Informal document GRRF-84-32

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The necessity of New Regulations for New Technologies regarding R79 Japan September / 2012 Informal document GRRF (73rd GRRF, September 2012,
Advertisements

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
Comparison between TOR of IG-ITS/AD and SAE Levels*1
Proposal of Automated Driving from Ad- hoc group on LKAS/RCP Submitted by the Chair of the Special Interest Group on Lane Keeping Assist Systems (LKAS)
Automatically Commanded Steering Function
ACSF Informal Group Industry proposals 1 st Meeting of ACSF informal group April 29 and 30, 2015 in Bonn 1 Informal Document ACSF
AFS Main Beam (Driving Beam) Improvements Presentation to WP th Session November 2008 Informal document No. WP th WP.29, November.
1 Development of California Regulations for the Testing and Operation of Automated Vehicles on Public Roads Steven E. Shladover, Sc.D.Ching-Yao Chan, Ph.D.
Definition for Levels of Automation
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.
1 ACSF Test Procedure Draft proposal – For discussion OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF
Remote Control Parking (RCP)
Identification of regulatory needs for ACSF Oliver Kloeckner 16-17th June nd meeting of the IG ASCF Tokyo – Jasic Office Informal Document.
Informal document GRSG
Protective Braking for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Minimum Risk Manoeuvres (MRM)
Common Understanding on Major Horizontal Issues and Legal Obstacles Excerpts from the relevant sections of the ToR: II. Working items to be covered (details.
ACSF - Traffic Jam Assist on all roads OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF
1 6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016 Requirements for “Sensor view” & Environment monitoring version 1.0 Transmitted by the Experts of OICA and CLEPA.
OICA „Certification of automated Vehicles“
Discussion paper – Major Issues
7th ACSF meeting London, June 28-30, 2016
Common Understanding on Major Horizontal Issues and Legal Obstacles
TPMS OICA POSITION Informal document No. GRRF-64-29
Submitted by the expert form Japan Document No. ITS/AD-09-12
Initial project results: Annex 6 – 20 Sept 2016
Industry proposal Driver availability recognition system
Prepared by LF Pardo (France)
Concept of ACSF TAN (Type Approval Number)
Submitted by UNECE Document No. ITS/AD-07-07
Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1
UNR116 splitting Informal document GRSG
Timing to be activated the hazard lights
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
Informal document GRRF-86-36
Statement of Principles on the Design of High-Priority Warning Signals
Submitted by OICA Document No. ITS/AD-14-07
ACSF-19, September 03-05, 2018, Paris
Informal document GRE-79-16
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA)
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Quintessences Proposal for Category C of Germany and Japan
Automated Driving Systems: A Vision for Safety
Submitted by OICA Document No. ITS/AD Rev1
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
New Assessment & Test Methods
ACSF – Automated Driving Systems Taxonomy and Definitions - SAE J3016 Jean-Michel Roy Transport Canada.
Report on Automated Vehicle activities
WP.29 and GRVA activities on Automated Vehicles
Industry input to ACSF 11th meeting March 2017, Berlin
Behaviour of M2 & M3 general construction in case of Fire Event
International Telecommunication Union CITS meeting 8 March 2019 Geneva Status report of the GRVA activities Context, current activities and impact François.
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Highlights of the 177th WP.29 session and
Maximum allowable Override Force
Informal document GRRF-78-41
Submitted by the expert
ACSF-17 – Industry Preparation
A proposal for approach to proceed work in Cybersecurity TF
ACSF B2 SAE Level 2 and/or Level 3
ACSF B2 and C2 Industry expectations from ACSF IG Tokyo meeting
6th ACSF meeting Tokyo, April 2016
Status of the French legislation on shuttles
Status of the Informal Working Group on ACSF
Regulation ECE R79-03 ACSF C 2-Step HMI
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
Presentation transcript:

