This application is related to and hereby claims the priority benefit of commonly-owned U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/494,977 titled “Method and apparatus for pedestrian to vehicle communication system” and filed Jun. 9, 2011, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/598,982 titled “Method and apparatus for activity reduction in pedestrian-to-vehicle communication network” and filed Feb. 15, 2012.
Embodiments disclosed herein relate in general to activity reduction in a pedestrian-to-vehicle communication network, and more specifically to methods for reducing the transmission and reception activity of a pedestrian communication unit (referred to hereinafter as “pedestrian unit”, “personal unit” or “PU”) by applying local decisions and decisions driven by analysis of vehicles.
The term “pedestrian-to-vehicle communication network” or “PVCN” refers to a scheme for detecting pedestrians by vehicles. It has many advantages over vision-based or radar-based systems, since pedestrians obstructed by vehicles can still be detected (observed). Each pedestrian is expected to have a small pedestrian communication unit associated therewith. The PU will interact with vehicles having integrated vehicle communication units.
The biggest challenges facing implementation of a PVCN are cost, power and positioning accuracy: the PU must be extremely low cost, even at the expense of limiting functionality. For example, a GPS (or similar) receiver may be too costly, and placing the GPS antenna in a position with a clear view to the sky may be too challenging. However, if a GPS receiver is not included, a PU may not have no location/positioning capability. Even if a GPS receiver is included, the processing power and memory size need to be kept very low, severely limiting the ability of the PU to have an accurate map of all roads and vehicles in its surroundings.
Power reduction may be achieved by limiting PU receive and transmit operations (referred to herein generally as “activity”). In Pus which include a GPS receiver, the “activity” may also refer to GPS receive activity. Achieving these without compromising the safety goals requires understanding of the road topology and assessment of risk from approaching vehicles. Road topology storage requires significant memory, while risk assessment requires extensive processing. Implementing these features will increase the PU cost beyond acceptability.
Transmission from a PU of a person sitting inside a vehicle may confuse processing of proximal vehicles, which might trigger a false alert for pedestrian safety risk. The conditions for pedestrian safety risk are different than those for vehicle risk. The sensitivity to raising pedestrian alerts will be likely higher than that to raising vehicle alerts. Therefore, there is a difference in risk analysis between pedestrians and vehicles and the two must not be confused. Another reason to reduce activity in a PVCN is to reduce network load and to increase battery life of a PU belonging to a pedestrian who is not posing a threat, such as a person sitting inside a vehicle.
There is therefore a need for, and it would be advantageous to have activity reduction in pedestrian-to-vehicle communication network without implementing understanding of surroundings in a pedestrian unit. It would also be advantageous to have such activity reduction even if the PU includes a GPS receiver.
In various embodiments, there are provided methods for activity reduction in pedestrian-to-vehicle communication networks. In some embodiments, the activity reduction is achieved in a PU without implementing understanding of surroundings. In other embodiments, the activity reduction is based on risk assessment provided by vehicles. In some embodiments, the activity reduction includes PU transmission reduction. Transmission is more power consuming than reception, and it increases network load. In some embodiments the transmission activity reduction may be followed by reception activity reduction and, optionally, GPS receiver activity reduction for overall power consumption reduction.
In a first embodiment, a PU determines if the pedestrian is inside (“in”) a vehicle (when inside a vehicle, the “pedestrian” is referred to henceforth as “person”), and disables its own operation as long as person remains in the vehicle. In a second embodiment, a PU determines a transmission activity factor based on risk assessment guidance from vehicles in order to reduce its own activity. In a third embodiment, a vehicle unit performs vehicle analysis of a pedestrian safety risk, and adjusts accordingly a transmission rate for a PU of a pedestrian not located in a vehicle.
Pedestrians may transmit on the same channel used by vehicles. However, it is more likely that a dedicated channel will be allocated for this purpose. The actual transmission channel does not impact the described methods. The methods disclosed herein allow manufacturing of a low-cost pedestrian unit powered by a battery with or without a GPS receiver.
In an embodiment, there is provided a method for activity reduction in a PVCN comprising steps of obtaining pedestrian safety risk information related to a particular person, and, based on the obtained pedestrian safety risk information, adjusting the communication activity of a PU associated with the particular person.
In an embodiment there is provided a method for activity reduction in a PVCN comprising steps of monitoring over a predetermined time period a distance between a particular pedestrian who carries a respective PU and a vehicle closest to the particular pedestrian to determine a distance deviation, and, if the distance deviation is lower than a predetermined threshold, reducing transmission activity by the respective PU.
