OICA proposal concerning specifications for Category C2 automated steering systems where a vehicle system assists the driver in effecting a lane change after the driver activates the turn signal and initiates the maneuver through a second deliberate action (under C1, the driver activates the turn signal and automated lane-change system to effect the maneuver automatically).

OICA discussion of lane-keeping systems (ACSF B2) in terms of the level of automation where Level 2 requires constant driver supervision of the system and engagement with the vehicle operating environment and Level 3 places the operation of the vehicle entirely under the control of the automated system with the human driver as a fallback option in the event the system detects conditions beyond its operational boundaries. OICA is concerned to ensure that B2 systems will be permitted under both levels of automation.

Vehicle and supplier industry perspectives on addressing lane-keeping and lane-change systems within the context of Level 3 and higher automation. Current automated steering provisions adopted under UN R79 implicitly refer to Level 2 automation where the driver is required to maintain constant engagement whereas higher levels of automation would enable the driver to engage in secondary tasks.

Draft proposal from OICA and CLEPA to include provisions for lane-change systems involving a second deliberate action of the driver to initiate a system-assisted lane change, including blind spot detection to avoid collisions. OICA and CLEPA wish to have provisions for such Category C2 systems included in UN R79.

OICA input regarding variations in driver responses to system requests to take over control of the vehicle and the implications for system transition requirements.

Discussion presentation especially concerning the regulation of lane-keeping systems corresponding to SAE Level 3 automation criteria (vehicle under system control with human driver as fallback).

Draft proposal for automated lane-changes systems including maneuver initiation (activation of direction indicator) and a second deliberate action of the driver (two-step HMI).

Document resulting from the web conference held on 22 March 2018. This document lays out the essential considerations in developing lane-keeping systems operating under Level 3 automation (driver as back-up to automated system).

Draft proposal to add provisions for 2-step HMI for Cat. C ACSF systems while keeping the main performance of the system e.g. rear sensor range, critical situations, minimum distance and minimum operating speed, etc.

Initial draft proposal towards the definition of a “General Classification System” to replace the “Determination of the acceptable operational domain". The classification system would allow regulators to specify specific conditions under which a given system operates and thereby more clearly define the regulatory requirements. For example, a system defined as “highway” might require safe operation on roadways equipped with a physical separation that divides the traffic moving in opposite directions and which have at least two lanes in the direction the vehicles are driving. Moreover, since such roadways are prohibited to cyclists and pedestrians, a system classified as “highway” would not require pedestrian or cyclist detection (at least not to the degree that an urban system would). The proposal envisions a Class I, II, III, … nomenclature.

Initial proposal for “external” (roadway, speed, etc.) and “internal” (driver availability recognition, data recording, transition request protocols, etc.) for Category B2 ACSF (Level 3 lane keeping systems).

Comments and proposed changes to the draft text with regard to the general system classification, human driver priority, and information to the driver provisions.

Comments on document ACSF-18-03.

OICA and CLEPA comments on the submission from Germany (ACSF-18-04) proposing requirements for Category B2 ACSF related to the General System Classification / Human Driver Priority / Information to the Driver.

Input on provisions for dynamic driving tasks, headway control, and minimal risk manoeuvres.

UN R79 ACSF informal group working paper.

Proposal for requirements for systems able to keep the vehicle in the lane without any driver command on the steering control (B2).

Korea input regarding criteria for ensuring automated vehicles maintain a safe following distance from preceding vehicles as a function of time in seconds.

ACSF B2 – Industry Concept for

• Driver Availibility Recognition
• Transition Demand
• Minimum Risk Manoeuvre
• Emergency Manoeuvre

Draft proposal with a view towards a possible decision to establish SAE Level 3 automatically commanded steering functions (ACSF) as a stand-alone regulation outside UN R79 on steering systems. This documents is also available with revision tracking in portable document format and in word document format.

This document aims at providing a better understanding of possible operational restrictions and capacity to safely transfer control back to the driver of a Category B2 ACSF (L3 Automated Lane-Keeping System). It contains examples of different possible detection and coping strategies.

Discussion of automated vehicle emergency response to an imminent collision (vehicle cut-in, lead vehicle deceleration, unforeseen obstacle, etc.).

Informal working group text for the draft regulation on automated lane-keeping systems address the following sections:
2.6. Driver Availability Recognition
2.7. Transition Demand and System Operation during Transition phase
2.8. Information to the driver
2.9. Minimal Risk Manoeuvre
2.10. Emergency Manoeuvre