Systems and methods for hazard mitigation

• US 9,896,096 B2
• Filed: 11/09/2016
• Issued: 02/20/2018
• Est. Priority Date: 04/11/2016
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: David E. Newman, Massengill R. Kemp
• Original Assignee: David E. Newman, Massengill R. Kemp
• Inventors: Newman, David E., Massengill, R. Kemp
• Primary Examiner(s): Olszewski, John
• Assistant Examiner(s): Ziaeianmehdizadeh, Navid
• Application Number:
  US15/347,573
• Publication Number:
  US 20170291602A1
• Time in Patent Office: 468 Days
• Field of Search: None
• CPC Class Codes: B60Q 9/008 for anti-collision purposes
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 10/04 including control of propulsion units
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 10/18 including control of braking systems
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 10/184 with wheel brakes
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 10/20 including control of steering systems
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2050/143 Alarm means
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2420/403 Image sensing, e.g. optical camera
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2420/408 Radar; Laser, e.g. lidar
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2420/54 Audio sensitive means, e.g. ultrasound
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2420/60 Doppler effect
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2552/05 Type of road, e.g. motorways, local streets, paved or unpaved roads
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2554/00 Input parameters relating to objects
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2554/4041 Position
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2554/80 Spatial relation or speed relative to objects
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2554/801 Lateral distance
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2554/802 Longitudinal distance
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2554/804 Relative longitudinal speed
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2555/20 Ambient conditions, e.g. wind or rain
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2710/00 Output or target parameters relating to a particular sub-units
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 2754/10 Spatial relation or speed relative to objects
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 30/085 : Taking automatic action to adjust vehicle attitude in preparation for collision, e.g. braking for nose dropping
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 30/09 : Taking automatic action to avoid collision, e.g. braking and steering
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 30/095 : Predicting travel path or likelihood of collision
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 30/0956 : the prediction being responsive to traffic or environmental parameters
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 50/12 : Limiting control by the driver depending on vehicle state, e.g. interlocking means for the control input for preventing unsafe operation
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 50/14 : Means for informing the driver, warning the driver or prompting a driver intervention
• CPC Class Codes: B60W 50/16 : Tactile feedback to the driver, e.g. vibration or force feedback to the driver on the steering wheel or the accelerator pedal
• CPC Class Codes: G05D 1/0214 : in accordance with safety or protection criteria, e.g. avoiding hazardous areas monitoring the location of vehicles within a certain area, e.g. forbidden or allowed areas, in traffic control systems for road vehicles G08G1/13
• CPC Class Codes: G05D 1/617 : Safety or protection, e.g. defining protection zones around obstacles or avoiding hazards arrangements for controlling the position or course of two or more vehicles for avoiding collisions therebetween G05D1/693; arrangements for reacting to or preventing system or operator failure G05D1/80
• CPC Class Codes: G08G 1/16 : Anti-collision systems road vehicle drive control systems for predicting or avoiding probable or impending collision otherwise than by control of a particular sub-unit B60W30/08
• CPC Class Codes: G08G 1/166 : for active traffic, e.g. moving vehicles, pedestrians, bikes
• CPC Class Codes: G08G 1/167 : Driving aids for lane monitoring, lane changing, e.g. blind spot detection

Abstract

A system and method to avoid collisions on highways, and to minimize the fatalities, injury, and damage when a collision is unavoidable. The system includes sensor means to detect other vehicles, and computing means to evaluate when a collision is imminent and to determine whether the collision is avoidable. If the collision is avoidable by a sequence of controlled accelerations and decelerations and steering, the system implements that sequence of actions automatically. If the collision is unavoidable, a different sequence is implemented to minimize the overall harm of the unavoidable collision. The system further includes indirect mitigation steps such as flashing the brake lights automatically. An optional post-collision strategy is implemented to prevent secondary collisions, particularly if the driver is incapacitated. Adjustment means enable the driver to set the type and timing of automatic interventions.

