Abstract
This paper documents the state of automotive computer-based system safety practices based on experiences with unintended acceleration litigation spanning multiple vehicle makers. There is a wide gulf between some observed automotive practices and established principles for safety critical system engineering. While some companies strive to do better, at least some car makers in the 2002–2010 era took a test-centric approach to safety that discounted non-reproducible and “unrealistic” faults, instead blaming driver error for mishaps. Regulators still follow policies from the pre-software safety assurance era. Eight general areas of contrast between accepted safety principles and observed automotive safety practices are identified. While the advent of ISO 26262 promises some progress, deployment of highly autonomous vehicles in a non-regulatory environment threatens to undermine safety engineering rigor.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
MISRA: Development Guidelines for Vehicle Based Software, November 1994
Bookout v. Toyota Trial Transcript, 11 October 2013. https://goo.gl/MP8w3w
Charles Johnson et al. v. Ford Motor Company, US Dist. S. WV, Huntington, 3:13-CV-06529, 1 Feb 2018 PM. (Lawyer summaries of expert testimony and evidence)
Koopman, P.: A case study of toyota unintended acceleration and software safety. Carnegie Mellon University, 18 September 2014. Presentation slides
Kennedy, J.: Toyota has reached deals in 496 cases in acceleration MDL. Law360, 15 November 2017. https://goo.gl/T4TaLs
Manganis, J.: Cop’s fatal-crash trial underway; defense appears to abandon long-touted ‘sudden acceleration’ theory. Salem News, 17 March 2008. https://goo.gl/jiZ9rN
Toyota, 2005 Prius Repair Manual (RM1130U), pp. 05–951
Marosi, R., Olivarez-Giles, N.: Runaway prius driver: I was laying on the brakes but it wasn’t slowing down, 10 March 2010. https://goo.gl/aZK7BM
ISO: Road vehicles-Functional Safety-Management of functional safety, ISO 26262 (2011)
GSN Community Standard Version 1, November 2011
Bookout v. Toyota Trial Transcript, 22 October 2013. https://goo.gl/hh47vg
EGAS Working Group, Standardized E-Gas Monitoring Concept for Gasoline and Diesel Engine Control Units, Version 5.5 (2013)
SAE: Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Design (Design FMEA), J1739_200901, 15 January 2009
GPO: Section 571.138, Standard No. 138; Tire pressure monitoring systems. 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-11 Edition)
NHTSA: Denial of a petition for a defect investigation. Federal register vol. 80, no. 93, pp. 27835–27844, 14 May 2015
Lala, J., Harper, R.: Architectural principles for safety-critical real-time applications. Proc. IEEE 82(1), 25–40 (1994)
Driscoll, K., Hall, B., Sivencrona, H., Zumsteg, P.: Byzantine fault tolerance, from theory to reality. In: Anderson, S., Felici, M., Littlewood, B. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2788, pp. 235–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39878-3_19
Driscoll, K.: Real system failures (2012). https://c3.nasa.gov/dashlink/resources/624/
Hammett, R.: Design by extrapolation: an evaluation of fault-tolerant avionics. In: 20th Conference on Digital Avionics Systems. IEEE (2001)
Thomas, D., et al.: The ‘trouble not identified’ phenomenon in automotive electronics. Microelectron. Reliab. 42, 641–651 (2002)
Gladwell, M.: The engineer’s lament: two ways of thinking about automotive safety. The New Yorker, 4 May 2015
Lococo, K., et al.: Pedal Application Errors, DOT HS 811 597, March 2012
Wierwille, W., et al.: Identification and evaluation of driver errors: overview and recommendations. Federal Highway Administration; McLean, VA, FHWARD-02-003 (2002)
Walter, R., et al.: Study of mechanical and driver-related systems of the Audi 5000 capable of producing uncontrolled sudden acceleration incidents, DOT-TSC-NHTSA-88-4, December 1988
US DoT: Federal Automated Vehicles Policy: Accelerating the next revolution in roadway safety, September 2016
US DoT: Automated Driving Systems 2.0: a vision for safety, September 2017
Koopman, P., Wagner, M.: Autonomous vehicle safety: an interdisciplinary challenge. IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag. 9, 90–96 (2017)
Waymo: On the Road to Fully Self-Driving (2018). https://goo.gl/3GwP2T
GM: 2018 Self-Driving Safety Report. https://goo.gl/2d5PTM
Johnson, C., et al. v. Ford Motor Company, US Dist. S. WV, Huntington, 3:13-CV-06529, order granting sanctions, 27 December 2017
Koopman, P.: Letter to editor. IEEE Consum. Electron. Mag. 7(1), 6 (2018)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Koopman, P. (2018). Practical Experience Report: Automotive Safety Practices vs. Accepted Principles. In: Gallina, B., Skavhaug, A., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11093. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99130-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99130-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99129-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99130-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)