OICA proposal concerning specifications for Category C2 automated steering systems where a vehicle system assists the driver in effecting a lane change after the driver activates the turn signal and initiates the maneuver through a second deliberate action (under C1, the driver activates the turn signal and automated lane-change system to effect the maneuver automatically).

OICA discussion of lane-keeping systems (ACSF B2) in terms of the level of automation where Level 2 requires constant driver supervision of the system and engagement with the vehicle operating environment and Level 3 places the operation of the vehicle entirely under the control of the automated system with the human driver as a fallback option in the event the system detects conditions beyond its operational boundaries. OICA is concerned to ensure that B2 systems will be permitted under both levels of automation.

Vehicle and supplier industry perspectives on addressing lane-keeping and lane-change systems within the context of Level 3 and higher automation. Current automated steering provisions adopted under UN R79 implicitly refer to Level 2 automation where the driver is required to maintain constant engagement whereas higher levels of automation would enable the driver to engage in secondary tasks.

Draft proposal from OICA and CLEPA to include provisions for lane-change systems involving a second deliberate action of the driver to initiate a system-assisted lane change, including blind spot detection to avoid collisions. OICA and CLEPA wish to have provisions for such Category C2 systems included in UN R79.

OICA input regarding variations in driver responses to system requests to take over control of the vehicle and the implications for system transition requirements.

Draft proposal for automated lane-changes systems including maneuver initiation (activation of direction indicator) and a second deliberate action of the driver (two-step HMI).

Draft proposal to add provisions for 2-step HMI for Cat. C ACSF systems while keeping the main performance of the system e.g. rear sensor range, critical situations, minimum distance and minimum operating speed, etc.

Initial draft proposal towards the definition of a “General Classification System” to replace the “Determination of the acceptable operational domain". The classification system would allow regulators to specify specific conditions under which a given system operates and thereby more clearly define the regulatory requirements. For example, a system defined as “highway” might require safe operation on roadways equipped with a physical separation that divides the traffic moving in opposite directions and which have at least two lanes in the direction the vehicles are driving. Moreover, since such roadways are prohibited to cyclists and pedestrians, a system classified as “highway” would not require pedestrian or cyclist detection (at least not to the degree that an urban system would). The proposal envisions a Class I, II, III, … nomenclature.

Initial proposal for “external” (roadway, speed, etc.) and “internal” (driver availability recognition, data recording, transition request protocols, etc.) for Category B2 ACSF (Level 3 lane keeping systems).

Input on provisions for dynamic driving tasks, headway control, and minimal risk manoeuvres.

Comments on document ACSF-18-03.

OICA and CLEPA comments on the submission from Germany (ACSF-18-04) proposing requirements for Category B2 ACSF related to the General System Classification / Human Driver Priority / Information to the Driver.

Proposal for requirements for systems able to keep the vehicle in the lane without any driver command on the steering control (B2).

ACSF B2 – Industry Concept for

• Driver Availibility Recognition
• Transition Demand
• Minimum Risk Manoeuvre
• Emergency Manoeuvre

This document aims at providing a better understanding of possible operational restrictions and capacity to safely transfer control back to the driver of a Category B2 ACSF (L3 Automated Lane-Keeping System). It contains examples of different possible detection and coping strategies.

OICA/CLEPA review of industry positions on provisions for the proposed regulation on light vehicle AEBS.

• Justification for Manual Deactivation
• Why 2 step approach for pedestrian protection?
• Regulating urban automated driving vs AEBS requirements

Updated version of document AEBS-06-04.

Proposal of maximum relative impact speeds under the proposed test scenarios.

OICA discussion paper as further developed by the ASEP informal group on interpretation of the provision “The sound emission of the vehicle under typical on-road driving conditions, which are different from those under which the type-approval test set out in Annex 3 and Annex 7 was carried out, shall not deviate from the test result in a significant manner.”

Assessment of three ABS-based plastics based on EN-45545 (ISO 5659-2)