| Recurring |
multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
The article does not mention any previous incidents of software failures within the same organization or with its products and services. Therefore, it is unknown if a similar incident has happened before within the organization involved in the driverless bus trial in Inverness.
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
The article mentions a similar project running in Hannover, Germany, where an autonomous bus shuttle is being trialled. This indicates that similar autonomous vehicle projects are being conducted in different locations, suggesting that software failure incidents could potentially happen at multiple organizations conducting such trials [133724]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident in the driverless bus trial in Inverness was attributed to software glitches that arose during the operation of the vehicle. The article mentions that the bus had to be driven manually at its launch due to software issues, with three software glitches identified on the day of the official launch. Two of the glitches were resolved, while a third required further work [133724]. This indicates that the failure was related to contributing factors introduced during the system development or updates rather than solely due to operational factors. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident with the driverless bus in Inverness was within the system. The article mentions that the driverless bus had to be driven manually at its launch due to software issues, specifically three software glitches that occurred on the day of the official launch [133724]. The glitches were identified as internal issues within the software system of the autonomous vehicle, which required further work to resolve. This indicates that the failure originated from within the system itself. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was attributed to non-human actions, specifically software glitches that affected the driverless bus during its trial in Inverness. The article mentions that the bus had to be driven manually at its launch due to software issues, with three software glitches identified, two of which were resolved on the spot while the third required further work [133724]. These glitches were not introduced by human actions but were inherent in the software system being tested. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was not attributed to hardware issues but rather to software glitches. The driverless bus had to be driven manually at its launch due to software issues, with three software glitches identified on the day of the official launch [133724].
(b) The software failure incident was specifically mentioned to be due to software issues. The article highlighted that the driverless bus had to be operated manually at its launch because of software glitches, with two of the three glitches being resolved and the third requiring further work [133724]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident mentioned in the article is non-malicious. The driverless bus in the Scottish trial of autonomous vehicle passenger services experienced software glitches that required manual intervention during its launch in Inverness. The glitches were identified as part of the trial, and efforts were made to resolve them, indicating that the failure was not due to malicious intent but rather a technical issue during the testing phase [133724]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
unknown |
The software failure incident related to the driverless bus trial in Inverness was not explicitly attributed to poor decisions or accidental decisions in the articles provided [133724]. The incident was described as being caused by software glitches that required manual intervention during the launch of the autonomous vehicle passenger service trial. The glitches were identified as part of the trial process, and efforts were made to resolve them, indicating a proactive approach to addressing the software issues. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was not attributed to development incompetence. The article mentions that the driverless bus had to be driven manually at its launch due to software issues, specifically three software glitches that occurred on the day of the official launch in Inverness [133724].
(b) The software failure incident in the article was categorized as accidental. The article describes the software glitches that affected the driverless bus during the trial in Inverness as unexpected issues that needed to be resolved, indicating that the failure was accidental rather than due to incompetence [133724]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident reported in Article 133724 was temporary. The article mentions that the driverless bus had to be driven manually at its launch due to software issues, specifically three software glitches that occurred on the day of the official launch. Two of the glitches were resolved, while the third required further work. This indicates that the software failure was not permanent but rather temporary, as it was due to specific circumstances on the launch day [133724]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, other |
(a) crash: The software glitches in the driverless bus trial in Inverness led to the bus having to be driven manually at its launch, indicating a failure due to the system losing state and not performing its intended functions [133724].
(b) omission: The article does not specifically mention any instances of the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s).
(c) timing: The article does not mention any failures due to the system performing its intended functions correctly, but too late or too early.
(d) value: The article does not mention any failures due to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly.
(e) byzantine: The article does not mention any failures due to the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The software glitches in the driverless bus trial could be categorized as "other" as they led to the bus having to be driven manually, which is a behavior not explicitly covered by the options (a) to (e) [133724]. |