71. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/13. He recalled that Risk Mitigation Functions related provisions would need to be adopted because safety systems that were type-approved in the past could no longer being able to receive a type approval under the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. He explained that the proposed lane change related provisions were still under discussion and could be deleted as an interim solution, if deemed necessary by GRVA.
72. The expert from Japan stated than Risk Mitigation Functions were important systems for the sake of safety, he added that Japan contributed to the proposal, that Japan supported it as an interim solution and that Japan would contribute to further activities, as necessary.
73. The expert from France expressed support for the working document. He stated that he would need more time to study the informal document amending it, as it had been recently submitted. He proposed to finalize the discussion at the next session.
74. The expert from Germany inquired whether systems already type-approved under the 02 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 were including lane changing features.
75. The expert from OICA explained that existing systems could already perform a lane change. He recalled that the date B (as defined in the guidelines for transitional provisions in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1044/Rev.2) of the transitional provisions for the 03 series was 1 September 2021 and that, therefore, the adoption should not be delayed.
76. The expert from CLEPA confirmed this information.
77. The expert from UK stated the benefits of such functions but also the lack of clarity on the HMI robustness.
78. The expert from Sweden stated that he had no clear position as he was still considering traffic safety impact of such systems.
79. The expert from Norway stated that he supported these emergency systems. He asked to OICA whether there would be risks associated to Risk Mitigation Function (RMF) that GRVA should know about.
80. The expert from OICA explained that zero risk did not exist but that OICA was not aware of any critical situation or crash induced by these systems: OICA was not aware of any police report giving a hint in that situation. He responded to the expert from UK that paragraph 126.96.36.199.2. would address the statement made on HMI.
81. The expert from Germany explained that systems without lane change were type approved as corrective steering function, which was not really intended like this. Therefore, she could support provisions for RMF without lane change. She stated that allowing systems with lane change was a precedent, a situation that wasn’t clear. She wondered if this should be allowed for all vehicle categories, on all road types. She inquired about pedestrian safety implications. OICA responded that these elements would be clarified through the assessment imposed by Annex 6, on the fault and non-fault conditions. Following the consultations held during the week, the expert from OICA introduced GRVA-09-43, aimed at addressing the comments received.
82. Following the discussion and positions expressed by the experts from the European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, UK, GRVA concluded that removing such systems from the market was an issue.
83. GRVA agreed to forward the proposal in GRVA-09-43 as supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1, subject to reconfirmation by GRVA at its next session, in order to allow a potential solution to be developed until June 2021. GRVA noted the reservations expressed by some delegations due to the fact that the technical discussion was not completed and agreed that the document could be amended until June 2021.