ACSF - Traffic Jam Assist on all roads OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June 16-17 Informal Document ACSF-02-08.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Connected Vehicles AASHTO Annual Meeting | October 17, 2013 | Denver, CO Mike Cammisa Director, Safety Association of Global Automakers.
Advertisements

Indirect Field of Vision in Large Vehicles 1 Informal document GRSG (103rd GRSG, 2-5 October 2012 Agenda item 12) Submitted by the expert from Japan.
OICA/CLEPA Homework Part I HMI, Driver in/out of the Loop Submitted by the experts of OICA/CLEPA Tokyo, June 2015 Informal Document ACSF
OICA HCV industry input to ACSF informal Group #1 Meeting & 30 in Bonn Informal Document ACSF
Annex 12 #2.6.4 Camera Monitor arrangement Paris, 5th June 2014IG CMS II 3rd meetingPage 1 IGCMS-II
ACSF Informal Group Industry proposals 1 st Meeting of ACSF informal group April 29 and 30, 2015 in Bonn 1 Informal Document ACSF
The Promotion of Active Safety Measures in Japan - collision damage mitigation brake - September 2007 Road Transport Bureau Road Transport Bureau MLIT.
1 Different use cases for ACSF Prepared from the experts of OICA and CLEPA Informal Document ACSF
The future of road safety Michael Meyer Robert Bosch GmbH.
Autonomous Vehicles in California Stephanie Dougherty Chief, Enterprise Planning & Performance California Department of Motor Vehicles July 22, 2015.
Outline of Definition of Automated Driving Technology Document No. ITS/AD (5th ITS/AD, 24 June 2015, agenda item 3-2) Submitted by Japan.
Presentation for Document ACSF-03-03_rev1 Oliver Kloeckner September rd meeting of the IG ASCF Munich, Airport Informal Document.
Difference for "Automatically commanded steering function", "Corrective steering function" and " Autonomous Steering System " Informal Document: ACSF
Vehicle Safety - (R)Evolution of Driving Assist Systems Jochen Schäfer Heiner Hunold Submitted by the experts from Informal document GRRF th GRRF,
1 ACSF Test Procedure Draft proposal – For discussion OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF
Identification of regulatory needs for ACSF Oliver Kloeckner 16-17th June nd meeting of the IG ASCF Tokyo – Jasic Office Informal Document.
Protective Braking for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Minimum Risk Manoeuvres (MRM)
Safety Distances and Object Classifications for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Results of the Study on ACSF Transition Time Informal Document: ACSF National Traffic Safety and Environment Laboratory, Japan 4th Meeting of ACSF.
5 th ACSF meeting French views Bonn January 2016 Informal Document - ACSF Submitted by the expert of France.
CLEPA Position Special GRRF Session on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems Brainstorming Meeting 9 Dec UN Palais des.
Common Understanding on Major Horizontal Issues and Legal Obstacles Excerpts from the relevant sections of the ToR: II. Working items to be covered (details.
Study of Pedestrian’s fatal accidents (vs. motor vehicles at low speed) in Japan 110 th GRSG MLIT, Japan Informal document GRSG (110th GRSG,
1 6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016 Requirements for “Sensor view” & Environment monitoring version 1.0 Transmitted by the Experts of OICA and CLEPA.
Hand-off Warning Time of LKA
Informal document GRRF-84-32
On-board Technologies
Discussion paper – Major Issues
Lane Change Test for ACSF
7th ACSF meeting London, June 28-30, 2016
Presentation of ACSF C tests
Common Understanding on Major Horizontal Issues and Legal Obstacles
Submitted by the expert form Japan Document No. ITS/AD-09-12
Annex 12 #2.6.4 Camera Monitor arrangement
Smart Car through IoT 라이 아샤리 리날디
Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
Lane change driver reaction times
Timing to be activated the hazard lights
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
The specified maximum speed of ACSF system
Industry views on GRVA priorities and organization
Industry views on GRVA priorities and organization
Informal document GRRF-86-36
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
Industry Homework from AEB 02
Submitted by the Expert of Sweden
Submitted by the experts of OICA
Quintessences Proposal for Category C of Germany and Japan
Traffic Safety.
Safety Distance to the front
ACSF B1+C functional description
On-board Technologies
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
Behaviour of M2 & M3 general construction in case of Fire Event
Hands-off detection warning time for B1-systems
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Definition of aysmax Interpretation 1
Highly Automated Vehicles Law Enforcement Needs / Questions
Maximum allowable Override Force
ACSF B1+C functional description
Interpretation of CSF warnings #2
ACSF B2 SAE Level 2 and/or Level 3
ACSF B2 and C2 Industry expectations from ACSF IG Tokyo meeting
Hands-off detection versus Start of Lane Change Manoeuvre
6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
Presentation transcript:

ACSF - Traffic Jam Assist on all roads OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF-02-08

Traffic Jam Assist on all roads HCV manufacturers have a high interest for ACSF at “cruise speed” (90km/h), but also for ACSF in traffic jam conditions at lower speeds (e.g. below 40km/h). We agree it is a reasonable way to start implementing in a limited environment, i.e. on highway with constructional separation between the two traffic directions. However, this condition should only apply to “cruise speed” ACSF functions, but not to “traffic jam assist” ACSF, since limited to lower speed Thus our proposal is to open ACSF “traffic jam assist” functions on all type of roads, including those without constructional separation, this on the following basis: – Low speed traffic jam assist ACSF (below [40km/h]; without lane change capabilities) is not as safety critical as cruise speed ACSF (90km/h and lane change capabilities), thus the condition for constructional separation looks over-specified (unnecessary) for traffic jam assist – The “use rate” of the function would be highly increased if permitted on all roads, which would relief truck drivers from very tiring and boring tasks, leading to unnecessary tiredness, which is indirectly positive for safety – In a traffic jam, constructional separation may be hidden behind 1 or 2 lanes of stopped vehicles (if the truck is on the right lane, and the two other lanes on the left are crowded with vehicles), making the detection of the separation by the system erratic (which would lead to ACSF unwanted disabling)

Traffic Jam Assist on all roads A way forward could be to define different types of ACSF, with different requirement levels, for example: ACSF typeRequirements ACSF < 10km/h same requirements as today ACSF < [40km/h] ACSF with LK only “traffic jam assist” allowed on all type of roads (even without constructional separation) provided lane change is disabled when used in traffic jam ACSF < [130km/h]  ACSF with LK only  ACSF with LK and Lane Change the system shall have some means to detect “highway conditions”. When the system detects the vehicle is on highway, the system is enabled.