Communications: electrical – Land vehicle alarms or indicators – External signal light system
Reexamination Certificate
1996-01-30
2001-01-16
Crosland, Donnie L. (Department: 2617)
Communications: electrical
Land vehicle alarms or indicators
External signal light system
C340S463000, C340S466000, C340S467000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06175305
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
(a) Field of the Invention
This invention relates to vehicle brake light devices and systems and more particularly, but not by way of limitation, to a stoplamp modulator module electronic device adapted for attachment to a center high-mount stoplamp in the rear of new vehicles or as a retrofit system and providing different types of early warning alert signals to trailing vehicles. Also, while not discussed herein, the invention can be used equally well with vehicle stoplamps other than the center high-mount stoplamp.
There are over 123 million automobiles on the roads of the United States. Additionally there are 58 million trucks, busses, commercial vans, school vehicles, etc., using these same highways. Without exception, every driver of these vehicles at one time or another has experienced the terror of coming up too quickly on a vehicle which was moving at a slower speed or even at a dead stop on the road ahead. With so many vehicles on the road, and more being added every day, this dangerous occurrence is becoming more and more common.
The result of this driving hazard phenomenon is 3.5 million rear-end crashes annually. Most people are unaware of their precarious situation when they encounter any unexpected slowing of traffic. If in this situation, one person misjudges how soon and how fast to brake, the result is one car after another “stopping short.” The outcome is often a jarring to reality as the screeching of tires is echoed. Many times these encounters result at best in crumpled metal, and at worst great injury or loss of life. According to government statistics, rear-end crashes constitute 23% of all police reported crashes. Three and one half million rear-end crashes occur annually, resulting in thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries. Medical and material losses are in the tens of billions of dollars. Traffic delay (144 million vehicle hours lost annually) and strain on municipal resources are among the numerous negative side effects. Statistics also show that 85% of rear-end crashes occur when the lead vehicle is stopped or traveling slowly (under 25 MPH) and result largely from driver inattention and other forms of delayed recognition (i.e., driver does not properly perceive, comprehend, and/or react to the vehicle in his or her forward travel path).
A significant factor contributing to this phenomenon is that brake lights as they exist today provide only general information about braking, i.e., the brake has been applied. No distinction is made between brakes applied at 50 MPH and brakes applied at 15 MPH. The primary purpose of brake lights is the prevention of rear-end crashes. However, the only information that is known for sure is that the brake light switch has been closed, which could mean any degree of braking at any speed. Even with this obscure information, drivers gain a limited understanding of the intentions of drivers ahead, giving them, to a small degree, confidence and driving efficiency.
Many studies have been performed over the past 25 years related to the circumstances and causes of rear-end crashes, with the intention of finding ways to improve rear signaling devices.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Government and university research dating back to 1970 reveals that rear-end crashes are a significant problem on America's roadways, directly affecting over 7 million drivers every year. Rear-end crashes are caused for the most part, by driver inattention and delayed recognition. According to U.S. Government research as outlined in DOT HS 807 994, Rear-End Crashes: Problem Size Assessment and Statistical Description 1993, there are in excess of 3.5 million rear-end crashes annually (pg ES-2, 2-4) resulting in 2,084 fatalities and 844,000 injuries (pg ES-1). Rear-end crashes cause 144 million vehicle-hours of delay annually. This is about one-third of all crash caused delay (pg ES-2). In their statistical description, crashes are categorized into two subtypes: lead vehicle stationary (LVS) and lead vehicle moving (LVM).
LVS crashes constitute the larger overall problem in terms of crashes, injuries, and fatalities. There are more than twice as many LVS crashes as LVM crashes (pg ES-2). Statistical data compiled portray rear-end crashes as resulting largely from driver inattention and other forms of delayed recognition (i.e., driver does not properly perceive, comprehend, and/or react to vehicle in his or her forward travel path) (pg ES-3). Ninety seven percent of rear-end crashes involve a struck passenger vehicle (pg 2-4). In LVS crashes, the median speed of the striking vehicle is 22 mph. For the struck vehicle in LVM crashes, the most common vehicle precrash maneuver is slowing or stopping (56%), and for LVS crashes, the most common precrash maneuver is “stopped” (98%) (pg 4-3). One caveat regarding the LVS versus LVM dichotomy is that some LVS crashes may involve a lead vehicle that has braked to a stop immediately (less than one second) prior to being struck (pg 4—4).
In DOT HS 805 061, Field Test Evaluation of Rear Lighting Deceleration Signals: I-Analytical and Experimental Studies conducted by R. G. Mortimer at the University of Illinois in 1979, 26 configurations of experimental deceleration signals were developed to determine the effectiveness of such signals. Of these, 5 signals consisting of different combinations of light characteristics such as flash rate coding and intensity coding reflecting various magnitudes of deceleration, displayed by a single auxiliary light located at the center line on the rear of the vehicle were selected for road testing. In analyzing the results of these tests, it was concluded that those systems which employed large changes in intensity provided effective information of deceleration levels, and when these were augmented by flash rate coding, in addition to intensity coding they were considered very effective (pg 40). It was also concluded that more than two levels of deceleration should not be coded into a deceleration signal. There was no added benefit of a continuous coding display either using intensity coding or flash rate coding or a combination of these (pg 40). The highest rated single lamp systems used a combination of flash rate coding and intensity coding or flash rate coding alone. Flash coding the conventional brake lamps somewhat increased their effectiveness in presenting deceleration information over systems not coding deceleration, but they were rated low on attention-getting and distinguishability from other signals (pg 43).
In R. G. Mortimer's final report DOT HS 806-125 dated 1981 describing the results of the field test phase of his research involving 600 taxicabs which traveled 40.7 million miles during the study, he states, “when all types of crashes in which cabs were rear-ended were included, the cabs were stopped in traffic 51%, parked or temporarily stopped in traffic in 20%, stopping in 15%, and starting or moving in traffic in 14%, just before being struck, suggesting the need for a signal that indicates that a vehicle is stopped or moving very slowly” (pg ii). In conclusion, Dr. Mortimer states, “In general, it appears that improvements in coding of the vehicle rear lighting and signaling system (Mortimer, 1970) can be an effective means of reducing rear-end crashes in a relatively inexpensive way. However, the present study, taken in conjunction with other findings (e.g., Perchonok, 1972; Mortimer, 1971; CHP, 1973; Malone et al., 1978; Reilly et al., 1980) also indicates that a signal specifically devoted to informing drivers that a vehicle ahead is stopped in traffic or moving very slowly may be useful in reducing rear-end crashes, since it appears that many rear-end crashes occur in that situation” (pg 22).
A more recent SAE Technical Paper on the subject, 851240 entitled The Technical Basis for the Center High Mount Stoplamp (1985) referring to this same taxicab fleet study, reiterates Dr. Mortimer's conclusions stating “since most of the struck vehicles were stopped, attention should probably be directed towards the d
Johnson Louis E.
Minnick Robert C.
Crabtree Edwin H.
Crosland Donnie L.
Johnson Louis E.
Margolis Donald W.
Pizavvo Ramon L.
LandOfFree
Stoplamp modulator module electronic device does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Stoplamp modulator module electronic device, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Stoplamp modulator module electronic device will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2479881