www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Ministère de la Transition Ecologique et Solidaire

Autonomous driving :French policy update

F-US roundtable

Connected and autonomous vehicles : a State of Play

Washington, DC, January 10, 2018

Xavier Delache

Outline

Main steps since january 2017 In the EU context

At national level

Focus on pre-regulatory work

3

EU context : recent evolutions (1)

• An active EU agenda • GEAR 2030 report on automotive industry (october 2017)

• High level action plan on connected and automated driving

(september 2017)

• C-ITS Platform report phase II (september 2017)

• Letter of intent for large scale experiments (march 2017)

• C-ITS Strategy (november 2016)

• 5G Action Plan (september 2016)

4

An active EU agenda – in focus (1)• GEAR2030 report : recommendations for EU policy

• Develop large scale testing• Set a focal point for exchange of lessons learned• Include data storage requirements in type approval• Support converging approaches of national traffic rules• Confirm compatibililty of UN-ECE conventions with level 3/4• Speed up discussions for level 4/5• Prepare a EU-type approval framework, including alternative

assessment methods• Initiate possible modifications of EU legislation (driving licence,

roadworthiness testing)• Include societal challenges and social acceptance• Better coordinate funding programs

5

An active EU agenda – in focus (2)• C-ITS Platform report phase II : identified automation use-cases

• car- sharing / car-pooling services within a city• taxi services• shared mobility services for fixed routes in designated zones• shared mobility services for rural areas• shared ́feeder ́ services to local public transport network• public transport systems• freight deliveries

• High level CAD action plan : shared thematic priorities• Data exchange : common functional models, focus on road safety• Cross border testing : use-case priorities• Ethics : to be defined

6

Cross-border cooperation• FR-DE-LUX test bed

• Context : FR-DE cooperation objectives (2016-2017)• Assessment of challenges and impacts : safety, traffic

management, interactions with infrastructure and other users, driving skills and training needs, mobility behaviors, environment, acceptability

• Test bed use cases and assessment priorities• Continuous cross-border compatibility of vehicles’

perception functions• Link between automation and connection : first focus on

critical safety-related situations and events on motorways : assess priority connectivity needs and quality requirements

• Impact of automated driving on traffic fluidity, fuel consumption, perception and acceptability

• Data exchange and use (interoperability, legal issues, ...)

7

French policy update

• Designation of a national high representative for autonomous vehicle development : Madame (former Minister) Anne-Marie IDRAC

• National strategy for public action

• Revised industry road map

• Test / experiments priorities

• Forthcoming Mobility Law and Strategy to be presented in februrary 2018

8

National autonomous driving strategy (1)• Draft issued september 2017, ongoing consultation• General objectives / underlying approach

• Learning by doing • Road safety and cybersecurity issues prevail • Special attention to mobility, environment impacts, acceptability• Need of testing for assessment• All use cases covered• Private-public cooperation to elaborate regulatory framework• Need for european cooperation, particularly for interoperability• Accelerate transition toward scale-1-experiments• Integrate automation in mobility solutions• Address unsatisfied mobility demand (cf. rural areas)

9

National autonomous driving strategy (2)• Public action highlights

• Driving rules : interpretative approach of UN-ECE conventions• Vehicle regulation : towards an adaptated “horizontal” approach :

• systemic (vehicle, infrastructure, driving conditions, connection)• specific / taylored to use-cases and their operation domain• based on adaptated validation systems

• Data protection : privacy-by-design• Cybersecurity : integration into technical regulation, threat

assessment• Public priorities on research :

• HMI, behaviours, coexistence, perception• National orientations + program for testing• National regulatory framework of automated public transports

10

Revised national industry roadmap• 2017 : fine-tuning of 2014’ public transport use cases

• Complement to mass transit :• fine distribution / extended service in a limited area• on demand services for peri-urban areas• last mile feeder for rail stations

• Re-inforcement of mass transit• night services• adaptable mass transit capacity

• National industry council (november 2017) call for :• revised R&D roadmap on autonomous driving• national experimentation & test program, with shared

public-private priorities• prospective assessment of skill and training needs• standardization SWOT analysis

11

Experiments – testing : state of play & policy• ~ 40 open road experiments by end of 2017

• Various driving enviroments (motorway, urban, periurban) • Passengers cars : level 3/4 SAE compatible, driver in the loop• Automated shuttles : level 4/5 SAE compatible, driver in the loop

• Authorization framework : ongoing revision

• National priorities (under consultation)• General objectives : tests must contribute to :

