Implications of the positive risk balance on the development of automated driving

References

• Benmimoun M, Fahrenkrog F, Zlocki A, Eckstein L. 2011. Incident detection based on vehicle CAN-data within the large scale field operational test “euroFOT”. 22nd Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Washington, DC. https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/22/files/22ESV-000042.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bjorvatn A, Page Y, Fahrenkrog F, Weber H, Aittoniemi E, Bärgman J, Borrack M, Hermitte T, Heum P, Hiller J, et al. 2021. Impact evaluation results. L3Pilot Deliverable D7.4.
   Google Scholar
• Bonnefon J-F, Cerny D, Danaher J, Deviller N, Johansson V, Kovacikova T, Martens M, Mladenovic MN, Palade P, Reed N, et al. 2020. Ethics of Connected and Automated Vehicles: recommendations on road safety, privacy, fairness, explainability and responsibility. Horizon 2020 Commission Expert Group to advise on specific ethical issues raised by driverless mobility (E03659). Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg; [accessed 2023 Feb 5]. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/89624e2c-f98c-11ea-b44f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
   Google Scholar
• Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen. 2014. Ergebnisse Fahrleistungserhebung 2014; [accessed 2022 Jul 29]. https://www.bast.de/BASt_2017/DE/Verkehrssicherheit/Fachthemen/U2-fahrleistung-2014/u2-Fahrleistung-2014-ergebnisse.html.
   Google Scholar
• Destatis (Statistisches Bundesamt). 2021. Verkehr – Verkehrsunfälle 2019 (Fachserie 8 Reihe 7). Statistisches Bundesamt; [accessed 2023 Feb 5]. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Verkehrsunfaelle/Publikationen/Downloads-Verkehrsunfaelle/verkehrsunfaelle-jahr-2080700197004.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Di Fabio U, Broy M, Brüngger R, Eichhorn U, Grunwald A, Heckmann D, Hilgendorf E, Kagermann H, Losinger A, Lutz-Bachmann M, et al. 2017. Ethic commission: automated and connected driving. Report of ethics commission appointed by the federal minister of transport and digital infrastructure; [accessed 2023 Feb 5]. https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/publications/report-ethics-commission.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
   Google Scholar
• Dingus TA, Klauer SG, Neale VL, Petersen A, Lee SE, Sudweeks J, Perez MA, Hankey J, Ramsey D, Gupta S, et al. 2006. The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II – results of the 100-Car Field Experiment. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Report No. DOT HS 810 593, https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/100carmain.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. 2012. Benefit-risk methodology project work package 3 report: field tests. London (UK): European Medicines Agency. Report no: EMA/718294/2011. August 31. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2011/09/WC500112088.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. 2022. PROACT-URL; [accessed 2022 Jul 29]. https://www.protectbenefitrisk.eu/PrOACT-URL.html.
   Google Scholar
• European Standards. 2018. Railway applications – the specification and demonstration of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) – part 1: generic RAMS process. DIN EN 50126-1:2018-10.
   Google Scholar
• European Standards. 2019. Medical devices – application of risk management to medical devices (ISO 14971:2019). DIN EN ISO 14971:2020-07.
   Google Scholar
• Gold C, Damböck D, Lorenz L, Bengler K. 2013. “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meeting. 57(1):1938–1942. doi: 10.1177/1541931213571433.
   Google Scholar
• Helmer T. 2014. Development of a methodology for the evaluation of active safety using the example of preventive pedestrian protection [doctoral dissertation]. TU Berlin. https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de.https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/bitstream/11303/4270/2/helmer_thomas.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• International Civil Aviation Organization. 2018. ICAO Safety Management Manual Doc 9859. 4th ed. Montréal (Canada): International Civil Aviation Organization. https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/5863.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ISO 4804. 2020. Road vehicles — Safety and cybersecurity for automated driving systems — Design, verification and validation. ISO Technical report 4804. https://www.iso.org/standard/80363.html. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 21934. 2021. Road vehicles — Prospective safety performance assessment of pre-crash technology by virtual simulation — Part 1: State-of-the-art and general method overview. ISO Standard 21934-1. https://www.iso.org/standard/76497.html.
   Google Scholar
• Kauffmann N, Fahrenkrog F, Drees L, Raisch F. 2022. Positive risk balance: a comprehensive framework to ensure vehicle safety. Ethics Inf Technol. 24(1), Article 15. 10.1007/s10676-022-09625-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyriakidis M, Happee R, De Winter JCF. 2015. Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav. 32:127–140. 10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Najm WG, Stearns MD, Howarth H, Koopmann J, Hitz J. 2006. Evaluation of an automotive rear-end collision avoidance system. U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. DOT HS 810 569. https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2006/HS910569.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• openPASS. 2023. openPASS Working Group; [accessed 2023 Feb 5]. https://openpass.eclipse.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Payre W, Cestac J, Delhomme P. 2014. Intention to use a fully automated car: attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav. 27(Part B):252–263. 10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.009.
   Google Scholar
• P.E.A.R.S. Consortium. 2021, February 24. Prospective effectiveness assessment for road safety – overview. UNECE VMAD Sub Group 2 Virtual Testing Meeting; [accessed 2023 Feb 5]. https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/123666581/VMAD-SG2-12-03%20PEARS%20Presentation.pdf?api=v2.
   Google Scholar
• SAE. 2021. Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE Document J3016_202104, Version 4, SAE International. https://doi.org/10.4271/J3016_202104, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• TRStrab Brandschutz (Technische Regeln von Straßenbahnen – Brandschutz in unterirdischen Betriebsanlagen). 2014. Version of 24.06.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2021. Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to automated lane keeping systems. UN Regulation No. 157 - Automated Lane Keeping Systems (ALKS). Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2018. Benefit-risk assessment in drug regulatory decision-making: draft PDUFA VI implementation plan (FY 2018-2022); [accessed 2023 Feb 5]. https://www.fda.gov/files/about%20fda/published/Benefit-Risk-Assessment-in-Drug-Regulatory-Decision-Making.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Werling M, Drees L, Faller R, Betz W, Straub D. 2021. Quantitative safety integrity analysis for L3+ systems. Safetronic Conference 2021, Muinch Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Wood M, Knobel C, Garbacik N, Robbel P, Boymanns D, Smerza D, Maass M, Löhning M, Dalong L, Radboud D, et al. 2019. Safety first for automated driving. White paper of different car manufacturers and suppliers; [accessed 2023 Feb 5]. https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/attachment/T0298103EN/434404.
   Google Scholar