In an embodiment there is provided a method for activity reduction in a PVCN comprising steps of identifying pedestrians at a given level of risk from accidents with vehicles, each pedestrian having a respective PU associated therewith, transmitting an activity control message which includes information related to the given level of risk relevant to a particular pedestrian, and adjusting the communication activity of a respective PU associated with the particular pedestrian based on the information received in the activity control message.
Non-limiting embodiments are herein described, by way of example only, with reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein:
In a first implementation, the obtaining of risk information includes detecting if a person is sitting inside a vehicle, in which case the person poses no risk as all or poses a lower risk than when not sitting inside the vehicle.
The operation begins in step 200. Transmission is set to “active” in step 202. A pedestrian speed for a particular pedestrian, determined from data obtained by his/her PU GPS receiver, is compared with a minimal speed value in step 204. Exemplarily, the minimal value may be 10 km/h. If the pedestrian speed is below the minimal value (a situation which may arise if the pedestrian is immobile, e.g. stands next to a vehicle instead of being a person inside the vehicle), operation returns to step 204. In addition, the distance between vehicles grows with increasing vehicle speed, rendering the correlation of pedestrian location with vehicle location more distinct. If the pedestrian speed in step 204 is higher than the minimal value, operation continues from step 206 in which a vehicle closest to the pedestrian is selected after checking the distance from the pedestrian to all vehicles in his/her proximity. In step 208, a deviation of the distance (“distance deviation”) between the selected (closest) vehicle and the pedestrian is monitored over a certain time period, for example 10 seconds or more. The distance deviation can take the form of a maximal absolute value or of an average value and is used to declare an “alignment” between the selected vehicle and the pedestrian. In step 210, the measured distance deviation is compared with a first deviation threshold (e.g. 5 meters). If the deviation is larger than the threshold, then a wrong vehicle was selected as “closest” in step 206 (i.e. the selected vehicle and the pedestrian are not “aligned”), and operation resumes from step 206. Otherwise (selected vehicle and pedestrian are “aligned”), operation continues to step 212, in which transmission is set to inactive. For the period the transmission is inactive, the PU reception may be activated periodically, e.g. less that 10% of the period. GPS tracking speed can be lowered as well. The measured deviation is then compared in step 216 with a second, larger deviation threshold (e.g. 10 meters), to accommodate high GPS errors after initial lock. If the measured deviation is smaller than the second threshold, the vehicle and pedestrian are still aligned and step 214 is repeated. Otherwise, operation returns to and is repeated from step 202, turning the transmission back on to active after discovering that the closest vehicle selection in step 206 was wrong, or that the pedestrian is not a person inside the vehicle.
In a second implementation, the PU does not have a GPS receiver, to reduce cost and remove the challenge involved in GPS antenna placement. As in the previous implementation, the obtaining of risk information includes determining whether a person is inside or outside a vehicle. This is done using a Receive Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). As in the first implementation, if it is determined that the person is inside a vehicle, transmission by his/her respective PU is inactivated. This embodiment is shown schematically in
Reducing Activity Based on Risk Assessment Provided by Vehicles
In a third implementation, the obtaining of risk information includes obtaining and analyzing a pedestrian safety risk. The analysis includes determination that a person (here a pedestrian) is outside a vehicle and determination, from vehicle transmissions, that a particular pedestrian is not close to a road. The vehicles transmit “activity control” messages which are received at a PU associated with the particular pedestrian. Each message includes information which indicates whether a particular pedestrian is close or not close to the road. An “activity factor” between 0-100% is calculated by the PU based on the information. If a message indicated that a particular pedestrian is not close to a road, the calculated activity factor will be low (e.g. 10%). The transmission activity of the PU associated with that particular pedestrian is then set according to the factor (in the example to 10%). Since during most of the time a pedestrian does not impose any risk, the activity factor can be decreased significantly, achieving the goal of transmission power reduction. The following describes in more detail the actions above.
An exemplary activity control message which may be propagated by all units in a PVCN in this implementation is illustrated in
Pedestrian imposing safety risk (field 500): Binary field with Yes/No possible values.
Pedestrian activity control (field 502): Binary field with Enable/Disable possible values.
Activity re-enable distance (field 504): Field [in meters] of movement till pedestrian unit should resume activity.
Activity re-enable direction (field 506): Field [in angles] of movement direction which is considered for distance calculation mentioned above.
A message including only a subset of these fields can also be designed. The fields can be refined to greater degree of description if needed. For example, safety risk can be graded, instead of a plain Yes/No.
Increased pedestrian network activity should reduce PU activity to decrease load.
Increased number of vehicles identifying a pedestrian as imposing a safety risk should increase PU activity for better visibility.
