ARI'sMachine-Type Patents show how the subject vehicle can respond to an imminent collision in ways no human could possibly perform in the limited time available. The patented process requires that multiple different sensor inputs must be integrated and interpreted with super-human perception, multiple sequences of actions must be analyzed (and consequences predicted) at super-human speeds, the best sequence must be selected instantly with super-human discernment, and the selected sequence of actions must be implemented with super-human precision, all while simultaneously driving the vehicle, all without panic or distraction. No human can even approach these requirements.

Absent the inventive system, human drivers simply slam on the brakes in nearly every case.  The huge number of traffic fatalities have already proven that human drivers cannot achieve the life-saving advantages provided by the ARI Patents.  

Therefore, the ARI Collision Avoidance/Mitigation Patents are indisputably Machine-Type Patents that cannot even conceivably be performed by any human. Only a machine can do this.

ARI'S AUTONOMOUS SAFETY PATENTS
CAN SAVE LIVES - NOW!

A human of ordinary driving skill will generally make an inferior and even life-threatening decision compared to the collision-avoidance & harm-mitigation processes and systems of ARI’s autonomous technology.

The usual human reaction to an impending collision is simply to slam on the brakes – or, alternatively, to swerve suddenly into an adjacent lane, which may be that of a huge 80,000-pound semi-tractor trailer.  This courts death, and tragically, even the death of innocent victims – which could be your family, or ours.  And doing nothing can also result in death. This is LOSE-LOSE!

• ➤ NO HUMAN HAS EYES IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD

Consequently, a human is unable to visualize the entire 360-degree surroundings of the vehicle at the same time. A careful human driver will be looking at the road ahead most of the time, and then from time to time will glance in the right-view mirror, and then glance in the left-view mirror, and then glance in the rear-view mirror – BUT NOT ALL AT THE SAME TIME!  No human driver’s brain – regardless of skill – can even begin to simulate the 360-degree vision of an autonomous safety system, which can visualize its surroundings in ALL directions simultaneously.

Furthermore, even if the driver’s vehicle has technology which can be programmed to ‘see’ 360 degrees (such as radar / ultrasound / infrared / visual), and even if the driver is alerted of an impending collision by, for instance, a beep, does the driver then instantaneously know what to do?  Or is the driver overwhelmed and even panicked by the warning of an impending crash, thus resulting in a disastrous decision, or, more typically, resorting to the default decision of slamming on the brakes – and hoping for the best….

• ➤ HUMAN INABILITY TO CALCULATE ACTIONS OF OTHER VEHICLES

Additionally, a human driver cannot calculate all the evasive safety options related to the actions of other vehicles in the vicinity surrounding the driver’s vehicle.  ARI’s machine processes and systems can do this task, an impossibility by the human mind.

• ➤ HUMAN JUDGEMENT AFFECTED BY INATTENTION

Importantly, inattention from many causes can affect the judgment and the reactions of the human driver, who may be intoxicated, tired, and/or inattentive for many other reasons (cell phone usage, job security worries, home life concerns, etc.).  ARI’s autonomous safety driving system has NONE of these distractions.  The autonomous machine processes and systems of ARI are oblivious to ALL such human concerns and dangerous distractions.  And most important of all in impending collisions:

• ➤ THE HUMAN MIND CANNOT INSTANTANEOUSLY INTEGRATE ALL POSSIBLE COLLISION-AVOIDANCE / HARM-MINIMIZATION SCENARIOS
  

THE HUMAN MIND IS NOT BUILT THAT WAY!  For these reasons, the fact remains that human split-second decisions by drivers of ordinary skill are too often wrong, and sometimes disastrously and fatally so.  Unfortunately, the likelihood of a truly excellent human decision here is low. This means that in only a few accidents requiring instantaneous split-second decision making and corrective safety maneuvers does the human driver of ordinary skill make the VERY BEST DECISION.  And, if so, it is often by pure luck.

