- ISO 26262 addresses risks caused by malfunctioning electrical and electronic systems in road vehicles.
- Hazard analysis assigns an ASIL from A (lowest) to D (highest), plus QM for non-safety-relevant items.
- It works alongside ISO 21448 (SOTIF) and ISO/SAE 21434 (cybersecurity) in modern ADAS development.
What the standard covers
ISO 26262 is the international standard for functional safety of electrical and electronic (E/E) systems in series-production road vehicles. Its goal is to reduce unreasonable risk caused by malfunctions — a sensor that fails, software that behaves incorrectly or hardware that degrades. It covers the whole lifecycle, from concept to production, operation and decommissioning.
Hazard analysis and risk assessment
Everything starts with the item definition and the HARA (hazard analysis and risk assessment). For each hazardous event, engineers rate three factors:
- Severity (S): how bad the potential harm is.
- Exposure (E): how often the driving situation occurs.
- Controllability (C): how likely the driver or others can avoid harm.
The combination gives an Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) from A to D, or QM when standard quality management is enough. A steering or braking function failing unexpectedly at speed typically lands at the high end of the scale.
From safety goals to requirements
Each hazard leads to a safety goal, which is refined into functional and then technical safety requirements, allocated to hardware and software. The higher the ASIL, the more rigorous the methods required — for example stronger verification, independence between design and review, and quantitative hardware metrics.
The V-model in practice
ISO 26262 follows a V-shaped development process: requirements and design go down the left side; integration, verification and validation go up the right side. Traceability links every requirement to the tests that prove it. Supporting processes — configuration management, change management, tool qualification and safety assessment — run throughout.
ISO 26262 and ADAS
Advanced driver assistance and automated driving add a difficulty: a system can be fault-free and still behave unsafely because its sensors or algorithms misread a situation. That gap is covered by ISO 21448 (SOTIF, safety of the intended functionality). Connected vehicles also need ISO/SAE 21434 for cybersecurity. Engineers working on software-defined vehicles usually apply all three together.
Where to start
Functional safety is a career in itself. Our autonomous, ADAS and software-defined vehicle programmes cover these standards with real case studies. You may also like our article on detect-and-avoid systems for drones, where similar safety thinking applies in the air.
Learn this with engineers who do it
Online, project-based programmes in Autonomous, ADAS & Software-Defined Vehicle. Admissions reply within 72 hours.
More from the technical blog

Railway Accident Investigation: The Methods Engineers Use
How independent railway accident investigations work: evidence collection, data recorders, human factors and turning findings into safety recommendations.
Read the article →
Detect and Avoid for Drones: Sensors, Standards and BVLOS Operations
Flying drones beyond visual line of sight requires a way to replace the pilot's eyes. An overview of detect-and-avoid sensors, architectures and…
Read the article →
Brake Cooling in Motorsport: Ducts, Discs and Thermal Limits
How race engineers keep brakes inside their working window: heat generation, carbon and iron discs, duct design and the data used to…
Read the article →