Safety Blind Spot in Remote Driving: Considerations for Risk Assessment of Connection Loss Fallback Strategies
Authors:
Leon Johann Brettin,
Niklas Braun,
Robert Graubohm,
Markus Maurer
Abstract:
As part of the overall goal of driverless road vehicles, remote driving is a major emerging field of research of its own. Current remote driving concepts for public road traffic often establish a fallback strategy of immediate braking to a standstill in the event of a connection loss. This may seem like the most logical option when human control of the vehicle is lost. However, our simulation resu…
▽ More
As part of the overall goal of driverless road vehicles, remote driving is a major emerging field of research of its own. Current remote driving concepts for public road traffic often establish a fallback strategy of immediate braking to a standstill in the event of a connection loss. This may seem like the most logical option when human control of the vehicle is lost. However, our simulation results from hundreds of scenarios based on naturalistic traffic scenes indicate high collision rates for any immediate substantial deceleration to a standstill in urban settings. We show that such a fallback strategy can result in a SOTIF relevant hazard, making it questionable whether such a design decision can be considered acceptable. Therefore, from a safety perspective, we would call this problem a safety blind spot, as safety analyses in this regard seem to be very rare.
In this article, we first present a simulation on a naturalistic dataset that shows a high probability of collision in the described case. Second, we discuss the severity of the resulting potential rear-end collisions and provide an even more severe example by including a large commercial vehicle in the potential collision.
△ Less
Submitted 14 February, 2025;
originally announced February 2025.
A Review of Conceptualizations of Safety and Risk in Current Automated Driving Regulation
Authors:
Marcus Nolte,
Leon Johann Brettin,
Hans Steege,
Nayel Salem,
Marvin Loba,
Robert Graubohm,
Markus Maurer
Abstract:
"Safety" and "Risk" are key concepts for the design and development of automated vehicles. For the market introduction or large-scale field tests, both concepts are not only relevant for engineers developing the vehicles, but for all stakeholders (e.g., regulators, lawyers, or the general public) who have stakes in the technology. In the communication between stakeholder groups, common notions of…
▽ More
"Safety" and "Risk" are key concepts for the design and development of automated vehicles. For the market introduction or large-scale field tests, both concepts are not only relevant for engineers developing the vehicles, but for all stakeholders (e.g., regulators, lawyers, or the general public) who have stakes in the technology. In the communication between stakeholder groups, common notions of these abstract concepts are key for efficient communication and setting mutual expectations. In the European market, automated vehicles require Europe-wide type approval or at least operating permits in the individual states. For this, a central means of communication between regulators and engineers are regulatory documents. Flawed terminology regarding the safety expectations for automated vehicles can unnecessarily complicate relations between regulators and manufacturers, and thus hinder the introduction of the technology. In this paper, we review relevant documents at the UN- and EU-level, for the UK, and Germany regarding their (implied) notions of safety and risk. We contrast the regulatory notions with established and more recently developing notions of safety and risk in the field of automated driving. Based on the analysis, we provide recommendations on how explicit definitions of safety and risk in regulatory documents can support rather than hinder the market introduction of automated vehicles.
△ Less
Submitted 10 February, 2025;
originally announced February 2025.
