Next Step of TFRA Chair of TFRA

As a results of questionnaire research, current status and future positions of each country are clarified. Some opinions are inconsistent each other. So, it would be required to have further discussions on those points to develop consolidated proposals of TF to GRB. Basically, I would like to propose to exchange first views of participants to this meeting with some discussion points in the following slides, and then proceed discussion furthermore based on the data (or theory) in next or thereafter task force meeting.

Scope of category 1. 2. Some categories are already clarified in the TOR, but the others are no yet clarified. 　　Already clarified in the TOR : M3, N3, 　　TO BE clarified : [M2] and [N2]　 　　New comer from the result of questionnaire 　 :O4, school bus In Some countries, O4 and school bus are mandatory. Further discussion would be necessary? TOR also mentioned about “taking into account non-audible system” and “making discussion taking into account other safety devices.” We need to follow the discussions of VRU-Proxi (IWG under GRSG). 　Is there anyone who has some information?

Sound Level 1. 2. 3. As a results of questionnaire, the majority of opinions of CPs to SPL (A-weighted Sound Pressure Level) is about 50 - 80 dB at 7m distance,　but Spain has another opinion (higher SPL). But in my opinion, we don’t have enough date to discuss. How should be the test method of the SPL in the regulation? Mounted or stand alone? Of course, SPL changes mounting to the vehicle or unit alone. How do we measure low limit value at proving ground? Present lower limit is around 50 dB. It would be difficult to measure 50 dB sound at proving ground. To the countermeasure of this problem, it could be discussed in this group to have closer measurement point in the meetings thereafter. (ex. 50 dB @7m is 60.9 dB 2m.)

Pause switch and re-operation from pause switch/low mode. 1. 2. No CP has a position to allow Pause Switch. I think when RA would be a only Safety function for reverse moving, there is no evidence which justify allowing Pause switch. What is the opinion of this group? In Japan, a fatal accident happened due to NO RA. The vehicle had had RA originally, but the vehicle driver had stopped the RA function by cutting-off the wiring of RA because of complains from nearby residents. Could it be a solution to have some different SPL modes like low-SPL. What should be the “Default Mode” in case of the engine starting. If the RA is a only safety device, in my opinion, it should be ensured to have a good safety function at the beginning of driving automatically notwithstanding the last SPL mode.

Sound quality Do we have good evidence which gives good rationality to regulate sound quality (sound frequency )? From my point of view, it seems to be important to realize that there are various sound quality already used in the world. Should we prohibit usage of specific quality of sound? <for example> ・Tonal sound ・Broad band sound

Opinion at GRB #67 Switzerland suggests “reversing alarm” should be called “reverse warning sound”. What is the opinion of this group?