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.

Proposal to introduce technical requirements for Corrective Steering Functions (lane departure prevention, lane-keeping assistance (LKAS), steering angle correction, etc.) as defined in the regulation. The proposal offers four options to ensure appropriate approvals of LKAS and related CSF systems until such time as more precise requirements can be defined:

• Option 1 and option 2: Not to grant any type approvals for corrective steering functions until detailed technical requirements for CSF are incorporated into this Regulation.
• Option 3: Amend the definition of CSF as proposed in this document.
• Option 4: Amend the definition of corrective steering functions and to include technical requirements for LKAS as an ASCF of Category B1 as proposed in this document.

53. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2016/45, containing four options as possible ways forward to progress on ACSF. The Secretary of the IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) gave a presentation reporting on the progress made by the group (GRRF-82-17). He reported on definitions proposed for ACSF of Categories A to E, clarifications proposed for Corrective Steering Functions (CSF) and new provisions proposed for RCP. GRRF acknowledged the status report received and agreed to work on an amendment to Option 4 as proposed by GRRF-82-12. The proposal for Option 4 received several comments in GRRF-82-08, GRRF-82-09, GRRF-82-14, GRRF-82-15, GRRF-82-18, GRRF-82-19 and GRRF-82-26.

Proposals to clarify that references to “other road users” includes pedestrians and large animals and, with respect to ensuring the driver’s availability to assume control of the vehicle, a time frequency limit for driver monitoring systems based upon the time required to travel a distance of 1500 m with an upper limit of 180 seconds (i.e., the time required to travel 1500 m at 30 km/h).

Proposal for amendments to the provisions on Data Storage Systems for ACSF under the draft amendment to enable the use of automated steering systems at higher speeds under UN R79.

Proposal to define and require countermeasures to ensure that a driver remains available to assume control of a vehicle from an automated lane-keeping/steering system as conditions warrant. This document proposes definitions for a “driver attention recognition [system/function]” and/or a “driver attention confirmation [system/function]”.

5.6.1.2.6 Driver availability recognition system

Presentation of SE and NL (ACSF-05-06)

(C-D): the infotainment system can be used to detect drivers activity, but also something else…
(NL): target of this proposal is, that the infotainment system is mounted, that the driver can look directly to the front.
(C-D): the driver is still fully responsible. Could it be a solution, that e.g. a head up display is used? It is to consider, that design restrictive requirements should be avoided.
(NL): monitoring the head direction could also be used.

Presentation of OICA (ACSF-05-10)

(D): supports the OICA approach. Why should we be more stringent as at LKAS => it is not necessary to check every 10s
(C-J): proposals are going in the same direction
(SE): there should be a requirement. To define a recognition system depending on the performance is more complicated. We need studies with sleeping drivers
(F): we should not define something in the regulation, which is maybe not necessary in the future. Target should be, what is required short term. Support new studies.
(C-D): we can add here a lot of things, which are not allowed (e.g. sleeping, alcohol, driving without driver licence). We cannot cover every misuse. We should not overload the system.
(EC): origin wording is a good compromise
(OICA): there must be a balance of the minimum requirements
(D): 4s is the worst case of a drowsy driver. After 4s we have the Minimal Risk Manoeuvre (MRM), which gives the driver more time.
(UK): we are still at Level 2 (not using TV etc.). Sleeping cannot be solved yet.
(SE): we cannot deal with every misuse. Disagree, that the OICA document reflects the Tokyo status. Some kinds of limits should be made (10s, 20s, …)
(D): we have to define different requirements for the different categories. Proposes a compromise.
(CLEPA): an eye recognition system for a high volume production car is currently not available
(F): the proposal of D is a good starting point
(SE): we are not far away from each other

(C-D): Proposal:
the system should include two features:

Comment of the delegates:
(EC): tbd.
(SE): agree to the principles, but only 5 minutes
(F): agree to the principles,
(J): tbd
(NL): agree to the principles 15 minutes are too long
(OICA): good compromise
(CLEPA): good compromise

Homework: NL, SE, D, UK to improve the wording considering the “compromise”

Proposal to amend the toxicity and flammability declarations via references to EN71 (European safety standards).

42. Moreover, GRSP considered parallel draft provisions (GRSP-58-32 and GRSP-58-34 superseding GRSP-58-23) on toxicity and flammability as discussed under agenda item 15 (see para. 33 above). GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2016 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-58-32 and GRSP-58-34 with an official symbol at that session.

Proposal to amend the toxicity and flammability provisions. This proposal runs in parallel with the proposal to amend the 00 series of amendments (document GRSP-58-32).

42. Moreover, GRSP considered parallel draft provisions (GRSP-58-32 and GRSP-58-34 superseding GRSP-58-23) on toxicity and flammability as discussed under agenda item 15 (see para. 33 above). GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2016 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-58-32 and GRSP-58-34 with an official symbol at that session.