Possible Collision Safer Device for Automobile Vehicles Hongjun Pan* COSAVE Motors, 1764 Cliffrose Ln, Lewisville, TX 75067, USA

mo uto bile A E in n g s i n Pan. Adv Automob Eng 2019, 8:1 e

c e e

n Advances in Automobile

n v DOI: 10.4172/2167-7670.1000190

g d A ISSN: 2167-7670 Engineering

Research Article Open Access A Possible Collision Safer Device for Automobile Vehicles Hongjun Pan* COSAVE Motors, 1764 Cliffrose Ln, Lewisville, TX 75067, USA

Abstract A new collision safer device is proposed to divert the collision force in the automobile collisions and partially convert the harmful force into non-harmful force, therefore, it will substantially reduce the harmful impact force on the people and on the vehicles during the collisions, lives can be saved and property damage can be reduced. The proposed collision safer device has one free rotation wheel installed horizontally at the vehicle lower front left and right corners, respectively. The wheels will be the first contact of the vehicle in non-perpendicular forward collisions, the collision force component parallel to the collision surface will cause the wheel rotating and make the vehicle rolling slide along the direction of the parallel force component, therefore, the collision will be softer and less harmful, so lives could be saved and property damage could be reduced. The collision test with mini 3D printed models shows that the collision safer device will significantly extend the moving distance after the vehicle collides into a roadside crash barrier in the relatively small collision angle and give the vehicles behind more time and distance to slow down, so the severity of the rear-end collision will be reduced, lives will be saved, even the collision can be avoided. This collision safer device is simple, low cost and can be added to the current design of all types of common vehicles without major modification of the structures.

Keywords: Collision safer device; Safety; Vehicle; Lifesaving; manner. For current vehicles on the markets and on the roads, there is Collision severity reduction; Rear-end collision no effective mechanism to reduce the initial harmful collision impact force when such collisions really happen. In this paper, a new collision Introduction safer device is proposed to substantially reduce the collision impact force In the modern daily life of the world, automobile vehicles are most on the people and on the vehicles, and reduce the severity of collisions, commonly used transportation and traveling tools, safety is people’s save lives and repair cost. So far, no vehicles with such devices have been top priority concern. Collision accidents can happen at anywhere and seen on the market or roads, so it is believed that this proposal is new anytime, million people died or injured every year in road crashes in and original. the world due to malfunctions of vehicles, drunken driving, attention- The Proposed Collision Safer Device distraction, illness or other uncontrolled scenarios; in US year 2016, 10497 people died of drunk driving, 37642 people died on roadways Vehicle collisions can happen at anywhere and anytime, any outside and 3450 people died of distraction-related crashes [1]. Extensive part of vehicles can be the first collision contact point. In one type of efforts and researches have been put on reducing the road casualties, common collisions, the vehicles move forward and collide into a hard injuries and property damages. There are two major approaches in this surface non-perpendicularly, the first collision contact places are the aspect: 1. Active approach which is to avoid collision by developing two front corners shown in Figure 1, which receive all the collision vehicle intelligent anti-collision systems using laser radar, microwave force, if we can do something to improve these areas, the severity of the radar, machine vision, ultrasonic sensors technologies, multi-sensor collisions could be reduced and lives could be saved. Putting a stronger information fusion [2-5], such artificial intelligent anti-collision systems material in those areas will not help, may make collision severity even includes: Forward Collision Warning [6], Auto brake [6], Autonomous worse. A new approach is proposed in this paper to divert the collision Emergency Braking [7,8], Blind Spot Warning [9], and Lane Departure force or partially convert harmful force to non-harmful force. If this idea Warning [10]; 2. A passive approach which is to reduce the severity works, it will significantly reduce the severity of the collision, and save of the injuries when collisions really happen, this approach includes lives. This goal can be achieved by the Collision Safer Device. occupant restraint systems (such as safety belts, child car seats), The proposed collision safer device can be clearly illustrated by human body collision buffer (airbags) and controlled collision energy figures. Figure 2 shows all parts of the collision safer device in assembly absorption structures (crumple zones). Safety belts and airbags are well order: it has a wheel, a top-mounting plate, a top cap, and a bottom- known essential safety items installed on the vehicles to reduce the mounting plate and a bottom cap. The wheel has a rim-type structure severity of injury of the people in the vehicles, however, the safety belts to reduce the weight and material used without compromising its and airbags may not be enough to protect people, sometimes they fail to work, there were many factories recalls for safety belts and airbags in the past due to defects and people were killed during the accidents. People continue to make a great effort to improve their efficiency [11- *Corresponding author: Hongjun Pan, COSAVE Motors, 1764 Cliffrose Ln, Lewisville, TX 75067, USA, Tel: 6179329474; E-mail: [email protected] 16]. Currently, the airbags are only installed on small vehicles such as compact cars, pickups, SUV and Vans, not on the big buses and trucks, Received Novembe 29, 2018; Accepted January 07, 2019; Published January the occupants in such bus and trucks need more protections during 14, 2019 the collisions. In modern vehicle design, the crumple zone structure Citation: Pan H (2019) A Possible Collision Safer Device for Automobile Vehicles. is widely used to reduce the severity of the collision on the occupants Adv Automob Eng 8: 190. doi: 10.4172/2167-7670.1000190 by controlled structure deformation; the crumple zone is specially Copyright: © 2019 Pan H. This is an open-access article distributed under the constructed by different materials with different mechanical strength in terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and a special structure, so the collision energy is absorbed in a controlled source are credited.

