The automotive industry presents unique functional safety (FS) challenges due to the complex integration of various systems, devices, and functions in modern vehicles.
FS in the automotive industry involves creating automated systems that respond to failures and minimize the risk of harm to people, specifically improving the safety of vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and other road users. These systems include protective mechanisms such as fail-safes, diagnostic tools, ergonomic design features, and maintenance protocols — all working together to ensure a system’s reliability and integrity. In the automotive industry, some of the most important systems covered by the FS standard include brake-by-wire systems, which replace traditional hydraulic braking with electronic controls, and steer-by-wire systems, which use electronic signals instead of mechanical linkages to control steering. There is also electronic stability control (ESC), which helps vehicles avoid skidding or losing traction; advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), like autonomous emergency braking (AEB) to detect potential collisions and apply the brakes automatically to prevent or mitigate collisions; Lane-Keeping Assist (LKA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC).
Failures in FS systems can lead to serious consequences impacting users and manufacturers. In 2024 alone, the total number of vehicles affected by recalls in the U.S. exceeded 14 million by mid-year. Recalls have also averaged a 14-percent, year-over-year increase between 2009 and 2023. The increase in recall numbers highlights ongoing safety concerns and the importance of rigorous safety measures in vehicle production.
Considering the importance of FS in automotive design and production, our experts are debunking several common myths and misconceptions to help companies course-correct where needed and improve their approach.
Myth #1: Functional safety is only about software
Reality check: As vehicles become more dependent on advanced software systems, it’s easy to assume that functional safety revolves entirely around software. Automated driving features, complex control systems, and over-the-air updates have placed software in the spotlight, leading many to overlook the broader scope of FS. This misconception is fueled by the increasing reliance on electronic systems that require extensive coding and software solutions to function safely. While software components are crucial, FS encompasses the entire system, including hardware, software, firmware, human interaction, and the operating environment. Companies must implement structured processes throughout the product development lifecycle to effectively address FS across system components. Functional Safety Management (FSM) is a structured framework that ensures FS standards are systematically applied across every stage of a product’s development and production.
Myth #2: Adding more safety features makes a system safer
Reality check: While it may seem counterintuitive, simply adding safety features, like more complex software or additional sensors, doesn’t necessarily improve a system’s FS. Increased complexity can introduce new risks or make the system harder to maintain, boosting the likelihood of failure or user injury. Instead, security experts should partner with engineers and product designers to streamline safety systems for the most crucial components and examine where superfluous systems may be impacting performance. In other words, when working on safety design have one principle in mind — Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS).
Myth #3: Functional safety requires a lot of software testing
Reality check: This belief stems from the fact that software controls many critical vehicle functions, so it’s often thought that extensive software testing creates a safer system. FS cannot be guaranteed through a large volume of software testing. It is through methodical testing, with a targeted focus on critical system components, that true safety is achieved. In 2024, airbag malfunctions, not software issues, were identified as one of the major FS issues in vehicle accidents, leading to a recall of about three million units in Q1 2024. This illustrates that prioritizing a systematic evaluation of all components, not just software, ensures that safety efforts are both efficient and effective.
Myth #4: Functional safety guarantees zero incidents
Reality check: No system can be made absolutely safe or free from all risk of failure. FS aims to minimize risks to an acceptable level, ensuring the lowest possible level of harm to living beings, property, and the environment. The ultimate goal of FS is to make informed, systematic efforts to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents. This is where security standards come into play. Security standards from various regulatory bodies, like the IEC and AUTOSAR, provide guidelines for experts to develop the safest possible automotive systems and FS protection.
Myth #5: Functional safety is solely the responsibility of engineers, regulatory bodies, and Q&RA teams
Reality check: A common misconception is that safety is solely the concern of regulatory bodies, engineers, or safety experts. Although they do play a crucial role in implementing and testing FS, it is a multidisciplinary exercise that involves many stakeholders within the company. Safety is a shared responsibility across all levels of an organization — including company leadership, product management, procurement, legal, quality assurance and regulatory affairs (Q&RA), engineering, and maintenance teams. Organizational culture also plays a fundamental role in shaping security attitudes, behaviors, and priorities. By embracing FS principles, organizations can mitigate risks, enhance reliability, and ultimately contribute to a safer and more trustworthy technological landscape.
Myth #6: Chasing safety is too expensive and time-consuming
Reality check: Many believe that prioritizing functional safety can significantly delay the development process and increase costs. This perception stems from the additional steps required for hazard analysis, safety testing, and compliance with regulatory standards, which can slow down innovation and product release timelines. While FS practices require investment in terms of time and resources, the cost of neglecting them can be far higher, including potential harm to users, legal liabilities, and irrevocable damage to your company’s reputation. In 2023, car manufacturers faced substantial financial impacts from recalls and lawsuits due to malfunctioning systems. Recalls cost U.S. automakers approximately $500 million annually, especially those related to software issues, which are a growing concern. These costs are compounded by lawsuits related to safety defects, increasing the financial burden on automakers, which proves that, in the long term, investing in FS is both economically rational and ethically sound.
Myth #7: InfoSec doesn’t matter in automotive functional safety
Reality check: Modern automobiles are no longer isolated mechanical systems—they are highly connected, with features like infotainment systems, telematics, over-the-air updates, and ADAS all linked through networks. These connections make vehicles more vulnerable to cyberthreats. Hackers can exploit vulnerabilities in a vehicle’s connected systems, potentially disrupting critical safety features such as braking or steering. Therefore, information security (InfoSec) plays a crucial role in functional safety, ensuring that systems are protected from unauthorized access or manipulation. To safeguard vehicles against these risks, automakers must integrate cybersecurity measures into their functional safety management, addressing security and safety as interrelated concerns.
To learn more about protecting connected systems, read our white paper on Combating CAN injection attacks through encryption.
Myth #8: Once certified, always safe
Reality check: Certification is a milestone, not a permanent status. FS requires continuous management and reevaluation. As technology advances, FS standards will inevitably evolve, pushing organizations to stay updated and adjust to an ever-changing regulatory landscape. A notable example is the update to ISO 26262, the international standard for road vehicles, which provides a comprehensive framework for ensuring the functional safety of electrical and electronic systems within vehicles. The organization recently introduced new guidelines addressing the growing complexity of semi-autonomous driving systems and motorcycles.
Similarly, recent updates to IEC 61508 incorporated cybersecurity elements, reflecting the increasing connectivity and related risks in safety-critical systems, and highlighting the need to integrate cybersecurity into FS practices. It’s important to remember that FS is a dynamic process rather than a one-time achievement.
Separating fact from fiction
When it comes to automotive FS, companies must continually evaluate misconceptions, addressing mistaken assumptions and adjusting their perspective to align with proven safety principles. Several key considerations must be addressed to ensure systems operate safely and reliably. Hazard analysis and risk assessment are critical first steps, identifying potential dangers in a vehicle’s electrical and electronic systems and assessing their associated risks, which then shape the safety goals and required measures. You’ll also want to customize safety measures for different systems, like braking versus infotainment, to ensure system-specific protection. By clarifying misunderstandings and making informed adjustments, organizations can implement more effective safety measures, ensuring compliance and delivering safer vehicles to the market.
For a deeper dive into how functional safety impacts the product development process, download our comprehensive functional safety eBook, “Functional Safety: Automatic protection in increasingly complex systems.”
