Safety Assurance Strategies for Autonomous Vehicles

  • Andrzej Wardziński
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5219)


Assuring safety of autonomous vehicles requires that the vehicle control system can perceive the situation in the environment and react to actions of other entities. One approach to vehicle safety assurance is based on the assumption that hazardous sequences of events should be identified during hazard analysis and then some means of hazard avoidance and mitigation, like barriers, should be designed and implemented. Another approach is to design a system which is able to dynamically examine the risk associated with possible actions and then select the safest action to carry it out. Dynamic risk assessment requires maintaining the situation awareness and prediction of possible future situations. We analyse how these two approaches can be applied for autonomous vehicles and what strategies can be used for safety argumentation.


Risk Level Hazard Analysis Situation Awareness System Safety Autonomous Vehicle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lohmann, R.H.C.: About Group Rapid Transit and Dual-Mode Applications. In: APM 2007, 11th International Conference on Automated People Movers, Vienna (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DARPA: Urban Challenge Rules (2006),
  3. 3.
    Robertson, S.W.H.: Motion Safety for an Autonomous Vehicle Race in an Urban Environment. In: 2006 Australasian Conference on Robotics & Automation (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clough, B.T.: Metrics, Schmetrics! How The Heck Do You Determine A UAV’s Autonomy Anyway? In: PerMIS Conference Proceedings, Gaithersburg, pp. 1–7 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sholes, E.: Evolution of a UAV Autonomy Classification Taxonomy. In: IEEE Aerospace Conference (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hollnagel, E.: Accidents and Barriers. In: Hoc, J.-M., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of Lex Valenciennes, Presses Universitaires de Valenciennes, vol. 28, pp. 175–182 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Springs, J.: Motion Safety for an Autonomous Vehicle Race in an Urban Environment. In: Redmill, F., Anderson, T. (eds.) Currect Issues in Safety-critical Systems – Proceeding of the Eleventh Safety-critical Systems Symposium. Springer, London (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bishop, P.G., Bloomfield, R., Guerra, S.: The future of goal-based assurance cases. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Assurance Cases. Supplemental Volume of the 2004 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, pp. 390–395 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelly, T.P.: Arguing Safety – A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases, PhD thesis, University of York (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wardziński, A.: The Role of Situation Awareness in Assuring Safety of Autonomous Vehicles. In: Górski, J. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4166. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wardziński, A.: Dynamic Risk Assessment in Movement Planning for Autonomous Vehicles. In: International IEEE Conference on Information Technology, IT 2008, Gdansk (Poland), May 18-21 2008, pp. 127–130 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D., Leveson, N.: Resilience Engineering, Ashgate (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrzej Wardziński
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Software EngineeringGdansk University of TechnologyGdanskPoland

Personalised recommendations