Euro NCAP Safety Assist

Similar documents
Objective Testing of Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems for the EuroNCAP AEB rating

NISSAN MICRA DECEMBER ONWARDS NEW ZEALAND VARIANTS WITH 0.9 LITRE ENGINE

FORD FOCUS DECEMBER ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

VOLKSWAGEN T-ROC OCTOBER ONWARDS NEW ZEALAND VARIANTS

VOLVO XC40 APRIL ONWARDS ALL-WHEEL-DRIVE (AWD) VARIANTS

ALFA ROMEO STELVIO MARCH ONWARDS 2.0L PETROL & 2.2L DIESEL VARIANTS

FORD ENDURA DECEMBER ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

MERCEDES-BENZ X-CLASS APRIL ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

HOLDEN ACADIA NOVEMBER ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

MAZDA CX-8 JULY ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

VOLKSWAGEN POLO FEBRUARY ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

FORD MUSTANG (FN) DECEMBER ONWARDS V8 & ECOBOOST FASTBACK (COUPE) VARIANTS

IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTONOMOUS EMERGENCY BRAKING (AEB), THE NEXT STEP IN EURO NCAP S SAFETY ASSESSMENT

HYUNDAI SANTA FE JULY ONWARDS ALL VARIANTS

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL SAFETY ASSIST

Driver (Single Stage), Passenger (Single Stage) Driver (dual), Passenger (dual)

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) TEST PROTOCOL AEB Car-to-Car systems

ANCAP Test Protocol. AEB Car-to-Car Systems v2.0.1

Procedure for assessing the performance of Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems in front-to-rear collisions

Lexus RX 82% 91% 77% 79% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Off-Road. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Audi Q7 94% 88% 76% 70% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Large Off-Road. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Safety Assist.

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) TEST PROTOCOL Lane Support Systems

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL SAFETY ASSIST

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION

Driver (Single Stage), Passenger (Single Stage) Driver (single), Passenger (single)

Suzuki Vitara 85% 89% 76% 75% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

EUROPEAN NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (Euro NCAP) ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL VULNERABLE ROAD USER PROTECTION

Audi Q2 86% 93% 70% 70% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Suzuki Vitara 85% 89% 76% 75% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Jaguar XE 82% 92% 81% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Euro NCAP: Saving Lives with Safer Cars

Audi TT SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Roadster sports. Year Of Publication Driver Passenger Rear FRONTAL CRASH PROTECTION

Ford Edge 76% 85% 67% 89% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Jaguar XE 82% 92% 81% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

AEB Car-Car and Pedestrian: Last Point To Steer For Various Cars and Speeds

Volvo XC90 97% 87% 100% 72% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Off-Road 4x4. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Audi A4 90% 87% 75% 75% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Safety Assist.

Ford S-MAX 87% 87% 79% 71% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large MPV. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Kia Stinger 81% 93% 78% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

ANCAP Test Protocol. Lane Support Systems v2.0.2

VW Tiguan 96% 80% 68% 68% SPECIFICATION TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Pedestrian Impact Protection

Subaru Levorg 83% 92% 75% 68% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

VW Passat VW Passat 2.0 TDI 'Comfortline', LHD

Jaguar XF 84% 92% 80% 83% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Executive. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

LAND ROVER DISCOVERY. ANCAP Safety Rating. ancap.com.au. Test Results Summary. This ANCAP safety rating applies to: Adult Occupant Protection.

Toyota Hilux 82% 93% 83% 63% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. With Safety Pack. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Mercedes-Benz GLC 95% 89% 82% 71% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Small Off-Road. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant.

Toyota Prius 82% 92% 77% 85% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Honda Civic (reassessment)

VW Arteon 85% 96% 85% 82% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Mercedes-Benz A-Class

Jaguar E-Pace 87% 86% 77% 72% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Nissan LEAF 86% 93% 71% 71% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

SAFETY EQUIPMENT (NEXT)

Audi TT 68% 81% 64% 82% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Roadster sports. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Pedestrian.

