| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | Proposal regarding AEBS target speeds for category M2 /N2 <= 8t vehicles | ||||||||
| Reference Number | AEBS/LDWS-19-06 | ||||||||
| Date |
4 Feb 2013
|
||||||||
| Summary | Proposal to add a foonote to ensure a review of AEBS target speeds by 2021 in the expectation that experience and technological improvements will provide data and justification for lowering target speeds and enhancing safety. | ||||||||
| Source(s) | France | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | UN R131 Advanced Emergency Braking | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .docx format | ||||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| AEBS/LDWS | Session 19 | 30-31 Jan 2013 |
The Chair informed that whatever the outcome of the discussions about the warning time, the group could decide on a 2-step approach. NL was of the opinion that, only if the informal group manages to find the criteria for the row 2, then there is a need to define the 2nd step with values. D preferred to follow the natural process of amending the regulation. J found the 2nd step a future work because the experts are lacking data and experience. There is a need for the manufacturers to get experience in the field. CLEPA pointed out the difficulty for the group to define the 1st step right now, and recommended to follow the natural approach. NL could accept this opinion but stressed that the proposed values for the 1st step, if adopted, are a rather easy target. F suggested adding a footnote with a commitment to find values for the 2nd step. The Chair urged France to produce a written proposal in the course of the 19th meeting. OICA and CLEPA found the idea of a commitment not realistic because the 1st step would be implemented in 2018 (registration date), i.e. leading GRRF to commit for 2020. The group reviewed the proposal from France for a footnote (document AEBS/LDWS-19-06). Some debate took place about the wording of the footnote: – The date of 1 November is unclear as it could be interpreted as the time as from which the vehicles must be equipped with AEBS complying with the new values, or the time as from which the informal group will be revived Industry was keen that 3 years be given to design the vehicles in accordance with the new values. NL found appropriate to have such a footnote for guaranteeing the revision of the values in the future. D, J and ROK could support the wording as revised by the group. |
||||||||