Consistency between the 1968 Convention on Road Traffic and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Consistency between the 1968 Convention

• n Road Traffic and ECE-Regulations

A Road Safety Forum (WP.1) roundtable

An Argumentation in Favour of the Proposed Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen An Argumentation in Favour of the Proposed Supplement by the “Consistency Small Group” Tom M. Gasser

Chapter 1 - General Provisions (Art. 1 – 4) Chapter 2 - Rules of the Road (Art. 5 – 34) Chapter 3 - Conditions for the Admission [...] to International Traffic (Art. 35 – 40) Chapter 4 - Drivers of Motor Vehicles (Art. 41 – 43)

Structure & Nature of the „Vienna Convention“:

Chapter 5 - Conditions for the Admission of Cycles and Mopeds to Int. Traffic (Art. 44) Chapter 6 - Final Provisions (Art. 45 – 56)

Tom M. Gasser 19th March 2012 slide 2/16

...because the technical development is increasingly substituting the driver... ... this leads to a paradigmatic change: Technology executes drivers’ duties!

• Legal certainty on permissibility is needed

to ensure positive effect for traffic safety!

… why change anything?

to ensure positive effect for traffic safety!

Tom M. Gasser 19th March 2012

Emergency braking*

*source: www.bester-beifahrer.de

ACC* active park assist* Lane-keep assist

slide 3/16

Regulatory Law: The Vienna Convention today

Chapter II: “RULES OF THE ROAD“:

• Art. 8 No. 5:

Source: UNECE-Homepage

• Art. 8 No. 5:
• Art. 13 No. 1:

“5. Every driver shall at all times be able to control his vehicle

• r to guide his animals.”

“1. Every driver of a vehicle shall in all circumstances have his vehicle under control so as to be able to exercise due and proper care and to be at all times in a position to perform all manoeuvres required of him.“

Tom M. Gasser 19th March 2012 slide 4/16

Supplement to Art. 8 or 13 of the Vienna Convention (as already proposed by the small group): “[...] Driver assistance systems with an influence on the way the vehicle is driven shall not be considered contrary to the principles mentioned in

… what do the proposed amendments to the Vienna Convention allow for?

driven shall not be considered contrary to the principles mentioned in paragraph 1 and 5 of this Article and paragraph 1 of Article 13, when:

• they only optimise at technical level some functions which operating

depends only on the driver,

• or they operate in case of emergency when the driver has lost or is about

to lose the control of the vehicle,

• or the intervention of these systems is identical with the usual

performance of a motor vehicle (e. g. speed limiting device)

• or these systems are overrideable at any time or can be switched off.

[...]“

Tom M. Gasser 19th March 2012 slide 5/16

Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) launched an Expert-Group on the legal consequences of automation in 2009 – (final report is public*!)

… what about automated driving?

*http://www.bast.de/cln_033/nn_75106/DE/Publikationen/Berichte/unterreihe-f/Functions/Berichte-F.html

Tom M. Gasser 19th March 2012 slide 6/16

Source: HAVE-it (EU-Project 2009-2011)

• Full automation: The system takes over longitudinal and

lateral control completely and permanently. In case of a take-over request that is not carried out, the system will return to the minimal risk condition by itself.

• High automation: The system takes over longitudinal

and lateral control; the driver must no longer permanently monitor the system. In case of a take-over request, the driver must take-over control with a certain time buffer.

BASt-Expert-Group definitions of vehicle automation-degrees:

degree o driver must take-over control with a certain time buffer.

• Partial automation: The system takes over longitudinal

and lateral control, the driver shall permanently monitor the system and shall be prepared to take over control at any time.

• Driver Assistance: The driver permanently controls

either longitudinal or lateral control. The other task can be automated to a certain extent by the assistance system.

• Driver Only: Human driver executes manual driving task

Tom M. Gasser

• f automation

19th March 2012 slide 7/16

Going beyond partial automation (that is still permanently monitored by the driver)...

Relevant step: taking the driver ‚out of the loop‘ (high automation):

Source: HAVE-it

...would definitely require a new approach to legal framework in road traffic: Otherwise drivers would be breaching their legal obligations.

Tom M. Gasser

Source: SARTRE-Project, press release

19th March 2012 slide 8/16

• Drivers’ duties:

National Road Traffic Codes

Automation: Obstacles for the higher automation degrees

Source: DVR

Source: SARTRE-Project, press release

Drivers’ obligation is to permanently: – monitor surrounding traffic and status of the vehicle – ensure readiness to override/ oversteer in case

• f inappropriate system interventions

Tom M. Gasser 19th March 2012 slide 9/16

Importance of overrideablity from Research in the past:

Plenty of well known issues from Human-Machine-Interaction to be researched and adapted to Road traffic:

• … Bainbridge, ‚Ironies of Automation‘, (1983):
• driver monitoring: which effects does driver-underload in

case of automation have on [drivers’] abilities to take over?

Tom M. Gasser

case of automation have on [drivers’] abilities to take over?

• Capabilities of the [driver] to stabilise automation
• Specific requirements for the design of the HMI
• …Norman, ‚The Problem of Automation: Inappropriate

Feedback and Interaction, not Over-Automation‘ (1990):

• How must feedback be designed properly? Is the user

[driver] mentally isolated?

• What happens in take-over situations (mental overload?)

19th March 2012 slide 10/16

Conclusions:

• In terms of technology we need legal

certainty for safety-relevant applications already on the road

• Regulatory law is a limit only beyond the degree of partial

automation

Tom M. Gasser

• As soon as the driver is allowed to allocate attention otherwise

each (national) Road Traffic Code would need to be modified

• „Overrideability“ is still vital for safe Human-Maschine-

Interaction according to the current state-of-the-art The proposed changes are future proof!

19th March 2012 slide 11/16

Brüderstraße 53

Federal Highway Research Institute

Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen

Brüderstraße 53 D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach Phone + 49 (0)2204 43 646 Fax + 49 (0)2204 43 676 gasser@bast.de

Tom Michael Gasser

Co-operative Traffic and Driver Assistance Systems