Documents (Latest posted on 29 Jul 2021)
Related Meetings : Working Party on Automated and Connected Vehicles | Session 2
Documentation Discussion/Report
GRVA-02-20
GRVA-02-21
GRVA-02-32
GRVA-02-35
GRVA-02-36
GRVA-02-47

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

15. The expert from ISO introduced GRVA-02-32, presenting the outcome of the ISO working group dealing with the safety of the intended functionality as defined in ISO/PAS 21448. GRVA discussed aspects of the presentation e.g. the definition of an acceptable minimum level of safety, the notion of residual risk, and noted the work done as well as the convergence of this work with the activities of GRVA.

16. The expert from OICA presented briefly GRVA-02-20, introducing GRVA-02-21 with considerations on Data Storage Systems for Automated Driving (DSSAD). GRVA agreed on the need to make progress on this item and requested the secretariat to introduce a new agenda item on DSSAD for the next session of GRVA.

32. The expert from Japan, on behalf of the Co-chair of the IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF), introduced GRVA-02-35, containing a status report on the activities of the IWG. He mentioned the consensus reached by the group so far on: Automated Lane Keeping System (ALKS) activation criteria, driver presence provisions, transition demand provisions, minimum risk manoeuvre and emergency manoeuvre considered in parallel with the transition demand provisions. He also mentioned the challenge related to a vehicle not implementing all driver inputs when an ALKS was activated (e.g. in the case of unintended action by the driver), that should be discussed with WP.1. The Chair of GRVA noted that there was a concern that the minimum risk manoeuvre should not automatically result in a vehicle stopping in a live traffic lane.

33. The expert from Spain asked how to verify the activation criteria related to the vehicle driving on roads where pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited at the time of Type Approval. The expert from Germany answered that one technical solution could imply inspecting the maps used by the system.

34. The secretariat asked whether maps would be in the scope of the Regulation. The expert from OICA stated that maps belong to the technical solutions being part of the designs of the system, implying that Regulations on maps would be undesired design requirements. The expert from ITU stated that maps would have to be certified in the future in case maps would serve as redundancy for safety reasons. He also mentioned that maps could have other purposes, e.g. helping Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) to eliminate false positive activations on stationary objects and that therefore map providers would have to be fully liable for their products. He offered to provide GRVA with an overview of map development.

38. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/4 as amended by GRVA-02-19, proposing clarifications to Annex 6 of UN Regulation No. 79. The expert from OICA stated that the amendments proposed would require too much work for the approval of simple braking systems. He added that these amendments would make sense to properly assess Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS). The expert from EC stated that this proposal would be suitable as an amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 but would not be enough for the assessment of ALKS and ADAS. The expert from Spain mentioned that the Type Approval Authority signature provisions’ implications were too far-reaching to be mentioned in a footnote. Spain also observed that the proposal placed too much responsibility on the Type Approval Authority to identify risks and stated that the manufacturer should have that responsibility. The expert from the Netherlands explained that this work initially started for the purpose of ACSF of Category B2 defined in UN Regulation No. 79 and that this explained why the document was titled “Proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79”. The expert from UK volunteered to submit a revised proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79, addressing the comment received. GRVA agreed that similar provisions should be specifically developed for ALKS and systems with higher levels of autonomy. The Chair noted the implications that this would have on the delivery of a regulatory provision for ALKS.