Autonomous driving : French policy update F-US roundtable - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et Solidaire

Autonomous driving : French policy update

F-US roundtable Connected and autonomous vehicles : a State of Play Washington, DC, January 10, 2018

Xavier Delache

Outline

• Main steps since january 2017

 In the EU context  At national level

• Focus on pre-regulatory work

3

EU context : recent evolutions (1)

• An active EU agenda
• GEAR 2030 report on automotive industry (october 2017)
• High level action plan on connected and automated driving

(september 2017)

• C-ITS Platform report phase II (september 2017)
• Letter of intent for large scale experiments (march 2017)
• C-ITS Strategy (november 2016)
• 5G Action Plan (september 2016)

4

An active EU agenda – in focus (1)

• GEAR2030 report : recommendations for EU policy
• Develop large scale testing
• Set a focal point for exchange of lessons learned
• Include data storage requirements in type approval
• Support converging approaches of national traffic rules
• Confirm compatibililty of UN-ECE conventions with level 3/4
• Speed up discussions for level 4/5
• Prepare a EU-type approval framework, including alternative

assessment methods

• Initiate possible modifications of EU legislation (driving licence,

roadworthiness testing)

• Include societal challenges and social acceptance
• Better coordinate funding programs

5

An active EU agenda – in focus (2)

• C-ITS Platform report phase II : identified automation use-cases
• car- sharing / car-pooling services within a city
• taxi services
• shared mobility services for fixed routes in designated zones
• shared mobility services for rural areas
• shared ́feeder ́ services to local public transport network
• public transport systems
• freight deliveries
• High level CAD action plan : shared thematic priorities
• Data exchange : common functional models, focus on road safety
• Cross border testing : use-case priorities
• Ethics : to be defined

6

Cross-border cooperation

• FR-DE-LUX test bed
• Context : FR-DE cooperation objectives (2016-2017)
• Assessment of challenges and impacts : safety, traffic

management, interactions with infrastructure and other users, driving skills and training needs, mobility behaviors, environment, acceptability

• Test bed use cases and assessment priorities
• Continuous cross-border compatibility of vehicles’

perception functions

• Link between automation and connection : first focus on

critical safety-related situations and events on motorways : assess priority connectivity needs and quality requirements

• Impact of automated driving on traffic fluidity, fuel

consumption, perception and acceptability

• Data exchange and use (interoperability, legal issues, ...)

7

French policy update

• Designation of a national high representative for

autonomous vehicle development : Madame (former Minister) Anne-Marie IDRAC

• National strategy for public action
• Revised industry road map
• Test / experiments priorities
• Forthcoming Mobility Law and Strategy to be

presented in februrary 2018

8

National autonomous driving strategy (1)

• Draft issued september 2017, ongoing consultation
• General objectives / underlying approach
• Learning by doing
• Road safety and cybersecurity issues prevail
• Special attention to mobility, environment impacts, acceptability
• Need of testing for assessment
• All use cases covered
• Private-public cooperation to elaborate regulatory framework
• Need for european cooperation, particularly for interoperability
• Accelerate transition toward scale-1-experiments
• Integrate automation in mobility solutions
• Address unsatisfied mobility demand (cf. rural areas)

9

National autonomous driving strategy (2)

• Public action highlights
• Driving rules : interpretative approach of UN-ECE conventions
• Vehicle regulation : towards an adaptated “horizontal” approach :
• systemic (vehicle, infrastructure, driving conditions, connection)
• specific / taylored to use-cases and their operation domain
• based on adaptated validation systems
• Data protection : privacy-by-design
• Cybersecurity : integration into technical regulation, threat

assessment

• Public priorities on research :
• HMI, behaviours, coexistence, perception
• National orientations + program for testing
• National regulatory framework of automated public transports

