driver and, in some cases, challenging manoeuvres by the disabled person. He also questioned the universality of the device for different angle of access (i.e. steeper steps). Taking into account multiple possible technical solutions, a number of experts preferred that such alternative equipment not be part of the Regulation and, therefore not in the scope.