ISO 21448: Human Controllability in SOTIF — Measuring Whether the Driver Can Actually Take Over

Date
2027-01-11
Location
Online
Host
Zach L
Register

About this event

A live 30-minute expert session on Human Controllability in SOTIF — Measuring Whether the Driver Can Actually Take Over (ISO 21448 — Safety of the Intended Functionality). What We'll Cover: Where controllability enters ISO 21448 risk evaluation and why claimed takeover ability needs empirical support The study method step by step: scenario selection, simulator versus test-track design, sample size, takeover-time and quality metrics How study results map to the ISO 21448 hazardous-event evaluation and produce the controllability evidence dossier Common mistakes: expert judgment substituted for data on novel features, unrepresentative subject pools, takeover time measured without takeover quality The traceability assessors want: each controllability claim in the risk evaluation backed by a study reference with conditions matching the scenario Related topics: controllability · driver takeover · driver in the loop · takeover time · human factors study · driving simulator study · mode transition · warning effectiveness · subject study design · takeover quality · empirical evidence · risk evaluation input · hmi validation · transition of control Critical Systems Analysis provides embedded functional safety consulting for ISO 21448 — Safety of the Intended Functionality. Learn more: https://criticalsystemsanalysis.com Partner with us: https://meetings.hubspot.com/benjamin-twombly/strategic-partnerships

Topics

About Functional Safety Foundations

This online session delivers expert-led instruction on the regulatory landscape and implementation approach for Functional Safety Foundations.

The cross-sector fundamentals underlying every functional safety standard: risk as severity × likelihood, the safety function concept, integrity levels, the safety lifecycle, and the split between random and systematic failures.

What it regulates

Shared vocabulary and reasoning: hazard → risk → risk reduction allocation → safety requirement → verified implementation → maintained integrity in operation.

Who must comply

Everyone entering the field — the conceptual base of the entire catalog.

Key requirements of Functional Safety Foundations

  • Hazard and risk fundamentals
  • Safety function anatomy: sensor-logic-actuator with defined safe state
  • Integrity ladders (SIL/PL/ASIL/DAL) as risk-reduction currencies
  • Random vs systematic failure treatment
  • Lifecycle and management of functional safety incl. competence

Key concepts: Functional Safety Foundations

Functional safety management
Planning, competence, documentation and assessment wrapped around technical work.
Random vs systematic
Hardware wear-out/chance failures quantified statistically versus design/process errors controlled by rigor.
Risk reduction allocation
Distributing required risk reduction among mechanical design, safeguards, control functions and procedures.
Safe state
The defined condition a function drives the equipment to on demand or fault.

Frequently asked questions: Functional Safety Foundations

Why can't testing alone prove safety?

Rare-event targets (like 1e-7/h) are unverifiable by test duration, and systematic errors evade random testing — hence the standards' dual machinery of quantified hardware analysis plus process rigor and independent assessment.

Standard information based on the published text of Functional Safety Foundations. Event content is provided by the host. For authoritative guidance, consult the official standard body.