General Safety Regulation 5: AEBS – Proportion of M1 vehicles likely to pass the vehicle to pedestrian test of proposed draft regulation June 2019.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

EU Tire Label. April 2011 Tire Performance Label: A Global TrendTrend 2 EU World wide introduction of a tire label EU-Label for the performance in Rolling.

Advertisements

Relation of Speed and Speed Limits to Crashes National Forum on Speeding Washington, D.C., June 15, 2005 Susan Ferguson, Ph.D.

DESIGN FOR CRASHWORTHINESS

GTR-7 IWG Meeting 3 – Summary of Decisions and Actions Page  1  Harmonised drawings -Most drawings and tolerance agreed. Completion expected June  Upright.

Future Assessment of VRU Safety Features

66th ECE Commission Geneva, April 2015 Connectivity and Competitiveness for Sustainable Lives Sustainable Connectivity Includes Safe Mobility Which.

Default Road Load issue Initial Dutch proposal for a Update Progress report Annex 4 Open Issues: WLTP-07-07e 5. Default road load parameters (OIL.

 E k – the energy an object has because it is moving.

Analysis of the influence of aiming, on visibility distance and glare Poland 65 GRE, 29 March 2011 Dr EngTomasz Targosinski Informal document No. GRE

Rate a comparison of two differing quantities can be expressed as a fraction. e.g.Rate of travel 80km/h Fuel Consumption 7.3 L/100km Fuel Price

European Commission Enterprise and Industry New EU Regulation for the approval of 2-3 wheel vehicles and UNECE Regulations on sound level Working party.

THE SOCIETY OF MOTOR MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS LIMITEDPAGE 1 Poland: comments on OICA comments on GRE/2012/27 Headlamp Initial Aiming and leveling tolerances.

The position of the Aluminium Industry on the proposed regulation to reduce CO 2 emissions from cars EPP-ED hearing Bernard Gilmont.

France consideration on maximum noise in Global Technical Regulation on Quiet Road Transport Vehicles ECE-TRANS-WP29-GRB-58 Informal document GRB

The future of road safety Michael Meyer Robert Bosch GmbH.

Headform tests Data INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS January 06 Pedestrian Safety GRSP Informal Group January 06.

Evolution of UNECE R29 OICA proposal

Traffic Accidents caused by Lane Departure in Japan  Data of Traffic Accidents around Japan Transmitted by the expert from Japan Informal document GRRF

1 ACSF Test Procedure Draft proposal – For discussion OICA and CLEPA proposal for the IG Group ACSF Tokyo, 2015, June Informal Document ACSF

Research on Daytime Running Lamps of 4-wheeled Vehicles Expert from JAPAN Transmitted by the expert from Japan Informal document GRE (74th GRE,

IHRA Side Impact Working Group Status Report GRSP, December 2002

Geneva, 09 December Commission Proposal on the General Safety of Motor Vehicles Automotive Unit- F1 Geneva, 09 December Informal document No.

Deliverable 10 Contents  Vehicles/engines  Diesel passenger cars  Gasoline (PFI-DISI) passenger cars  Diesel heavy duty vehicles  Diesel heavy duty.

Netherlands’ presentation for Informal Group on Frontal Impact of GRSP 6 Oct UNECE Reg.94 - Past, Present & Future Presentation by the expert from.

WLTP-12-17e Status report about the work of the gearshift issues task force.

51 st GRSP Session Status report of Informal Group on FI Pierre CASTAING Chairman Informal document GRSP (51 st GRSP, May 2012, agenda item.

Chapter8: Conservation of Energy 8-7 Gravitational Potential Energy and Escape Velocity 8-8 Power HW6: Chapter 9: Pb. 10, Pb. 25, Pb. 35, Pb. 50, Pb. 56,

Higher Speed Rail: How Soon? Key Regulatory & Transactional Issues Kevin M. Sheys

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.

Public Conference December

Reporting on new technologies and the way forward

Informal Document: ACSF Rev.1

Dr. Patrick Seiniger, Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)

Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS)

Technical Feasibility

Mobile Air-conditioning (MAC):

WLTP Modelling of fuel consumption and detection of driveability problems for “borderline” cars with different maximum speed caps. Heinz Steven

AUTOMOBILE PARTS.

AEBS/LDW Proposed changes with regard to the implementation of technical specifications for Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) GRRF st.

Proposal for UN Regulation on AEBS for M1/N1

Alternative Approach to UN R13 Type-IIA for Battery Electric Vehicles

Dr. Patrick Seiniger, Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)

Industry Homework from AEB 02

Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS

Use of data for intervention design: Sweden experience Matts-Åke Belin PhD Adj. Professor Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Swedish Transport Administration.

Submitted by the experts of OICA

AEB IWG 06 – Industry Input

Safety Distance to the front

Reason for performance difference between LVW and GVW

Overview of Test Procedures, etc

Proposals from the Informal Working Group on AEBS

AEB 07 – Euro NCAP Summary Overview

AEB IWG 02-XX Industry Position

The Apparatus Trolley 2 Trolley 1 Pin Timer Tape Track Cork.

Work progress regarding Self-Protection

AEB IWG 02 ISO Standard: FVCMS

AEB 07 – Industry Input.

