Japan presented its concept for a GTR that is based on the requirements from RE3. There should be no sound when vehicle is stopped as these risks masking sounds from other (slowly moving) vehicles. This is not a concern of EV/HEV, but may also occur with ICEV. However, the risk of masking from AVAS is higher than from ICE.

NFB prefers to have sound on in standstill; this should be the case for ICEV equipped with Start/Stop systems as well. Blind people can distinguish between different sounds. Therefore the greater risk is when vehicles are not detectable at all. Brigade proposes to attenuate sound in standstill condition. EV/HEV could be fitted with a sensor that detects vehicles in front. In this case, AVAS can be turned off. A pause switch is possible, but must not be at the driver’s discretion. For the deactivation intelligence is needed to detect that AVAS is obviously not necessary, e.g. on a motorway.

For COM, a start-up sound is enough to ensure pedestrian safety. The SPL of AVAS is crucial and should be adapted to ambient noise.

OICA: This however is technically difficult to realise as in practise it is critical to distinguish real ambient noises from noises produced by AVAS. The necessary intelligence could come from pedestrian recognition systems allowing the AVAS to be turned off when not pedestrian is in the proximity.

On pitch-shifting, Canada prefers a clear requirement instead of the mentioned manufacturer’s report. For OICA an objective test is possible only if in addition component testing is allowed.

For various reasons there is general acceptance that a threshold SPL needs to be defined: EVs/HEVs which emit a certain level of noise and are detectable without AVAS should be excluded form requirements. Also public acceptance implies the avoidance of additional noise sources.