Post-Collision Brake Control Based on Driver Consciousness State
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing secondary collision mitigation functions in vehicles disable driver's active intervention, failing to maximize damage mitigation and enable subjective risk-avoidance operations.
Innovation Solution
A method that determines the vehicle's safety state and driver's consciousness state post-collision, controlling the vehicle to brake only when both conditions indicate a non-rational driving state.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Speed
If the existing secondary collision mitigation function directly controls the vehicle to be stopped by braking, then the vehicle can be stopped quickly to avoid secondary collision, but the driver's active intervention is disabled and may not maximize damage mitigation
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies dynamics by making the brake control system adaptive rather than static. The system dynamically adjusts the braking intervention based on real-time assessment of driver consciousness state (awake, drowsy, or unconscious) and vehicle safety state. When the driver is conscious and capable, the system provides minimal or no intervention, allowing driver autonomy. When the driver is unconscious or incapable, the system activates full braking intervention. This dynamic adaptation resolves the contradiction between quick stopping and driver intervention capability.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the parameter of brake intervention level based on detected driver and vehicle states. The system monitors multiple parameters including driver consciousness (through camera or sensor detection), vehicle speed, and safety conditions, then adjusts the braking parameter accordingly. This parameter-based control allows the system to optimize between aggressive braking for safety and minimal braking for driver autonomy, resolving the technical contradiction.
2Reliability
If the existing secondary collision mitigation function disables driver intervention, then the system can ensure consistent brake control, but beneficial subjective risk-avoidance operations by experienced drivers cannot be implemented
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies self-service by enabling the driver to maintain control of their own vehicle when the system determines they are conscious and capable. Rather than the system uniformly taking over, it allows the driver to self-manage the vehicle when competent, while providing support only when needed. This preserves the driver's ability to perform beneficial risk-avoidance operations while maintaining reliability through automated monitoring and selective intervention.
Solution Approach 2:
The system dynamically switches between driver-controlled and system-controlled modes based on assessed driver capability. When the driver is conscious and responsive, control remains with the driver, allowing ease of operation and subjective risk-avoidance. When the driver becomes unconscious or unresponsive, control transitions to the automated system, ensuring reliability. This dynamic control allocation resolves the contradiction between consistent system control and driver autonomy.
3Device complexity
If the existing secondary collision mitigation function applies direct braking, then the mitigation process is simple to implement, but it cannot maximize the mitigation of collision damage in all conditions
Solution Approach 1:
The patent changes multiple parameters including brake intervention level, driver state assessment thresholds, and safety condition criteria to optimize collision damage mitigation. Rather than using a single fixed braking strategy, the system adjusts parameters based on the specific collision scenario, driver state, and environmental conditions. This parameter optimization maximizes mitigation effectiveness while the underlying brake control mechanism remains relatively simple, resolving the contradiction between complexity and effectiveness.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent segments the mitigation function into distinct operational modes based on driver consciousness state and safety conditions. Instead of a single unified brake control strategy, the system divides control into multiple segments: driver-autonomous mode, assisted mode, and full-system-control mode. Each segment has optimized parameters for its specific condition, maximizing overall effectiveness while keeping each individual segment relatively simple to implement.
Data Source
AI summary
A method for a brake control of a vehicle is provided. This method includes: obtaining a collision type of a current vehicle after the current vehicle is collided; obtaining driving information of the current vehicle according to the collision type; determining whether the current vehicle is in a safe state according to the driving information; obtaining driving parameter information of the current vehicle, and determining a consciousness state of a driver according to the driving parameter information when the current vehicle is determined as being in the safe state; and controlling the current vehicle to perform a brake operation when the consciousness state is determined as the non-rational driving state. According to this method, a problem of disabling of the driver's beneficial subjective risk-avoidance operations can be avoided, the secondary collision can be effectively avoided, and the damage to the vehicle due to the collision is alleviated.