• ➤ THE HUMAN MIND CANNOT COMPETE WITH AUTONOMOUS PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS

And ever the best-of-the best Formula One and Indy 500 drivers at the pinnacle of the racing profession cannot calculate instantaneously ALL the myriads of options available to avoid or mitigate an impending collision.  Autonomous driving processes and systems can do this. 
THE HUMAN MIND CANNOT COMPETE!  

Because of this incontrovertible fact, there is so much emphasis on autonomous driving safety processes and systems.  When an accident is imminent, the autonomous driving system can take over, thereby eliminating the human error factor. And the chance of death is astronomically higher at highway speeds of 65, 70, 80 mph (Montana), or 85 mph (Texas Highway 130). According to Technology On Full Display, nearly 1 in every 20 miles driven occurs at speeds greater than 80 mph." 

Machine Patents.  As explained in our Patents, imminent collisions are detected, analyzed, and then mitigated by the subject vehicle, which is a machine, in ways that humans cannot.  For example, humans cannot detect radar and ultrasound, nor watch multiple camera streams simultaneously.  If they could process radio waves and ultrasound and the other sensors, humans still could not integrate the multiple streams of data to detect and analyze the imminent collision, because each data stream provides different types of information.  If they had access to the sensor data already processed, humans still could not analyze the imminent collision by projecting trajectories forward with sufficient accuracy in the brief time available.  If they had access to accurate projections, humans still could not generate multiple sequences of actions, nor analyze whether each sequence can avoid the collision, and if not, which will provide the least harm, all while driving the vehicle and distracted by panic.  Finally, even if somehow given the best sequence, humans still could not implement that sequence manually with enough precision to be effective.  Only a machine, as detailed in our machine Patents, can do these operations.

Over 38,500 ROADWAY DEATHS EVERY YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES ALONE, and over 1.35 MILLION DEATHS PER YEAR WORLD-WIDE is staggering testimony to the need for ARI’s collision-avoidance & harm-mitigation autonomous technology.  ARI’s autonomous safety machine processes and systems designed to prevent accidents can make a huge difference. THIS TECHNOLOGY WILL SAVE LIVES!

 

Following is a brief list of some of the ARI patented machine strategies featuring: 

1. A system comprising processors configured to determine, from sensor data, one or more of a position, a velocity, and/or an acceleration of a subject vehicle; determine whether a collision between the subject vehicle and the second vehicle is imminent; calculate one or more sequences to avoid the imminent collision or to minimize harm of the collision, wherein each sequence comprises accelerations or decelerations or steering action; response to a determination that the collision is avoidable, select a sequence to avoid the collision; responsive to a determination that the collision is unavoidable, select a sequence to minimize the harm of the collision; and then implement the selected sequence by sending control signals to means for accelerating, decelerating, and steering the subject vehicle.
   
   
2. A processor configured to determine, from sensor data, the position, velocity, and acceleration of a second vehicle, then determine, from the sensor data, whether a collision is imminent.  The processor then determines whether a collision is avoidable by a particular sequence of accelerations, braking, or steering actions, and implements the particular sequence, when the collision is avoidable.
   
   
3. If the collision is unavoidable, the processor calculates the harm associated with the collision, using a formula to quantify different types of harm.  The processor then instantly selects a sequence of actions that minimizes the expected harm of the collision, and then implements that sequence.
   
   
4. The system includes internal sensors that measure a position, a velocity, an acceleration, a deceleration, a steering status, or a steering action, of the subject vehicle, and external sensors that measure an image, a position, a velocity, an acceleration, or a deceleration of a second vehicle.
   
   
5. A collision warning device comprising an acoustical signal generator, a light flasher, or a haptic vibrator, is activated when a collision is calculated to be imminent.  The collision warning device renders, when a collision is imminent, information about a direction from which a second vehicle is approaching a subject vehicle.  The collision warning device includes a voice-like speech generator configured to render the direction from which a second vehicle is approaching a subject vehicle.
   