Ford Mustang (reassessment)

Mercedes-Benz X-Class

BMW X1 90% 87% 77% 74% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Small Off-Road. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Pedestrian.

Safe, superior and comfortable driving - Market needs and solutions

Hyundai Tucson 85% 86% 71% 71% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small Off-Road. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

On the road to automated vehicles Sensors pave the way!

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Volvo XC60 87% 98% 76% 95% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

MINI Countryman 80% 90% 64% 51% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Automated Driving: The Technology and Implications for Insurance Brake Webinar 6 th December 2016

Mazda 2 78% 86% 84% 64% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Ford Focus 85% 87% 75% 72% SPECIFICATION TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Safety Assist. Vulnerable Road Users

EMERGING TRENDS IN AUTOMOTIVE ACTIVE-SAFETY APPLICATIONS

AEB IWG 04. Industry Position Summary. Vehicle detection. Static target

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Hyundai i30 84% 88% 64% 68% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

VW Touran 89% 88% 71% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small MPV. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

AUTONOMOUS EMERGENCY BRAKING TEST RESULTS Wesley Hulshof Iain Knight Alix Edwards Matthew Avery Colin Grover Thatcham Research UK Paper Number

SAFETY EQUIPMENT (NEXT)

DS 7 Crossback 87% 91% 73% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Alfa Romeo Stelvio 84% 97% 71% 60% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant.

Renault Koleos 79% 90% 62% 75% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Opel/Vauxhall Astra 84% 86% 83% 75% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Skoda Superb 86% 86% 76% 71% SPECIFICATION ADVANCED REWARDS TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Adult Occupant. Child Occupant. Pedestrian.

SAFETY EQUIPMENT (NEXT)

Land Rover Range Rover Velar

Honda Jazz 85% 93% 73% 71% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Mazda MX-5 84% 80% 64% 93% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Roadster sports. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Kia Niro 80% 91% 70% 81% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. With Safety Pack. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Fiat 500X 85% 86% 74% 64% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small MPV. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Kia Sportage 83% 90% 71% 66% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small Off-Road. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Kia Optima 86% 89% 71% 67% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Large Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Volvo XC40 87% 97% 71% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Honda HR-V 79% 86% 72% 71% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Small Family Car. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

VW T-Roc 87% 96% 79% 71% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Skoda Kodiaq 77% 92% 71% 54% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Jaguar I-Pace 81% 91% 73% 81% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Adult Occupant. Pedestrian

Audi A6 85% 93% 81% 76% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Standard Safety Equipment. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant.

Kia Picanto 64% 87% 54% 47% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. With Safety Pack. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

MINI Clubman 68% 90% 68% 67% SPECIFICATION SAFETY EQUIPMENT TEST RESULTS. Supermini. Child Occupant. Adult Occupant. Safety Assist.

Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Aty, P.E. Connected-Autonomous Vehicles (CAV): Background and Opportunities. Trustee Chair

Transcription:

1 SA -1 Content Euro NCAP Safety Assist Road Map 2020 2 SA -2 1

Content Euro NCAP Safety Assist 3 SA -3 Overall Rating 2015 4 SA -4 2

Safety Assist - Overview 2016+ 0 Points 2016+ 3 Points 5 SA -5 SBR & ESC 2015:Front 2 pts. or 0 pts. + Rear 1 pt. 2018:Front 1 pt. + Rear 2 pts. (incl. 0.5 pt for advanced occupant sensing ) 6 SA -6 2015:3 pt. 2016:0 pt. 3

Speed Assist System (SAS) 7 SA -7 Speed Assist System (SAS) 8 SA -8 4

Speed Assist System (SAS) 9 SA -9 Speed Assist System (SAS) 10SA -10 5

Speed Assist System (SAS) 11SA -11 Overall Rating SA 2016 Speed Assist System (SAS) 12SA -12 6