Claims

1. A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions for causing a computing environment to perform a method for mitigating vehicle collisions, the method comprising:

detecting, with a sensor mounted on a subject vehicle, a second vehicle;

calculating that a collision is imminent between the subject vehicle and the second vehicle;

preparing a plurality of sequences of actions, each action comprising a period of acceleration or deceleration or steering of the subject vehicle for a particular time interval at a particular intensity;

calculating whether the collision is avoidable or unavoidable, wherein the collision is avoidable if any of the sequences avoids the collision, and the collision is unavoidable if the collision cannot be avoided by implementing any of the sequences;

if the collision is avoidable, implementing a particular sequence that avoids the collision; and

if the collision is unavoidable, calculating how much harm would result from a collision according to each of the sequences, and implementing a sequence associated with the least harm.

2. The medium of claim 1, wherein the detecting includes detecting position and velocity and acceleration data about the second vehicle and calculating a projected position of the second vehicle as a function of time.

3. The medium of claim 2, further comprising storing the position and velocity and acceleration data about the second vehicle in a non-transitory computer readable medium.

4. The medium of claim 2, further comprising performing a kinetic analysis comprising calculations including subject vehicle accelerations, and subject vehicle decelerations, and subject vehicle steering, and combinations thereof.

5. The medium of claim 2, further comprising updating the calculation during the implementation of the current avoidance or harm minimization strategy, and redetermining whether the collision has changed from avoidable to unavoidable or from unavoidable to avoidable.

6. The medium of claim 2, further comprising storing the position and velocity and acceleration data about the second vehicle in a first memory, and after a collision storing further position and velocity and acceleration data in a second memory, thereby preserving the position and velocity and acceleration data in the first memory.

7. The medium of claim 1, wherein the calculating that a collision is imminent includes determining if the subject vehicle and the second vehicle will pass within a predetermined radius of each other in the absence of alterations of greater than plus or minus 5% in velocity or direction of the subject vehicle and the second vehicle.

8. The medium of claim 1, wherein the calculating that a collision is imminent includes:

analyzing data from one or more external sensors, thereby determining a position and a velocity and an acceleration of the second vehicle;

analyzing data from one or more internal sensors, thereby determining a position and a velocity and an acceleration of the subject vehicle;

calculating, from the position and velocity and acceleration of the second vehicle, and from the position and velocity and acceleration of the subject vehicle, future values of a separation distance between the subject vehicle and the second vehicle;

calculating from the future values a collision time at which the separation distance is less than a predetermined separation distance; and

determining, if the collision time is less than a predetermined time limit, that the collision is imminent.

9. The medium of claim 1, further comprising repeating one or more of the calculating steps responsive to further sensor data, the further sensor data being measured later in time than the sensor data on which the initial calculating was performed.

10. The medium of claim 9, further comprising:

while the particular sequence is being implemented, continuing to analyze further sensor data, thereby determining if the collision remains avoidable or unavoidable;

if the continuing analysis indicates that an avoidable collision has become unavoidable, responsively implementing the particular sequence associated with the least harm; and

if the continuing analysis indicates that an unavoidable collision has become avoidable, responsively implementing the particular sequence that avoids the collision.

11. The medium of claim 1, wherein the calculating that a collision is imminent includes:

measuring a position and a velocity and an acceleration of the second vehicle;

calculating, from the position and velocity and acceleration of the second vehicle, future positions of the second vehicle, and if such future positions coincide with at least one future position of the subject vehicle, then determining that the collision is imminent;

calculating a collision time at which the second vehicle will collide with the subject vehicle;

and if the collision time is less than a predetermined threshold, determining that the collision is imminent.

12. The medium of claim 1, wherein the calculating if the collision is avoidable or unavoidable includes:

a. receiving capability-data about the subject vehicle, wherein the capability-data includes information on the maximum acceleration, and the maximum deceleration, and the maximum rate of steering that the subject vehicle is capable of;

b. and analyzing, with the capability data, whether the imminent collision can be avoided by applying the maximum acceleration or the maximum deceleration or the maximum rate of steering to the subject vehicle, or by applying sequential combinations of accelerations, decelerations, and steering actions, based on one or more of the maximums.

13. The medium of claim 1, wherein the calculating that a collision is imminent includes:

evaluating, with data from the sensors, a rate of change of acceleration of the subject vehicle and the second vehicle;

calculating, from the rate of change of acceleration of the subject vehicle and the second vehicle, future values of a separation distance between the subject vehicle and the second vehicle;

calculating from the future values a collision time at which the separation distance is less than a predetermined separation distance, and

determining, if the collision time is less than a predetermined time limit, that the collision is imminent.

