Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
DISMISSAL CAR CIRCLE PROCEDURES. 0UR GOAL IS TO SAFELY LOAD STUDENTS AND MINIMIZE PARENT WAIT TIME.
Advertisements

© Ricardo plc 2012 Eric Chan, Ricardo UK Ltd 21 st October 2012 SARTRE Demonstration System The research leading to these results.
Parallel Parking Identify 1½ Car Lengths of Available Space
The necessity of New Regulations for New Technologies regarding R79 Japan September / 2012 Informal document GRRF (73rd GRRF, September 2012,
Basic maneuvers.
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
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)
Postponing or Aborting a Lane Change During this activity you are the driver of the red car.
ACSF Informal Group Industry proposals 1 st Meeting of ACSF informal group April 29 and 30, 2015 in Bonn 1 Informal Document ACSF
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.
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
Traffic Accidents caused by Lane Departure in Japan  Data of Traffic Accidents around Japan Transmitted by the expert from Japan Informal document GRRF
DEFENSIVE DRIVING “ A BETTER USE OF MIRRORS” DEFENSIVE DRIVING.
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
IHRA-ITS UN-ECE WP.29 ITS Informal Group Geneva, March, 2011 Design Principles for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: Keeping Drivers In-the-Loop Transmitted.
lesson 4.2 BASIC DRIVING MANEUVERS
Protective Braking for ACSF Informal Document: ACSF
Minimum Risk Manoeuvres (MRM)
Research on HMI Homework item 1 (ACSF-01-13)
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.
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.
Informal document GRRF-84-32
Informal Document: ACSF-06-16
Discussion paper – Major Issues
7th ACSF meeting London, June 28-30, 2016
Presentation of ACSF C tests
Submitted by the experts of Japan Informal Document: ACSF-06-25
Industry proposal Driver availability recognition system
Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
Lane change driver reaction times
Lane change driver reaction times
ACSF-C2 2-actions system
Working Principle of Blind Spot Detection Technology in Cars
ACSF Category B1 (LKAS) Concern with “Default-on” strategy
Submitted by the Expert of Sweden
ACSF C tests Prepared by JAPAN 15 November, 2017
Side No-Zones.
Signalling of information and warnings
Quintessences Proposal for Category C of Germany and Japan
          Driver Safety Meeting.
ACSF B1+C functional description
Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C
Industry input to ACSF 11th meeting March 2017, Berlin
“ A BETTER USE OF MIRRORS”
Hands-off detection warning time for B1-systems
Informal Document: ACSF-10-08
Definition of aysmax Interpretation 1
“ A BETTER USE OF MIRRORS”
lesson 4.2 BASIC DRIVING MANEUVERS
Safety considerations on Emergency Manoeuver
Informal document No. GRSG-87-7
Maximum allowable Override Force
ACSF - Category C1 Definition of Sensor range and safety distances
ACSF B1+C functional description
Emergency Steering Function
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
Regulation ECE R79-03 ACSF C 2-Step HMI
Automated Lane Keeping Systems
Informal document GRVA-04-34
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C Submitted by the experts of OICA and CLEPA Informal Document: ACSF-11-07 Comparison of Cat.C HMI solution and vehicle without Cat.C Industry input to ACSF 11th meeting March 2017, Berlin V2.5

Manual lane change without ACSF C B1+C Lane Change - HMI solution 1. Necessity of a lane change Visualy by the driver Visualy by the driver 2. Detection of free space in the adjacent lane The driver monitors the environment The driver monitors the environment

Manual lane change without ACSF C B1+C Lane Change - HMI solution 3. Initiation of the lane change procedure Activation of the direction indicator by the driver Activation of the direction indicator and „arming“ of Cat.C lane change by the driver (by the stalk or another means) Number of flashes depends on driver Minimum 3 flashes in all cases. Use of direction indicator guaranteed. 4. Monitoring of the traffic The driver monitors the whole environment (front, side and rear). The driver monitors the whole environment (front, side and rear). ACSF supports the driver until start of manoeuver  favors good monitoring by the driver.

Manual lane change without ACSF C B1+C Lane Change - HMI solution 5. Lane change manoeuver The driver steers to the chosen lane and monitor the traffic The driver initiates the manoeuver, the system assist the driver to steer into the chosen lane, while the driver can pay more attention on the traffic situation Reduction of the workload + Smooth / standardized manoeuver 6. Finalize the lane change Back to driving in the lane (w or w/o B1). Back to B1

Conclusions B1+C HMI solution: brings safety advantages during lane change vs no ACSF and vs B1 only brings no drawback vs no ACSF and vs B1 only Blind spot / rearward sensors bring the same safety advantages if they are implemented with or without ACSF C Current ACSF C solutions on the market are using « pre-existing blind spot / rearward detection systems-functions » Since they are there, let’s use them with ACSF C… They are not a must for a safe B1+C…