Adv Automob Engg, an open access journal ISSN: 2167-7670 Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000190 Citation: Pan H (2019) A Possible Collision Safer Device for Automobile Vehicles. Adv Automob Eng 8: 190. doi: 10.4172/2167-7670.1000190

Page 2 of 10

Figure 1: First contact places in non-perpendicular forward vehicle collisions.

Figure 3: Collision safer devices are installed on the chassis frame.

Figure 2: Parts of collision safer device in assembly order. performance, the caps seal the rim-type wheel to prevent dust entering Figure 4: Collision safer devices are installed on a compact car. the inside of the wheel, the mounting plates are used to install the wheel on the body frame of the vehicle. Figure 3 shows that the collision safer devices are assembled and installed at the two corners of the front chassis frame next to the bumper; normally, there are not many vehicle components in those areas, adding the collision safer devices will not cause too much structural modification to the current vehicles, and the collision safer devices have good support from the frame during the angled collision and does not compromise function of the crumpled structure. Figure 4 shows that the collision safer devices are installed on a compact car. Figure 5 shows that the collision safer devices are installed on a light pickup. Figure 6 shows that the collision safer devices are installed on a bus. The vehicles with collision safer devices installed can be called Collision Safer Vehicles or for short: COSAVE vehicles. Refer to the Figure 7, the vehicle with collision safer devices installed is on the way to collide with an object which can be a roadside crash barrier, another vehicle or other object, the vehicle moves forward in the direction of the dash line arrow with an angle α respective to the collision surface of the object, and collides at the point A. The total collision force carried by the vehicle is FA, the FA can be decomposed into two components FA1 and FA2, the FA1 is perpendicular to the collision Figure 5: Collision safer devices are installed on a pickup. surface, FA2 is parallel to the collision surface.

Page 3 of 10

has speed and carries moving energy, the whole body of the vehicle may rotate towards a smaller angle β at point B (Figure 7), however, it will be much less harmful; this process is just like an airplane touch down landing. The vehicle will continue rolling-sliding until all energy of the vehicle is released with the assumption that no more drive energy is provided, as a result, the collision is much “smoother” or “softer”. In such a scenario, the driver may regain control of the vehicle, the tragedy

could be avoided. The initial harmful impact force A1F is a function of the collision angle α as the following equation:

FFAA1 = ×sin (α ) (1) Figure 9 shows the harmful collision force changes with the collision

angle. The A1F is maximum when the vehicle collides perpendicularly

to the collision surface where α is 90 degree. Theoretically, A1F is about

30% less than FA when the vehicle collides to the collision surface with 45-degree angle; at 20 degrees, the harmful collision force is only one- Figure 6: Collision safer devices are installed on a bus. third of the original force, which means that the severity of the collision will be dramatically reduced. Most collision angles are in the range of 10 to 45 degrees, so the collision safer device will provide additional protection to the people and reduce the property damages in those collisions. Another benefit of the collision safer device is that it may significantly

Figure 7: COSAVE vehicle collides into a concrete barrier.