• Accumulate knowledge • Document impacts of given functionnalities on e.g. safety,

traffic, mobility, behaviors, acceptability• Feed ongoing work on validation methods• Provide feed-back on information & training needs for drivers

12

Experiments – testing : state of play & policy• National test priorities (under consultation) (cont’d)

• Individual cars : • Use cases : cf. industry priorities• Functionnalities and impacts : transitions (automated /

manual), minimal risk manoeuvers, HMI • Public transport :

• Use cases : cf. industry priorities + focus on rural areas• Functionnalities and impacts : supervision, intersection

management, interactions with other road users, incident management

• Freight and logistics : • Use cases : cf. industry priorities + focus on last mile

delivery, light vehicle automation• Link automation – connection

• (cf. detailled indicative use cases bellow)

13

Detailled automation + connectivity testing priorities (1)

• approaching road works• approaching toll area• emergency braking of the previous vehicle • traffic jam ahead• stationary vehicle on the road (due to accident, breakdown or other)• winter maintenance vehicle • priority vehicle• presence of operator vehicle in intervention (emergency intervention)• traffic officers, emergency services, road workers on incident location• lane opening or closure (fixed or moving road works)• wrong-way driving • obstacles (objects on the road or fallen load from previous vehicle)• unpredictitable behaviour of an other user (chaotic behaviour)• vehicle attempt to force its way into traffic• cut-off of an other vehicle near and in front of an automated vehicle

14

Detailled automation + connectivity testing priorities (2)

• longitudinal road markings totally faded in case of pavement maintenance

• road markings: partially faded or not visible longitudinal markings on several tens of metres (or masking by an object on the road)

• coexistence of temporary and permanent markings • pavement flooding area with possibility of aquaplaning, snowfall or

snow melting• local slippery area (icy patches, oil puddles)• driving in dense fog • strong winds• dense rain, snow, hail

15

Objectives• Prepare discussions on UN-ECE (R 79 ) and EU regulation• Support fruitful dialogue with industry• Identify ± critical use cases for deployment priorities• Provide guidance for testing• Contribute to new validation approaches• Contribute to common scenario databases

• Risk-analysis approach : • Consider use-cases’ road-safety critical situations• Cluster and prioritize critical situations)• In order to focus / taylor-craft requirements and validation approaches

for systems’ responses• References – similar approaches :

UN-ECE vehicle’s regulation (R 79) : ~ system boundaries NHTSA guidance : ~ Object and Event Detection and Response ISO 26262

Pre-regulatory work

16

Critical situations and events analysis method(cf. IFSTTAR)

17

Individual cars : Motorway use cases : cf. december 2017 report (in french) 2018 and beyond : use cases on “fringes” of motorway

(ramps, roundabouts), bi-directional roads, intersections• Public transport :

• 2018 – 2019 : development of a risk analysis method applicable for a defined system

• NB : defined system = automation functionnalities (including connection and supervision) * pre-defined path (including expected traffic conditions + roadside equipments)

• Freight :• Identification of truck platooning driving scenarii for safety

analysis of interactions with other traffic

Critical situations and events analysis : state of play

Systemic approach Vehicle’s subsystems Driver Automation systems HMI’s Vehicle’s electronic control unit + components Connexion / supervision

Driving environment Use case specific Operational design domain (= driving environment) Automation functionnalities (= automated manœuvres) Triggering (= activation / desactivation) conditions Driving task-sharing

Building blocks towards a new « horizontal approach » of regulation and validation

Driver

Driver’s monitoring and state

assessment

Automation HMI

Sensing

Localisation

World model

Data fusion

Objects recognition

Modes and maneouvres selection, combination and generation

Mapping

Vehicles’ electronic command units

Connexion

Vehicles’ components and organs

HMI

Automation system

Mac

hine

lear

ning

Perc

eptio

n su

b-sy

stem

Automation system

Driver

Connexion

Sensing

Automation HMI

Perception sub-system

Localisation

Driver’s monitoring and state assessment

Machine learning

Data fusion

Objects recognition

Mapping

World model

Modes and maneouvres selection, combination and generation

HMI

Vehicles’ electronic command units

Vehicles’ components and organs

20

Horizontal regulation “philosophy” Use case description Use case criticity analysis critical situations and events Use case requirements = Horizontal Events and situations criticity-independent

Perception functions Operation domain recognition HMIs (incl drivers monitoring)

