77. The representative of the Russian Federation, Co-Chair of TF on ADAS, presented the status report of the group contained in GRVA-17-10. He detailed the progress made since the last GRVA session, he recalled the process initiated by GRVA on DCAS and explained the status of the documents submitted to GRVA, (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/20 and GRVA-17-05). He presented the outline of the draft regulation in detail (GRVA-17-12).

78. The representative of the European Commission presented, on behalf of the European Commission, Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, some suggestions (GRVA-17-25) on how to prioritize the work on DCAS. She proposed to finalize the section 5 of the draft regulation, the provisions for systems supporting driver-initiated and driver-confirmed manoeuvres, driver monitoring with both motoric and visual disengagement and in-service reporting. She clarified upon request that in-service monitoring should be, in her view, addressed as a second step, given the complexity of this task. GRVA supported the priorities proposed.

79. The representative of the Russian Federation presented draft amendments to UN Regulation No. 79, aimed to differentiate the scope of UN Regulation No. 79 and the draft DCAS UN Regulation (GRVA-17-07). The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland presented comments (GRVA-17-44 and GRVA-17-49).

80. The representative of the Russian Federation asked for guidance from GRVA on several items (GRVA-17-11), including on speed assistance. The representative of OICA presented their views (GRVA-17-21) advocating for letting the driver decide on speeds as there might be factors (misdetection, infrastructure shortcomings, ambiguous situations, traffic flow considerations, speedometer offset etc.) where only the driver could decide.

81. The representative of the European Commission Joint Research Center presented the outcome of their research (GRVA-17-41) on the impact of speed variance in traffic and correlations with crashes, which showed that a high variance of vehicle speeds for vehicles on the same road led to more crashes. He concluded that speed management was more effective for all vehicles on the road than for selected vehicles, which would speak in favour of option 1 in GRVA-17-11. The representatives of France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland expressed reasons why they supported this option.

82. The representative of ETSC advocated for assistance systems that technically enforce speed limits as detected (GRVA-17-35). He stated that there was no justification for drivers to set speed above the speed limit. He added that allowing an override with the acceleration pedal was a good compromise between the two options proposed. The representative of Norway supported option 2 as DCAS was a bridging technology until ADS is available and that postponing the question of speed limits would not help GRVA.

83. GRVA agreed for option 1 and noted the positions of Norway and ETSC.

84. The representative of Sweden stated that their final view on the question would depend on the assessment of the whole system.