OICA presented document LKAS-01-08. The expert explained that CLEPA/OICA there is currently no sufficient evidence nor urgency on the need to regulate LKAS and recommended that further investigation be conducted for assessing the best way forward.

The European Commission questioned how UN R79 can guarantee that LKAS can be overridden, and how technical services can test that. TRW clarified that the threshold is usually < 3 Nm on the steering wheel. European Commission suggested that threshold values are not limiting the designers, but that some self declaration is requested such that there is some
check of the technology.

The European Commission saw some conflict between the requirement of tendency for self center, and the autonomous steering, where the radius decreases and LKAS follows the lane.

OICA clarified that the manufacturers are sensitive to their liability, and that, should a system work in a curve, then the manufacturer would have to demonstrate the safety of the system in all modes and situation, via the CEL annex.

The Chair questioned the threshold as from which a system should be regulated.

OICA answered that only continuous systems would be in stake, and that autonomous driving is currently of concern from the Contracting Parties rather than the manufacturers, as the technology is not mature for the market.

The Chair questioned the process of Type Approval if the manufacturer only discusses with the technical service. It was clarified that the Technical Services do tell the manufacturer what they have to do, rather than the inverse. The Netherlands clarified that the
CEL annex usually focuses on failure management rather than respect of the limit values. The CEL annex is more an assessment of the safety philosophy provided by the manufacturer.

A tour de table was organized for getting an overview of the Contracting Parties’ opinions about the question of regulating LKAS:

Germany found it premature to regulate LKAS due to lack of experience. The expert requested more justification for what makes confusion to the driver e.g. in the existing systems.

The Netherlands found it strange to create guidelines on LKAS, because documents LKAS-01-04 and LKAS-01-05 address corrective or automatically commanded steering, and it is too early to regulate autonomous steering. The delegate from
the Netherlands said that perhaps some additional provisions in UN R79 addressing the maximum time for corrective steering would be of interest. Concerning the guidelines, the expert found this of no interest as the ISO standard will play that role, i.e. new guidelines would be a redundancy with the existing ISO standards. Finally, the expert found added value for safety in a system similar to AEBS, whereby the vehicle would turn around an obstacle. The Chair recalled that LDWS only addresses heavy vehicles.

The Republic of Korea found that basic features like warning types (acoustic, optical and haptic), threshold for system performances and suppression conditions should be added to UN R79.

The European Commission found these upcoming systems beneficial, and found it a waste to prevent from introduction of the technology, but on the other hand feared the introduction of dangerous systems. The European Commission would oppose minimum performance requirements, but would agree with basic rules (qualitative text). Yet some non negotiable parameters should be defined (e.g. maximum steering wheel torque that needs to be overcome to regain control). The delegate from the European Commission was of the opinion that systems permitting e.g. to read the newspaper while driving should be forbidden (autonomous steering system). He was keen that a text exist for discriminating the autonomous systems from the others.

Spain had no official position.

J recalled their intention: minimum requirements for maitaining safety.