   
6. An adjustment device configured to modify a processor operation based on an input by a user, wherein the adjustment device may be set to a particular setting, such that intervention is withheld, after a collision is calculated to be imminent, for a user-selected time period, and then is implemented if the collision remains imminent.
   
   
7. The intervention system includes user-selectable intervention threshold, wherein the system is configured to calculate a degree of hazard, and to implement a strategy if the degree of hazard exceeds the intervention threshold.
   
   
8. A data storage module coupled to a processor and configured to store and protect critical data, comprising data related to traffic in a time period prior to a collision, data related to a collision, data related to the subject vehicle in a time period prior to a collision, and data related to any sequence of actions implemented prior to a collision.
   
   
9. The system further including a data storage module which is hardened against damage caused by a collision, and against overwriting.
   
   
10. Determining: if the subject vehicle and the second vehicle will pass within a predetermined radius of each other in the absence of alterations in the direction or velocity of the subject vehicle.
    
    
11. Calculating: from the position and velocity and acceleration of the second vehicle, and from the  position and velocity and acceleration of the subject vehicle, future values of a separation distance between the subject vehicle and the second vehicle; calculating from the future values a collision time at which the separation distance is less than a predetermined separation distance; and determining, if the collision time is less than a predetermined time limit, that the collision is imminent.
    
    
12. While the particular sequence is being implemented, continuing to analyze further sensor data, thereby determining if the collision remains avoidable or unavoidable; if the continuing analysis indicates that an avoidable collision has become unavoidable, responsively implementing the particular sequence associated with the least harm; and if the continuing analysis indicates that an unavoidable collision has become avoidable, responsively implementing the particular sequence that avoids the collision.
    
    
13. Receiving: capability-data comprising the maximum acceleration or deceleration or steering that the subject vehicle is capable of; and analyzing, with the capability data, whether the imminent collision can be avoided by applying the maximum acceleration or deceleration or steering to the subject vehicle.
    
    
14. While the particular set of sequential actions are being implemented, preparing a feedback signal by comparing the measured position or velocity or acceleration of the subject vehicle to the particular set of sequential actions, and controlling the accelerator or brakes or steering of the subject vehicle according to the feedback signal in real time.
    
    
15. Calculating harm: comprising calculating how many fatalities would result from a collision; calculating how many injuries would result from the collision; calculating how much property damage would result from the collision; adding, for each of the analyzed collisions, the calculated number of fatalities times a predetermined fatality coefficient, plus the calculated number of injuries times a predetermined injury coefficient, plus the calculated property damage times a predetermined property damage coefficient, wherein a sum of the adding indicates how much harm would be caused by a collision according to each of the sequences.
    
    
16. Calculating harm including: predicting vehicle distortions that would occur during a possible collision; predicting peak accelerations that would occur during the possible collision; estimating, from the predicted vehicle distortions and peak accelerations, a number of fatalities, a number of injuries, and an amount of property damage that would result from the possible collision; and combining, according to a formula, the estimated number of fatalities, and the estimated number of injuries, and the estimated amount of property damage, thereby calculating the expected harm of the possible collision.
    
    
17. Preparing: before a collision occurs, a post-collision strategy to minimize post-collision harm; acquiring, during or after the collision, further sensor data; updating, according to the further sensor data, the post-collision strategy; and then implementing the updated post-collision strategy.
    
    
18. Implementing: a post-collision strategy comprising at least one of: turning off a fuel pump; unlocking doors; rolling down windows; driving to a side of a road; and transmitting a help-request message.
    
    
19. Determining: after a collision occurs, whether a driver of the subject vehicle is responsive or nonresponsive; while the driver is nonresponsive, implementing the post-collision strategy; and while the driver is responsive, halting the post-collision strategy.
    
    
20. During the implementation of an avoidance or harm-minimization strategy, redetermining whether the collision has changed from avoidable to unavoidable, or from unavoidable to avoidable.
    
    

Please click to visit ARI's sister company, UltraLogic 6G, LLC -
featuring advanced wireless messaging solutions.