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).

3. The expert from the EC reported on the progress made by the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). He presented an amendment to the Terms of Reference (AEBS-LDWS-01-07-Rev.3) necessary for completing the second step of work by the Informal Group. GRRF endorsed this amendment as reproduced in Annex II to this report. He reminded the Working Party that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93/Amend.1 were listed on the agenda of the November 2012 session of WP.29. He expected that the European Union would be in position to vote at that session.

4. GRRF noted that the informal group resumed its work on technical requirements on AEBS for vehicles of the category N2 below eight tons as well as the category M2. OICA presented their review of the issues associated with applying the technology to these vehicle classes noting the lack of real world experience (AEBS-LDWS-17-02-Rev.1). The expert from the EC reminded GRRF about the tight time line and the necessity to produce an informal document before the next session of GRRF to finish the work on time. GRRF noted the intention of the informal group to convene again in Paris on 7 December 2012 and in Geneva on 18 February 2013.

Germany presented the document AEBS/LDWS-18-02. The expert from Germany explained that Germany thought about asking more severe requirements, but then aligned the proposal on the OICA/CLEPA proposal. The expert summarized the justifications and stressed that the LPTS (Last Point To Steer) is usually at the same time as the LPTB (Last Point To Brake). Japan questioned the compatibility with the Vienna Convention, which would necessitate to request [1.4] latest time to warn before the automated emergency braking phase would start. The expert from D clarified that their proposal does not forbid warning earlier. The warning should be at the LPTS because up to that time it is still be possible for the driver to avoid the obstacle by steering. J was keen that there is some time between the start of the Emergency Braking phase and the warning.

CLEPA clarified that the Vienna Convention only requests the driver to be able to override the system. OICA clarified that the wording specifies “not later than”, permitting the system to warn before AEBS is taking the control.

NL was also in favour of a warning time before the automatic emergency braking system takes the control of the vehicle. The expert recalled that D was initially keen for a 2 second delay for the HCV. In addition, the N2 > 8T with pneumatic Braking System must already fulfil the warning time of row 1. The expert from the NL in addition recalled that OICA in p 16 of its presentation AEBS/LDWS-17-02-Rev.1 request 2s.

The Chair recalled one of the main principles in the adopted AEBS regulation, as specified in paragraph 5.5.1. that the timing of the warning signals shall be such that they provide the possibility for the driver to react to the risk of collision and take control of the situation and shall also avoid nuisance for the driver by too early or too frequent warnings. This principle requires both aspects to be taken into account.

OICA clarified that Industry gained experience in the meantime and could now justify the 1s TTC.

The Chair wondered whether using this 1s for warning the driver could be considered to find a common understanding on the warning timing issue.

3. The expert from EC, chairing the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS), reported on the progress made. He introduced GRRF-74-17 produced by the informal group and amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Japan withdrew GRRF-74-20 and GRRF-74-21. GRRF adopted the proposal from the informal group, as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration at their June 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 1 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. [130]. GRRF noted the completion of the work by the informal group and acknowledged the work done by its experts.