For a vehicle without the collision safer devices installed, the total impact force FA will hit the collision object (here is the roadside crash barrier), but at the same time, the vehicle will receive the same amount Figure 8: Close look of the COSAVE vehicle collides into a concrete barrier. of collision force (or reaction force) as FA from roadside crash barrier according to Newton’s third law of motion, such reaction force will act on the vehicle and on all people in the vehicle instantly and cause personal injury or death and vehicle damage. For a vehicle with the proposed collision safer devices installed, when the vehicle contacts the collision surface at the point A, the perpendicular force component FA1 is a harmful force, which is responsible for the injury and damage; one of the three most possible scenarios will happen which will be addressed one by one. Scenario 1: Damaged by strong collision force The collision impact force is too powerful (the speed of the vehicle is too high like the NASCAR racing), the collision safer device cannot take such hit and is damaged, and the severity of the collision on the people can only be reduced by controlled deformation of the crumpled structure, safety belts and airbags (if available). Scenario 2: Collisions with normal speed Collision with roadside crash barrier: In this scenario, the collision impact force is not too strong, the parallel force component

FA2 will cause the wheel of the collision safer device located at the left front corner rotating, therefore, the vehicle will rolling-slide along the collision surface as illustrated in Figure 8 for a close look. Figure 9: Harmful collision force changes with collision angle. When the vehicle rolling-slides along the collision surface, it still

Page 4 of 10 reduce the severity of the rear-end collision or even such rear-end tries to stop the vehicle by pushing the brake pedal, the vehicle will collision can be avoided. Such a benefit can be explained in more detail. slow down until it fully stops. The total stopping distance without

Rear-end collisions happen when the following distance of the vehicle collision is by the following equation [17]: 푡표푡푎푙 behind a vehicle in front is too short and does not have enough time and 2 퐷 v distance to stop the vehicle when the vehicle in the front has problems. D=+=+ D D vt (2) total reaction breaking reaction 2µg Rear-end collisions are very common accidents which happen in rush where D is the reaction distance traveled by the vehicle during hours or heavy traffic roads, normally, multiple vehicles are involved reaction the reaction time period, D is the braking distance traveled by and damaged, multiple people are killed or injured. There are two major braking the vehicle from the time brake starts to its complete stop; t is the types of rear-end collisions: 1. the vehicle in front suddenly slows down reaction reaction time which is about 1.5s for humans in an unalert situation quickly or stops in the driving lane, the vehicle behind follows too [18]; µ is the friction constant of the rubber tire with the asphalt road closely, does not have enough time to slow down, and collides into the surface which is about 0.7 [17], g is the gravity. The equation (2) is a vehicle in front; 2. the vehicle in front has uncontrolled problems, drifts very simplistic theoretical model, in the real world, many factors will away from its normal driving lane and collides into the roadside barrier change the braking distance (such as road conditions, tire conditions, (most likely with original speed), the vehicle behind follows too closely, whether the wheels are locked or rolling during the braking, etc.), but does not have enough time to slow down, and collides into the vehicle the equation (2) should be enough for illustration here. in front. The second type of rear-end collision will be studied in more detail. When the distance to the troubled object (bull B) is less than Dtotal, the vehicle does not have enough time to stop and will collide into the Reduce The Severity Of Rear-End Collision object. The collision energy decreases linearly with the collision distance Theoretical analysis as the following equation: d Figure 10 shows that a vehicle travels on a road with speed , the = − Ed( ) E0 1 (3) driver sees an object (bull A) in front (first, ignore the bull B), the driver Dbreaking will evaluate the situation and will try to stop the vehicle if it will푣 have collision, this time period is the reaction time period , in this time Where d is the collision distance, E0 is the energy carried by the period, the vehicle still moves with the same speed ; when the driver vehicle at the point that the braking starts.

