Proposal to add an interpretation of the term “other road user” in para. 2.21. of Definitions. The proposal defines “other road user” (ORU) as any entity making use of publicly accessible road infrastructure, covering users making intentional use of roadways with knowledge of traffic rules and other sentient entities that might be found in vehicle paths but cannot be expected to respond predictably based on vehicle signals or traffic rules, such as children and animals. The safety case would address both classes of ORU with appropriate adaptation to account for lower predictability of child and animal behaviours where relevant to the ODD of an ADS feature.

Proposal to add animals and other road users as examples of entities an ADS may encounter in driving situations and test scenarios. The revised text adds “animals, or other road users” to the illustrative example in para. 2.33 and para. 2.34, and replaces “pedestrians” with “these entities” in the corresponding sentence about scenario design. This ensures scenario design used to demonstrate ADS competency explicitly accounts for animal encounters alongside pedestrians and other road users.

Proposal to add animals and children to examples of safety-relevant objects in para. 6.1.2.8. The revision inserts “Animals and children (in or adjacent to the roadway, under the vehicle carriage, etc)” into the illustrative and non-exhaustive list of safety-relevant objects. The proposal removes ambiguity for manufacturers developing safety cases and ensures consistent treatment across ADS requirements, making explicit that animals and children are safety-relevant objects even though they cannot be expected to respond predictably based on vehicle signals, traffic rules, or common conventions.