Risk Routing for Human Drivers in Autonomous Fleets

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles on public roads is hindered by the need for extensive real-world testing and a convincing safety record, as well as limitations in monetizing autonomy features, which require proven safety and efficient risk assessment across varying conditions.

Innovation Solution

An on-demand transportation management system that utilizes risk regression and trip classification techniques to dynamically assess and manage risk, allowing for the deployment of autonomous vehicles by selecting the most optimal vehicle type (human-driven, safety-driven autonomous, or fully autonomous) based on route-specific risk analysis and software verification, ensuring safety and efficiency.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If autonomous vehicles are deployed extensively on public roads, then productivity and transportation efficiency are improved, but safety risks and harmful factors increase due to the need for extensive real-world testing

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetransportation efficiencyVSAvoidsafety risks
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary risk assessment and route classification before autonomous vehicle deployment. By pre-evaluating road segments and categorizing them by risk level, the system prepares safety protocols in advance, allowing extensive deployment without proportionally increasing safety risks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces a centralized server as an intermediary that coordinates between autonomous vehicles, road conditions, and safety protocols. This mediator processes route information, classifies risks, and manages vehicle assignments, thereby decoupling the direct relationship between deployment scale and safety risks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Reliability

If risk assessment and vehicle selection processes are made more comprehensive, then safety is improved, but device complexity and operational time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The risk assessment system divides the road network into discrete path segments and classifies each segment by risk level. This segmentation allows comprehensive safety evaluation without requiring complex holistic analysis, as each segment can be independently assessed and managed.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system transforms qualitative safety assessments into quantitative risk scores and classifications. By converting complex safety evaluations into measurable parameters (risk levels, route categories), the system maintains comprehensive safety analysis while reducing operational complexity through standardized metrics.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If dynamic risk assessment and route optimization are implemented, then safety and efficiency are improved, but loss of time for data processing and decision-making increases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidprocessing time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system pre-calculates and stores risk assessments for various road segments before vehicles need them. By performing risk evaluations in advance and caching route classifications, the system reduces real-time processing requirements, maintaining safety without excessive time loss during actual vehicle operations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Adaptability or versatility

If autonomous vehicle operations are expanded to diverse conditions, then adaptability and productivity are improved, but reliability decreases due to varying and untested conditions

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoperational flexibilityVSAvoidsafety record
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the operational environment into classified route categories based on risk levels and conditions. This allows the system to manage diverse operating conditions systematically, matching vehicles to appropriate route types based on their verification status, thereby maintaining reliability across varied conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts vehicle assignments and route classifications based on current conditions, vehicle performance data, and accumulated experience. This dynamic adaptation allows expansion into diverse conditions while maintaining reliability through continuous optimization and learning from operational data.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentUS11288612B2Generalized risk routing for human drivers
Publication Date: 2022.03.29 AURORA OPERATIONS INC
  • US11288612B2 patent drawing
  • US11288612B2 patent drawing
  • US11288612B2 patent drawing

AI summary

An on-demand transportation management system can collect historical data of harmful events of human-driven vehicles (HDVs) operating throughout a given region. For each road segment of the given region, the system can determine a fractional risk value for the HDVs, and based on the fractional risk value for each road segment, the system can route drivers within the given region along lowest risk route options.