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

Consistency between the 1968 Convention on Road Traffic and ECE-Regulations A Road Safety Forum (WP.1) roundtable An Argumentation in Favour of the Proposed An Argumentation in Favour of the Proposed Supplement by the “Consistency Small Group” Tom M. Gasser Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen

Structure & Nature of the „Vienna Convention“: 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) Chapter 5 - Conditions for the Admission of Cycles and Mopeds to Int. Traffic (Art. 44) Chapter 6 - Final Provisions (Art. 45 – 56) 19 th March 2012 Tom M. Gasser slide 2/16

… why change anything? ... 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! to ensure positive effect for traffic safety! Lane-keep assist Emergency braking* active park assist* ACC* 19 th March 2012 Tom M. Gasser slide 3/16 *source: www.bester-beifahrer.de

Regulatory Law: The Vienna Convention today Chapter II: “RULES OF THE ROAD“: • Art. 8 No. 5 : • Art. 8 No. 5 : Source: UNECE-Homepage “5. Every driver shall at all times be able to control his vehicle or to guide his animals.” • Art. 13 No. 1: “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.“ 19 th March 2012 Tom M. Gasser slide 4/16

… what do the proposed amendments to the Vienna Convention allow for? 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 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. [...]“ 19 th March 2012 Tom M. Gasser slide 5/16

… what about automated driving? Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) launched an Expert-Group on the legal consequences of automation in 2009 – (final report is public*!) Source: HAVE-it (EU-Project 2009-2011) * http://www.bast.de/cln_033/nn_75106/DE/Publikationen/Berichte/unterreihe-f/Functions/Berichte-F.html 19 th March 2012 Tom M. Gasser slide 6/16

BASt-Expert-Group definitions of vehicle automation-degrees: • 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 degree o 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. driver must take-over control with a certain time buffer. of automation • 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 19 th March 2012 Tom M. Gasser slide 7/16

Relevant step: taking the driver ‚out of the loop‘ (high automation): Going beyond partial automation (that is still permanently monitored by the driver)... Source: HAVE-it ...would definitely require a new approach to legal framework in road traffic: Otherwise drivers would be breaching their legal obligations. Source: SARTRE-Project, press release 19 th March 2012 Tom M. Gasser slide 8/16

Automation: Obstacles for the higher automation degrees Drivers’ duties: � � � � National Road Traffic Codes 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 of inappropriate system interventions 19 th March 2012 Tom M. Gasser 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? 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?) 19 th March 2012 Tom M. Gasser 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 • 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! 19 th March 2012 Tom M. Gasser slide 11/16

Federal Highway Research Institute Brüderstraße 53 Brüderstraße 53 Tom Michael Gasser D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach Phone + 49 (0)2204 43 646 Fax + 49 (0)2204 43 676 Co-operative Traffic and Driver Assistance Systems gasser@bast.de Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen