Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #26087 > unrolled thread

Automotive Software and the Law

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded

Contents

  Automotive Software and the Law Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-03-14 18:27 -0500
    Re: Automotive Software and the Law Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-14 20:18 -0400
    Re: Automotive Software and the Law HT-Lab <hans64@htminuslab.com> - 2017-03-15 11:18 +0000
      Re: Automotive Software and the Law Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-15 11:36 -0500
        Re: Automotive Software and the Law HT-Lab <hans64@htminuslab.com> - 2017-03-15 17:12 +0000
          Re: Automotive Software and the Law Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-03-15 12:32 -0500
            Re: Automotive Software and the Law John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-15 11:48 -0700
              Re: Automotive Software and the Law Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-03-15 17:31 -0500
                Re: Automotive Software and the Law Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-03-15 19:23 -0400
                  Re: Automotive Software and the Law Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-03-15 18:41 -0500
              Re: Automotive Software and the Law Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-17 05:54 -0500
                Re: Automotive Software and the Law Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 11:42 +0000
                  Re: Automotive Software and the Law Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-17 07:08 -0500
                    Re: Automotive Software and the Law Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 13:50 +0000
                Re: Automotive Software and the Law Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-17 10:58 -0500
                  Re: Automotive Software and the Law Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 16:18 +0000
                  Re: Automotive Software and the Law Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-17 19:00 -0500
            Re: Automotive Software and the Law Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2017-03-15 22:01 +0100
            Re: Automotive Software and the Law Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2017-03-16 11:09 +0100
              Re: Automotive Software and the Law Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-16 10:16 -0500
                Re: Automotive Software and the Law Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2017-03-17 12:10 +0100
                  Re: Automotive Software and the Law Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-17 07:12 -0500
                  Re: Automotive Software and the Law Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-17 11:00 -0500
                Re: Automotive Software and the Law Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 14:49 +0000
    Re: Automotive Software and the Law Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-17 05:52 -0500
      Re: Automotive Software and the Law Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2017-03-17 11:03 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#26087 — Automotive Software and the Law

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?

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26088

On 2017-03-14 7:27 PM, 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?
>

As you eluded to there is quite a few system level requirements. For the
most part it is a little like DO-128 lite. Most of the system
regulations are EPA related broadly in three categories requirements,
testing and documentation. There are a lot of industry related agreement
on industry wide device compatibility much of it based around various
standards.

Contact me offline and I probably point you to specific documents that
affect what you are doing.

My personal knowledge is all most all power-train specific.

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26091

On 14/03/2017 23:27, 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?
>

Here is one for FPGA/ASIC designs:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mentor-graphics-achieves-iso-26262-certification-for-questa-product-line-tool-qualification-report-300422187.html

"Today's safety-critical automotive products require development and 
tool flows which are proven safe in accordance with ISO 26262," said 
Gudrun Neumann, software & automation team leader for SGS-TÜV Saar. 
"SGS-TÜV Saar certification gives OEMs and suppliers confidence that 
qualification reports for software tools used in the development of 
safety-critical products have been properly assessed in accordance with 
ISO 26262, reducing the costly efforts needed for tool qualification."

Hans
www.ht-lab.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26092

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:18:37 +0000, HT-Lab wrote:

> On 14/03/2017 23:27, 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?
>>
>>
> Here is one for FPGA/ASIC designs:
> 
> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mentor-graphics-achieves-
iso-26262-certification-for-questa-product-line-tool-qualification-
report-300422187.html
> 
> "Today's safety-critical automotive products require development and
> tool flows which are proven safe in accordance with ISO 26262," said
> Gudrun Neumann, software & automation team leader for SGS-TÜV Saar.
> "SGS-TÜV Saar certification gives OEMs and suppliers confidence that
> qualification reports for software tools used in the development of
> safety-critical products have been properly assessed in accordance with
> ISO 26262, reducing the costly efforts needed for tool qualification."

Thanks Hans!  Actually, it looks like ISO 26262 covers anything 
electronic, including the software.

Do you know if it's been adopted into law anywhere?

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26093

On 15/03/2017 16:36, Tim Wescott wrote:
..
>
> Thanks Hans!  Actually, it looks like ISO 26262 covers anything
> electronic, including the software.
>
> Do you know if it's been adopted into law anywhere?
>
Hi Tim,

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...

