Driving Strategy Adaptation for Cutting-In Vehicle Safety

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing vehicle operation systems fail to adapt effectively to inter-vehicle interactions, particularly when a third vehicle cuts in, leading to unsafe distances and speeds, and lack consideration for all vehicles involved, resulting in reduced safety and inefficient energy use.

Innovation Solution

A method and device that receive vehicle data values from surroundings sensors to determine a second driving strategy for two vehicles based on their initial strategy and the cutting-in vehicle's data, adjusting speed and distance to ensure safe and efficient operation, including data exchange between vehicles to adapt to changing conditions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a third vehicle cuts in between two vehicles, then the first driving strategy becomes unsafe, but maintaining the first driving strategy ignores the cutting-in vehicle and reduces overall safety

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidadaptation to cutting-in vehicle
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically switches from a first driving strategy (ignoring the cutting-in vehicle) to a second driving strategy (considering the cutting-in vehicle) based on real-time detection of the cutting-in maneuver. This dynamic adaptation ensures safety by adjusting the driving strategy according to the changing traffic situation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses sensor data to detect the cutting-in vehicle and provides feedback to the control unit, which then determines the second driving strategy. This feedback loop enables the system to respond to the cutting-in event and adjust the driving strategy accordingly, improving safety.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If the system considers only the first driving strategy of two vehicles, then the control is simple, but safety is reduced when a third vehicle cuts in

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoiddriving strategy determination
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the driving strategy determination into two distinct strategies: a first driving strategy for normal operation (ignoring the cutting-in vehicle) and a second driving strategy for when a cutting-in vehicle is detected. This segmentation allows the system to maintain simplicity during normal operation while ensuring safety when needed.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system prepares both the first and second driving strategies in advance, with the second strategy being activated only when a cutting-in vehicle is detected. This preliminary preparation allows the system to respond quickly to cutting-in events without complex real-time calculations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Reliability

If the system activates the second driving strategy immediately upon detecting a cutting-in vehicle, then safety is improved, but energy efficiency is reduced due to frequent strategy switching

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidenergy efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies preliminary anti-action by having the second driving strategy ready in advance but only activating it when truly needed (when a cutting-in vehicle is detected and the first strategy becomes unsafe). This prevents unnecessary strategy switching and maintains energy efficiency while ensuring safety when required.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

4Adaptability or versatility

If the system uses separate speed and distance specifications for each vehicle pair, then adaptability is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveseparate speed and distance specificationVSAvoiddriving strategy specification
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses a universal driving strategy framework that can accommodate both the first driving strategy (for two-vehicle scenarios) and the second driving strategy (for three-vehicle scenarios with cutting-in). This multi-functionality allows the system to handle different traffic situations with a single unified approach, reducing complexity while maintaining adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS10691136B2Method and device for providing a signal for operating at least two vehicles
Publication Date: 2020.06.23 ROBERT BOSCH GMBH
  • US10691136B2 patent drawing
  • US10691136B2 patent drawing
  • US10691136B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method and device for providing a signal for operating at least two vehicles including: receiving vehicle data values which represent at least one further vehicle, the at least one further vehicle cutting in between the at least two vehicles, acquiring a first driving strategy of the at least two vehicles, determining a second driving strategy for the at least two vehicles, as a function of the first driving strategy and as a function of the vehicle data values, and providing a signal for operating the at least two vehicles as a function of the second driving strategy.