Title: The Automotive Safety Standards Map | ISO 26262 Academy URL: https://iso26262.academy/features/concepts/automotive-safety-standards-map Description: ISO 26262 covers hazards caused by an E/E system doing the wrong thing. Sensor limits, attackers and learned models each needed a document of their own. --- Concept guide · ISO 26262 · ISO 21448 · ISO/SAE 21434 · ISO/PAS 8800 · 16 chapters # The Automotive Safety Standards Map One vehicle, four ways to get hurt, and the documents that grew up around each of them. How ISO 26262, ISO 21448, ISO/SAE 21434 and ISO/PAS 8800 divide the work, where they overlap, and how the law above them reads the result. 16 Chapters 9 Axes of Difference 5 Sectors Compared 1 Worked Example Included in Expert [Start learning](https://iso26262.academy/register?plan=free&from=%2Fconcepts%2Fautomotive-safety-standards-map&utm_source=website&utm_medium=cta&utm_campaign=features_concepts) See the chapters Inside the course 1. 01 **One Vehicle, Four Ways to Get Hurt** 2. 02 **Who Writes the Rules** 3. 03 **The Backbone: ISO 26262 and Its Edges** 4. 04 **ISO 21448: Hazards Without a Fault** 5. 05 **ISO/SAE 21434: The Attacker as a Hazard Source** The short version ## Quick answers Is SOTIF just Part 13 of ISO 26262? No. ISO 21448 is a separate International Standard with its own scope sentence, and the working group chose that deliberately so the malfunction argument would not be diluted. It shares the item and much of the vocabulary, but not the theory of risk. The guide devotes a full chapter to where the two meet on a real project. Do the UN Regulations require conformance to ISO 26262? They do not. No UN Regulation names ISO 26262 in its normative text. What they require is narrower and harder to argue around: certified management systems under R155 and R156, specific vehicle systems under the EU General Safety Regulation, and for automated lane keeping an audit of the safety approach. The approval file gets assembled from ISO 26262 work products anyway, because that is where the state of the art sits, and one chapter maps that bridge clause by clause. Keep going, free - [Article · 7 min read The Automotive Safety Standards Map: Beyond ISO 26262](https://iso26262.academy/blog/the-automotive-safety-standards-map-beyond-iso-26262) - [Demo exam · no account Test yourself with 7 exam-style questions](https://iso26262.academy/demo-exam) Why this course · ISO 26262 ## Why it pays for itself ### Stop arguing about which standard applies The cause decides the document, not the consequence. One hazardous event is worked through four unrelated causes so the routing question - malfunction, performance limit, attack or AI insufficiency - stops being a meeting and becomes a decision you can defend. ### Know what a document is actually worth A technical report, a publicly available specification, an International Standard and a UN Regulation are four different kinds of obligation. The chapter on document types is the one that stops a team from treating ISO/PAS 8800 as if it were binding, or UN R155 as if it were optional. ### Build one safety case, not four The lifecycles interlock rather than run in sequence or in parallel. You get the shared work products, the hand-offs and their timing on a real programme calendar, and the shape of a case with four sub-arguments, one assumptions register and one residual-risk statement. ### Answer the auditor who reads all of it together Since 2021 the regulations put an external reader in the loop with power over the product. The chapters on law and on confirmation measures show what that reader asks for and how the approval file is assembled from work products no regulation ever names. After the course ## What you’ll be able to do ### Route a hazard to the right document Given a hazardous event, identify whether it belongs to ISO 26262, ISO 21448, ISO/SAE 21434 or ISO/PAS 8800 by its cause, and recognise the cases that belong to more than one. ### Read a document code correctly Tell an International Standard from a publicly available specification, a technical report or a technical specification, and know what obligation each one actually creates. ### Plan an interlocked programme Place the hand-offs between the lanes where they fall on a real calendar, and recognise the concept phase and the release window as the two regions that need management attention. ### Structure a joint safety case Write one case with four sub-arguments, one assumptions register and one residual-risk statement, instead of four documents that contradict each other. ### Assemble an approval file Map the annex requirements of the UN Regulations onto the work products your safety process already produces, and explain the bridge to a technical service. The curriculum · 16 chapters ## Chapter by chapter 1. 01 **One Vehicle, Four Ways to Get Hurt** One lane-centering hazard, four unrelated causes, and the reason a malfunction standard alone stopped being enough. Includes the scope sentence of ISO 26262 and an honest history of how the map grew. - Same consequence, four causes - What functional safety covers - A short history of the map 2. 02 **Who Writes the Rules** The bodies behind the documents and the weight each document type carries. A technical report, a publicly available specification, an International Standard and a UN Regulation are four different kinds of obligation. - Two kinds of pen - Document types and weight - How a voluntary standard grows teeth 3. 03 **The Backbone: ISO 26262 and Its Edges** Twelve parts on one wheel, the scope sentence and its exclusions, the load-bearing ideas every sibling inherited, and what the 2018 edition changed. - Twelve parts - The scope exclusions - What the siblings inherited 4. 04 **ISO 21448: Hazards Without a Fault** A hazard with nobody to blame. The four areas and what acceptable means, the triggering-condition chain, and where SOTIF meets the backbone on a real project. - The four areas - Triggering conditions - Where it meets ISO 26262 5. 05 **ISO/SAE 21434: The Attacker as a Hazard Source** Why intent breaks the statistics, the TARA beside the HARA, a lifecycle that starts before the project and ends after it, and the regulatory pair UN R155 and R156. - TARA next to HARA - Controls that cut paths - R155 and R156 6. 06 **The Automated Driving Layer** The automation ladder as a statement about responsibility, ISO/TS 5083 as the umbrella, the ISO 34501 to 34505 scenario family, and how regulators assess it. - ISO/TS 5083 - Scenario standards - Multi-pillar assessment 7. 