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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#26107

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

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

#26111

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

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

#26117

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

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

#26115

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.



-- 
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]

#26104

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.

-- 
Les Cargill

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

#26118

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web