Regards,
Hans.
www.ht-lab.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26094

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:12:28 +0000, HT-Lab wrote:

> On 15/03/2017 16:36, Tim Wescott wrote:
> ..
>>
>> Thanks Hans!  Actually, it looks like ISO 26262 covers anything
>> electronic, including the software.
>>
>> Do you know if it's been adopted into law anywhere?
>>
> Hi Tim,
> 
> 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?  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?

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26095

> 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.

JJS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26097

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:48:13 -0700, 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.

Well, yes, I'm pretty sure that's the case in the US.  I know there's 
regulations governing safety features behaving correctly at some point in 
the process, but I suspect there isn't anything that governs the kind of 
stuff that can cause faults like Toyota's sudden unintended acceleration 
incidents.

> 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.

Well, lack of proper care in the execution, which problem may only be 
fixed with government regulation.

The entire Toyota fleet wasn't grounded even after several (possibly 
dozens of) deaths worldwide from unintended acceleration; I'm not sure 
that steer-by-wire or even autonomous vehicles will be stopped.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26098

On 2017-03-15 6:31 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> 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.
> Well, lack of proper care in the execution, which problem may only be
>  fixed with government regulation.
>
> The entire Toyota fleet wasn't grounded even after several (possibly
>  dozens of) deaths worldwide from unintended acceleration; I'm not
> sure that steer-by-wire or even autonomous vehicles will be stopped.

It is one thing to provide non critical add on's when it is part of the
critical components with real consequences. I believe that the Toyota
problem was component failure without an appropriate fail-safe mode even
though there was testimony that given the following 24 conditions or so
it could have been software. Another example of this type of failure is
the GM ignition switches.

It has been a long time since we have seen a fleet shutdown but
mandatory few day recalls for ranges of serial numbers are actually
quite common.

The ability to flash software has made a real difference in a lot of
area's. There are often several versions of software depending on where
the vehicle is located.

w..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26099

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:23:04 -0400, Walter Banks wrote:

> On 2017-03-15 6:31 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Well, lack of proper care in the execution, which problem may only be
>>  fixed with government regulation.
>>
>> The entire Toyota fleet wasn't grounded even after several (possibly
>>  dozens of) deaths worldwide from unintended acceleration; I'm not
>> sure that steer-by-wire or even autonomous vehicles will be stopped.
> 
> It is one thing to provide non critical add on's when it is part of the
> critical components with real consequences. I believe that the Toyota
> problem was component failure without an appropriate fail-safe mode even
> though there was testimony that given the following 24 conditions or so
> it could have been software. Another example of this type of failure is
> the GM ignition switches.
> 

There was a lawsuit, and a code review by an independent group documented 
cases where the right combination of normal inputs would cause the 
throttle pedal position calculation task to die, which in turn would hold 
the throttle at some high value until the brakes were entirely let off 
and then reapplied.

They actually replicated the bug on cars on dynos.  Search on "barr" and 
"toyota" and you'll find lots of material.

http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/BarrSlides_FINAL_SCRUBBED.pdf

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26105

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".

> JJS

-- 
Les Cargill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26109

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26110

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26114

On 17/03/17 12:08, Les Cargill wrote:
> 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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26116

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26119

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.

Also how statistically significant they are in volumes, standard cars
how many millions per country, driverless how many thousands.

What are the accident ratios reported (even to insurers for each type)
Then the unreported ones.



-- 
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>    PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/LogicCell/>   Logic Gates 
Education 
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/pi/>  Raspberry Pi Add-ons
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26126

Tim Wescott wrote:
> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26096

Tim Wescott 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?

In Denmark a car model has to be approved by the authorities before it
can be sold.  The approval is related to safety and pollution, but I'm
not sure if there is a formal requirement that the safety argument is
based on ISO 26262.

Jacob
-- 
"people who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing rocks
 -- especially at those who don't live in glass houses"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26101

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.

> 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?

In Germany, you need a type approval to sell cars to customers
(alternatively, customers would have to get that approval themselves).
You probably don't get a type approval for a steering column programmed
in Visual Basic because you cannot prove its safety.

On the other hand, do you really want to build a car, or are you
building components? In that case, the automakers' rules are not less
important than laws. Laws don't care about quiescent current; the
automaker does. Laws don't care about MISRA or V-model; the automaker does.


  Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26102

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.

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.

-- 
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded

csiph-web