80. The representative of the Russian Federation asked for guidance from GRVA on several items (GRVA-17-11), including on speed assistance. The representative of OICA presented their views (GRVA-17-21) advocating for letting the driver decide on speeds as there might be factors (misdetection, infrastructure shortcomings, ambiguous situations, traffic flow considerations, speedometer offset etc.) where only the driver could decide.

81. The representative of the European Commission Joint Research Center presented the outcome of their research (GRVA-17-41) on the impact of speed variance in traffic and correlations with crashes, which showed that a high variance of vehicle speeds for vehicles on the same road led to more crashes. He concluded that speed management was more effective for all vehicles on the road than for selected vehicles, which would speak in favour of option 1 in GRVA-17-11. The representatives of France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland expressed reasons why they supported this option.

82. The representative of ETSC advocated for assistance systems that technically enforce speed limits as detected (GRVA-17-35). He stated that there was no justification for drivers to set speed above the speed limit. He added that allowing an override with the acceleration pedal was a good compromise between the two options proposed. The representative of Norway supported option 2 as DCAS was a bridging technology until ADS is available and that postponing the question of speed limits would not help GRVA.

83. GRVA agreed for option 1 and noted the positions of Norway and ETSC.

84. The representative of Sweden stated that their final view on the question would depend on the assessment of the whole system.

80. The representative of the Russian Federation asked for guidance from GRVA on several items (GRVA-17-11), including on speed assistance. The representative of OICA presented their views (GRVA-17-21) advocating for letting the driver decide on speeds as there might be factors (misdetection, infrastructure shortcomings, ambiguous situations, traffic flow considerations, speedometer offset etc.) where only the driver could decide.

81. The representative of the European Commission Joint Research Center presented the outcome of their research (GRVA-17-41) on the impact of speed variance in traffic and correlations with crashes, which showed that a high variance of vehicle speeds for vehicles on the same road led to more crashes. He concluded that speed management was more effective for all vehicles on the road than for selected vehicles, which would speak in favour of option 1 in GRVA-17-11. The representatives of France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland expressed reasons why they supported this option.

82. The representative of ETSC advocated for assistance systems that technically enforce speed limits as detected (GRVA-17-35). He stated that there was no justification for drivers to set speed above the speed limit. He added that allowing an override with the acceleration pedal was a good compromise between the two options proposed. The representative of Norway supported option 2 as DCAS was a bridging technology until ADS is available and that postponing the question of speed limits would not help GRVA.

83. GRVA agreed for option 1 and noted the positions of Norway and ETSC.

84. The representative of Sweden stated that their final view on the question would depend on the assessment of the whole system.