Proposal to update the text in line with the establishment of UN R171 on Driver Control Assistance Systems.

Proposal to update the text in line with the establishment of UN R171 on Driver Control Assistance Systems.

Proposal to clarify the provisions for ACSF Cat. A “Remote Controlled Parking (RCP)” for vehicle combinations. The current definition for RCP S_RCPmax sets a maximum limit of 6m distance to the motor vehicle, which is insufficient in situations where the operation is supervised by the driver located behind the vehicle combination.

Proposal to clarify the provisions for ACSF Cat. A “Remote Controlled Parking (RCP)” for vehicle combinations. The current definition for RCP S_RCPmax sets a maximum limit of 6m distance to the motor vehicle, which is insufficient in situations where the operation is supervised by the driver located behind the vehicle combination. The proposal also amends the text to allow for the approval of vehicles equipped with both an Automated Driving System and a manual driving mode.

Proposal to address cross-referencing issues in UN Regulation No. 79 with respect to UN Regulation No. 130 (Lane Departure Warning System), especially with regard to Australian lane marking specifications.

Proposal to address cross-referencing issues in UN Regulation No. 79 with respect to UN Regulation No. 130 (Lane Departure Warning System), especially with regard to Australian lane marking specifications and to incorporate amendments addressing ACSF systems relative to the new UN Regulation on driver control assistance systems (DCAS).

Proposal to address cross-referencing issues in UN Regulation No. 79 with respect to UN Regulation No. 130 (Lane Departure Warning System), especially with regard to Australian lane marking specifications.

Proposal to differentiate between the scope of UN R79 and the proposed UN Regulation on Driver Control Assistance Systems (DCAS).

Proposal to clarify the cascade of actions regarding activation of ACSF B1 and C and the indication on when the vehicle has entered an eligible road based on the following justification:

1. When the same means is used by the driver to simultaneously activate the Automatically Commanded Steering Function of Category B1 (ACSF B1) and of Category C (ACSF C), both functions switch to standby mode when the vehicle enters an ACSF C eligible road. But if the road is non-eligible to ACSF C, then only the ACSF B1 is activated.
2. With the current text of the regulation, once the vehicle moves to an ACSF C eligible road, the driver must operate again the means to activate the ACSF C. This second deliberate action is confusing for the driver since it makes the manipulation more complex. The current wording discourages most drivers from using this assistance function.
3. The proposed wording permits the following, logical, cascade of actions:
   1. The driver has done a deliberate action to activate ACSF B1 and ACSF C (on a non-eligible road); then
   2. He drives into an eligible road, and is clearly informed thereof; then
   3. He initiates a lane change procedure by activating e.g. the direction indicator.
4. This amendment further clarifies the requirement on the indication of when the vehicle enters an eligible road. It gives some examples of the type of indication to be given to the driver, e.g. additional popup or blinking indication, without being design restrictive.
5. A dedicated status indication of an ACSF C off-mode is by nature already different from the standby or active indication. Therefore, the driver is already sufficiently informed on a potential status change.
6. Regarding paragraph 5.6.4.2.3.: While entering the eligible road, the driver may be distracted or annoyed by this “prominent” indication. His attention resources shall be totally available during this phase. So the system would switch automatically to standby mode when fulfilling these two conditions: reaching an eligible and regular lane of travel. This second condition may be fulfilled for example by implementing a suitable time delay or by a direct verification of the lane of travel. These criteria should be explained, agreed between the technical service and the vehicle manufacturer.

Proposal to clarify the cascade of actions regarding activation of ACSF B1 and C and the indication on when the vehicle has entered an eligible road based on the following justification:

1. When the same means is used by the driver to simultaneously activate the Automatically Commanded Steering Function of Category B1 (ACSF B1) and of Category C (ACSF C), both functions switch to standby mode when the vehicle enters an ACSF C eligible road. But if the road is non-eligible to ACSF C, then only the ACSF B1 is activated.
2. With the current text of the regulation, once the vehicle moves to an ACSF C eligible road, the driver must operate again the means to activate the ACSF C. This second deliberate action is confusing for the driver since it makes the manipulation more complex. The current wording discourages most drivers from using this assistance function.
3. The proposed wording permits the following, logical, cascade of actions:
   1. The driver has done a deliberate action to activate ACSF B1 and ACSF C (on a non-eligible road); then
   2. He drives into an eligible road, and is clearly informed thereof; then
   3. He initiates a lane change procedure by activating e.g. the direction indicator.
4. This amendment further clarifies the requirement on the indication of when the vehicle enters an eligible road. It gives some examples of the type of indication to be given to the driver, e.g. additional popup or blinking indication, without being design restrictive.
5. A dedicated status indication of an ACSF C off-mode is by nature already different from the standby or active indication. Therefore, the driver is already sufficiently informed on a potential status change.
6. Regarding paragraph 5.6.4.2.3.: While entering the eligible road, the driver may be distracted or annoyed by this “prominent” indication. His attention resources shall be totally available during this phase. So the system would switch automatically to standby mode when fulfilling these two conditions: reaching an eligible and regular lane of travel. This second condition may be fulfilled for example by implementing a suitable time delay or by a direct verification of the lane of travel. These criteria should be explained, agreed between the technical service and the vehicle manufacturer.

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 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 from GRVA 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 from GRVA 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 from GRVA 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

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 from GRVA to introduce a “risk mitigation function” (RMF) to enable an automated emergency response to driver incapacitation or unresponsiveness during use of an automatically commanded steering function.

Amendments as agreed during the 10th (May 2021) GRVA session to the proposal to introduce a “risk mitigation function” (RMF) to enable an automated emergency response to driver incapacitation or unresponsiveness during use of an automatically commanded steering function.