푣

Figure 10: Stopping distance and collision distance.

Figure 11: Description of rear-end collision.

Page 5 of 10

The only variable in this calculation is the acceleration of vehicle 1 2 E0 = mv (4) A after its first collision, large acceleration means heavy damage and 2 less moving distance. The second collision energy curve has four very Where m is the mass of the vehicle. different sections. In the section from 30 m to 41.6 m, if the second Back to the rear-end collision situation. In Figure 11, two vehicles A collision happens in this section, the vehicle A suffers very heavy damage and stops quickly after the first collision; the reaction distance of the and B travel in the same direction with separation distance ds, the vehicle A has a problem and collides into roadside crash barrier, this collision is vehicle B is 41.6 m, its speed does not change, so the vehicle B collides defined as the first collision, the vehicle A may continue moving forward into vehicle A with its initial energy, the collision energy curve is flat. with remaining energy until it stops with all its energy released or it From 41.66 m, vehicle B starts to brake and slow down, and the energy may be collided by another vehicle (vehicle B) in behind (defined as carried by vehicle B gradually decreases, if the second collision happens in the section between 41.66 m and 46.95 m, the vehicle A already the second collision) if the initial separation distance ds is too short; the moving speed and the distance of vehicle A depend on its initial speed stops before the second collision, so the collision energy in this second and severity of the damage after the first collision. The vehicle B driver collision will follow the equation (3) above, and linearly decrease with sees the vehicle A crashing into the roadside crash barrier and tries to collision distance. From 30 m to 46.95 m range, the second collision energy is only proportional to the square of speed V of the vehicle B, stop the vehicle with full power braking. If the initial separation distance B because the vehicle A already stops before the second collision. After ds is too short, the vehicle B will collide into vehicle A (second collision) which is commonly called rear-end collision, however, such “rear-end 46.95 m, when the second collision happens the vehicle A is still in collision” is not an accurate description because, for vehicle B, such motion, the second collision energy is proportional to the square of speed difference (V -V ) of the vehicle B and vehicle A. One can see collision is front-end collision. The impact energy of the second collision B A can be calculated with physics laws. For simplicity, the motion of the that the second collision (rear-end collision) energy drops sharply with vehicle A after its first collision can be defined with its initial speed and collision distance, this result is very important which tells us that several its (negative) acceleration which depends on the severity of the damage meter collision distance increase will significantly decrease the rear- in the first collision, such motion is equivalent to “braking”, vehicle A end collision energy, may change the fate of the involved occupants, so will move longer distance with less damage. The second collision can we should make every effort to reduce the severity of the first collision happen at any point between the vehicle A’s first collision point and its of vehicle A and extend its moving distance as long as possible. At the final stop point. bottom of Figure 12, the accelerations of vehicle A is listed corresponding to the distance of the second collision; for example, if the acceleration Figure 12 shows the relationship between the rear-end collision of vehicle A is -20 m/s2, the second collision will happen at 40 m from energy and collision distance which is from the initial point of vehicle the initial point of vehicle B; if the acceleration of vehicle A is -5.88 m/s2, B to the location of the second collision. This figure is based on the the second collision will happen at 60 m from the initial point of vehicle following parameters: B. At the 91.42 m point, the speed of vehicle B is equal to the speed of • The initial separation distance is 30 m vehicle A, so there is no collision; after 91.42 m, the speed of vehicle B is less than the speed of vehicle A, so no collision will happen. • The initial velocity of vehicle B is 100 km/hour or 27.77 m/s Mini Model Test For The Collision Behavior Of The • The initial velocity of the vehicle A after the first collision is 20 m/s Cosave Car And Non-Cosave Car • The tire/road friction coefficient is 0.7 Figure 12 indicates that the motion behavior of vehicle A after the • The reaction time is 1.5 s first collision will decide the fate of the second collision. Mini models of a COSAVE vehicle and a non-COSAVE vehicle are printed by a 3D • The gravity is 9.8 m/s2 printer to test their collision behavior for comparison; the picture of the models is shown in Figure 13. The inside of the models is hollow, additional weight was added to the models to make their weight 1.00 kg. The front of the non-COSAVE model is wrapped with aluminum foil to increase its friction, this is to simulate the damaged vehicle after its

Figure 12: The relationship between the rear-end collision energy and collision distance. Figure 13: Mini COSAVE and non-COSAVE vehicle models.