Overall Rating SA 2016 Speed Assist System (SAS) 13SA -13 Overall Rating SA 2016 Speed Assist System (SAS) 14SA -14 7

LDW & LKA 15SA -15 LDW & LKA 16SA -16 8

AEB Interurban 17SA -17 AEB Interurban CCR stationary EVT 30-80 km/h 0 km/h Incremental speed of 30-80 km/h FCW only Euro NCAP Vehicle Target (EVT) Steering & Acceleration & Brake robot for driver reaction 18SA -18 9

AEB Interurban CCR moving EVT 30-70 km/h (AEB)/ 50-80 km/h (FCW) 20 km/h Incremental speed of 30-70 km/h / 50-80 km/h AEB (30-70) & FCW (50-80) Euro NCAP Vehicle Target (EVT) Steering & Acceleration & Brake robot (FCW) 19SA -19 AEB Interurban CCR braking EVT 50 km/h 50 km/h 2 & 6 m/s 2 Single speed of 50 km/h AEB & FCW Euro NCAP Vehicle Target (EVT) Steering robot in both vehicles, Acceleration robot, Braking robot (FCW) 20SA -20 10

21SA -21 AEB Interurban Scenarios CCRs CCRm CCRb AEB FCW AEB FCW AEB FCW - 30 30 - - 40 40 - - 50 50 50 50 x4 50 x4-60 60 60-70 70 70-80 - 80 v,max = 50 km/h for all AEB tests 5 km/h steps after impact has occured (+ 5 km/h down from point of impact) s = stationary, m = moving, b = braking Distance: 12 & 40 m Deceleration: 2 & 6 m/s² Eligible for scoring if: System fitment rates: 2014 2015 2016 2017 50% fitment 50% fitment 70% fitment 100% fitment AEB Interurban Scoring Default ON Working up to 80 km/h HMI (max. 4 points) Activation/Deactivation of AEB and/or FCW system (2 pt) Additional warning for FCW system (1 pt) Reversible Pre-tensioning of the belt in pre-crash phase (1 pt) 22SA -22 11

AEB Interurban Scoring 23SA -23 Test speed Points AEB FCW 30-2 35-2 40-2 45-2 50-3 55-2 60-1 65-1 70-1 75-1 80-1 CCR stationary Linear interpolation of speed to calculate score in case of mitigation. AEB Interurban Scoring 24SA -24 Test speed Points AEB FCW 30 1-35 1-40 1-45 1-50 1 1 55 1 1 60 1 1 65 2 2 70 2 2 75-2 80-2 CCR moving Linear interpolation of speed to calculate score in case of mitigation. 12

AEB Interurban Scoring Test speed Points AEB FCW 50, 12m, 2m/s 2 1 1 50, 40m, 2m/s 2 1 1 50, 12m, 6m/s 2 1 1 50, 40m, 6m/s 2 1 1 CCR braking Linear interpolation of speed to calculate score in case of mitigation. CCRb only: v rel,impact = 50 km/h-v impact 25SA -25 AEB Interurban Scoring CCRs CCRm CCRb AEB-% AEB 50% AEB 50% FCW 33,3% FCW 33,3% FCW 33,3% 26SA -26 13

AEB Interurban Scoring AEB Inter-Urban Overall Scoring Points HMI 0.5 AEB 1.5 FCW 1.0 27SA -27 AEB Interurban Scoring 28SA -28 14

AEB Interurban Scoring 29SA -29 AEB Interurban Scoring 30SA -30 15

Schematic Test Setup C2C Outside camera (panning) Onboard camera Target: Speed control Brake control Path control DGPS-IMU Distance Measurement (Slave) GPS Timestamp VuT: Speed control Brake control Path control DGPS-IMU Audio Trigger Distance Measurement (Master) GPS Timestamp 31SA -31 Equipment Measurement 32SA -32 16

