[SystemSafety] a public beta phase ???

[Steve Tockey]

Can I suggest that even something as small as an automatic speed limiter
could be challenging. If all you are trying to do is limit maximum speed
to some "posted" limit, then it might not be that difficult. On the other
hand, my driver's education course of many, many years ago emphasized over
and over that the "posted" limit was only to be considered the "maximum
safe speed during perfect driving conditions". Darkness, fog, rain, ice or
snow on the road, etc. can force the maximum "safe" speed to be well below
that "posted" limit. Limiting speed to a maximum "safe" speed would be a
lot more challenging, if not downright impossible in the general case
(IMHO). And consider the implications of not limiting to a maximum "safe"
speed: imagine the defendant explaining to the Judge, "But, your Honor, my
car has an automatic speed limiter. If it allowed me to go that fast then
it must have been a safe speed".


-- steve


-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
on behalf of Peter Bernard Ladkin <ladkin at rvs.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Sunday, July 17, 2016 9:38 AM
To: "systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de"
<systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] a public beta phase ???



On 2016-07-17 15:45 , Martyn Thomas wrote:
> On 17/07/2016 13:51, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:
>> And we presume, or legislate, that the technology will be incrementally
>> adapted to the "lessons learned" from these analyses. That will happen,
>>because the alternative is
>> that accidents are not investigated and lessons are not learned, and
>>that is unacceptable.
> 
> Isn't there at least one step missing here?

Yes. As I said,

On 2016-07-17 14:51 , Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:
> Is that alone a way to proceed? Not by itself, for it specifies nothing
>about the specific duties
> of care of the manufacturer in introducing the AP to the market in the
>first place.

One possible formulation of a duty of care is

On 2016-07-17 15:45 , Martyn Thomas wrote:
> ..... Isn't it necessary to have adequate confidence (for some
> agreed meaning of 'adequate') that the new technology, with the "lessons
>learned" will have fewer
> accidents than the technology it replaces?

That would be an MGS/GAMAB criterion. I could see others, for example a
demonstration that certain
classes of serious accidents would have significantly reduced occurrence,
even though nothing would
be claimed about reducing the number of accidents overall.

For example, a reliable automatic speed limiter would reduce accidents
involving overspeed, even
though nothing might be said about reducing the number of accidents
overall.

> If that /is/ necessary, how could it be achieved?

If I can step back from an unspecified level of automation and just talk
about a reliable automatic
speed limiter, I would imagine a few of us could see how to approach that.

And once we've done the speed limiter, we could try doing other specific
functions, one by one.

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
MoreInCommon
Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de