| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | Proposal of AEBS specifications for M2 and N2 vehicles under 8 tonnes | ||||||||
| Reference Number | AEBS/LDWS-18-02 | ||||||||
| Date |
4 Dec 2012
|
||||||||
| Summary | Proposal from Germany regarding advanced emergency braking system specifications for the timing of warning modes, speed reduction and target speed for vehicles of category M2 and N2 ≤ 8 tonnes. | ||||||||
| Source(s) | Germany | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | UN R131 Advanced Emergency Braking | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .doc format | ||||||||
| GAR server | |||||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| AEBS/LDWS | Session 18 | 7 Dec 2012 |
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. |
||||||||