Proposal to introduce provisions for

• the approval of Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) systems
• a “two-step Human Machine Interface” in the requirements for Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF) of Category C lane-change functions, and
• to resolve measurement concerns in the test requirements for ACSF of Category B1 and C by introducing provisions for tolerances, including:
  • inclusion of the position at which the lateral acceleration was measured and the position of the centre of gravity of the vehicle for better traceablility,
  • sampling rate of at least 100 Hz for dynamic testing,
  • specification of filters and cut-off frequency for determination of lateral acceleration,
  • option to measure “overriding force” torque via an internal sensor or an external device (e.g., steering robot).

The proposed text combines the proposed changes in GRVA/2020/8 (proposal for a maximum time of 15 seconds for a lane change) with the adopted changes in GRVA/2019/24.

Proposal combining the proposed changes of GRVA/2020/9 with the previously adopted changes in GRVA/2019/24.

Amendments to refine the proposal to increase maximum lateral acceleration limit values up to 4 m/s² for speeds up to 80 km/h for M1/[N1] category vehicles, provided there is no heavy rain and ambient air temperatures are above 4°C. The proposal sets the speed at 60 kph while specifying a linear reduction of lateral acceleration to a maximum 3 m/s² at 80 kph.

Proposal for provisions concerning:

• B1 lane centering
• ACSF activation conditions
• Driver override
• Clarification of ACSF standby-mode
• Clarification of “ready-to-intervene"
• Indication to the driver in case of suppression
• Clarification of suppression criteria
• Sensor test before activation.

Video demonstration of RCP system.

The proposal to clarify that enabling the system under the test procedure is only necessary in cases where the system is not already in the enabled state.

ACSF systems in use were brought to market based on exemption approvals in the EU. These systems show a good and safe performance. Approvals according to UN R79/03 would force modifications to currently used systems without any apparent safety benefit. The current formula for the calculation of s_critical does not take the dynamic behaviour of the vehicles into account, therefore requires gaps that under some traffic conditions don’t usually occur. Since there are different ways of addressing the dynamic behaviour of the vehicles with regard to the original formula, this proposal would allow the manufacturer to specify its own formula provided the safety principle is maintained.

Proposal to allow ACSF-B lateral acceleration above the maximum limit value in cases where the lane position cannot be maintained by the vehicle (for example, on a tightening curve).

Proposal to clarify conditions for automatic deactivation of the direction indicator pursuant to a lane change maneuver.

Presentation on the safety benefit of automated emergency steering in case of confirmed driver inability to perform the driving task.

This proposal intends to allow the system to have a grace time in order to deal with unexpected changes in the radius of the curvature of the bend, by allowing the system to exceed the imposed ayxsmax limit of 3 m/s² by a maximum of 40% for up to 2 seconds.

Proposal to resolve measurement concerns in the test requirements for ACSF of Category B1 and C by introducing provisions for tolerances, including:

1. inclusion of the position at which the lateral acceleration was measured and the position of the centre of gravity of the vehicle for better traceablility,
2. sampling rate of at least 100 Hz for dynamic testing,
3. specification of filters and cut-off frequency for determination of lateral acceleration,
4. option to measure “overriding force” torque via an internal sensor or an external device (e.g., steering robot).

The proposal also would modify the high-speed test to end once the system has given an optical “hands-off” warning since the entire warning cascade is checked during the low-speed test. For M₂ and M₃ vehicles, the amendment allows a corrective steering function to use haptic signals as an alternative to acoustic signals for these categories of vehicles that are equipped with Lane Departure Warning System compliant with UN R130. This change would specify that the haptic warning may not be given solely via the steering wheel (e.g., provided in the driver’s seat).

Proposal to stipulate that “Automatic deactivation by the system of the direction indicator is required only if the lane change manoeuvre is initiated automatically, and if the direction indicator control is not fully engaged (latched position) during the lane change manoeuvre.” The proposal also would modify the high-speed test to end once the system has given an optical “hands-off” warning since the entire warning cascade is checked during the low-speed test. For M₂ and M₃ vehicles, the amendment allows a corrective steering function to use haptic signals as an alternative to acoustic signals for these categories of vehicles that are equipped with Lane Departure Warning System compliant with UN R130. This change would specify that the haptic warning may not be given solely via the steering wheel (e.g., provided in the driver’s seat).

Proposal for provisions concerning:

1. B1 lane centering
2. ACSF activation conditions
3. Driver override
4. Clarification of ACSF standby-mode
5. Clarification of “ready-to-intervene"
6. Indication to the driver in case of suppression
7. Clarification of suppression criteria
8. Sensor test before activation.

