25. The representative of Japan introduced, on behalf of China, European Union, Japan and the United States of America, WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 containing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 – Framework Document on Automated/autonomous Vehicles. He explained that the amendments included editorial amendments as well as a restructured Table 1 containing details on (i) current activities, (ii) expected future activities and (iii) references to the key safety principles mentioned in the document.

26. The representative of the Republic of Korea introduced WP.29-178-19, proposing additional amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34. The representative of Sweden proposed to insert into Table 1 considerations related to para. 4 (j) regarding vehicle inspection. The representative of CITA supported the position of the representative of Sweden.

27. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 as amended by WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 and requested the secretariat to issue it as a reference document with the symbol ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.1.

151. The Chair of AC.3 introduced the documents that were considered under this agenda item. AC.3 considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/31/Rev.1, aimed at providing an updated overview of the priorities of the Programme of Work of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones taking into account the decisions on document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 from the 177th WP.29 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1145, para. 49). AC.3 referred to the discussions on WP.29-178-10/Rev.2, WP.29-178-19, WP.29-178-16/Rev.1, WP.29-178-17/Rev.2 and WP.29-178-18/Rev.1 under agenda item 2.3. Please note that document WP.29-178-17/Rev.2 does not exist. The amended document WP.29-178-17/Rev.1 was reproduced in Annex VI of the session report.

47. Finally, he briefed WP.29 on the GRE considerations of the signalling requirements for automated/autonomous vehicles (AV) and the establishment of a task force (TF) on this topic. On behalf of the TF Chair, the representative of Germany pointed out that TF had considered two main questions:

(a) Is there a safety requirement for AVs to provide signals to indicate their status and to communicate their next intended actions?

(b) If so, shall such signals (i) be visual, (ii) audible, (iii) or a combination of both?

48. The representative of Germany indicated that TF had come to the conclusion that replying to question (a) was not within its mandate and requested for WP.29 and/or WP.1 guidance. For question (b), on the assumption of a positive answer to (a), he reported that TF felt that AV signals should be visible, while recognizing a further task of addressing the needs of people with impaired vision.

49. The representatives of France and Japan advocated the need for AVs to have special signals for safety reasons, interaction with police and for the sake of general public acceptance of AV. The representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that the conditions for using such signals (speed, traffic conditions, level of automation, etc.) should be clearly defined and that WP.1 should be consulted on those issues. The representative of Finland recalled the general position of WP.1 that all vehicles, irrespective of their technology, should follow the traffic rules. He was of the view that, if AV signals were deemed necessary, they should be as simple as possible. The representative of China reported on the ongoing industry survey on this matter and agreed to inform WP.29 about its outcome. The EU representative stressed that TF should provide evidence for safety risks associated with use of AVs without signals. The representative of OICA warned WP.29 about the possible misuse of AV signals and behavioural issues with drivers of “conventional” vehicles. The representative of IMMA stated that in addition to the capability of AV-systems to detect motorcyclists, research may be needed to study the behaviour of other road users, such as motorcyclists, in response to AV signalling on motor vehicles.

50. The Chair thanked GRE and its TF for the work done and was of the view that WP.1 should be invited to address the concerns raised by WP.29 representatives and to provide recommendations on the use of AV signals, possibly in the framework of the WP.29/WP.1 Executive Task Force (ETF).