Japan explained the Japanese idea of the work per document LKAS-01-03:

• Preventing drivers being confused by poor HMI should the system not be regulated (e.g. confusion on vs. off states of the system)
• Ensuring minimum performance requirements such that the driver knows what minimum system intervention he may expect.

OICA understood the document as a summary of the objectives for the future rule or guidelines, but was keen 1st that all parties have a common understanding of the objectives of the meeting. The delegate suggested to 1st define the status of LKAS.

Japan claimed having already shown justifications for the work, with relevant safety benefits.

Germany questioned whether systems showing the problems shown in slide 1 of the document 01-03 still exist.
Japan clarified that Japanese guidelines prevent these systems from the market.

OICA acknowledged the above, but recalled that Japan is not signatory to UN R79, while other parts of the world are. He added that the current text of UN R79 could prevent poor systems from the market and that no data today show that LKAS has caused any accidents.

Japan informed [of its intention] to sign UN R79 in the near future, hence reviewed its text in depth, and found that the regulation does not well protect from the confusions and issues tabled in document LKAS-01-03. The expert from Japan stressed that this is why Japan proposes guidelines.

CLEPA pointed out the CEL annex of UN R79, which provides all the necessary requirements that the safety of the system must fulfil to get an approval.

The group had a debate on the way to proceed, and agreed that some further discussions and clarifications are still needed, such that the group decided to get back to this item later.