Equipment Vehicle Control 33SA -33 Steering robot: Maintains path Brake robot: Brake actuation after acoustic warning signal Accelerator robot: speed control (CCRm, CCRs) distance control (CCRb) All robots use the DGPS measurement system as input Target 34SA -34 17

Test layout on test track (example) 35SA -35 Test Conduction and Tolerances Drive 2 circles (clockwise, counter-clockwise) Fully depress brake pedal to make sure brake pads are aligned Start test manually, then activate robots Disconnect speed control to make sure AEB intervention is not overruled 36SA -36 18

Test Validity Test is valid if conditions are met Parameter Lower Limit Upper Limit NEW compared to AEB City Vehicle Speed (TTC=4s to AEB) Target Speed (TTC=4s to AEB), CCRm Target Speed(at time of braking), CCRb DistanceVehicletoTarget, CCRb Lateral deviation from test path, both vehicles TestSpeed 19 km/h(all but CCRb) 21 km/h 49 km/h 51 km/h Distance 0.5 m -10 cm +10 cm Yaw velocity -1 /s 1 /s Steering wheel velocity -15 /s 15 /s Test Speed + 1km/h Distance+ 0.5 m 37SA -37 Forward Collision Warning Tests Goal: assess the performance of Dynamic Brake Support Electronic device detects warning sound in real time Device triggers brake robot Brake robots waits reaction time delay is 1.2s Brake robot acts on the brake, accelerator robot releases First step: Pedal displacement control (reach position in 0.2 s) Second step: Force control (maintain force) Robot input should be appropriate for 4m/s² in nonthreat conditions Brake characterization is carried out before tests 38SA -38 19

Examples and Results CCRb 40/6 39SA -39 AEB Interurban Scoring Safety Assist -SA 2013 2014 2015 2016 ESC 3 3 3 - SBR 3 3 3 3 SLD/SAS 3 3 3 3 AEB(Interurban) 3 3 3 LDW/LKD/LSS 1 1 3 Junction Assist Total 9 13 13 12 Weight 10% 20% 20% 20% 40SA -40 20

BASt Road Map 2020 Domain I: Occupant Protection in Front and Side Crashes I.4 Seat Belt Reminder (SBR): Incentives for more advanced Reminder Systems Additional functionalities (rear seat occupant detection)... Vehicle Safety Rating 41SA - 41 Strategy 2020 Domain II: Autonomous Braking for Cars and VRU II.1a Update AEB Car-to-Car test & assessment: Improving robustness in low and high speed rear-end scenarios Avoiding/mitigating head-on and junction/intersection crossing crashes Key Enabler: Future Target Vehicles! Example system. Used with permission from ABD Target Platform 42SA - 42 Example system. Used with permission from ABD Vehicle Safety Rating & int. Cooperation 21

3D Target 43SA -43 Propulsion System (Example: ABD/DRI) 44SA -44 22

Propulsion System Test 45SA -45 What is a Realistic Test Setup? Robustness rear-end 2018 Head-on? LSS 2018 Turning 2020: Prevent startup Crossing 2020: Prevent startup 46SA -46 23

III.1 Lane Keep Assist Strategy 2020 Domain III: Lateral Assist Systems From pass/fail test (1Pt) since 2014 based on NHTSA-Protocol to Performance Test and Assessment in 2016 and more Points? Source: BOSCH 47SA -47 Vehicle Safety Rating & int. Cooperation Strategy 2020 Domain III: Lateral Assist Systems Lane Keeping Assist Blind Spot Support System Lane Departure Warning? Lane Change Assist Narrow Offset Head-on Collision? 48SA -48 24

Strategy 2020 Domain III: Lateral Assist Systems III.2 Advanced Lateral Support System Extension to Lane Keep System assessment incl. evasive steering Taking into account: Unintended Road Departures with potential crash into a fixed object Source: URBAN Critical lane change maneuvers (narrow offset) head-on Collision 49SA -49 Vehicle Safety Rating Lane Keeping Assist Use US NCAP Lane Keeping Support evaluation as base for 2016 Euro NCAP protocol Active Support System Warning System Blind Spot Assist via HMI-Points (probably no test) Augment protocol for 2018 Run off road prevention using road edge detection (not road markings) Active Blind Spot 50SA -50 25

