Re: [SystemSafety] a discursion stimulated by recent discussions of alleged safety-critical software faults in automobile software

From: Peter Bernard Ladkin < >
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:25:52 +0100


On 11/12/13 9:49 AM, Nancy Leveson wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that mixing up engineering and law is a mistake.

To the contrary, you could barely do any engineering at all without a legal framework in which it proceeds. You make a car. Somebody buys it, and uses it to run over the Head of Government, killing her. The Government decides it's your fault for making and selling the car, and takes over your company, distributing the proceeds amongst the Cabinet Ministers. Your company won't make or develop another car, obviously.

I would suggest that the legal framework is why Germany, the US and Japan have car industries, and Syria, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe don't.

> In addition, the legal definition of "cause" is not necessarily the same as the engineering
> definition of "cause."

For most engineering intents and purposes they are the same in most western countries, namely the counterfactual sense.

PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Tue Nov 12 2013 - 10:27:34 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Apr 25 2019 - 12:17:06 CEST