10

Revised national industry roadmap

• 2017 : fine-tuning of 2014’ public transport use cases
• Complement to mass transit :
• fine distribution / extended service in a limited area
• on demand services for peri-urban areas
• last mile feeder for rail stations
• Re-inforcement of mass transit
• night services
• adaptable mass transit capacity
• National industry council (november 2017) call for :
• revised R&D roadmap on autonomous driving
• national experimentation & test program, with shared

public-private priorities

• prospective assessment of skill and training needs
• standardization SWOT analysis

11

Experiments – testing : state of play & policy

• ~ 40 open road experiments by end of 2017
• Various driving enviroments (motorway, urban, periurban)
• Passengers cars : level 3/4 SAE compatible, driver in the loop
• Automated shuttles : level 4/5 SAE compatible, driver in the loop
• Authorization framework : ongoing revision
• National priorities (under consultation)
• General objectives : tests must contribute to :
• Accumulate knowledge
• Document impacts of given functionnalities on e.g. safety,

traffic, mobility, behaviors, acceptability

• Feed ongoing work on validation methods
• Provide feed-back on information & training needs for drivers

12

Experiments – testing : state of play & policy

• National test priorities (under consultation) (cont’d)
• Individual cars :
• Use cases : cf. industry priorities
• Functionnalities and impacts : transitions (automated /

manual), minimal risk manoeuvers, HMI

• Public transport :
• Use cases : cf. industry priorities + focus on rural areas
• Functionnalities and impacts : supervision, intersection

management, interactions with other road users, incident management

• Freight and logistics :
• Use cases : cf. industry priorities + focus on last mile

delivery, light vehicle automation

• Link automation – connection
• (cf. detailled indicative use cases bellow)

13

Detailled automation + connectivity testing priorities (1)

• approaching road works
• approaching toll area
• emergency braking of the previous vehicle
• traffic jam ahead
• stationary vehicle on the road (due to accident, breakdown or other)
• winter maintenance vehicle
• priority vehicle
• presence of operator vehicle in intervention (emergency intervention)
• traffic officers, emergency services, road workers on incident location
• lane opening or closure (fixed or moving road works)
• wrong-way driving
• bstacles (objects on the road or fallen load from previous vehicle)
• unpredictitable behaviour of an other user (chaotic behaviour)
• vehicle attempt to force its way into traffic
• cut-off of an other vehicle near and in front of an automated vehicle

14

Detailled automation + connectivity testing priorities (2)

• longitudinal road markings totally faded in case of pavement

maintenance

• road markings: partially faded or not visible longitudinal markings on

several tens of metres (or masking by an object on the road)

• coexistence of temporary and permanent markings
• pavement flooding area with possibility of aquaplaning, snowfall or

snow melting

• local slippery area (icy patches, oil puddles)
• driving in dense fog
• strong winds
• dense rain, snow, hail

15

• Objectives
• Prepare discussions on UN-ECE (R 79 ) and EU regulation
• Support fruitful dialogue with industry
• Identify ± critical use cases for deployment priorities
• Provide guidance for testing
• Contribute to new validation approaches
• Contribute to common scenario databases
• Risk-analysis approach :
• Consider use-cases’ road-safety critical situations
• Cluster and prioritize critical situations)
• In order to focus / taylor-craft requirements and validation approaches

for systems’ responses

• References – similar approaches :
• UN-ECE vehicle’s regulation (R 79) : ~ system boundaries
• NHTSA guidance : ~ Object and Event Detection and Response
• ISO 26262

Pre-regulatory work

16

Critical situations and events analysis method (cf. IFSTTAR)

17

• Individual cars :
• Motorway use cases : cf. december 2017 report (in french)
• 2018 and beyond : use cases on “fringes” of motorway

(ramps, roundabouts), bi-directional roads, intersections

• Public transport :
• 2018 – 2019 : development of a risk analysis method

applicable for a defined system

• NB : defined system = automation functionnalities (including

connection and supervision) * pre-defined path (including expected traffic conditions + roadside equipments)

