> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 05:54:43 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> John Speth wrote:
>>>> Actually by "law" I mean "law". Are there regulations in any
>>>> country or other polity that require companies manufacturing or
>>>> selling automobiles to adhere to the standard before they can
>>>> legally sell their wares? Is there anywhere in the world where
>>>> not following ISO 26262 will have a cop or a government lawyer
>>>> knocking on your door? Is there anywhere in the world where,
>>>> before you can offer a newly-designed car for sale, you have to
>>>> show documentation that proves that you've followed the
>>>> standard, or regulations based on the standard?
>>>
>>> Here's a cynical response: No, no, and no; not until somebody is
>>> killed.
>>>
>>> Straying off topic, I personally believe that lack of gov
>>> regulation is the single biggest weakness of the technology.
>>> Imagine what will happen when a steering wheel free car is
>>> involved in a fatal crash. The entire fleet will be grounded.
>>>
>>>
>> There have been fatalities already when the car was on
>> "autopilot".
>
> I've seen claims that, statistically, the self-driving cars are
> safer, but generate more news in a crash. Hence, since they're a new
> thing, they get tarred and feathered.
>
Yep. And in the larger sense, crashes will be analyzed and fed back into
various code bases. This could play the role that the NTSB plays in
aviation ... mishaps.
> Dunno what truth is, but it certainly seems plausible.
>
Statistical arguments are like that.
--
Les Cargill
Reply by Paul●March 17, 20172017-03-17
In article <5P2dnRmRIeI3mlHFnZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com>,
tim@seemywebsite.com says...
>
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 05:54:43 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>
> > John Speth wrote:
> >>> Actually by "law" I mean "law". Are there regulations in any country
> >>> or other polity that require companies manufacturing or selling
> >>> automobiles to adhere to the standard before they can legally sell
> >>> their wares? Is there anywhere in the world where not following ISO
> >>> 26262 will have a cop or a government lawyer knocking on your door?
> >>> Is there anywhere in the world where, before you can offer a
> >>> newly-designed car for sale, you have to show documentation that
> >>> proves that you've followed the standard, or regulations based on the
> >>> standard?
> >>
> >> Here's a cynical response: No, no, and no; not until somebody is
> >> killed.
> >>
> >> Straying off topic, I personally believe that lack of gov regulation is
> >> the single biggest weakness of the technology. Imagine what will
> >> happen when a steering wheel free car is involved in a fatal crash. The
> >> entire fleet will be grounded.
> >>
> >>
> > There have been fatalities already when the car was on "autopilot".
>
> I've seen claims that, statistically, the self-driving cars are safer,
> but generate more news in a crash. Hence, since they're a new thing,
> they get tarred and feathered.
>
> Dunno what truth is, but it certainly seems plausible.
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 05:52:16 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
> Tim Wescott wrote:
>> AFAIK there are no laws that regulate automotive software, specifically
>> -- just threats of lawsuits if a car kills someone, and systems-level
>> requirements that cover cases like Volkwagen and their dirty diesels.
>>
>> Am I right? Or are there safety (or other) regulations that extend
>> their tentacles specifically into automotive software, the way DO-128
>> does in avionics, and the various IEC standards do with medical
>> devices?
>>
>>
> Might be worth googling "micheal barr group". Emphasis "might";
> I still get spam from 'em now and again.
>
> There isn't any that I am aware of. It's all self-regulation. There is
> MISRA, which is fine as far as it goes.
>
> Lawsuits may stand as legal precedent, but a settlement can't be
> concluded - even legally - as a recognition that a defect was a cause.
>
> I don't know that either D0-128 or medical device standards actually do
> that much to enforce any sort of defect rate. At least in the Toyota
> cases, the logic was more about process than product.
>
> Throw in self-driving cars and abandon all hope. I don't think those can
> actually be verified nor validated. They'll advance one crash at a time.
DO-178 (it's not 128 -- I was corrected recently) and medical device
standards enforce processes that tend to lead to significantly reduced
defect rates. So they're not _directly_ reducing defects, but they can
certainly _effectively_ reduced defects.
And yes -- I see your point on self-driving cars.
