GRRF-79-29
Proposal of Automated Driving from Ad-hoc group on LKAS/RCP
Downloads
UNECE server
Related documents
OICA presented the OICA input amending GRRF-78-11. This document was amended by the group as follows (changes can be found in document LKAS-02-04):
Paragraph 5.1.6.2.:
55. The Chair of GRRF recalled the activities done by the IWG on ACSF and proposed to postpone the discussion on LKAS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/2 and GRRF-79-04) to make sure that the findings of the informal group could be reflected when working the technical provisions for LKAS. The expert from France agreed to present GRRF-80-08 at the February 2016 session of GRRF. GRRF agreed to resume consideration of this item at its nest session.
55. The Chair of GRRF recalled the activities done by the IWG on ACSF and proposed to postpone the discussion on LKAS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/2 and GRRF-79-04) to make sure that the findings of the informal group could be reflected when working the technical provisions for LKAS. The expert from France agreed to present GRRF-80-08 at the February 2016 session of GRRF. GRRF agreed to resume consideration of this item at its nest session.
49. The Chair of GRRF recalled the activities done by the IWG on ACSF and proposed to postpone the discussion on LKAS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/2 and GRRF-79-04) to make sure that the findings of the informal group could be reflected when working the technical provisions for LKAS. The expert from France recalled that the work on LKAS had a high priority and invited GRRF to reflect on whether a discussion on the submitted documentation should take place at this session. The experts from Germany and OICA agreed that the proposal produced by the SIG on LKAS was of a high quality but noted that some definitions should be aligned with those of ACSF. Therefore, GRRF agreed to defer the discussion to the September 2016 session. GRRF noted that LKAS were considered as discontinuous corrective steering, while ACSF would cover systems similar to LKAS but performing continuously. GRRF agreed that the boundaries of these systems needed clarification. GRRF requested the IWG on ACSF to work on the boundary definitions. GRRF agreed to resume consideration of this item at its nest session.
49. The Chair of GRRF recalled the activities done by the IWG on ACSF and proposed to postpone the discussion on LKAS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/2 and GRRF-79-04) to make sure that the findings of the informal group could be reflected when working the technical provisions for LKAS. The expert from France recalled that the work on LKAS had a high priority and invited GRRF to reflect on whether a discussion on the submitted documentation should take place at this session. The experts from Germany and OICA agreed that the proposal produced by the SIG on LKAS was of a high quality but noted that some definitions should be aligned with those of ACSF. Therefore, GRRF agreed to defer the discussion to the September 2016 session. GRRF noted that LKAS were considered as discontinuous corrective steering, while ACSF would cover systems similar to LKAS but performing continuously. GRRF agreed that the boundaries of these systems needed clarification. GRRF requested the IWG on ACSF to work on the boundary definitions. GRRF agreed to resume consideration of this item at its nest session.
52. This agenda item was discussed together with the following agenda item. The secretariat noted the decision of their authors and GRRF to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/2, GRRF-79-04, GRRF-80-08 and GRRF-81-14 from the agenda, as the progress done under the following agenda item would cover the subjects covered by those documents.
52. This agenda item was discussed together with the following agenda item. The secretariat noted the decision of their authors and GRRF to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/2, GRRF-79-04, GRRF-80-08 and GRRF-81-14 from the agenda, as the progress done under the following agenda item would cover the subjects covered by those documents.
50. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-79-29, presenting the proposals on LKAS discussed under item 9(b) as well as GRRF-79-15 tabled by the expert from Japan and Germany, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/4 and proposing amendments to Annex 5 to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3) inserting provisions for Remote Controlled Parking (RCP) systems. Noting that traffic rules in some countries would require the driver being seated in the car during its motion, and also noting the preference of GRRF to not amend R.E.3 for this purpose, GRRF advised the authors of the proposal to consider a new Regulation for RCP. GRRF agreed to resume consideration on this item at its September 2015 session.
41. The expert from Sweden introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/2 as amended by GRRF-79-04, submitted by the LKAS small drafting group and introducing definitions and related LKAS requirements in to Regulation No. 79. The proposal received some comments. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-79-29 in conjunction with item 12(b) below. GRRF agreed to resume discussion at its September 2015 session based on revised proposals.
50. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-79-29, presenting the proposals on LKAS discussed under item 9(b) as well as GRRF-79-15 tabled by the expert from Japan and Germany, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/4 and proposing amendments to Annex 5 to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3) inserting provisions for Remote Controlled Parking (RCP) systems. Noting that traffic rules in some countries would require the driver being seated in the car during its motion, and also noting the preference of GRRF to not amend R.E.3 for this purpose, GRRF advised the authors of the proposal to consider a new Regulation for RCP. GRRF agreed to resume consideration on this item at its September 2015 session.