Events and situations criticity-dependent Situations and events responses (inclunding minimal risk

manouevres) Vertical Non automatic functions ADAS

03/01/2018 7

Synthetic presentationof the use-case-based + risk-based approach

Use casesAutomated functions, operation domains, activation / desactivation conditions

Driv

ing

envi

ronm

ents

Situ

atio

ns a

nd e

vent

s

criticity #1

criticity #2

#3

#4

#5

Risks Réponses

Perception (sensors, connectivity, HMIs, driver’smonitoring)Maoeuvres :Transitions automated-manualLogigram of manœuvres Emergency and minimum riskmanoeuvres

Use case description

Use case analysis critical situations and events

Use case requirements

Critical situation and events response

HMI’s requirements

Operation domain recognition requirements

Operation domain

Automation elementary functions

Activation / desactivation conditions

Committed / expected driver’s attitude (SAE)

Logical diagram of # states and manoeuvers

Current ECE requirements

New requirements to be defined in current or dedicated ECE

Automation specific HMI

Emergency and minimal risk manoeuvres

Transition processes

Perception functionnalities

Perception functions requirements

Use case description

Perception functionnalities

Operation domain

Automation elementary functions

Activation / desactivation conditions

Transition processes

Emergency and minimal risk manoeuvres

Committed / expected driver’s attitude (SAE)

Logical diagram of # states and manoeuvers

Automation specific HMI

Use case analysis ( critical situations and events

Use case requirements

Perception functions requirements

Current ECE requirements

Operation domain recognition requirements

New requirements to be defined in current or dedicated ECE

HMI’s requirements

Critical situation and events response

09/08/2017 7

Synthetic presentationof the use-case-based + risk-based approach

Responses

criticity #1

criticity #2

#3

#4

#5

Requirem

ents

Perception (sensors, connectivity, HMIs, driver’s monitoring)Maoeuvres (transitions automated-manual ; logigram of manœuvres ;

emergency and minimum risk manœuvres)

No regulation (= know how)

Situation and event aknowledgment

Response functionnaldescription

Required responseavailability

Response required functionnalities

Response required performance

Data recording and sharing Privacy Cyber security System safety

Driving scenarios’ specifications or operational design domain

(= driving boundary conditions)

Automation elementary functions and triggering conditions

Driver’s commitment or expected attitude (as clustered in SAE levels)

(= drivers’ boundary conditions)

Emergency and minimal risk manoeuvers

Transition processes (driver ↔ system)

Non use-case specific

Use-case specific « Nominal » or « strategic »

Driver’s monitoring Driving scenarios’ recognition

Automation-specific HMI

« Real» or « tactical »

Logic diagram of # states and manoeuvers (automation, transition,

minimal risk, emergency)

Perception functions

Non use-case specific

System safety

Cyber security

Privacy

Data recording and sharing

Perception functions

Use-case specific

« Nominal » or « strategic »

Driving scenarios’ specifications or operational design domain

(= driving boundary conditions)

Driver’s commitment or expected attitude (as clustered in SAE levels)

(= drivers’ boundary conditions)

Automation elementary functions and triggering conditions

« Real» or « tactical »

Driver’s monitoring

Emergency and minimal risk manoeuvers

Driving scenarios’ recognition

Transition processes

(driver ↔ system)

Automation-specific HMI

Logic diagram of # states and manoeuvers (automation, transition, minimal risk, emergency)

25

Towards new validation approaches and tools Possible types (levels) of requirements Situation and event aknowledgment Response

Availability Functional description Required functionnalities Required performance

Possible types (levels) of verification Self declared Evidence-based declared Third party certified Authority tested

Possible validation tools Documentation screeing or analysis Simulations Tests (one driver or multi-drivers)

09/08/2017 8

Synthetic presentationof the use-case based + risk-based approach

Use-case

Risk management self-declaration

Evidence-based declaration

Certifiedby third

party

Predefinedsimulated test

Predefinedreal test

Validation methodsCritical situations and events

ResponsesPerception (sensors, connectivity, HMIs, driver’s monitoring)Maoeuvres (Transitions automated-manual ; Logigram of manœuvres ;Emergency and minimum riskmanœuvres)

Rand

omtes

ts

Autonomous driving :French policy update

Questions ?

Thank you

Xavier Delache

Slide Number 1OutlineSlide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5Slide Number 6Slide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Critical situations and events analysis method�(cf. IFSTTAR)Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Slide Number 25Slide Number 26Slide Number 27