1st day
The Chair reminded his recollection of the previous sessions that there is consensus on the speed reduction in the case of the stationary target scenario.
NL accepted this, at least for the 1st stage.
D, J, F and ROK agreed with the 10 km/h speed reduction as well.
Conclusion: agreement about the speed reduction in the case of the stationary target scenario.
For the moving target scenario, the Chair recalled the principle of a non-impact scenario.
All the Contracting Parties confirmed their agreement with the proposal, except France which abstained.
F found the Industry proposal of 67 km/h for the target vehicle speed not demanding enough and was keen to get a more severe performance requirement: the expert was of the opinion that the speed reduction is not related to the warning time, rather to the power of the brakes.
OICA recalled that the arguments valid for the warnings apply to the speed reductions.
The values proposed by OICA/CLEPA are based on tests performed at Jeversen (see AEBS/LDWS-18-03), and have scientific background. OICA was lacking flexibility on this.
The Chair invited the French representative be ready to present a consistent approach and arguments before the end of the 19th meeting. It would indeed be very difficult for GRRF to propose proper values to the experts group. Follow-up of this discussion can be found under item 5.5.
2nd day
The group reviewed the document proposed by the drafting group in order to simplify the number and quality of options to be presented to GRRF. The representative of NL found it essential that the issue of warning time be solved within the informal group in order to avoid increase of complexity of the options. He urged Industry to make efforts and be flexible. OICA recalled that 0.8 s would generate a warning 40 m before the target, and that for consistency in the driving information received by the driver, the criteria for the moving target scenario would have to follow the same logics.
It was recalled that the values are currently based on a 4m/s² deceleration, while the vehicles are usually able of 6 m/s². The Chair pointed out that the wording does not prevent the manufacturer to design the system such that other warning modes can be used for the 1st warning. J continued to believe that the warning is very important and could not change its position. F, D and ROK remained flexible.
OICA repeated that OICA could accept 0.8s provided that “optical only” is permitted in the stationary target scenario for the 1st warning. It was proposed that “optical only” remains in the stationary scenario for the 1st warning, but be deleted from the moving scenario.
After some further internal considerations, Industry agreed to remove the “optical only” warning for the 1st warning of the moving target scenario, with the hope that Japan could offer similar flexibility for the stationary target scenario.
J was ready to provide their position on this item on Tuesday 12 February 2013.
Conclusion: document as in Annex 1 to be updated on the 12th of February for tabling at GRRF.
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.