Informal document GRRF-84-32 84th GRRF, 19–22 September 2017 Agenda item 8(b) Regarding Secondary Activities during Automated Driving Joint Meeting WP.29-GRRF and WP.1 GRRF-84 – WP1-75 18-22 September 2017

Introduction Secondary activities have also been referred to as side activities/tasks, non-driving activities/tasks, secondary tasks Secondary activities in the context of automated/autonomous driving (Level 3 -5) mean activities that go beyond the use of e.g. radio/navigation/Air Conditioning/Heating systems etc. that are established today for manual/assisted driving. Examples of secondary activities for automated driving: reading and writing e-mails, texting, etc. (see also ITS-AD-06-05) OICA proposes to use the term “secondary activities”

Manufacturers’ Approach For secondary activities in the context of Automated Driving Systems (i.e. Level 3 and some Level 4 systems): Manufacturers focus on vehicle integrated communication displays for the use of secondary activities (so called “infotainment systems”) that are operated from the driver’s seat On-board integrated solutions for secondary activities are developed under full control of the vehicle manufacturer. On-board integrated infotainment can be controlled by the automation system: in case of a take-over request, secondary activities are automatically terminated by the system (i.e. the projection on the screen instantly vanishes and the takeover request is instead displayed) Automation system ensures sufficient lead time for a safe take- over Note: Levels 3 & 4: Automated Driving functions that still require a driver either during or at the end of the use-case.

Manufacturers’ Approach For secondary activities in the context of Autonomous Driving Systems (i.e. some Level 4 and Level 5 systems): The conventional driver becomes a “passenger”. Driver take-over not relevant anymore. “Passenger’s” distraction is not a safety issue anymore Note: Autonomous Driving Functions (Level 4 & 5) are those functions which do not require a conventional driver

Secondary Activities in the traffic laws as of Today Traffic laws regulate the obligations of the driver while technical vehicle regulations define a minimum level of requirements to ensure road safety. Traffic laws: As of today, there are national differences regarding secondary activities that are permitted and drivers themselves have to decide if and when they use them (in compliance with national traffic law). Vehicle technology: For manually driven vehicles, the manufacturers have committed to HMI principles/guidelines (e.g. European Standard of Principles, ESoP) to minimize driver’s distraction while driving.

Current Status WP29/IWG ITS-AD and GRRF ITS-AD-12-05-3: The driver may perform secondary activities only with appropriate reaction times when using automated driving functions of Levels 3 and 4 (there is still a driver). Recommendation that the vehicle built-in displays are used for secondary activities since they can be controlled by the automated driving function. ACSF-06-28 Para 5.6.1.4.6.: In case the vehicle is fitted with a built-in infotainment system, content visible to the driver, which is not relevant for driving, shall be deactivated as long as a transition demand is issued.” The system performs emergency manoeuvres, the driver is not expected to intervene immediately as at Level 1 and Level 2 (assisted driving). The system initiates the minimal risk manoeuvre if no manual takeover is detected following a takeover demand

Current Status WP1/IGEAD Two leading principles (Levels* 3 & 4): Secondary activities shall not prevent the driver from responding to demands from the vehicle systems for taking over the driving task Secondary activities shall be consistent with the prescribed use of the vehicle systems and their defined functions. Application of these principles is subject of the national traffic laws and may be further regulated nationally Ongoing debate at WP.1 on how to manage the agreed principles in the Vienna Convention * Levels 3 & 4: Automated Driving functions that still require a driver either during or at the end of the use-case.

Next Steps Good collaboration between WP.29 and WP.1 will permit avoiding any legal gap(s) between the driver’s requirements and the vehicle’s construction requirements The intended use of automated driving functions of Levels* 3 and 4 can be further detailed by the industry Collaboration between the WP.1 and WP.29 relevant groups is key in the process of exchanging knowledge and approaches in regulating automated and autonomous driving functions. * Autonomous Driving Functions (Level 4 & 5) are those functions which do not require a conventional driver