UL 4600-2020 pdf free download

UL 4600-2020 pdf free download.Evaluation of Autonomous Products.
2) Expectations placed upon behaviors for other road users
3) Expectations placed upon behaviors for non-road-users
4) Prohibited and required behaviors for lifecycle participants
NOTE: While the ability of the ego vehicle to control people is limited, it is reasonable to set expectations such as usually obeying traffic control devices so long as inevitable imperfect compliance of other road users is also considered. It is important to make the expectations as conditional assumptions in the safety case explicit.
EXAMPLE: Evidence that reveals bicyclists and pedestrians habitually violate traffic regulations would set an expectation of reduced risk mitigation credit claimed for traffic regulation adherence by bicyclists.
See also Section 7.5.1.2.
f) Identify responsibilities and risk mitigation otherwise assigned to humans
EXAMPLE: Maintenance or inspection activities (see Section 15.1).
g) Handling of maintenance, inspection, repair, and related faults
1) Deferred maintenance
2) Human-commanded operation in faulty or degraded mode
EXAMPLE: Command override to escape dangerous situation despite item tauts, such as moving a damaged vehicle stopped on a railroad grade crossing
3) Use of overrides resulting in overly extended operation in potentially unsafe item configurations or environments
h) Strategy for ensuring acceptable performance of responsibilities for which credit is taken in the safety case including consideration of at least the following types of occupants and cargo types (within context of ODD):
1) Responsible, trained adults
2) Impaired and/or negligent adults
3) Untrained adults
4) Children
5) Animals
6) Inert cargo
7) Active cargo
EXAMPLES: Robots, drones, or delivery sub-vehicles being transported by the vehicle
EXAMPLE: The likelihood of a small children not performing responsibilities expected of a responsible trained adult might be mitigated by requiring a competent, licensed adult driver to be present as an occupant during operation, or by designing an item which has no such expectations. Compliance enforcement for any such requirement would be part of a corresponding safety argument.
i) Ensuring compliance with human operational safety task burdens, including:
1) Evidence of compliance to human-performed safety related procedures, checklists, schedules
2) Updates to record keeping system as item configuration and safety case change
3) Completeness and coverage of safety related procedures, checklists, schedules, and other documentation materials related to human operational safety tasks
j) The use of operational settings by which occupants can affect safety related item performance recorded as part of operational data.UL 4600-2020 pdf free download.