The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Strategy and architecture of a safety concept for fully automatic and autonomous driving assistance systems
Abstract
As drivers back out of the driving task, when transported automatically by an intelligent car for a longer time, they are not always able to react properly, if a driver take over request occurs. This paper presents two ways, how to deal with this problem within the scope of a functional safety concept. Thereto, the difference between fully automatic and autonomous driving assistance systems is explained. Afterwards two different strategies to reach a safe state in consequence of a system boundary crossing are proposed. In the first case the fall back state is reached by a driver take over, in the second case by an automatic, active fail-safe mechanism. Subsequently the necessary components for monitoring and reaching a safe state and their embedment in a basic, functional architecture of a driving assistance system are described. In this context, special regard is paid to aspects of redundancy as well. In the end it is concluded, that the safety concept proposed here is crucial for guaranteeing enduring safety in an automatically driving car and in consequence for making automatic driving functions commercially ready for serial production.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In addition, a fallback plan [89, 35] is also required as an essential component on autonomous driving products.”
From Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices (2023) · cites this paper as [35]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- 1968, Convention on Road Traffic, 11
- schaller, 2008, Congestion Assistance-Supporting the driver in lateral and longitudinal guidance. System development and customer acceptance, Aktive Sicherheit durch Fahrerassistenz, 3
- horwick, 2010, Action Plans for Reaching the Safe State with an Autonomous Congestion Assistant, Aktive Sicherheit durch Fahrerassistenz, 4
- isermann, 2005, Fault Diagnosis Systems An Introduction from Fault Detection to Fault Tolerance, 352
- maurer, 2000, Flexible Automatisierung von StraBenfahrzeugen mit Rechnersehen, P h D dissertation Institut fur Systemdynamik und Flugmechanik (ISF) Universitat der Bundeswehr Munchen Neubiberg, 41
- 10.13109/9783666551468 · DOI
- 10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices
Li, B., Qi, P., Liu, B., Di, S., Liu, J., Pei, J., Yi, J., & Zhou, B. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3555803 · Cited by 612
“In autonomous driving where safety is critical, a fail-safe mechanism like standing still has become an indispensable component in Advanced Driver-Assistant System (ADAS) products [160], and is being researched at a higher level of automation [230].”
BackgroundMethod
Metadata
- Authors
- Horwick, M., & Siedersberger, K.-H.
- Affiliations
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Audi (Germany) (DE)
- Venue
- 2010 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2010-06
- Pages
- 955-960
- ISSN
- 1931-0587 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069355026
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
- Keywords
- driver assistance systems, autonomous driving, functional safety, fail-safe mechanism, redundancy, safety monitoring, vehicle architecture
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review