Vehicle Emergency Evacuation Device Stop Keeping Control
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing emergency evacuation devices for vehicles require a time-consuming intention confirmation process before executing automatic vehicle stop or stop keeping controls, which can lead to unintentional vehicle movement and safety risks, especially when a driver's condition deteriorates while stopped at signals or railroad crossings.
Innovation Solution
An emergency evacuation device that omits the intention confirmation process for vehicle stop keeping control when a vehicle is stopped at signals or railroad crossings, allowing for immediate execution of vehicle stop keeping control to maintain safety without driver input, and permits override based on passenger posture during emergency evacuations.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If an intention confirmation process is conducted before executing vehicle stop keeping control, then the reliability of the control execution is improved, but the response time is delayed causing potential safety risks
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary detection of driver abnormality conditions (such as unconsciousness, illness, or inability to operate the vehicle) and pre-preps the vehicle stop keeping control function. When the vehicle is already stopped at signals or railroad crossings, the control can be executed immediately without requiring a full intention confirmation process, as the preliminary detection has already established the emergency condition.
Solution Approach 2:
The invention applies different confirmation requirements to different operational contexts. When the vehicle is stopped at signals or railroad crossings, the system waives the intention confirmation process entirely. In other stopping conditions, a simplified confirmation may be applied. This local differentiation allows the system to optimize safety response based on the specific operational context.
2Loss of time
If the vehicle stop keeping control is executed immediately without intention confirmation, then the safety response time is improved, but the risk of erroneous execution increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system changes the operational parameters of the control execution based on the vehicle's state. When the vehicle is already stopped (velocity = 0) at signals or railroad crossings, the system transitions to a mode where immediate execution is permitted without intention confirmation. This parameter-based differentiation (stopped vs. moving state) allows the system to reduce response time appropriately without compromising overall reliability.
Solution Approach 2:
The system continuously monitors vehicle state parameters (velocity, location, signal status) and uses this feedback to dynamically adjust the control execution protocol. When feedback indicates the vehicle is stopped at a signal or railroad crossing, the system automatically activates the immediate execution mode, ensuring that the decision to waive confirmation is based on real-time operational conditions rather than arbitrary rules.
3Productivity
If the intention confirmation process is omitted for stopped vehicles, then the operational efficiency is improved, but the complexity of control logic increases
Solution Approach 1:
The control logic is segmented into distinct operational branches based on vehicle state and location. One branch handles moving vehicles with full intention confirmation, while another branch handles stopped vehicles at signals or railroad crossings with immediate execution. This segmentation allows the system to optimize each branch independently, improving operational efficiency for stopped vehicles without requiring complete redesign of the entire control system.
Solution Approach 2:
The vehicle running control portion is designed to handle multiple functions through a unified control architecture. It can execute both automatic vehicle stop control (for moving vehicles) and vehicle stop keeping control (for stopped vehicles) using the same basic control mechanisms, differing only in the confirmation requirements. This multi-functionality reduces the need for separate dedicated systems, thereby limiting the increase in overall system complexity.
Data Source
AI summary
In a vehicle emergency evacuation device which stops a running vehicle automatically or keeps a stop state of a stopped vehicle in a driver's emergency, a stop keeping process is executed to keep the stop state without conducting an intention confirmation process of the execution start of an emergency evacuation process when the emergency evacuation process is required, e.g. when an abnormality or a deterioration in the driver's condition arises or when the driver requests the emergency evacuation process, under a condition that the vehicle has stopped before a signal, a road crossing or a railroad crossing, thereby ensuring the safety of the vehicle. Moreover, there are provided a structure in which the stop site of the vehicle in the execution of automatic vehicle stop control is determined depending upon whether the running road is a driveway, a highway, or a normal road; and a structure that judges whether or not to permit an override to the emergency evacuation process after the execution start of the emergency evacuation process based on a passenger's motion.