Page 6 of 10 collision because, in a real vehicle collision, the vehicle suffers damage at the collision point, and the friction against the collision surface is very high. Figure 14 shows that the steel ball bearings (24 mm OD and 6 mm height) are used as collision safer devices and mounted at the two front corners at the bumper location. Angled aluminum bar fixed on the ground is used as a collision wall. The collision tests are conducted as shown in Figure 15 at different collision angles and the final stop distances are recorded. At small collision angle α, the model moved longer distance after collision and model body completely rotated to parallel to the collision surface; at large collision angle α, the model moved short distance after the collision, it was still not parallel to the collision surface when it stopped with angle β. Theoretically, it is expected that the final stop distance D is a function of parallel component FA2 of collision force FA:

FFAA2 = ×cos(α ) (5)

If the collision behavior follows the theoretical description by Figure 16: Stop distances vs the collision angles. equation (1), equation (5) and Figure 15, the final stop distance D can be derived as: COSAVE car model Regular car model 2 Collision Collision DD= 0 cos(α ) (6) 1.65 m/s 1.65 m/s Collision velocity velocity angle α Table 1 lists all the test data for the mini model collision tests. Stop distance Stop distance Stop angle β Stop angle β Each test result is the average of 8 repeated tests except for collision (m) (m) test with a 50-degree angle for the non-COSAVE model, in which only 20 5.59 0 2.36 0 two repeated tests were conducted due to model damage after the two 30 4.77 0 1.64 0 tests. The initial collision velocity for COSAVE model is 1.65 m/s and 40 3.26 0 0.48 11 1.66 m/s for the non-COSAVE model, respectively. The data in this 50 1.5 0 0.08 57 table shows that the moving distance of the COSAVE model after the 60 0.66 2 Model was damaged after collision is significantly longer than the non-COSAVE model. 70 0.1 46 2 tests at 50 degree All data are the average of 8 repeated tests with exception as indicated Figure 16 shows the plot of the data from Table 1. The blue dot- Table 1: The result of collision test. line is the test data for COSAVE model and the orange square-line is for the non-COSAVE model. For COSAVE model, the first three data values (collision angles 10, 20 and 30) are used to fit equation (6), the yellow x-line is the fitting result and then, extended the calculation based on the fitting parameters to 70 degrees. One can see that for small collision angle the test data agrees with equation 6 well, but when the collision angle increases (greater than 30 degrees), the test data gradually fall below the theoretically calculated values with increase of collision angles, this reflects that the efficiency of collision safer devices gradually decreases with collision angles, damages and severity of the collision will increase with collision angles in real vehicle collision situations. However, at 45 degrees, the final stop distance is about 80% of the calculated value, if this 80% can be viewed as the efficiency of Figure 14: Close look of the collision safer devices (steel ball bearings) installed the collision safe device to divert the collision force, then the harmful on the model. collision force at 45 degrees is about 76% of original total collision force, such 24% difference is still significant reduction and could mean life or death in real vehicle collision. For the non-COSAVE model, the first three data does not match the equation 6, this reflects that the moving behavior of the “damaged” model after the collision is unpredictable. The first three data was fit by exponential decay function and the gray triangle-line is the fitting result and then extended the calculation based on the fitting parameters to 50 degrees. One can see that the test data falls significantly below the values of the COSAVE model, this reflects that the collision damage significantly reduces the moving distance after the collision in this non- COSAVE model. It is interesting to extend the theoretical calculation Description of the collision test by mini models. Figure 15: to 0-degree collision angle for both COSAVE model and non-COSAVE