14. The medium of claim 1, wherein the calculating if the collision is avoidable or unavoidable includes:

receiving capability-data about the subject vehicle, wherein the capability-data includes information on the maximum acceleration, and the maximum deceleration, and the maximum rate of steering that the subject vehicle is capable of;

analyzing, with the capability-data, whether the imminent collision can be avoided by applying the maximum acceleration to the subject vehicle;

analyzing, with the capability-data, whether the imminent collision can be avoided by applying the maximum deceleration to the subject vehicle;

analyzing, with the capability-data, whether the imminent collision can be avoided by applying the maximum rate of steering to the subject vehicle; and

analyzing, with the capability-data, whether the imminent collision can be avoided by applying sequential combinations of accelerations, decelerations, and steering actions.

15. A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions for causing a computing environment to perform a method for mitigating vehicle collisions, the method comprising:

detecting, with a sensor mounted on a subject vehicle, a second vehicle, and calculating a projected course of the second vehicle;

if the subject vehicle is projected to collide with the second vehicle, calculating a plurality of sets of sequential actions to avoid a collision between the subject vehicle and the second vehicle;

if the subject vehicle, when accelerated according to a particular one of the sets of sequential actions, is projected to avoid colliding with the second vehicle, then implementing the one particular set of sequential actions; and

if the subject vehicle, when accelerated according to each of the sets of sequential actions, is projected to collide with the second vehicle, then calculating how much harm would be caused by collisions according to each set of sequential actions, and implementing a particular set of sequential actions that would cause the least harm.

16. The medium of claim 15, wherein implementing a particular set of sequential actions includes:

measuring a position and velocity and acceleration of the subject vehicle, preparing a feedback signal by comparing the measured position or velocity or acceleration to the selected set of sequential actions, and controlling the accelerator and brakes and steering of the subject vehicle according to the feedback signal in real time, while the particular set of sequential actions are being implemented.

17. A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions for causing a computing environment to perform a method for mitigating vehicle collisions, the method comprising:

detecting, with a sensor mounted on a subject vehicle, a second vehicle, and calculating position and velocity and acceleration data about the second vehicle;

determining, based on the calculated position and velocity and acceleration data about the second vehicle, and on position and velocity and acceleration data about the subject vehicle, whether a collision is projected to occur between the subject vehicle and the second vehicle when no avoidance action is taken;

if a collision is projected to occur, then calculating a first set of sequential actions to avoid the collision between the subject vehicle and the second vehicle;

if the first set of sequential actions avoids the collision, implementing the first set of sequential actions; and

if the first set of sequential actions fails to avoid the collision, then calculating a second set of sequential actions to minimize harm caused by the collision, and implementing the particular sequential action, of the first and the second set of sequential actions, which produces the least harm.

18. The medium of claim 17, wherein the calculating a second set of sequential actions includes:

analyzing one or more sequences, each sequence comprising periods of acceleration or deceleration or steering of the subject vehicle in a particular order;

calculating an amount of harm that would be caused by a collision according to each of the analyzed sequences by adding harm associated with fatalities plus harm associated with serious injuries plus harm associated with minor injuries plus harm associated with property damage;

selecting, from the analyzed sequences, a particular sequence that would cause a minimum amount of harm;

and implementing the particular sequence of accelerations or decelerations or steering of the subject vehicle.

19. The medium of claim 18, wherein the calculating an amount of harm includes:

calculating how many fatalities would result from a collision according to each of the sequences;

calculating how many injuries would result from a collision according to each of the sequences;

calculating how much property damage would result from a collision according to each of the sequences;

adding, for each of the analyzed collisions, the calculated number of fatalities times a predetermined fatality coefficient, plus the calculated number of injuries times a predetermined injury coefficient, plus the calculated property damage times a predetermined property damage coefficient, wherein a sum of the adding indicates how much harm would be caused by a collision according to each of the sequences.

