One of the major challenges of automated driving systems (ADS) is showing that they drive safely. Key to ensuring safety is eliciting a complete set of top-level safety requirements (safety goals). This is typically done with an activity called hazard analysis and risk assessment (HARA). In this paper we argue that the HARA of ISO 26262:2018 is not directly suitable for an ADS, both because the number of relevant operational situations may be vast, and because the ability of the ADS to make decisions in order to reduce risks will affect the analysis of exposure and hazards. Instead we propose a tailoring using a quantitative risk norm (QRN) with consequence classes, where each class has a limit for the frequency within which the consequences may occur. Incident types are then defined and assigned to the consequence classes; the requirements prescribing the limits of these incident types are used as safety goals to fulfil in the implementation. The main benefits of the QRN approach are the ability to show completeness of safety goals, and make sure that the safety strategy is not limited by safety goals which are not formulated in a way suitable for an ADS.

Ensuring safety is arguably one of the largest remaining challenges before wide-spread market adoption of Automated Driving Systems (ADSs). One central aspect is how to provide evidence for the fulfilment of the safety claims and, in particular, how to produce a predictive and reliable safety case considering both the absence and the presence of faults in the system. In order to provide such evidence, there is a need for describing and modelling the different elements of the ADS and its operational context: models of event exposure, sensing and perception models, as well as actuation and closed-loop behaviour representations. This paper explores how estimates from such statistical models can impact the performance and operation of an ADS and, in particular, how such models can be continuously improved by incorporating more field data retrieved during the operation of (previous versions of) the ADS. Focusing on the safe driving velocity,  this results in the ability to update the driving policy so to maximise the allowed safe velocity, for which the safety claim still holds. For illustration purposes, an example considering statistical models of the exposure to an adverse event, as well as failures related to the system's perception system, is analysed. Estimations from these models, using statistical confidence limits, are used to derive a safe driving policy of the ADS. The results highlight the importance of leveraging field data in order to improve the system's abilities and performance, while remaining safe. The proposed methodology, leveraging a data-driven approach, also shows how the system's safety can be monitored and maintained, while allowing for incremental expansion and improvements of the ADS. 

One of the biggest challenges for self-driving road vehicles is how to argue that their safety cases are complete. The operational design domain (ODD) of the automated driving system (ADS) can be used to restrict where the ADS is valid and thus confine the scope of the safety case as well as the verification. To complete the safety case there is a need to ensure that the ADS will not exit its ODD. We present four generic strategies to ensure this. Use cases (UCs) provide a convenient way providing such a strategy for a collection of operating conditions (OCs) and further ensures that the ODD allows for operation within the real world. A framework to categorise the OCs of a UC is presented and it is suggested that the ODD is written with this structure in mind to facilitate mapping towards potential UCs. The ODD defines the functional boundary of the system and modelling it with this structure makes it modular and generalisable across different potential UCs. Further, using the ODD to connect the ADS to the UC enables the continuous delivery of the ADS feature. Two examples of dimensions of the ODD are given and a strategy to avoid an ODD exit is proposed in the respective case.

In recent years, enormous investments in Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) have distinctly advanced ADS technologies. Despite promises made by several high profile auto-makers, it has however become clear that the challenges involved for deploying ADS have been drastically underestimated. Contrary to previous generations of automotive systems, common design, development, verification and validation methods for safety critical systems do not suffice to cope with the increased complexity and operational uncertainties of an ADS. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to provide an understanding of existing methods for providing safety evidence and, most importantly, identifying the associated challenges and gaps pertaining to the use of each method. To this end, we have performed a literature review, articulated around four categories of methods: design techniques, verification and validation methods, run-time risk assessment, and run-time (self-)adaptation. We have identified and present eight challenges, collectively distinguishing ADSs from safety critical systems in general, and discuss the reviewed methods in the light of these eight challenges. For all reviewed methods, the uncertainties of the operational environment and the allocation of responsibility for the driving task on the ADS stand-out as the most difficult challenges to address. Finally, a set of research gaps is identified, and grouped into five major themes: (i) completeness of provided safety evidence, (ii) improvements and analysis needs, (iii) safe collection of closed loop data and accounting for tactical responsibility on the part of the ADS, (iv) integration of AI/ML-based components, and (v) scalability of the approaches with respect to the complexity of the ADS.

Safety of Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) is arguably one of the main remaining barriers before wide-spread market deployment. In particular, ensuring that the ADS drives safely is a difficult task. While there exists a plethora of methods for planning a trajectory that fulfils certain constraints, what those constraints should look to render a safe ADS is less well understood. In particular, when considering statistical edge cases. In this paper we generalise and elaborate on the concept of precautionary safety to provide constraints on the tactical and operational decisions of the ADS considering the ADS' capabilities, the external conditions, knowledge of statistically relevant events and behaviours as well as the controllability of these events. These considerations are included in a novel formulation, based on probability theory, that subsequently enables assessment of the statistical fulfilment of overall quantitative requirements on accident-, injury- and fatality rates. The presented approach thus provides a means to dynamically adapt the constraints used for trajectory planning. The approach is showcased through a case study where a collision with a jaywalking pedestrian and a rear-end collision with a trailing vehicle are considered. The case study shows how the approach can be applied in practise and further illustrates how the controllability on the part of the ADS can impact the constraints on the tactical decisions that fulfil the quantitative safety requirements.