Page 7 of 10 model, one can see that both lines merge to around 6m range. At the 0-degree collision angle, it means no collision, both models should move in the same condition and should have similar stop distance D0, the fitting data agree with this expectation. The result of the mini model test clearly indicates that the COSAVE model has significantly longer moving distance than the non-COSAVE model. With optimized construction (materials and structure) and reasonable speed range, collision angle range as well as road conditions, it is expected that the collision behavior of real COSAVE vehicles should be within the scope of the mini model test and the real COSAVE vehicles will significantly increase the moving distance after its first collision and give more time and distance to the vehicles in behind Figure 18: Vehicle swing slide at large collision angle. to react, brake or even manipulate the vehicle to avoid the rear-end (second) collision, because such collision behaviors are very simple physical actions and follow the same basic physics laws as the mini car model test; this is just like a pistol shooting and a cannon shooting, the motions of the bullet and the shell are the same. Therefore, the collision safer device will benefit all road drivers and vehicle occupants in the world if all common vehicles are installed with such devices in the future, this will reduce the severity of rear-end collisions, save lives and reduce the vehicle and property damages. Figure 17 shows the comparison of the rear-end collisions for the COSAVE model and non-COSAVE model. Scenario 3: Vehicle swing slides at large collision angles In this scenario, when the angle α is relatively large, the vehicle may swing-slide along the collision surface as illustrated in Figure 18, such behavior can be seen very often in NASCAR racing. In this case, it is hard to describe the function of the collision safer device without real data; it may help the swing sliding smoother and reduce damage or no help. Look at Table 1, the stop angle of the non-COSAVE model at 50-degree collision angle is 57 degree, which is greater than its collision Figure 19: Benefit of collision safer device in various rear-end collisions. angle; this indicates that the model was about to swing-slide. Benefits of Collision Safer Devices in Various Collision Situations an apparent benefit with the assumption that the height of the collision safer device matches the height of the rear bumper of the front vehicle Figure 19 shows the benefit of the collision safer devices in three and the speed is reasonable. rear-end collision situations. In a straight collision, it is no benefit; in Figure 20 shows the benefit of the collision safer devices in three offset straight, hard to say, the benefit varies; in the angled collision, it is head-on collision situations. In a straight collision, it is no benefit; in offset straight, hard to say, the benefit varies; in the angled collision, it is an apparent benefit with the assumption that the height of the collision safer device matches the height of the frontal bumper of the other vehicle and the speed is reasonable. Figure 21 shows the benefit of the collision safer devices in two side collision situations. It should be a benefit in either of cases when the two vehicles move in the same direction or in opposite direction. Such side collisions commonly happen during the driving lane change or in the intersections. Many years ago, the author noticed that a SUV flipped over with very serious damage due to collision into a highway round bridge post, the condition of the occupants was unknown, most likely was seriously injured. Figure 22 shows the benefit of the collision safer devices in the collision with a large circular (bridge) post. It will be no benefit in the in-line head-on collision, but it will significantly benefit in offset collision with reasonable speed. Figure 17: Comparison of rear-end collision between COSAVE and non- For practical consideration, the distance of the collision safer COSAVE vehicles. devices of all vehicles from ground should match the height of the

Page 8 of 10

barrier (or guardrail) is standard across the country, so people will have the same protection by collision safer devices no matter where the vehicles are located. Let’s look at some real road situation and deadly accidents to see if the collision safer device can make difference. Figure 24 is a road picture taken when the author recently drove on an interstate highway which was under construction, there were two lanes in one direction with big concrete wall in each side, the roadside margin was very narrow (about 1.5 feet), the speed of the traffic flow was about 75 miles/h or 120 km/h; when seeing such road condition, the author immediately realized that if the vehicle had a problem or some health problem happened to the driver, the vehicle might be out of control and nowhere to go, and end up with severe collision with concrete wall and possibly second or third collisions by vehicles in behind if they followed too closely, life would be in great danger with such high traffic flow speed. If the vehicle was a COSAVE vehicle, the outcome could be quite different as illustrated in Figure 25.

