[SystemSafety] ISO and IEC Technical Specifications on Functional Safety and AI

[Daniel Grivicic]

Hello Les,

This will not cheer you up, but probably support your frustration:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-09/tesla-fully-self-driving-melbourne-test-not-approved/105749690
A self-driving test conducted by Tesla earlier this year was not approved
by the Victorian government.
The Department of Transport and Planning requires a permit to ensure
automated vehicle trials are conducted safely.

https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2025/govt-won-t-finalise-self-driving-car-rules-until-2027.html
After a decade of work, the federal government has committed to finalising
formal road rules, regulations, and technical and cybersecurity standards
for self-driving cars by 2027, even as autonomous vehicles are already on
Australian roads

Sorry.

Daniel.


On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 1:20 PM Les Chambers <les at chambers.com.au> wrote:

> Bruce,
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> I'm surprised at how little pushback we are seeing from the
> safety-critical
> systems engineering profession on Tesla's fraudulent claims that
> supervised
> FSD is a viable option for controlling a motor vehicle.
> In my time working on road tunnel safety systems, I was educated by the
> road
> authority engineers on how seriously they take the process of shutting
> down a
> freeway. It's a dangerous move requiring careful handling. The core risk
> lies
> with the human tendency when driving on a freeway to be lulled into a
> false
> sense of security, a somnambulistic-like state where drivers assume that
> vehicles ahead will keep moving at their current speed. When they have, in
> fact, stopped, the cognitive delay is longer than normal. This is a
> well-known
> phenomenon. In this mental state, reaction times are extended, triggering
> what
> they call back-of-queue collisions. So Tesla's claim that drivers will
> effectively supervise their vehicle under all driving conditions IS
> TRANSPARENT BS, regardless of what nifty so-called safety features they
> might
> incorporate.
> The difficulty with this situation is the temporal paradox. As a
> pragmatist, I
> accept that there is no way of banning this technology; it is, after all,
> so
> cool. In their enthusiasm (so cool frenzy), our governments seem
> determined to
> allow Elon to stress test FSD/S on the public. In future, as it matures
> with
> gold standard neural nets, it will probably reduce the occurrence of
> back-of-
> queue collisions. Hence the paradox.
> Until that time, I remain depressed and grumpy.
>
> Les
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20251028/ebede0d0/attachment.html>