Note prepared by the WP.29 secretariat to support discussion of a request for guidance on how to address within the World Forum the various advanced driver assistance and automated vehicle systems.
43. The experts from Japan and Sweden presented GRRF-78-14 amending UN Regulation No. 79 aimed at (i) starting a discussion on the removal of the speed limitation for the Automatically Commanded Steering Function, (ii) introducing safety functions such as warnings and (iii) introducing On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) requirements permitting to verify the correct operational status of Electronic Systems assisting the steering. A number of GRRF experts considered some of those requirements to be design-restrictive. The Chair noted that the proposal was beyond the usual mandate of GRRF and he announced his intention to seek the guidance of WP.29 at its November 2014 session.
44. GRRF requested the secretariat to keep GRRF-78-14 as a reference document on the agenda, inform the IWG on ITS about this proposal and distribute GRRF-78-05 with an official symbol for consideration at the next GRRF session.
J presented the document LKAS-02-05, proposing amendments to GRRF-78-14 for introduction of ACSF provsions into UN R79.
The group went through LKAS-02-03 document.
Paragraph 5.1.6.2.4. (b):
- The group convened that the transient from auto mode to manual mode is a key to the system safety. As there is a need for a certain time, J found the 2 seconds a minimum. There is a need also to find a consensus wording avoiding different interpretations. Yet the different situations should be taken into account, and there is no guarantee that the system can predict the future such in advance.
- There was a debate about the origin of the 2-second value, in comparison of the limits adopted at AEBS. Some experts indeed feared that the 2-seconds requirement is too demanding.
- Other case: degraded mode
- Sub-paragraph (b) in J approach was clarified: it addresses both fault and non-fault conditions; while (b) in CLEPA approach only addresses non-fault conditions (fault conditions are addressed in sub-paragraph (c) ).
Paragraph 5.1.6.2.4. (c):
- Agreed that the CLEPA proposal addresses the fault conditions
Paragraph 5.5.2.
- OICA informed having very much challenges with regard to PTI and OBD, and suggested that this PTI item is extracted from AEBS up-to-date regulation.
- J was keen to explain a proposal for OBD.
- NL supported a text aligned on that of AEBS, having no connector, rather a simple warning lamp. The delegate insisted that PTI should remain a quick and simple check.
- CLEPA challenged as well the Japanese approach: no standardized connector, data, protocols, etc.
- The European Commission informed about high probability that the EU requires an OBD-X (safety related OBD)
The European Commission welcomed LKAS-02-05 as automatic driving is a subject that is currently discussed at EU level, yet found that the subject goes a bit beyond the usual Type Approval regulations.
CLEPA also welcomed the document
OICA presented a short PPT presentation on lane changing maneuvre on highways. The driver must voluntarily activate the system.
OICA supported CLEPA, and supported opening UN R79 to this technology.
NL found the document a good starting point but found necessary to get more precise requirements.
J pointed out that the requirements can be different according to the systems. The expert recalled that the aim is to maintain road safety via an “if fitted” regulation. He acknowledged that this proposal mainly provides design requirements.
The Chair, as S representative, found it a good start: lane keeping and lane changing system.
J found lane changing assist a very important system and was keen to put the necessary resources to provide the relevant requirements, primarily focusing on highway situation. The expert wondered whether such system, in particular for emergency lane change, are covered by the Vienna Convention.
OICA made the comparison with ESP, where the driver must provide an input, but the system intervenes only when the driver cannot anymore master the situation. Concerning the text, OICA found the structure improved compared to the document presented at GRRF-78, e.g. regarding the modified definition of Automatically Commanded Steering Function
The secretary pointed out that there is a need to open the regulation for permitting the Industry to start designing the technology.
CLEPA found the proposal wise as restricted to certain use cases, and the expert was of the opinion that the regulation could evolve in the future with the evolution of the technology.
OICA informed that regins do not have the limitation of 10km/h and that there is a need that the UN region can take profit of the new technologies. The expert voiced that UNECE should not be left behind, but should rather open up to such new technologies, with appropriate requirements to ensure safety.
36. The expert from Japan recalled the purpose of GRRF-78-14, presented at the seventy-eighth session of GRRF, proposing the deletion, in some circumstances, of the 10 km/h speed limit for systems operating an Automated Controlled Steering Function. The Chair of GRRF proposed to further discuss this item together with item 9(b) below.
23. WP.29 noted WP.29-164-27 on the activities of UNECE and the Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF) on autonomous vehicles and the request for guidance on the future direction. The Co-Chair of ITS announced that his group could provide recommendations at its forthcoming meetings. The Chair of GRRF stressed the need for feedback before the February 2015 session of GRRF to allow further work progress. WP.29 invited GRRF to follow the recommendations provided by the IWG on ITS, awaiting further instructions by WP.29 at its March or June 2015 sessions. WP.29 agreed to consider both ITS and autonomous vehicles under one agenda item “Intelligent Transport Systems and automated vehicles” at its March 2015 session.