--
Tim Wescott
Control systems, embedded software and circuit design
I'm looking for work! See my website if you're interested
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by Tim Wescott●March 17, 20172017-03-17
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:10:57 +0100, Stefan Reuther wrote:
> Am 16.03.2017 um 16:16 schrieb Tim Wescott:
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:09:29 +0100, Stefan Reuther wrote:
>>>> Actually by "law" I mean "law". Are there regulations in any country
>>>> or other polity that require companies manufacturing or selling
>>>> automobiles to adhere to the standard before they can legally sell
>>>> their wares? Is there anywhere in the world where not following ISO
>>>> 26262 will have a cop or a government lawyer knocking on your door?
>>>
>>> Would it be law that works that way, or would it be a certification
>>> agency?
>>>
>>> As I understand, technology has to fulfill certain systems
>>> requirements (for a car, things like "can steer", "can brake", "engine
>>> warning light"), and there's recognized state-of-the-art how you do
>>> that. The law doesn't say your steering column has to work
>>> mechanically, but everyone agrees that's a good way to do it. And if
>>> you do it differently, you have to prove to achieve equivalent safety.
>>
>> In order for a certification agency to have the authority to do such,
>> there has to be a law that gives it that power. So, law.
>
> My point is that the law doesn't say "the brake controller has to be
> written in programming language X using coding standard Y and
> development process Z", it just has to be "state-of-the-art". That
> state-of-the-art is defined by ISO standards and industry rules. If you
> now want to deviate from that standard, you got to prove equivalent
> safety. Or get an industry consortium behind you that makes this the new
> standard. But you don't need to, nor can you, change the law to allow a
> Visual Basic brake controller.
But if no one looks at your code, how can they know you don't have a VB
brake controller?
--
Tim Wescott
Control systems, embedded software and circuit design
I'm looking for work! See my website if you're interested
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by Tim Wescott●March 17, 20172017-03-17
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 05:54:43 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
> John Speth wrote:
>>> Actually by "law" I mean "law". Are there regulations in any country
>>> or other polity that require companies manufacturing or selling
>>> automobiles to adhere to the standard before they can legally sell
>>> their wares? Is there anywhere in the world where not following ISO
>>> 26262 will have a cop or a government lawyer knocking on your door?
>>> Is there anywhere in the world where, before you can offer a
>>> newly-designed car for sale, you have to show documentation that
>>> proves that you've followed the standard, or regulations based on the
>>> standard?
>>
>> Here's a cynical response: No, no, and no; not until somebody is
>> killed.
>>
>> Straying off topic, I personally believe that lack of gov regulation is
>> the single biggest weakness of the technology. Imagine what will
>> happen when a steering wheel free car is involved in a fatal crash. The
>> entire fleet will be grounded.
>>
>>
> There have been fatalities already when the car was on "autopilot".
I've seen claims that, statistically, the self-driving cars are safer,
but generate more news in a crash. Hence, since they're a new thing,
they get tarred and feathered.
Dunno what truth is, but it certainly seems plausible.
--
Tim Wescott
Control systems, embedded software and circuit design
I'm looking for work! See my website if you're interested
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by Paul●March 17, 20172017-03-17
In article <n-Cdnd7UArDFMVfFnZ2dnUU7-T2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
tim@seemywebsite.com says...
>
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:09:29 +0100, Stefan Reuther wrote:
>
> > Am 15.03.2017 um 18:32 schrieb Tim Wescott:
> >> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:12:28 +0000, HT-Lab wrote:
> >>> I assume with law you mean if this is the standard that all automotive
> >>> suppliers/manufacturers tried to adhere to (similar to DO-254 for the
> >>> avionics market), I so then I believe this is indeed the case.
> >>>
> >>> However, I have no experience with this standard, I just play with
> >>> FPGA's day in day out...
> >>
> >> Actually by "law" I mean "law". Are there regulations in any country
> >> or other polity that require companies manufacturing or selling
> >> automobiles to adhere to the standard before they can legally sell
> >> their wares? Is there anywhere in the world where not following ISO
> >> 26262 will have a cop or a government lawyer knocking on your door?
> >
> > Would it be law that works that way, or would it be a certification
> > agency?
> >
> > As I understand, technology has to fulfill certain systems requirements
> > (for a car, things like "can steer", "can brake", "engine warning
> > light"), and there's recognized state-of-the-art how you do that. The
> > law doesn't say your steering column has to work mechanically, but
> > everyone agrees that's a good way to do it. And if you do it
> > differently, you have to prove to achieve equivalent safety.
