OICA concern over the provision whereby a Category B1 system can only be reactivated by a deliberate action of the driver after the system has been switched off. This provision could be problematic should lane-keeping systems become mandatory to the extent that it could be interpreted as meaning that the system cannot be “default-on” after such a manual deactivation.

Presentation of technical capabilities and constraints for radar systems.

OICA revision of the German/Japan draft text for Category C1 ACSF.

Revised proposal based upon document ACSF-12-11.

OICA-CLEPA perspectives on the definition and use of Category C lane-change systems, especially emphasizing the need for human supervision (SAE Level 2 automation).

Proposal based on document ACSF-12-12.

OICA-CLEPA proposals for improvement of the draft text pursuant to open issues from the previous ACSF informal group session.

Proposals concerning capabilities and requirements for ultra-sonic sensors, radar systems, and blind-spot detection and view on HMI and C1-C2 mode confusion issue.

Presentation covering

1. Lane change functional test
2. Abort of lane change test
3. Overriding force test
4. Deactivation test
5. Sensor performance test
6. Sensor blindness test (industry proposal)
7. Engine start/run cycle test (three phases)

OICA-CLEPA “homework” input addressing open issues from the previous ACSF informal group session.

Following bench testing of steering override force of 50 N, all participants concurred that the 50 N force can be easily handled and therefore is appropriate for all categories of CSF, ACSF, and ESF systems.

Proposal for draft amendments to UN R79 for the 15th session of the ACSF informal group

Vehicle manufacturer input concerning override force requirements for automated steering systems, including a proposal for an alternative to fixed limits.

Results of OICA testing of driver reaction times to direction indicator activation and lane-change maneuver.

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.

Proposal for the draft regulation on automated lane-keeping systems address the following sections:
2.6. Driver Availability Recognition
2.7. Transition Demand and System Operation during Transition phase
2.8. Information to the driver
2.9. Minimal Risk Manoeuvre
2.10. Emergency Manoeuvre

Revised and updated version of the GRVA presentation (GRVA-08-23).