J presented document LKAS-02-02 as the results of the discussions that took place at GRRF-78, where the Chair requested wording improvements, and the status of the system as “ready to intervene”.

NL questioned the case when the system is intervening then the markings disappear, hence the LKAS turns to switched-off status. NL was of the opinion that, in that case, the LKAS should continue warning after it is turned into switched-off status.

CLEPA recalled that the group agreed that the driver is assumed to be monitoring the driving tasks.

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.:

• The European Commission challenged a reference to paragraph 5.1.1., as unnecessary as paragraph 5.1.1. should anyway be fulfilled. The expert nevertheless found the original text clearer than the OICA proposal.
• A debate took place on the wording “fade out in a progressive manner”:
  • Redundant hence confusing statement (repetition of paragraph 5.1.1.)
  • No time or moment figure available from Industry
  • As the technology is still rather immature for being regulated, J found that general requirements should be preferred to precise figures
  • Yet the OICA proposal refers to figures currently existing in UN R79
  • The system is not designed to work in tight curves, rather in “highway conditions”.
• J could support the proposal from OICA; yet the expert wanted to ensure whether the Technical Services could assess the system under such wording.

Conclusion paragraph 5.1.6.2.: the group agreed on a final wording (see LKAS-02-04 sent to the group as ECE-TRANS-WP29-GRRF-2015-XXe (LKAS adhoc group) R79 draft LKAS V1).

Paragraph 5.1.6.5.:
NL challenged the wording “in primary control”. A debate took place on this wording:

• NL keen that the system does not become automatically commanded steering sold as an LKAS, hence suggested that the system gives up control after some time (as requested by the J guidelines).
• The system can ensure that the driver IS in the loop, yet cannot ensure that the driver IS NOT in the loop; even when all the phisionomical characteristics of the driver are monitored by the system, it cannot guarantee the that the driver is attentive. The driver can have the hands on the steering wheel, be attentive and nevertheless be detected as inattentive because providing no input to the wheel.
• J informed that the J guidelines do leave the door open to future detection technology. J is keen not to prevent any future technology.
• OICA raised the case of a system detecting driver’s drowsiness w/o driver’s hands surveillance, e.g. by monitoring the number of LKAS interventions. Some systems use the intervention as a part of the warning and of the detection. OICA was keen that such basic systems are not prohibited.
• Limited duration of LKAS operation was challenged:
  • Would jeopardise sophisticated systems
  • Would not prevent from misuse
  • Current manual steering systems also do not prevent the driver to leave the steering wheel
  • The nature of the function is that it is non-continuous, but is designed to function with no time limit.
• J proposed to accept the SDG original text, because the proposal from OICA could not make unanimity. Question about whether the key critrerion is the misuse or the driver’s inattention.
  • Manufacturers: the target is to address misuse and overreliance generated by the system, rather than monitoring driver’s attention in all situations. The latter would be a much wider scope than only LKAS. OICA was of the opinion that the group should focus on the effect of LKAS only.
  • Contracting Parties: driver’s inattention (a regulation never prevents foolish drivers from having strange behaviours)

NL and the representative of the European Commission proposed the following wording:
“5.1.6.5. The system Lane Keeping Assistance System shall have at least 1 type of means to detect driver attention e.g. by sensing the driver’s hands on the steering wheel. When the system is available and detects inattention of the driver, it shall give an effective warning, which shall be at least two means out of optical, acoustic and appropriate haptic, until the driver is attentive again.”

OICA and CLEPA challenged this wording as it would generate a lot of unwanted alarms in the vehicles. The wording would lead to a detection system, i.e. covering a far more extended scope than LKAS.

After subsequent discussions, the group arrived to the following conclusion: Process:

• Secretary to send to Contracting Parties and Industry OICA approach text with the 3 options
• All to answer with their preferred option to Secretariat before 15 November 2014
• Secretariat to table official document to GRRF-79 as an official document with the 3 options
• Final decision to be done by the group at its next meeeting on 16-17 December at the European Commission.