>
> In order for a certification agency to have the authority to do such,
> there has to be a law that gives it that power. So, law.
Most Countries do not have a specific law that states in such and such
Act the body must be made only of certain metals.
They have sets of laws (which is part of the problem)
1/ Basic standards Headlights max power and alignment
brakelights must be Red at least 2 of them and
usually a wattage
None of which dictates for on lights what the lumens must be
(France and yellow headlights come to mind)
For this country steering wheel must be left or right etc
General comments like to meet standards of certifying agency
at time of manufacture (rarely retroactive)
Minimum of from this date all cars must have a seat belt
Changes in requirements over time dealt with by certifying agency
(because it is quicker usually and done with consultation with
manufacturers they regularly deal with)
Often these laws are varied or cover specific aspects, lights
seat belts, emmisions SEPARATELY
Then there are different classifications for types of vehicles
2/ General Laws from treaties and international agreement
For example layout of which side wipers and lights should be
on steering column was at one time haphazd but change by agreement
during 70's era.
Acceptance of certain countries/regional authority vehicle
certification standards as complete or starting point.
3/ General Guidelines for Certifying agemcy its goals and limits
With the power to set standards usually in forms of publications
Often from a general law about a Vehicle Category(s) and the
minimum MANUFACTURING requirements and which certifying agencies
are involved.
Then you have usually Insurance Body or Motor Manufacturer Body lead
initiatives like
Thatcham Group and Euro NCAP (now be copied around the world China,
India.....)
Which partly testing before production, during sales AND analysis
of crashes over time by model and type of incident.
These also go into Driver Assitance Systems (Lane Support, Speed
Assist, Collision Mitigation...) no doubt before long driverless
systems.
MISRA which most people here have heard of
Most of these have for decades been more about mechanical, electrical
and fire safety, simply due to the fact that that was what the major
components were.
Rarely do they consider drivers need retraining.
>
> Based on what little I know for sure, automotive safety certification is
> based on end-product black-box testing. Such testing may make sense when
> everything is mechanical and all systems are (at least relatively) simple
> and decoupled, but it's not necessarily sufficient when there's CPUs in
> the mix.
> Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 17/03/17 10:54, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> John Speth wrote:
>>>>> Actually by "law" I mean "law". Are there regulations in any
>>>>> country or other polity that require companies manufacturing or
>>>>> selling automobiles to adhere to the standard before they can
>>>>> legally sell their wares? Is there anywhere in the world where not
>>>>> following ISO 26262 will have a cop or a government lawyer knocking
>>>>> on your door? Is there anywhere in the world where, before you can
>>>>> offer a newly-designed car for sale, you have to show documentation
>>>>> that proves that you've followed the standard, or regulations based
>>>>> on the standard?
>>>>
>>>> Here's a cynical response: No, no, and no; not until somebody is
>>>> killed.
>>>>
>>>> Straying off topic, I personally believe that lack of gov regulation
>>>> is the single biggest weakness of the technology. Imagine what will
>>>> happen when a steering wheel free car is involved in a fatal crash.
>>>> The entire fleet will be grounded.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There have been fatalities already when the car was on "autopilot".
>>
>> But now /deliberation/ and multiple parties are
>> involved in the decision.
>>
>> Philosophy can be useful. In this case, should
>> you /design/ the car so that it chooses to kill
>> the driver (by swerving into a brick wall) in
>> preference to killing 10 pedestrians?
>>
>> Fun, fun, fun.
>>
>
> The trolley problem isn't that fun :)
>
> No, you assign agency to the driver with the automation
> as subcontractor and shrug if it goes wrong. All
> the cases I know about there was a strong probability
> that a human driver would have made the same error.
>
> In effect, the (non)drivers are test pilots.
What are these "drivers" of which you speak?
Reply by Les Cargill●March 17, 20172017-03-17
Stefan Reuther wrote:
> Am 16.03.2017 um 16:16 schrieb Tim Wescott:
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:09:29 +0100, Stefan Reuther wrote:
>>>> Actually by "law" I mean "law". Are there regulations in any
>>>> country or other polity that require companies manufacturing or
>>>> selling automobiles to adhere to the standard before they can
>>>> legally sell their wares? Is there anywhere in the world where
>>>> not following ISO 26262 will have a cop or a government lawyer
>>>> knocking on your door?
