everything controling something related to driving safety (windshield wipers, turn signals, lights…) should be mandated by law to have a physical control. Also the control must not be routed to any control computer, that is not exclusively dedicated to that control.
I agree completely with your first sentence. As for your second sentence, I think its a reasonable rhetorical position to take for the sake of pulling the debate in the correct direction, but that there’s a compromise that could be made. Essential systems should definitely not be running off the same computer that’s running relatively complex and crash-susceptible stuff on a general-purpose software stack (e.g. the infotainment system running on Linux), but I think it’s probably okay to consolidate them on a single computer running a hard real-time OS and simple software that’s open source and auditable by third-parties, including the NHTSA (edit after noticing what community I’m in: or whatever its European equivalent is).
Thank you. That seems more reasonable. E.g. the key principle being a strict seperation between safety/general car control and functions like entertainment, both in the user interface and in the computer/routing between interface and physical realisation.
Depends on your definition of “control computer”. ECUs with a microprocessor often have a microcontroller built in for safety-critical stuff. You can safely route control through that microcontroller.
Also, would you allow windshield wipers and turn signals and lights to be allocated to the same control computer or should each of them have their own exclusively dedicated to them?
everything controling something related to driving safety (windshield wipers, turn signals, lights…) should be mandated by law to have a physical control. Also the control must not be routed to any control computer, that is not exclusively dedicated to that control.
I agree completely with your first sentence. As for your second sentence, I think its a reasonable rhetorical position to take for the sake of pulling the debate in the correct direction, but that there’s a compromise that could be made. Essential systems should definitely not be running off the same computer that’s running relatively complex and crash-susceptible stuff on a general-purpose software stack (e.g. the infotainment system running on Linux), but I think it’s probably okay to consolidate them on a single computer running a hard real-time OS and simple software that’s open source and auditable by third-parties, including the NHTSA (edit after noticing what community I’m in: or whatever its European equivalent is).
Thank you. That seems more reasonable. E.g. the key principle being a strict seperation between safety/general car control and functions like entertainment, both in the user interface and in the computer/routing between interface and physical realisation.
Even ignoring the safety advantage physical buttons are just plain better.
Depends on your definition of “control computer”. ECUs with a microprocessor often have a microcontroller built in for safety-critical stuff. You can safely route control through that microcontroller.
Also, would you allow windshield wipers and turn signals and lights to be allocated to the same control computer or should each of them have their own exclusively dedicated to them?