GAR | AEBS/LDWS-17-02/Rev.1

Document Number AEBS/LDWS-17-02/Rev.1

1	2	3	4	6
Document title	CLEPA/OICA proposal for AEBS Step 2
Date	17 Sep 2012			Update of the presentation outlining parameters for the further development of the advanced emergency braking systems regulation in line with technological progress.
Source(s)	CLEPA and OICA
Status
Rulemaking area(s)	UN R131 Advanced Emergency Braking
Meeting(s)	AEBS/LDWS \| Session 17 \| 17 Sep 2012
Related documents
Downloads:		.pdf format
Excerpts from session reports related to this document
AEBS/LDWS \| Session 17 \| 17 Sep 2012			The group had an exchange of view on the proposal from the CLEPA/OICA per AEBS/LDWS-17-02-Rev.1 (see also Annex 1). The main concerns which emerged from the first comments were as follows: 1. Warning time lowest value (both moving and stationary scenario) 2. Target speed in the moving target scenario There was a suggestion to divide the work in steps: 1. Stationary target, then 2. Moving target Netherlands questioned the kind of speed for row 1 vs. row 2 vehicles (curves of slide 8) OICA clarified that the data are extrapolated from computers. The expert considered it possible to provide speed data at the next meeting. The Chair proposed a 2-step approach, using the criteria as proposed by OICA/CLEPA for the 1st step, and to increase these criteria for the 2nd step, i.e. a more ambitious speed reduction value for the subject vehicle in the stationary target test and a lower value for the speed of the target vehicle in the moving target scenario. Japan supported CLEPA/OICA proposal France and India had no view to date on the subject Sweden could support CLEPA/OICA’s proposal. The 2-step approach was supported by some Contracting Parties. Netherlands on the one hand had a preference for a 1-step approach but on the other hand did not like immature systems on the road. The delegate finally agreed with a 2-step approach. Germany considered it possible, when looking the figures, to achieve agreement on a 1-step approach. The expert from CLEPA informed that a new, corrected simulation tool was available. Conclusion: General support for the 2-step approach, i.e.: 1. Collision mitigation in stationary target scenario and collision avoidance in the moving target scenario, based on the values for speed reduction (10 km/h) and target vehicle speed (67 +/- 2 km/h) as proposed by OICA/CLEPA then 2. increased value of the speed reduction in the stationary target scenario and collision avoidance in moving target scenario with increased stringency, i.e. a substantially lower value of the target speed. Secretary to post the revised simulation tool on the UNECE website (done as document AEBS/LDWS-17-03).