Determining Absence of Unreasonable Risk: Proposed Criteria for the Evaluation of an Automated Driving System Deployment

<div>This article provides an overview of how the determination of absence of unreasonable risk can be operationalized. It complements previous theoretical work published by existing developers of automated driving systems (ADS) on the overall engineering practices and methodologies for readiness determination. Readiness determination is, at its core, a risk assessment process. It is aimed at evaluating the residual risk associated with a new ADS deployment. The article proposes methodological criteria to ground the readiness review process for an ADS release. Specifically, it lists 12 readiness criteria connected with system safety, cybersecurity, verification and validation, collision avoidance testing, predicted collision risks, impeded progress, rules of the road compliance, vulnerable road users interactions, high-severity assessment, conservative estimate of severity, risk management, and field safety. The criteria presented are agnostic of any specific ADS technological solution and/or architectural choice, to support broad implementation by others in the industry. While intended to support the readiness evaluation for the deployment of an SAE Level 4 ADS, their use can also be generalized for lower levels of automation and combined with the unique human interaction challenges applicable to those levels. Following the presentation of the proposed criteria, the article continues with a discussion on governance and decision-making toward approval of a new release candidate for the ADS, inclusive of a discussion on factors that affect residual risk and risk management practices. The implementation of the presented criteria requires the existence of appropriate safety management practices in addition to many other cultural, procedural, and operational considerations. As such, the article is concluded by a statement of limitations for those wishing to replicate part or all of its content. The content presented here serves to inform important ongoing conversations on the topic of ADS certification and the standardization of approval guidelines in international regulatory contexts.</div>

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles
Published
2026-01-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4271/12-09-04-0026
Primary Topic
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Determining Absence of Unreasonable Risk: Proposed Criteria for the Evaluation of an Automated Driving System Deployment

Francesca Favarò, Nick Webb, Laura Fraade-Blanar, Scott Schnelle et al.
SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
article

Determining Absence of Unreasonable Risk: Proposed Criteria for the Evaluation of an Automated Driving System Deployment

Francesca Favarò, Nick Webb, Laura Fraade-Blanar, Scott Schnelle, Mauricio Peña, Holland Broce, Trent Victor, Daniel Smith, Craig Paterson
article en

Abstract

<div>This article provides an overview of how the determination of absence of unreasonable risk can be operationalized. It complements previous theoretical work published by existing developers of automated driving systems (ADS) on the overall engineering practices and methodologies for readiness determination. Readiness determination is, at its core, a risk assessment process. It is aimed at evaluating the residual risk associated with a new ADS deployment. The article proposes methodological criteria to ground the readiness review process for an ADS release. Specifically, it lists 12 readiness criteria connected with system safety, cybersecurity, verification and validation, collision avoidance testing, predicted collision risks, impeded progress, rules of the road compliance, vulnerable road users interactions, high-severity assessment, conservative estimate of severity, risk management, and field safety. The criteria presented are agnostic of any specific ADS technological solution and/or architectural choice, to support broad implementation by others in the industry. While intended to support the readiness evaluation for the deployment of an SAE Level 4 ADS, their use can also be generalized for lower levels of automation and combined with the unique human interaction challenges applicable to those levels. Following the presentation of the proposed criteria, the article continues with a discussion on governance and decision-making toward approval of a new release candidate for the ADS, inclusive of a discussion on factors that affect residual risk and risk management practices. The implementation of the presented criteria requires the existence of appropriate safety management practices in addition to many other cultural, procedural, and operational considerations. As such, the article is concluded by a statement of limitations for those wishing to replicate part or all of its content. The content presented here serves to inform important ongoing conversations on the topic of ADS certification and the standardization of approval guidelines in international regulatory contexts.</div>

SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated VehiclesVol. 09(4)
Openalex Percentile: Top 91%
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.