Informal Document: ACSF-10-08

WLTP Modelling of fuel consumption and detection of driveability problems for “borderline” cars with different maximum speed caps. Heinz Steven

Terms of Reference (AEBS Rev.1)

(Task 43 of the IWG Task List)

Transmitted by the experts of IWG ASEP

Transmitted by the experts of IWG ASEP

Emergency Steering Function

AEBS-08 – Industry Input.

Test Procedure for Pedestrian Dummy to calculate HIT

AEB Pedestrian and Cyclist - minimum velocities Sensor opening angles

Alternative Approach to UN R13 Type-IIA for Battery Electric Vehicles

AEBS-09 – Industry Input.

Presentation transcript:

General Safety Regulation 5: AEBS – Proportion of M1 vehicles likely to pass the vehicle to pedestrian test of proposed draft regulation June 2019

Proposed AEB vehicle to pedestrian test 50% width Draft Regulation: Impact with car on centreline (50% width) Pedestrian crossing at 5 km/h 20 – 60 km/h test speed Maximum mass & Mass in running order

Euro NCAP AEB vehicle to pedestrian test (2016 onwards) 75% & 25% width CPNA-25 & CPNA-75: Tests with most similarity to proposed regulatory test Impact point at 25% & 75% of vehicle width Pedestrian crossing at 5 km/h 20-60 km/h test speed 200 kg ballast Results taken from assessments of 70 cars

Proposed staged assessment in draft regulation The draft AEB regulation proposes a two stepped approach Step one: from 2022 Avoidance (no collision) below 35 km/h Minimum of 15 km/h speed reduction from 35 – 60 km/h Equal for both payloads Step two: from 2024 Avoidance (no collision) below 42 km/h Minimum of 32 km/h speed reduction at 42 km/h Minimum of 30 km/h speed reduction at 45 km/h Minimum of 25 km/h speed reduction from 50-60 km/h Subject vehicle speed (km/h) Maximum mass Mass in running order 20 0.00 25 30 35 20.00 40 25.00 45 30.00 50 35.00 55 40.00 60 45.00 Subject vehicle speed (km/h) Maximum mass Mass in running order 20 0.00 25 30 35 40 42 10.00 45 [15.00] 50 [25.00] 55 [30.00] 60 [35.00] AEBS-08-07 Draft Suppl.1 to R AEBS M1N1 V2P/M1/Second step - ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/5

First step – Proportion pass Higher pass % for CPNA-75 except at 45 km/h > ≈ 90% between 20-45 km/h Compliance decreases above 45 km/h Lowest compliance at 60 km/h Test Type Relative test speed (km/h) Maximum Impact speed (km/h)1: Proportion of Euro NCAP test vehicles meeting requirements M1 Unladen CPNA-25 % CPNA-75 Pedestrian crossing from nearside (CPNA) 20 87 99 25 94 30 35 97 40 96 45 50 86 91 55 80 60 69 Proportion of NCAP tested vehicles meeting proposed maximum impact speeds for first step AEB pedestrian. (Data: Euro NCAP 2016-18)

Second step – Proportion pass Higher % for CPNA-75 Steady decrease in compliance with increasing test speed Lowest compliance at 60 km/h Test Type Relative test speed (km/h) Maximum Impact speed (km/h)1: Proportion of Euro NCAP test vehicles meeting requirements M1 Unladen CPNA-25 % CPNA-75 Pedestrian crossing from nearside (CPNA) 20 87 99 25 94 30 35 79 86 40 66 84 45 15 60 73 50 64 55 53 Proportion of NCAP tested vehicles meeting proposed maximum impact speeds for second step AEB pedestrian (Data: EuroNCAP 2016-18)

CLEPA-OICA Proposed Second Step Industry proposed an alternative set of collision speeds for the second stage at AEBS-07 OICA-CLEPA Second step - Entry in 2024 No collision below 42 km/h (unchanged) 42 km/h Minimum of 9 km/h speed reduction 32 km/h proposed in original 45 – 60 km/h Minimum of 15 km/h speed reduction 30 km/h at 45 km/h and 25 km/h from 50-60 km/h in original Equal for Maximum mass and Mass in running order [AEBS-08-04-r1 (CLEPA-OICA) Completed input to AEBS-08]

OICA-CLEPA Proposed Stage Two – Proportion pass Increased pass % above 40 km/h Lowest compliance at 40 & 60 km/h Test Type Relative test speed (km/h) Maximum Impact speed (km/h)1: Proportion of EuroNCAP test vehicles meeting requirements M1 Unladen CPNA-25 % CPNA-75 Pedestrian crossing from nearside (CPNA) 20 87 99 25 94 30 35 79 86 40 66 84 45 96 50 91 55 80 60 69 Proportion of NCAP tested vehicles meeting proposed maximum impact speeds for second step AEB pedestrian (Data: EuroNCAP 2016-18)

Observations & Conclusions Homologation requires PASS at all test speeds: 61-73% of vehicles would pass homologation with first step 29-49% would pass second step 44-63% would pass CLEPA-OICA second step Conclusions: Decreasing compliance with increasing test speed Second step requirement for avoidance up to 40 km/h reduced compliance by about 20% Increasing permissible collision speed above 40 km/h will increase homologation % Vehicle that pass at all test speeds (%) CPNA-25 CPNA-75 Draft Stage One 61% 73% Draft Stage Two 29% 49% Stage Two (CLEPA-OICA) 44% 63% Proportion of NCAP tested vehicles that pass at all proposed vehicle test speeds. (Data: EuroNCAP 2016-18)