Proposal to amend Annex 8 (Test requirements for Corrective and Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF)), paragraph 3.5. (Tests for ACSF of Category C) in order to clarify that enabling of the system as part of the test procedure is only necessary when the system is not yet enabled.

Proposal to permit the manufacturer to specify its own formula for the calculation of s_critical. The current formula does not take the dynamic behaviour of vehicles into account and therefore requires gaps that under some traffic conditions don’t usually occur. Since there are different ways of addressing the dynamic behaviour of the vehicles with regard to the original formula, this proposal would allow the manufacturer to specify its own formula provided the safety principle is maintained.

This proposal revises the changes proposed in document GRVA/2020/7 based on stakeholder feedback. The proposal introduces provisions for M₁ vehicle to allow for lateral accelerations up to 40% greater than the 3 m/s² limitation for a period up to two seconds in order to in order navigate unexpected changes in the radius of the curvature of a bend and avoid driving behaviour that may be unexpected and/or confusing to the operator and following vehicles.

Proposal for amendments to document GRVA/2020/22.

Proposal for an alternative to ensure user attentiveness when activating a remote-controlled parking system.

Proposal to modify the following elements:

1. paragraph 5.6.4.2.3., delete “temporarily”
2. paragraph 5.6.4.5.2.1., replace “actually” by “anticipated to be”
3. paragraph 5.6.4.6.6., B1 shall resume “in a timely manner”
4. paragraph 5.6.4.6.8.1., clarify the suppression criteria
5. paragraph 5.6.4.7., define distance tolerances for lane-change critical distances
6. Annex 8, Paragraph 2., Carry over the language already adopted for ACSF B1: “At the manufacturer’s discretion and with the agreement of the Technical Service, a lane with a width of less than 3.5 m may be used, if the correct function of the system on roads with wider lanes can be demonstrated.” and allow for lower temperature and wet surface test conditions, and
7. Annex 8, Paragraph 3.5.1.2. (j), amend the pass condition with regard to direction indicator deactivation.

Consolidated proposal incorporating comments from OICA/CLEPA, CITA, Germany, and AVERE (including most recent proposal to the 7th GRVA session).

This document proposes a new 04 series of amendments to Regulation 79 with regard to a system that aims at bringing the vehicle to a safe stop in case of driver unavailability, defining a “risk mitigation function”.

Proposal to permit manoeuvring assistance in defined low speed driving situations to reduce damages and injuries.

The intention of the proposed amendment is to clarify the existing text on continued support of an ACSF B1 if the boundary conditions are exceeded. It clarifies that under certain circumstances, e.g. if there are no lane markings present or if the vehicle has already drifted substantially out of the lane such that the lane may no longer be recognized, a continuation of support may no longer be possible or reasonable.

Proposal to allow a grace time in order to deal with unexpected changes in the radius of the curvature of a bend by permitting the system to exceed the ay_smax limit of 3 m/s² by a maximum of 40 per cent for up to two seconds.

Proposal to clarify that a continuation of support by a Category B1 ACSF after its boundary conditions have been exceeded may not be possible under conditions as outlined in the manufacturer’s safety concept.

Proposal to

1. Align lane-centering provisions with principles applied to UN R157 (ALKS)
2. Permit Category C ACSF to remain in stand-by during temporary roadway transitions
3. Clarify overriding provision (para. 5.6.4.3) reference to stand-by mode
4. Introduce a tolerance factor for “critical situation” lane changes
5. clarification to test conditions
6. Align direction indicator deactivation under a pass conditions with previously adopted provisions.

Proposal to allow up to seven seconds to start and perform a lane change.

Proposal to introduce provisions for truck/trailer data transmission for Category C ACSF.

Proposal to allow continuous movement of the driver as an alternative to the continuous actuation of the remote-control device as a means to assure driver attentiveness.

Proposal to introduce a Risk Mitigation Function designed to bring a vehicle to a safe stop in the event of fallback driver unavailability.

Proposal to amend Annex 8 (Test requirements for Corrective and Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF)), paragraph 3.5. (Tests for ACSF of Category C) in order to clarify that enabling of the system as part of the test procedure is only necessary when the system is not yet enabled.

List of decisions subject to the special “silence procedure” whereby parties may signal any reservations concerning the decisions following the session proper. This procedure was adopted due to the shortened and virtual sessions necessitated by current health and travel restrictions.