Driver Vigilance Control for Automated Lane-Keeping Vehicles

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing autonomous driving systems in vehicles, such as Traffic Jam Pilot (TJP), lack sufficient safety measures to ensure driver vigilance and intervention when the driver is not actively monitoring the vehicle, particularly in low-speed traffic conditions.

Innovation Solution

A method that continuously monitors the driver's vigilance level, triggering visual and audible alerts, followed by braking jolts if vigilance is insufficient, and ultimately stopping the vehicle if the driver does not respond, using existing vehicle systems without additional hardware.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the driver is monitored continuously to detect inactivity, then driver safety is improved, but system complexity and energy consumption increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedriver safetyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The monitoring system is divided into multiple independent sensor modules (eye closure sensor, head position sensor, steering wheel sensor, pedal sensor) that each detect specific parameters. These segmented sensors work together to comprehensively assess driver activity status, reducing the complexity of a single complex monitoring system while maintaining high reliability

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Multiple sensors serve dual purposes: they monitor both driver activity status and provide data for subsequent control actions. The same sensors used for detection also inform the control unit about driver intent and system state, reducing the need for separate monitoring and control systems

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

2Measurement precision

If multiple sensors are used to detect driver activity, then detection accuracy is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection accuracyVSAvoidsensor system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The detection system uses multiple specialized sensors (eye closure sensor for blink detection, head position sensor for nodding detection, steering wheel sensor for grip detection, pedal sensor for acceleration/braking detection) instead of a single complex sensor. Each sensor is optimized for its specific function, improving measurement precision while keeping individual sensor complexity low

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The control unit integrates signals from multiple independent sensors to make a comprehensive assessment of driver activity. By merging the output signals from eye closure, head position, steering wheel, and pedal sensors, the system achieves high detection accuracy through signal integration rather than using a single complex detection device

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

3Reliability

If the vehicle is automatically controlled during driver inactivity, then safety is improved, but control complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidcontrol system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by gradually reducing drive assistance levels before full automatic control. The control unit first issues warnings, then progressively takes over control functions (steering, acceleration, braking) in a staged manner. This preliminary action approach ensures safety while simplifying the control logic by following a predetermined escalation sequence rather than requiring complex real-time decision-making algorithms

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The control system dynamically adjusts the level of drive assistance based on the duration and severity of driver inactivity. The system transitions from minimal intervention (warnings) to progressive control takeover (individual functions) to full automatic control, with the ability to revert to manual control when the driver becomes active. This dynamic adaptation simplifies control complexity by using state-based transitions rather than complex continuous control algorithms

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentEP4426575B1Method for controlling a motor vehicle in case of driver inactivity
Publication Date: 2026.04.08 AMPERE SAS
  • EP4426575B1 patent drawingFigure 1~3
  • EP4426575B1 patent drawingFigure 4~5
  • EP4426575B1 patent drawingFigure 6~7

AI summary

The invention relates to a method for controlling a motor vehicle comprising, when the motor vehicle is moving at a speed that is automatically regulated and the lateral position of the motor vehicle in its traffic lane is being controlled automatically, a operation of looped acquisition of a level of vigilance of the driver of the motor vehicle, then, if the level of vigilance is insufficient, steps of:- triggering a visual and/or audio alert, then, if the level of vigilance remains insufficient after a first determined time, - generating a series of at least one braking jerks, then, if the level of vigilance remains insufficient after a second determined time, - braking the motor vehicle until it stops if the level of vigilance remains insufficient.