Figure 20: Benefit of collision safer device in various head-on collisions. In Figure 25, if the vehicle A is a non-COSAVE vehicle which has problems (either the vehicle or the driver), it will drift away from its driving lane and collide into the concrete wall in either side with possible heavy damage (first collision) and possible personal injury, then it will continue moving forward with remaining energy, may stop in short distance (labeled as regular car stop), if the vehicles B and C following distance is too short, they will collide into the vehicle A (second and third collisions), vehicle A will be smashed and the occupants in vehicle

Figure 21: Benefit of collision safer device in various side collisions.

Figure 23: Height of collision safer devices matches the height of guardrail.

Figure 22: Benefit of collision safer device in various circular post collisions. common roadside crash barrier (or guardrail) for maximum benefit shown in Figure 23, because the height of common roadside crash Figure 24: Interstate highway with concrete wall at each side.

Page 9 of 10

A will be in great danger in such high traffic flow speed. If the vehicle A The Tesla X drifted away from the normal driving lane due to is a COSAVE vehicle, it will suffer much less damage in the first collision unknown reason, and collided into the crash attenuator and continued with the concrete wall and the vehicle will move much longer distance moving forward with heavy damage and possible on fire right after the to stop (labeled as COSAVE car stop), this will give the vehicles B and collision, the Audi followed too closely from the back and collided into C much longer time and distance to react and brake to slow down, the Tesla. If a COSAVE vehicle in the same collision, then, its collision refer to Figure 12, the second and the third collisions will be much less with crash attenuator would be much less severe, so it might not be on severe compared to the non-COSAVE vehicle; so the occupants in the fire in the collision and could move forward much longer distance, the vehicle A will have a much better chance to survive and the occupants Audi would have longer time to react and slow down, the second (rear- in vehicle B and C will suffer less injury. end) collision would be much less severe or even could be avoided, the “Tesla X” driver would have much high chance to survive. On Friday, March 23, 2018, about 9:27 am, a 2017 Tesla Model X P100D electric-powered passenger vehicle, occupied by a 38-year-old Another tragedy auto accident happened on May 10, 2018. A driver, crashed into the crash cushion attenuator, the vehicle was on fire 48-year-German driver died when his Tesla electric car hit the roadside by collision and the driver was killed (Figure 26). barrier in the central reservation of a motorway in the southern Swiss canton of Ticino, turned over and burst into flames. Tesla car crash may An Audi and Mazda vehicles were also damaged in this incident. have triggered battery fire, From the picture shown in Figure 28, it looks Based on the National Transportation Safety Board primary report [19], like that the car was traveling in a one-lane driveway, the car collided the accident can be illustrated in Figure 27 with reasonable imagination with the guardrail in a (most likely, less than 45 degrees collision angle) (actual video record is not available). small collision angle, so if a car with collision safer devices are installed and have the same collision, the collision would be much less severe, the vehicle might not be on fire, so the driver would have much higher chance to survive. Most of the collisions are non-perpendicular, so it is highly expected that when the collision safer devices are installed in all common vehicles around the world in the future, millions of lives will be saved during the collisions, personal injury and the damage of the vehicles by the collision will be substantially reduced. It should be understood that the aim of the proposed collision safer Figure 25: Description of possible collision and rear-end collisions. devices is to reduce the collision impact force on occupants and save lives, does not intend to build a strong structure against the collision, instead, it only intends to divert the collision force under current main frame structure of vehicles based the old philosophy “use softness to overcome hardness”, more precisely, to partially convert the harmful collision force into non harmful force at the very beginning of the non- perpendicular collisions. The result of the mini model test may suggest a reasonable criterion for the performance of the collision safer devices. Based on Figure 16, the efficiency of collision safer device will decrease significantly with collision angles greater than 30 degree, so the reasonable criteria is that: the COSAVE vehicle should not suffer serious structure damage and the harmful impact force received by occupants is about half of the original total collision force compared to non-COSAVE vehicles when the vehicle collides into a concrete wall with 30 degree angle and speed of 100 km/h (which is very common daily driving speed, or 120 Figure 26: Fatal collision of Tesla X on March 23, 2018, California. km/h in the USA); vehicle damage at higher speed or at a larger collision angle is acceptable because collision safer devices does not intend to

Figure 27: Possible description of the collision in Figure 26. Figure 28: Fatal collision of Tesla electric vehicle on May 10, 2018, Swiss.