07 **AI in the Loop: ISO/PAS 8800** Behaviour that comes from data rather than code, AI output insufficiency as a hazard source, the AI safety lifecycle and where it plugs into the others. - AI output insufficiency - The AI safety lifecycle - The assurance argument 8. 08 **The Satellites** The extensions rather than siblings: ISO/PAS 8926 for software you did not develop, ISO/TR 9839 for hardware that wears out, ISO/TR 9968 for battery hazards, and ISO 24089 with UN R156 for a product that keeps changing. - ISO/PAS 8926 - ISO/TR 9839 and 9968 - ISO 24089 9. 09 **Law Above the Map** Type approval, self-certification and mandatory national standards; the European frame; the regulations that read your safety case; and how a voluntary standard becomes a legal fact through the state of the art. - Three legal shapes - The European frame - State of the art 10. 10 **Principles Side by Side** Every standard is a theory of acceptable risk. Why automotive chose ordinal classes, the four repairs later made to that theory, and four questions to ask of any risk model. - Theories of risk - Why ordinal classes - Four questions 11. 11 **Metrics and Mechanisms Across the Map** What each standard measures in hardware, what each asks of the mechanisms, what integrity means in each, and how fail-operational changes which metric matters. - Metrics compared - Mechanisms compared - Fail-operational 12. 12 **How the Lifecycles Interlock** Neither sequential nor parallel. The joint work products, one safety case with four sub-arguments, who checks with how much independence, and the supplier interface underneath it all. - Joint work products - One case, four arguments - Independence by ASIL 13. 13 **Differences I: ISO 26262 Against Its Siblings** Nine axes of distance between the backbone and its siblings, the misreadings that cost the most, and the two dispositions a joint argument needs. - Nine axes of distance - Costly misreadings - Joint-argument dispositions 14. 14 **Differences II: Automotive Against the Other Sectors** The family tree from IEC 61508, five sectors compared on six axes, what each safety culture can borrow from the others, and the branch with no analogue anywhere else. - The family tree - Five sectors, six axes - The branch with no analogue 15. 15 **Worked Example: One Feature, Every Standard** One feature traced through every applicable document: the numbers and decisions lane by lane, one case carrying four arguments, and what the first year on the road does to all of it. - Lane by lane - One case, four arguments - The first year in the field 16. 16 **The One-Page Story** Why the whole map fits on one page, and the poster that puts the documents, their hazard sources and their interfaces in a single view you can take into a meeting. - The poster - Documents and hazard sources - One view Diagrams & visuals ## Not just text: the visual toolkit ### Four Hazard Scene One lane-centering feature and four hazard sources - fault, functional insufficiency, cyber attack and AI insufficiency - each owned by a different document. ### Standards Timeline The map growing from 1998 to 2027: one parent standard, one standard alone for eight years, then eight lanes filling in. ### Twelve-Part Wheel The twelve parts of ISO 26262 arranged so the concept phase, the product development levels and the supporting processes read as one lifecycle. ### Rule-Makers Atlas Which body writes which document, and how ISO, SAE, IEC and UNECE outputs differ in the obligation they create. ### Binding Force Stack The same ISO standards under type approval, self-certification and mandatory national standards - the engineering layer is global, only the legal roofs differ. ### Programme Calendar A feature programme over forty-eight months with the activities of six lanes and the hand-offs between them drawn where they actually fall. ### Sibling Distance Grid Nine axes on which ISO 26262 and its siblings genuinely differ, with the misreadings that each difference produces. ### One-Pager Poster The whole map on a single page: hazard sources, documents, legal layer and the interfaces between them. Chapter 15 ## One Feature, Every Standard A single feature is carried through every document on the map, lane by lane, with the decisions and their rationale recorded at each step - then the four arguments are folded into one case and followed into its first year on the road. - The item definition that has to serve four analyses that rate it differently - The hazard list read as a HARA, as a SOTIF area and as a TARA input - The mitigations that buy something in one lane and spend something in another - One safety case with four sub-arguments and a single residual-risk statement - What the field loop does to all of it after release Inside the worked example The item definition that has to serve four analyses that rate it differently Full worked example available with an Expert plan Built for ## Who this guide is for - Safety managers who now own SOTIF, cybersecurity and AI arguments alongside functional safety - Engineers moving from a pure ISO 26262 role onto an automated driving or connected feature - Systems architects deciding where a mitigation belongs when it costs something in another lane - Homologation and compliance staff assembling an approval file from safety work products - Anyone who has been told "that is a SOTIF issue" and was not sure whether it was ## Frequently Asked Questions Common questions about The Automotive Safety Standards Map No, and it deliberately does not try. This guide is the map that shows how the territories border each other, which is the one thing no territory page can show from inside it. SOTIF, safety and cybersecurity co-engineering, AI safety and homologation each have their own dedicated concept guide on the platform, and the related resources point at them. Dates and publication states are given as of September 2026, including ISO/TS 5083 in 2025, ISO/PAS 8800 and ISO/PAS 8926 in 2024, and the work on a third edition of ISO 26262 that followed the 2023 systematic review. The page paraphrases public information about standards and regulations rather than reproducing their text, and says so in its opening scope note. ## Start the course today A free account unlocks one full concept guide, 3 work product templates, 1 guided process, the Markov simulator, and 5 practice exams per month. The Pro and Expert plans unlock more of the 78-guide library. No credit card required. [Start learning](https://iso26262.academy/register?plan=free&from=%2Fconcepts%2Fautomotive-safety-standards-map&utm_source=website&utm_medium=cta&utm_campaign=features_concepts) [View Pricing Plans](https://iso26262.academy/pricing)