Proposal to introduce provisions for driver-initiated automated lane-change systems (Category C ASCF) and for automated emergency steering functions (ESF). This proposal includes amendments the annex on complex electronic systems (Annex 6), in particular, to require auditing of the methodologies used to ensure system safety at both concept and system level. The concept level specifically requires consideration of interaction with other vehicle systems.

Proposal to clarify requirements of the optical signal for a CSF intervention to ensure sufficient flashing tell-tale visibility for the driver, to specify the duration of such ACSF signals, to ensure a safe hierarchy of signals (e.g., ESF over CSF) by priority, to clarify that deactivation when departing an ODD means the “off mode”, and to add a cross-reference pointing to paragraphs that define cases of manual and automatic deactivation.

Proposal to introduce provisions for

• the approval of Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) systems
• a “two-step Human Machine Interface” in the requirements for Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF) of Category C lane-change functions, and
• to resolve measurement concerns in the test requirements for ACSF of Category B1 and C by introducing provisions for tolerances, including:
  • inclusion of the position at which the lateral acceleration was measured and the position of the centre of gravity of the vehicle for better traceablility,
  • sampling rate of at least 100 Hz for dynamic testing,
  • specification of filters and cut-off frequency for determination of lateral acceleration,
  • option to measure “overriding force” torque via an internal sensor or an external device (e.g., steering robot).

Proposal to stipulate that “Automatic deactivation by the system of the direction indicator is required only if the lane change manoeuvre is initiated automatically, and if the direction indicator control is not fully engaged (latched position) during the lane change manoeuvre.” The proposal also would modify the high-speed test to end once the system has given an optical “hands-off” warning since the entire warning cascade is checked during the low-speed test. For M₂ and M₃ vehicles, the amendment allows a corrective steering function to use haptic signals as an alternative to acoustic signals for these categories of vehicles that are equipped with Lane Departure Warning System compliant with UN R130. This change would specify that the haptic warning may not be given solely via the steering wheel (e.g., provided in the driver’s seat).

Proposal to amend Annex 8 (Test requirements for Corrective and Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF)), paragraph 3.5. (Tests for ACSF of Category C) in order to clarify that enabling of the system as part of the test procedure is only necessary when the system is not yet enabled.

Proposal to

1. Align lane-centering provisions with principles applied to UN R157 (ALKS)
2. Permit Category C ACSF to remain in stand-by during temporary roadway transitions
3. Clarify overriding provision (para. 5.6.4.3) reference to stand-by mode
4. Introduce a tolerance factor for “critical situation” lane changes
5. clarification to test conditions
6. Align direction indicator deactivation under a pass conditions with previously adopted provisions.

Proposal from GRVA to allow continuous movement of the driver as an alternative to the continuous actuation of the remote-control device as a means to assure driver attentiveness.

Proposal to clarify that a continuation of support by a Category B1 ACSF after its boundary conditions have been exceeded may not be possible under conditions as outlined in the manufacturer’s safety concept.

Proposal to clarify the cascade of actions regarding activation of ACSF B1 and C and the indication on when the vehicle has entered an eligible road based on the following justification:

1. When the same means is used by the driver to simultaneously activate the Automatically Commanded Steering Function of Category B1 (ACSF B1) and of Category C (ACSF C), both functions switch to standby mode when the vehicle enters an ACSF C eligible road. But if the road is non-eligible to ACSF C, then only the ACSF B1 is activated.
2. With the current text of the regulation, once the vehicle moves to an ACSF C eligible road, the driver must operate again the means to activate the ACSF C. This second deliberate action is confusing for the driver since it makes the manipulation more complex. The current wording discourages most drivers from using this assistance function.
3. The proposed wording permits the following, logical, cascade of actions:
   1. The driver has done a deliberate action to activate ACSF B1 and ACSF C (on a non-eligible road); then
   2. He drives into an eligible road, and is clearly informed thereof; then
   3. He initiates a lane change procedure by activating e.g. the direction indicator.
4. This amendment further clarifies the requirement on the indication of when the vehicle enters an eligible road. It gives some examples of the type of indication to be given to the driver, e.g. additional popup or blinking indication, without being design restrictive.
5. A dedicated status indication of an ACSF C off-mode is by nature already different from the standby or active indication. Therefore, the driver is already sufficiently informed on a potential status change.
6. Regarding paragraph 5.6.4.2.3.: While entering the eligible road, the driver may be distracted or annoyed by this “prominent” indication. His attention resources shall be totally available during this phase. So the system would switch automatically to standby mode when fulfilling these two conditions: reaching an eligible and regular lane of travel. This second condition may be fulfilled for example by implementing a suitable time delay or by a direct verification of the lane of travel. These criteria should be explained, agreed between the technical service and the vehicle manufacturer.

Proposal to address cross-referencing issues in UN Regulation No. 79 with respect to UN Regulation No. 130 (Lane Departure Warning System), especially with regard to Australian lane marking specifications.

Proposal to address cross-referencing issues in UN Regulation No. 79 with respect to UN Regulation No. 130 (Lane Departure Warning System), especially with regard to Australian lane marking specifications and to incorporate amendments addressing ACSF systems relative to the new UN Regulation on driver control assistance systems (DCAS).

Proposal to clarify the provisions for ACSF Cat. A “Remote Controlled Parking (RCP)” for vehicle combinations. The current definition for RCP S_RCPmax sets a maximum limit of 6m distance to the motor vehicle, which is insufficient in situations where the operation is supervised by the driver located behind the vehicle combination.

Proposal to update the text in line with the establishment of UN R171 on Driver Control Assistance Systems.

Proposal to improve terminology concerning the status of the ACSF system following an “engine start / run cycle” and to clarify provisions for full power steering systems such as steer-by-wire systems.

Proposal to ensure that vehicles exhibiting functionality meeting the definition of ACSF-B2 or -E are required to comply with the correct series of R171.