Warning system: Possible adaptations for Euro NCAP 2016 US NCAP uses human test drivers Relatively high tolerances Speed Lateral velocity 5 test runs per setting Euro NCAP preferably uses driving robots Allows tighter tolerances Speed Lateral velocity Allows less test runs 51SA -51 Lane Departure Warning d Warn Parameter US NCAP Euro? v longitudinal 20 ±0.56 m/s 20 ±0.14 m/s v lateral 0.1 0.5 m/s 0.3 m/s; 0.5 m/s d warn 0.3 m same d initial d initial 1.8m t.b.d. v longitudinal R v lateral R Linetype 1200 m =1 /s solid white, dashed yellow, Bott s dots same solid white, dashed white Test runs 5 each 1 or 2 each 52SA -52 26

Lane Keeping Support Parameter US NCAP Euro? v longitudinal 20 ±0.56 m/s 20 ±0.14 m/s d initial v lateral 0.1m/s until max 0.1 m/s until max d warn -(data collection)?(overrun avoided) d initial 1.8m t.b.d. v longitudinal R v lateral R Linetype 1200 m =1 /s full marked road acceptable same t.b.d. Test runs 5 each 1 or 2 each 53SA -53 Challenges: Lane Keep Assist With Steering Robot 54SA -54 27

Additional Tests for 2018 Lateral Support Systems 55SA -55 Crossing a dashed line is not a safety thread per se Active intervention for an emergency system could be justified Before leaving a road When crossing a line into oncoming traffic Blind spot? Strategy 2020 Domain IV: Speed & Impaired Driving IV.1 Update to Speed Assistance Systems (SAS) Integration of Nomadic Devices Traffic Sign Recognition Conditional Speed Limits -> 2018 Traffic Lights Recognition Digital Map Data 56SA -56 Vehicle Safety Rating 28

Safety Assist -SA Road Map 2020 Domain II & III & IV: Overall Rating SA 57SA -57 Safety Assist -SA Road Map 2020 Domain II & III & IV: Overall Rating SA 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ESC 3 3 3 - - - - - SBR 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 SLD/SAS 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 AEB(Interurban) 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 LDW/LKD/LSS 1 1 3 3 4 4 4 Junction Assist 2 Total 9 13 13 12 12 13 13 16 2016: ESC is a requirement for type approval. Therefore 3 Points for ESC are deleted from 2016. 2016: Points related to LKA and LDW performance increase from 1 to 3. This may include an incentive for availability of blind spot systems. 2018: SBR will keep 3 points associated. Of these points, 2 points will be for rear seat SBR including ½ point for advanced occupant sensing systems. 2018: Points allocated to the assessment of advanced Lane Support Systems increase from 3 to 4. AEB Interurban updates will not aim at addressing significantly different crash scenarios (e.g. no braking in head-on scenarios) so the points remain the same. 2020: SA total points increase from 13 to 16 points with the extension of AEB Interurban and inclusion of Junction Assist. 58SA -58 29

Road Map 2020 Domain II & III & IV: Overall Rating SA Safety Assist SA 2016/2017 Balancing Thresholds 13pt.x70%=9.1pt. SA 2015 SA 2016-17 59SA -59 Road Map 2020 Domain II & III & IV: Overall Rating SA Safety Assist SA 2016/2017 Balancing Thresholds SA 2015 SA 2016-17 60SA -60 30

Road Map 2020 Domain II & III & IV: Overall Rating SA Safety Assist SA 2018/2019 Balancing Thresholds 61SA -61 Road Map 2020 Domain II & III & IV: Overall Rating SA Safety Assist SA 2020+ Balancing Thresholds 62SA -62 31