The child is still on the pavement. What should the car do?
1. The case
A manufacturer is preparing for type approval of the automated driving system (ADS) of a fully automated passenger car intended to operate within a predefined area in Slovakia.
In the proposed test scenario, two children are playing with a ball on the pavement immediately beside the road. There is no railing separating them from the road. The ADS detects the children. Neither child has entered the road.
Your role: Explain the legal requirement to the development team so that it can specify the expected vehicle behaviour and design the test.
This is a fictional teaching case. The situation can be modelled in simulation or with test dummies.
3. Your legal interpretation
- What does “extra” caution require beyond the ordinary duty to observe traffic?
- Can the duty require an adjustment in driving before a child enters the road? Which circumstances matter?
- Formulate one requirement for ADS behaviour and explain what the test should verify.
Change one circumstance. The children are playing behind a continuous railing with no opening in the section concerned. Does this change your interpretation of the required behaviour? Why?
You can simply think through your answer. Notes are not sent anywhere or saved by the website.
Compare with the legal commentary
4. A possible interpretation
The following is the author’s interpretation of the teaching case. Extra caution has a preventive purpose. The specific reference to children matters before an immediate danger arises. Driving behaviour must account for the possibility that a child may suddenly change direction or enter the road.
Here, the ball game, proximity to the road and absence of a barrier matter. Detecting the children alone does not explain how the system has accounted for that risk. The circumstances may require early slowing, suitable lateral clearance or readiness to stop safely.
The railing changes the risk assessment. It may reduce the likelihood of a child entering the vehicle’s path directly. The duty of care remains, but the required response may differ. The provision alone specifies neither a fixed speed nor a duty to stop whenever a child is present.
5. From interpretation to testing
An example requirement derived from the interpretation:
When children are playing with a ball immediately beside an unseparated roadway, the ADS must account for possible sudden entry and choose driving behaviour that allows a safe response to that foreseeable development.
The test should verify whether the system accounted for this risk while approaching. Assessment covers the sequence of driving actions, the choice of speed and clearance, and stopping capability. Test parameters and acceptance thresholds must be justified by this interpretation and the scenario conditions.
Comparing the situations with and without a railing shows whether the ADS accounts for a legally relevant change in circumstances. Successful emergency braking after a child enters the road does not by itself demonstrate compliance with the preventive duty.
Link to type approval: Regulation (EU) 2022/1426, Annex III, Part 2, point 3.5.5.2(c) covers the assessment of verification plans and results, including appropriate acceptance criteria.
EU, UNECE and the legal significance of the sources
The EU regulation is the legal basis for the model approval exercise. The Slovak driver’s duty informs ADS behaviour through the requirement to comply with local traffic rules. This does not determine personal liability for a particular event.
UN R185, paragraph 6.1.2.6 and GTR26, paragraph 4.1.2.6 contain a corresponding requirement to comply with traffic rules in accordance with the application of relevant law in the area of operation. Paragraphs 6.1.2.2 and 4.1.2.2 respectively also expressly address anticipating risks and adapting driving behaviour.
The numbering follows the June documents underlying the adopted texts: WP.29/2026/137, p. 13, and WP.29/2026/139, p. 23. The latter is read with the amendments in WP.29-199-08.
The legal mechanisms differ. Application of UN R185 depends on its entry into force and application by the relevant contracting party to the 1958 Agreement. GTR26 requires implementation in national or regional law. More on UN R185 and GTR26.
Sources checked as at 25 September 2026. The exercise concerns interpretation and verification of one requirement, rather than all conditions for type approval. Tests provide evidence of system behaviour. They do not themselves determine the legal meaning of an open-textured standard.