These two statements are combined to a single table. Table 1 includes an example for possible values:
The table may be extended to include more input values for network load or consider the load as continuous, instead of the discrete classification applied here. The table may also include finer granularity for activity level instead of only “low, medium, high”.
The PU operations in
A flow diagram of vehicle operation in this implementation is shown in
Step 704 considers the vehicle speed in determining the number of pedestrians to identify as posing a risk. The faster the vehicle drives, the greater potential danger it poses to pedestrians, and the greater is the responsibility of the vehicle to identify pedestrians, since the distance between vehicles grows, and the number of vehicles on road is lower. For these reasons, a fast moving vehicle should be able to identify more pedestrians posing a safety risk than a lower moving vehicle. An example for slow vehicles includes many vehicles stopping at intersection during a red light. If each vehicle identifies several pedestrians as posing a risk, then all the pedestrians crossing the road will be marked as posing a big risk, which is likely to overwhelm the network. More dangerously, this will prevent vehicles from selecting other pedestrians, not crossing on the crosswalk. An example for selection of a number of pedestrians at risk is described in Table 2:
Other values may be used. The pedestrians posing the safety risk are identified in step 706. The criterion is the distance of a pedestrian from the road, with the risk increasing with decreasing distance. The challenge is to ignore all pedestrians except those (one or more) closest to the road, and to avoid repeated selection by all vehicles of the same pedestrians. For this reason, a criterion of distance from vehicle is applied to limit the range of identification, so as to limit overlapping decisions of different vehicles. An exemplary scheme could be to select the pedestrians closest to the road between a current vehicle location and a certain distance that the vehicle will travel on the road (“road segment”), for example 25 meters. If the number of pedestrians with distance to the road of less than the certain distance (for example, 2 meters) is below required, then operation continues to the next segment, (which may be between 25 meters to 50 meters ahead), then to the next, etc. Optionally, in step 708, the vehicle can instruct a PU to disable its activity based on its location. For example, if the vehicle identifies that the pedestrian is 30 meters from the closest road (“not at risk”), then the vehicle can instruct the PU to disable until the pedestrian moves 20 meters from his/her current location. In this example, the pedestrian will be at least 10 meters from the road when his/her PU is re-enabled. Since the pedestrian movement direction is not specified, the pedestrian can be much further away. Optionally, the movement direction can be added to refine the condition. In step 710, after the pedestrians posing a risk are identified by a vehicle, their identities are attached to vehicular messages as defined in
While this disclosure has been described in terms of certain embodiments and generally associated methods, alterations and permutations of the embodiments and methods will be apparent to those skilled in the art. The disclosure is to be understood as not limited by the specific embodiments described herein, but only by the scope of the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4723304 | Maeda | Feb 1988 | A |
7376550 | Bokaemper et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
20020002457 | Holzapfel | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020063656 | Gutowski | May 2002 | A1 |
20030053714 | Esaki et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030117267 | Tang et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030134648 | Reed et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030193510 | Shin et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040006427 | Stiller | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040116106 | Shishido et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040130442 | Breed et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040198386 | Dupray | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040230345 | Tzamaloukas | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040266457 | Dupray | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050131626 | Ignatin | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050192727 | Shostak et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050253694 | Kuznarowis | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050273218 | Breed et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060101781 | Watts | May 2006 | A1 |
20060195231 | Diebold et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060230018 | Grichnik et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070262863 | Aritsuka et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070287473 | Dupray | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080133126 | Dupray | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080301477 | Gade et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090143987 | Bect et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090146841 | Basson et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090192688 | Padmanabhan et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090259472 | Schroeter | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090271050 | Niki et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090298499 | Choi et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100076621 | Kubotani et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100112978 | Cho et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100142448 | Schlicht et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100150120 | Schlicht et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20110195699 | Tadayon et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110246055 | Huck et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110248844 | Elias et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2004-219387 | May 2004 | JP |
Entry |
---|
Chika Sugimoto et al., Prototype of pedestrian-to-vehicle communication system for the prevention of pedestrian accidents using both 3G wireless and WLAN communication, IEEE, 2008, p. 764-767, 978-1-4244-1653-0/08. |
Chika Sugimoto et al., pedestrian-to-vehicle communication system for improving road safety using cellular phones, IEEE, 2008. |
Chika Sugimoto et al., Development of Pedestrian-to-Vehicle Communication System Prototype for Pedestrian Safety Using both Wide-Area and Direct Communication, IEEE, 2008, p. 64-69, 1550-445X/08. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120316768 A1 | Dec 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61494977 | Jun 2011 | US | |
61598982 | Feb 2012 | US |