32. The experts from Sweden gave two presentations (GRSP-68-08-Rev.1; GRSP-68-07), showing the results of a study whether female occupants have the same protection level as male occupants. Swedish experts also explained the issue of the lack of average female crash test dummies. She concluded that the study had shown that: (a) crash related injury risks are higher in females (especially whiplash), (b) females are poorly represented by existing crash test dummies, (c) information about body size (stature and mass) should be included in traffic injury databases and (d) injury data need to be reported for females and males separately. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this issue at its May 2021 session.

32. The experts from Sweden gave two presentations (GRSP-68-08-Rev.1; GRSP-68-07), showing the results of a study whether female occupants have the same protection level as male occupants. Swedish experts also explained the issue of the lack of average female crash test dummies. She concluded that the study had shown that: (a) crash related injury risks are higher in females (especially whiplash), (b) females are poorly represented by existing crash test dummies, (c) information about body size (stature and mass) should be included in traffic injury databases and (d) injury data need to be reported for females and males separately. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this issue at its May 2021 session.

Proposal to avoid trade barriers for aftermarket accessories being used by riders until specific requirements for the homologation of accessories independent from the helmets are defined.

13. The expert from Israel, explaining the point of view of the “motorcycle helmet communication”, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2020/19 through a presentation (GRSP-68-15), proposing a temporary solution to the 06 series of amendments to the UN Regulation. He also proposed at the same time a revised definition of accessories allowed to be fitted in type approved helmets. He clarified that this temporary solution should be followed by a new proposal delivered by the IWG and asked that IWG consider some examples for communication accessories requirements as well as for helmets in his presentation. The expert from Sweden introduced GRSP-68-09, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2020/19. She expressed concerns that the issue was affecting the validity of type approval originally granted and she questioned who would bear this responsibility. The expert from the Netherland argued that the Israeli proposal was not acceptable because it was opened to any kind of accessories to be implemented on the helmet. The expert from Republic of Korea supported the proposal tabled by the expert from Israel. The expert from Germany stated that the proposal was a good basis to start discussion, but it was premature to draw specific conclusions. He explained that current requirements of the UN Regulation were aimed at limiting the use of aftermarket products, whose liability was not in the purview of helmet manufacturers. He suggested that GRSP experts engage in their discussions stakeholders from the helmet aftermarket industry (e.g: camera industry). The expert from Spain clarified that accessories should be intended to integrate the securing functionalities of the helmet (e.g.: tear-off films of inner visors, electronic devices and their support. The expert from Italy clarified that the IWG activities were suspended due to the lack of research results that would allow Phase 2 of the UN Regulation to begin and that this issue was not included in the scope of the IWG. Therefore, GRSP agreed to establish an ad hoc group of interested experts to discuss and devise at the earliest convenience a solution on this issue. The experts from France, Republic of Korea, The Netherlands, Israel, Italy, Germany, Spain and from the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA) stated their availability to participate to the activities of the ad-hoc group. GRSP, also agreed to resume discussion on this agenda item on the basis of the outcome of the ad-hoc group.

Revised safety considerations for activities other than driving undertaken by the driver in a vehicle when its automated driving system is engaged.

43. The expert from Spain introduced GRSP-65-11, showing that there were no specific requirements for children travelling in buses and coaches, unlike children in passenger cars. She added that specifications in UN Regulations Nos. 44 and 129 were only to secure children on M₁ category of vehicles. Therefore, she stated that it was time to establish requirements for securing children in M₂ and M₃ vehicles, based on real accidents in these type of vehicles with the priority of avoiding ejection of occupants. She therefore proposed to develop a new UN Regulation for securing children in buses and coaches and to establish an IWG to develop the work. The expert from Sweden introduced GRSP-65-26, showing that generally, buses in his country were not designed for the transportation of children. The expert from the United States of America provided information through links to how children were transported in his country:
School Bus Safety (NHTSA)
School Bus Facts: Safety Features
Child Safety Restraint Systems Basics video
Introduction to Child Safety Restraint Systems on School Buses video

44. The expert from EC underlined how the rate of wearing safety-belts was dramatically low in buses. He suggested that wearing should be combined with safety-belt reminders and that a study on cost-benefit analysis on their presence on buses would be considered in the work of the IWG proposed by the expert from Spain. The experts from Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden, CLEPA and GlobalNCAP supported the proposal to establish an IWG and to provide a contribution.

45. Finally, GRSP agreed to seek consent of WP.29 at its June 2019 session to establish an IWG on “Securing of Children in buses and coaches” and to request the secretariat to inform the Working Party on General Safety (GRSG) at its October 2019 session.

This document proposes a draft text for a resolution on “activities other than those related to driving” that the driver of a vehicle equipped with an automated driving system could undertake when the automated driving system is engaged.

Proposal to require manufacturers to list adhesive agents that can be used without deterioration of the burning behaviour of the material(s).

At its 86th meeting, GRRF recommended to cluster subjects together and form a number of task forces to deal with different issues related to the ACSF work. One task force was devoted to Periodic Technical Inspection (PTI).

33. The expert from Sweden presented GRVA-01-24 with a status report of the Task Force on PTI/roadworthiness of ACSF systems. The expert from the Russian Federation, Chair of the IWG on PTI, invited the Task Force to liaise with the IWG on these issues. GRVA agreed that the group should liaise with the IWG on PTI on Periodic Technical Inspection process related issues and that the Task Force should focus on roadworthiness related provisions linked to the construction of automated vehicles such as continuous self-diagnostic functions, system failure recognition, fault code recording and fault code access.

Proposal to require that fire suppression systems with an integrated detection system also activate the vehicle alarm system in order to alert the driver of the potentially hazardous situation.

Proposal to require that a lane-keeping system used in conjunction with a lane-change system keep the vehicle centered within its lane of travel. The intent is to ensure that the vehicle starts its lane-change maneuver from a position where lateral movement signaling the impending lane change would be more easily detected even before the vehicle crosses into the adjacent lane.

The Netherlands and Sweden note strongly urging consideration of system safety and software assessment issues before proceeding with approval procedures for Category B2 and/or E ACSF, including a discussion of the role, if any, of ISO 26262 under Annex 6.