• Freight :
• Identification of truck platooning driving scenarii for safety

analysis of interactions with other traffic

Critical situations and events analysis : state of play

• Systemic approach
• Vehicle’s subsystems
• Driver
• Automation systems
• HMI’s
• Vehicle’s electronic control unit + components
• Connexion / supervision
• Driving environment
• Use case specific
• Operational design domain (= driving environment)
• Automation functionnalities (= automated manœuvres)
• Triggering (= activation / desactivation) conditions
• Driving task-sharing

Building blocks towards a new « horizontal approach » of regulation and validation

Driver Driver’s monitoring and state assessment Automation HMI Sensing Localisation World model Data fusion Objects recognition Modes and maneouvres selection, combination and generation Mapping Vehicles’ electronic command units Connexion Vehicles’ components and organs HMI Automation system Machine learning Perception sub-system

20

Horizontal regulation “philosophy”

• Use case description
• Use case criticity analysis  critical situations and events
• Use case requirements =
• Horizontal
• Events and situations criticity-independent
• Perception functions
• Operation domain recognition
• HMIs (incl drivers monitoring)
• Events and situations criticity-dependent
• Situations and events responses (inclunding minimal risk

manouevres)

• Vertical
• Non automatic functions
• ADAS

03/01/2018

7

Synthetic presentation

• f the use-case-based + risk-based approach

Use cases

Automated functions, operation domains, activation / desactivation conditions

Driving environments

Situations and events criticity #1 criticity #2 #3 #4 #5

Risks Réponses

Perception (sensors, connectivity, HMIs, driver’s monitoring) Maoeuvres :

Transitions

automated-manual

Logigram of

manœuvres

Emergency and

minimum risk manoeuvres

Use case description Use case analysis  critical situations and events Use case requirements Critical situation and events response HMI’s requirements Operation domain recognition requirements Operation domain Automation elementary functions Activation / desactivation conditions Committed / expected driver’s attitude (SAE) Logical diagram of # states and manoeuvers Current ECE requirements New requirements to be defined in current or dedicated ECE Automation specific HMI Emergency and minimal risk manoeuvres Transition processes Perception functionnalities Perception functions requirements

09/08/2017

7

Synthetic presentation

• f the use-case-based + risk-based approach

Responses

criticity #1 criticity #2 #3 #4 #5

Requirements

Perception (sensors, connectivity, HMIs, driver’s monitoring) Maoeuvres (transitions automated-manual ; logigram of manœuvres ; emergency and minimum risk manœuvres) No regulation (= know how) Situation and event aknowledgment Response functionnal description Required response availability Response required functionnalities Response required performance

Data recording and sharing Privacy Cyber security System safety Driving scenarios’ specifications

• r operational design domain

(= driving boundary conditions) Automation elementary functions and triggering conditions Driver’s commitment or expected attitude (as clustered in SAE levels) (= drivers’ boundary conditions) Emergency and minimal risk manoeuvers Transition processes (driver ↔ system)

Non use-case specific Use-case specific « Nominal » or « strategic »

Driver’s monitoring Driving scenarios’ recognition Automation- specific HMI

« Real» or « tactical »

Logic diagram of # states and manoeuvers (automation, transition, minimal risk, emergency) Perception functions

25

Towards new validation approaches and tools

• Possible types (levels) of requirements
• Situation and event aknowledgment
• Response
• Availability
• Functional description
• Required functionnalities
• Required performance
• Possible types (levels) of verification
• Self declared
• Evidence-based declared
• Third party certified
• Authority tested
• Possible validation tools
• Documentation screeing or analysis
• Simulations
• Tests (one driver or multi-drivers)

09/08/2017

8

Synthetic presentation

• f the use-case based + risk-based approach

Use-case

Risk management self-declaration Evidence-based declaration Certified by third party Predefined simulated test Predefined real test

Validation methods

Critical situations and events

Responses

Perception (sensors, connectivity, HMIs, driver’s monitoring) Maoeuvres (Transitions automated-manual ; Logigram of manœuvres ; Emergency and minimum risk manœuvres) R a n d

• m

t e s t s

Autonomous driving : French policy update Questions ?

Thank you Xavier Delache