Page 10 of 10 build a strong structure against the collision. However, each vehicle 3. Dubey S, Ansari S (2013) Design and development of vehicle anti-collision maker may have its only criteria if it decides to add this concept to its system using electromagnet and ultrasonic sensors. Int J on Theoretical and Applied Research in Mech Engg 2: 80-83. future vehicles. 4. Luo Z (2011) Research on automobile intelligent anti-collision system. 2nd Int It is possible that the headwind may cause the wheel of the collision Conf on Mech Automation and Control Engg 4309-4312. safer devices rotating when driving at high speed, so a lock mechanism 5. Xu L, Hu S, Lou Q, Zhou Y (2014) Research of comprehensive automobile can be set in which the wheel can rotate only when the rotating force anti-collision alarming system. 11th World Cong on Intelligent Control and is strong enough, say, collision at the speed of 10 miles/h, because the Automation 5712-5717. collision force at this speed should be much stronger than the headwind 6. Karush S (2016) Front crash prevention slashes police-reported rear-end force with high vehicle speed. crashes. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 51. One can see that the collision safer device is very simple, low cost. 7. Cicchino J (2017) Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous Please note, all the drawings are for illustration only, the sizes and emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. Accid Anal configurations of the proposed collision safer device will depend on Prev 99: 142-152. the actual application and cosmetic design of the vehicle front to make 8. Rizzi M, Kullgren A, Tingvall C (2014) The injury reduction of low-speed the vehicles much safer and more beautiful. This work was presented Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) on passenger cars. IRCOBI Conf Proceedings. as keynote speech in 5th International Conference and Exhibition on Automobile and Mechanical Engineering, Rome, Italy, the abstract was 9. Cicchino J (2018) Effects of blind spot monitoring systems on police-reported published in the Proceedings of this conference in the journal Advances lane-change crashes. Traffic Inj Prev 19: 615-622 in Automobile Engineering, September 2018, Volume 7. 10. Cicchino J (2018) Effects of lane departure warning on police-reported crash rates. J Safety Res 66: 61-70.

Conclusion 11. Hu J, Boyle K, Fischer K, Schroeder A, Adler A, et al. (2018) A new prototype The proposed collision safer device for automobiles can efficiently 4-Point Seatbelt Design to help improve occupant protection in frontal oblique crashes. IRCOBI Conference Proceedings 114-124. divert the collision force and partially convert the harmful force into non-harmful force at relative small collision angles, the severity of the 12. McDougall A, Brown J, Bilston L (2011) The effect of varied seat belt anchorage locations on booster seat sash guide effectiveness. The 22nd ESV Conf collision will be significantly reduced, save lives and repair costs. It will Proceedings. significantly extend the moving distance after its first collision with roadside barriers and give the vehicles followed behind much more 13. Östling M, Saito H, Vishwanatha A, Ding C, Pipkorn B, et al. (2017) Potential benefit of a 3+2 criss cross seat belt system in frontal and oblique crashes. time and distance to brake and slow down the vehicles, so the severity 2017 IRCOBI Conf Proceedings 390-409 of rear-end crash will be dramatically reduced and lives will be saved, even the rear-end collision can be avoided. It is simple, low cost and 14. Latchford J, Chirwa E (2003) Development of a third generation mechanically inflated airbag head restraint system and its characterisation under impact easy to be included into current vehicle designs without compromising loading. Int J Crashworthnes 8: 201-209. the function of crumple zone structure; instead, it works perfectly with crumple zone structure as excellent partners and provides additional 15. Richert J, Coutellier D, Götz C, Eberle W (2007) Advanced smart airbags: The solution for real-life safety? Int J Crashworthnes 12: 163-168. protection. 16. