Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (6) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Legislation (6) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (6) (entfernen)
The term test procedure refers to a method that describes how a system has to be tested to identify and assess specific behavior or properties by experiments. This also includes the specification of required tools, equipment, boundary conditions, and evaluation methods. Test procedures are an essential tool to check whether desired product properties are present, which of course also applies to the development of driver assistance systems. In addition to development and release testing that mainly is performed by the vehicle or system manufacturer, there are tests with the purpose of an independent product testing that are conducted by external test organizations. These tests are needed for vehicle type approval (for admission to a specific market), in the context of applying the standard for functional safety (in both cases mainly executed by technical services (being accredited as certification laboratory)) or for customer information purposes (by a test institute for consumer protection). The focus of this chapter is these "external" test methods. After a taxonomy of test procedures, the differences between legislation (type approval) and consumer testing are highlighted. Typical tests and the associated test setup, tools, and assessment criteria are discussed, and an outlook toward testing in the near and mid-future is given.
The "Autonomous driving on the roads of the future: Villa Ladenburg Project" by the Daimler und Benz-Stiftung looks at degrees of automation that will only become technically feasible in the distant future. The treatment of the legal questions in the present chapter therefore draws heavily on the description of the use cases, which begin to provide a concrete basis for evaluating individual issues. Uncertainties in predicting future technical developments can be expected and will have a commensurate impact on the assumptions and conclusions of this chapter. The resulting uncertainty is nevertheless unavoidable if one wants to press ahead with important interrelated issues. This chapter is therefore intended as a contribution to the debate on societal aspects of automated driving from a legal perspective and not as a legalistic evaluation of the subject. The consideration will largely focus on the situation within the context of current German law. The legal views expressed are those of the author and are based on nine years of experience in the field of driver assistance system research. In terms of the underlying conception presented here, the societal dimension of autonomous vehicles addressed in the present project goes well beyond the adjustments to the legal framework currently being called for in Germany. The following will examine the question of "societal acceptance" in the context of the legal questions raised by autonomous vehicles. This line of investigation is not immediately obvious and covers only a segment of the more thoroughgoing focus of the project.
A legform impactor with biofidelic characteristics (FlexPLI) which is being developed by the Japanese Automobile Research Institute (JARI) is being considered as a test tool for legislation within a proposed Global Technical Regulation on pedestrian protection (UNECE, 2006) and therefore being evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Group (TEG) of GRSP. In previous built levels it already showed good test results on real cars as well as under idealised test conditions but also revealed further need for improvement. A research study at the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) deals with the question on how leg injury risks of modern car fronts can be revealed, reflected and assessed by the FlexPLI and how the impactor can be used and implemented as a legislative instrument for the type approval of cars according to current and future legislations on pedestrian protection. The latest impactor built level (GTα ) is being evaluated by a general review and assessment of the certification procedure, the knee joint biofidelity and the currently proposed injury criteria. Furthermore, the usability, robustness and durability as a test tool for legislation is examined and an assessment of leg injuries is made by a series of tests with the FlexPLI on real cars with modern car front shapes as well as under idealised test conditions. Finally, a comparison is made between the FlexPLI and the current european legislation tool, the legform impactor according to EEVC WG 17.
A biofidelic flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) has been developed from the year 2000 onwards and evaluated by a technical evaluation group (Flex-TEG) of UN-ECE GRSP. A recently established UN-ECE GRSP Informal Group on GTR9 Phase 2 is aiming at introducing the FlexPLI within world-wide regulations on pedestrian safety (Phase 2 of GTR No. 9 as well as the new UN regulation 127 on pedestrian safety) as a test tool for the assessment of lower extremity injuries in lateral vehicle-to-pedestrian accidents. Besides, the FlexPLI has already been introduced within JNCAP and is on the Euro NCAP roadmap for 2014. Despite of the biofidelic properties in the knee and tibia sections, several open issues related to the FlexPLI, like the estimation of the cost benefit, the feasibility of vehicle compliance with the threshold values, the robustness of the impactor and of the test results, the comparability between prototype and production level and the finalization of certification corridors still needed to be solved. Furthermore, discussions with stakeholders about a harmonized lower legform to bumper test area are still going on. This paper describes several studies carried out by the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) regarding the benefit due to the introduction of the FlexPLI within legislation for type approval, the robustness of test results, the establishment of new assembly certification corridors and a proposal for a harmonized legform to bumper test area. Furthermore, a report on vehicle tests that previously had been carried out with three prototype legforms and were now being repeated using legforms with serial production status, is given. Finally, the paper gives a status report on the ongoing simulation and testing activities with respect to the development and evaluation of an improved test procedure with upper body mass for assessing pedestrian femur injuries.
The BASt-project group "Legal consequences of an increase in vehicle automation" has identified, defined and consequently compiled different automation degrees beyond Driver Assistance Systems. These are partial-, high- and full automation. According to German regulatory law, i.e. the German Road Traffic Code, it has been identified that the distinctive feature of different degrees of automation is the permanent attention of the driver to the task of driving as well as the constant availability of control over the vehicle. Partial automation meets these requirements. The absence of the driver- concentration to the traffic situation and to execute control is in conflict with the use of higher degrees of vehicle automation (i.e. high and full automation). Their use is therefore presently not compatible with German law, as the human driver would violate his obligations stipulated in the Road Traffic Code when fully relying on the degree of automation these systems would offer. As far as higher degrees of automation imply free-hand driving, further research in terms of behavioural psychology is required to determine whether this hinders the driver in the execution of permanent caution as required by sec. 1 para. 1 StVO (German Road Traffic Code). As far as liabilities according to the StVG (German Road Traffic Act) are concerned, the presently reversed burden of proof on the driver within sec. 18 para. 1 S. 2 StVG might no longer be considered adequate in case of higher degrees of automation that allow the driver to draw attention from the task of driving (in case making such use of a system would be permitted by the German Road Traffic Code). The liability of the vehicle "keeper", according to the German Road Traffic Act, would remain applicable to all defined degrees of automation. In case of partial automation, the use of systems according to their limits is accentuated. The range of use that remains within the intended must be defined closely and unmistakeably. Affecting user expectations properly can immensely help to maintain safe use, in case design-measures that exclude overreliance are not available according to the current state of the art (otherwise such measures would have to be applied primarily). In case of the higher degrees of automation that no longer require the driver- permanent attention (under the presupposition their use would be permitted by the German Road Traffic Code), every accident potentially bears the risk to cause product liability on the side of the manufacturer. Liability of the manufacturer might only be excluded in case of a breach of traffic rules by a third party or in case of overriding/ oversteering by the driver. In so far aspects of German procedural law and the burden of proof are of great importance. The project group has identified the need for further continuative research not only to advance legal assessment but also to improve basic technical conditions for vehicle automation as well as product reliability.
A flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) with biofidelic characteristics is aimed to be implemented within global legislation on pedestrian protection. Therefore, it is being evaluated by a technical evaluation group (Flex-TEG) of GRSP with respect to its biofidelity, robustness, durability, usability and protection level (Zander, 2008). Previous studies at the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) and other laboratories already showed good progress concerning the general development, but also the need for further improvement and further research in various areas. An overview is provided of the different levels of development and all kinds of evaluation activities of the Flex-TEG, starting with the Polar II full scale pedestrian dummy as its origin and ending up with the latest legform impactor built level GTR that is expected to be finalized by the end of the year 2009. Using the latest built levels as a basis, gaps are revealed that should be closed by future developments, like the usage of an upper body mass (UBM), the validation of the femur loads, injury risk functions for the cruciate knee ligaments and an appropriate certification method. A recent study on an additional upper body mass being applied for the first time to the Flex-GT is used as means of validation of recently proposed modified impact conditions. Therefore, two test series on a modern vehicle front using an impactor with and without upper body mass are compared. A test series with the Flex-GTR will be used to study both the comparability of the impact behavior of the GT and GTR built level as well as the consistency of test results. Recommendations for implementation within legislation on pedestrian protection are made.