|
Abstract
|
27th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV)
https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000267.pdf
Traditional type approval regulations typically define a small set of very precisely defined test cases that act as an implicit requirements definition. Especially for active safety regulations, this leads to two major problems: Firstly, the implicit requirements are given only for a small number of operating points, and secondly, the prescribed test cases will typically happen only on an ideal test track.
The newest type approval regulations, such as especially the new regulation on automated emergency braking systems for heavy vehicles, define requirements in a broader way over the whole operating range, in a certain range of parameters (such as: for centerline offsets between -20 and +20 cm) and leave provisions for technical services and/or market surveillance authorities to test in different, more realistic conditions. They also require the systems to not change strategy for cases out of the specifications (e.g.: for higher centerline offsets).
As a consequence, this shifts the specification responsibility away from the regulator, towards the vehicle manufacturer. In this way, there is more freedom of design while still maintaining an appropriate level of safety. Also, the verification task is shifted towards the technical service, who now has the responsibility to certify that the vehicle or system matches the given overall requirements by specific test cases. The market surveillance authority, however, has the freedom to check each and every aspect of the system against the requirements. Market surveillance therefore acts as a supervisor for the technical services.
In the proposed paper, this new approach is presented in detail with the examples of Regulation 131-02 (automated emergency braking for heavy vehicles) and Regulation 151 (blind spot information systems). The new approach is described in detail with examples from the regulation, as well as the necessary equipment to perform the test runs in the case of Regulation 151: driving robots, robot-controlled bicycle dummy etc. Finally, proposals will be given on how to judge whether a system complies with the requirement to not change strategy; a topic that will become relevant in the coming years.
The combination between broad requirements, not changing system strategy when out of the main operating range, vague defined test cases and market surveillance as a supervisor for technical services has the potential to make the type approval system fit for the future, and especially for all intelligent or flexible or programmable safety systems, on the one hand.
On the other hand, technical services will have to adapt to the new responsibility and manufacturers to the new flexibility, since the regulation now does not exactly specify (overspecify?) a safety system, but more specifies the expected risk balance. It will certainly take some time and discussions until the new approach will fully unfold its potential. |