Collision Mitigation Control for Unavoidable Traffic Impacts

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing collision-avoidance systems fail to account for individual driver skills, provide one-size-fits-all solutions, and often exacerbate collisions when they are unavoidable, leading to increased fatalities and injuries.

Innovation Solution

A system utilizing sensors and processors to analyze traffic hazards and implement precise vehicle interventions, such as braking, steering, or acceleration, to either avoid collisions or minimize their impact, tailored to the driver's abilities and preferences.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If automatic collision-avoidance systems apply brakes rapidly to avoid collisions, then collision avoidance capability is improved, but the risk of skidding and inability of following vehicles to stop in time increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecollision avoidance capabilityVSAvoidskidding risk and secondary collision risk

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts braking intensity based on real-time analysis of multiple factors including distance to preceding vehicle, speed differential, road conditions, and following traffic density. This dynamic adjustment allows the system to apply optimal braking force that avoids skidding while maintaining collision avoidance capability, and prevents excessive braking that would cause following vehicles to collide.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system continuously monitors traffic conditions before, during, and after braking events. By analyzing data from multiple sensors and using machine learning algorithms, the system learns from each braking event and adjusts future braking behavior to avoid skidding and secondary collisions, improving overall safety while maintaining collision avoidance effectiveness.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Device complexity

If one-size-fits-all collision-avoidance solutions are implemented, then system complexity is reduced, but effectiveness for individual drivers and situations deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem configuration simplicityVSAvoidcollision mitigation effectiveness

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary assessment of driver behavior patterns, vehicle characteristics, and typical operating conditions during normal driving. This pre-characterization allows the system to tailor collision avoidance strategies to individual drivers and vehicles without requiring complex real-time adjustments or manual configuration, maintaining simplicity while improving effectiveness.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system automatically adjusts key parameters such as safe following distance, braking threshold, and intervention timing based on detected driver preferences, vehicle type, and environmental conditions. These parameter changes enable personalized collision avoidance strategies without requiring complex system reconfiguration or user input, resolving the contradiction between simplicity and effectiveness.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If collision-avoidance systems intervene strongly to avoid collisions, then collision avoidance capability is improved, but the system may exacerbate collisions when avoidance is impossible, leading to increased fatalities and injuries

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecollision avoidance capabilityVSAvoidcollision severity when unavoidable

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically evaluates collision avoidability in real-time by analyzing multiple scenarios and predicting outcomes. When avoidance is determined to be impossible, the system automatically transitions from avoidance-mode to harm-minimization-mode, adjusting control actions to reduce collision severity rather than attempting aggressive avoidance that would worsen the outcome.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system converts potentially harmful strong intervention actions into beneficial harm-minimization actions when collision avoidance is impossible. By detecting unavoidable collision scenarios and applying controlled braking and steering to reduce impact severity, the system transforms what would have been exacerbating strong intervention into protective harm-reduction measures, reducing fatalities and injuries.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #22Blessing in disguise (Convert harm into benefit)

Data Source

PatentUS20250276684A1Systems for mitigating a collision faster than a human driver of ordinary skill

Publication Date: 2025.09.04 THE MASSENGILL FAMILY TRUST

AI summary

When a collision in traffic becomes imminent, fast electronics may be required to combine data or images from two different technologies. Determining a position or speed or acceleration of a second vehicle may require integration of data from different technologies, leading to delays unless the analyzing is performed by high-speed electronics. In addition, calculating and selecting an effective collision mitigation must be performed rapidly, due to the brief time interval typically between discovering the imminent collision and the time of first contact. For these reasons, among many others, the avoidance or harm minimization actions require speed and precision beyond the capabilities of a human driver of ordinary skill, and necessarily require high-speed electronics, such as a digital processor, for success. In many collision scenarios, relying on the human driver to calculate a sequence of actions, select the best one, and implement it before the impact, while also driving, is unrealistic.