>>>
>>> Would it be law that works that way, or would it be a
>>> certification agency?
>>>
>>> As I understand, technology has to fulfill certain systems
>>> requirements (for a car, things like "can steer", "can brake",
>>> "engine warning light"), and there's recognized state-of-the-art
>>> how you do that. The law doesn't say your steering column has to
>>> work mechanically, but everyone agrees that's a good way to do
>>> it. And if you do it differently, you have to prove to achieve
>>> equivalent safety.
>>
>> In order for a certification agency to have the authority to do
>> such, there has to be a law that gives it that power. So, law.
>
> My point is that the law doesn't say "the brake controller has to be
> written in programming language X using coding standard Y and
> development process Z", it just has to be "state-of-the-art". That
> state-of-the-art is defined by ISO standards and industry rules. If
> you now want to deviate from that standard, you got to prove
> equivalent safety. Or get an industry consortium behind you that
> makes this the new standard. But you don't need to, nor can you,
> change the law to allow a Visual Basic brake controller.
>
>
> Stefan
>
Unless I'm out of date ( and I am ) none of these things much
touch on *actual* hi-rel and improved-provability techniques.
Most, if not all of the ISO standards have to do with chains
of documentation.
--
Les Cargill
Reply by Les Cargill●March 17, 20172017-03-17
Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 17/03/17 10:54, Les Cargill wrote:
>> John Speth wrote:
>>>> Actually by "law" I mean "law". Are there regulations in any
>>>> country or other polity that require companies manufacturing or
>>>> selling automobiles to adhere to the standard before they can
>>>> legally sell their wares? Is there anywhere in the world where not
>>>> following ISO 26262 will have a cop or a government lawyer knocking
>>>> on your door? Is there anywhere in the world where, before you can
>>>> offer a newly-designed car for sale, you have to show documentation
>>>> that proves that you've followed the standard, or regulations based
>>>> on the standard?
>>>
>>> Here's a cynical response: No, no, and no; not until somebody is
>>> killed.
>>>
>>> Straying off topic, I personally believe that lack of gov regulation
>>> is the single biggest weakness of the technology. Imagine what will
>>> happen when a steering wheel free car is involved in a fatal crash.
>>> The entire fleet will be grounded.
>>>
>>
>> There have been fatalities already when the car was on "autopilot".
>
> But now /deliberation/ and multiple parties are
> involved in the decision.
>
> Philosophy can be useful. In this case, should
> you /design/ the car so that it chooses to kill
> the driver (by swerving into a brick wall) in
> preference to killing 10 pedestrians?
>
> Fun, fun, fun.
>
The trolley problem isn't that fun :)
No, you assign agency to the driver with the automation
as subcontractor and shrug if it goes wrong. All
the cases I know about there was a strong probability
that a human driver would have made the same error.
In effect, the (non)drivers are test pilots.
--
Les Cargill
Reply by Tom Gardner●March 17, 20172017-03-17
On 17/03/17 10:54, Les Cargill wrote:
> John Speth wrote:
>>> Actually by "law" I mean "law". Are there regulations in any
>>> country or other polity that require companies manufacturing or
>>> selling automobiles to adhere to the standard before they can
>>> legally sell their wares? Is there anywhere in the world where not
>>> following ISO 26262 will have a cop or a government lawyer knocking
>>> on your door? Is there anywhere in the world where, before you can
>>> offer a newly-designed car for sale, you have to show documentation
>>> that proves that you've followed the standard, or regulations based
>>> on the standard?
>>
>> Here's a cynical response: No, no, and no; not until somebody is
>> killed.
>>
>> Straying off topic, I personally believe that lack of gov regulation
>> is the single biggest weakness of the technology. Imagine what will
>> happen when a steering wheel free car is involved in a fatal crash.
>> The entire fleet will be grounded.
>>
>
> There have been fatalities already when the car was on "autopilot".
But now /deliberation/ and multiple parties are
involved in the decision.
Philosophy can be useful. In this case, should
you /design/ the car so that it chooses to kill
the driver (by swerving into a brick wall) in
preference to killing 10 pedestrians?
Fun, fun, fun.