20. The medium of claim 18, wherein the calculating an amount of harm includes:

predicting vehicle distortions that would occur during a possible collision;

predicting peak accelerations that would occur during the possible collision;

estimating, from the predicted vehicle distortions and peak accelerations, a number of fatalities, a number of injuries, and an amount of property damage that would result from the possible collision;

and combining, according to a formula, the estimated number of fatalities, and the estimated number of injuries, and the estimated amount of property damage, thereby calculating the expected harm of the possible collision.

21. The method of claim 17, further comprising:

preparing, before a collision occurs, a post-collision strategy to minimize post-collision harm;

acquiring, during or after the collision, further sensor data;

updating, according to the further sensor data, the post-collision strategy;

and then implementing the updated post-collision strategy;

wherein;

the post-collision harm comprises harm that occurs after a collision occurs;

and the post-collision strategy comprises a sequence of accelerations or decelerations or steering of the subject vehicle.

22. The method of claim 21, wherein the post-collision strategy further includes at least one of:

turning off a fuel pump;

unlocking doors;

rolling down windows;

driving to a side of a road;

and transmitting a help-request message.

23. The method of claim 22, further comprising:

determining, after a collision occurs, whether a driver of the subject vehicle is responsive or nonresponsive;

while the driver is nonresponsive, implementing the post-collision strategy;

and while the driver is responsive, halting the post-collision strategy.

24. The method of claim 23, further comprising:

determining that the driver is responsive if the driver operates the accelerator or brakes or steering wheel of the subject vehicle after the collision occurs;

and determining that the driver is nonresponsive if the driver fails to operate any of the accelerator and the brakes and the steering wheel of the subject vehicle after the collision occurs.

25. The medium of claim 17, wherein each set of actions includes a positive acceleration of the subject vehicle, or a positive acceleration with steering of the subject vehicle, or a positive acceleration followed by braking of the subject vehicle.

26. The medium of claim 17, wherein the calculating a second set of sequential actions includes:

analyzing one or more sequences, each sequence comprising periods of acceleration or deceleration or steering of the subject vehicle in a particular order;

calculating an amount of harm that would be caused by a collision according to each of the analyzed sequences;

selecting, from the analyzed sequences, a particular sequence that would cause a minimum amount of harm;

implementing the particular sequence of accelerations or decelerations or steering of the subject vehicle;

continuing to calculate, while the particular sequence is being implemented, the amount of harm expected from the collision according to each of the sequences;

and, if an alternate sequence is calculated to result in less harm than the particular sequence, implementing the alternate sequence instead of the particular sequence.

27. A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions for causing a computing environment to perform a method for mitigating vehicle collisions, the method comprising:

detecting, with a sensor mounted on a subject vehicle, a second vehicle, and calculating if the second vehicle will collide with the subject vehicle;

calculating whether a first set of actions would avoid a collision with the subject vehicle;

if the first set of actions would avoid the collision, implementing the first set of actions;

if the first set of actions would fail to avoid the collision, calculating whether a second set of actions would avoid the collision;

if the second set of actions would avoid the collision, implementing the second set of actions; and

if the second set of actions would fail to avoid the collision, implementing which of the first or second set of actions that would cause the least amount of harm;

wherein each set of actions comprises a set of sequential accelerations of the subject vehicle, each acceleration having a specified timing, duration, direction, and amplitude;

and wherein a collision comprises the second vehicle striking the subject vehicle or passing within a predetermined radius of the subject vehicle.

28. The medium of claim 27, wherein:

the sequences of actions include at least one sequence that was stored in non-transient memory before the second vehicle was detected; and

the second set of one or more sequential accelerations or decelerations or steering actions is calculated to result in less harm than any other set of one or more sequential accelerations or decelerations or steering actions.

29. The medium of claim 27, wherein the first set of sequential actions comprises sequential accelerations or decelerations or steering actions of the subject vehicle, and wherein the second set of sequential actions comprises sequential accelerations or decelerations or steering actions of the subject vehicle, and wherein at least one of the sequential actions comprises a positive acceleration.

30. The method of claim 27, wherein:

the first set of sequential actions includes a plurality of sequences which are all different from each other;

the second set of sequential actions includes a plurality of sequences which are all different from each other and from any of the first set of sequences; and

the second set of sequential actions minimizes the harm caused by the collision if, after the second set of sequential actions is implemented, an amount of harm caused by the collision is less than the harm resulting from any of the other sequential actions.