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.

The 01 series of amendments aims at increasing the performance requirements in the Car to Pedestrian
scenario by permitting only reduced maximum impact speed compared to the original version of this
Regulation. Thereby the same maximum impact speed is required for the Car to Pedestrian as for the
Car to Car scenario. However, in the original proposal (GRVA/2019/16), the permitted maximum impact speed for an N₁ vehicle erroneously corresponds to that of an M₁ vehicle. This proposal corrects the error.

Pursuant to discussions during the 9th session of the informal working group on AEBS for M₁/N₁, paragraphs 6.5.2. (pass conditions regarding “car-to-car moving” collision warning) and 6.6.2. (pass conditions regarding the collision warning in the Car to Pedestrian scenario) were deleted given that pass conditions were already defined by the general requirements. For consistency, this proposal would delete the pass conditions under the car-to-car stationary scenario.

Supporting the proposal for repetition of a limited number of unsuccessful test runs to compensate for external test influences.

Input on car-to-bicycle, false reaction avoidance, temporary deactivation provisions.

Commented version of the working draft amendments. Revised to include additional AEBS stakeholder comments.

Proposal to change PBC from 0.9 to 1.0, indicate the reference tyre, note the lighting conditions, and allow for deviating test conditions at the manufacturer’s discretion and with the agreement of the Technical Service under the car-to-bicycle test provisions.

Argument for revising the PBC values used in the regulation based on technological progress in tyres and impact on road-friction parameters.

Proposal to amend the peak braking coefficient and related test method provisions.

Proposal to clarify AEBS restart, including that an automatic engine restart (stop/start systems) does not require a reactivation of the AEBS, to allow for electromagnetic compatibility demonstration via the 06 series of amendments to UN R10, to move provisions for Indication of an ongoing initialization from the section on failure indications to a separate paragraph, and to make an editorial correction.

Proposal to amend provisions related to the AEBS peak braking coefficient.

Proposal to align the wording with regard to “dry road affording good adhesion” across the series to avoid confusion with use of “dry road” under different contexts by other regulations.

Proposal to clarify the interpretation of “engine start/run cycle”.

Australia proposes to amend para. 2.14. to clarify that the nominal Peak Braking Coefficient value is understood to be the minimum value, and to amend para. 5.2.1.1. to simplify collision warning requirements for vehicles of category M₁. Industry objects the para. 2.14. amendment as unnecessary and potentially subject to misinterpretation as a requirement change. Industry agrees with dropping the 0.8-second prior warning requirement but finds the resulting text difficult to understand and proposes alternative wording that harmonizes para. 5.2.1.1. with paras. 5.2.2.1. and 5.2.3.1., specifying that a collision warning shall be provided no later than the start of emergency braking intervention.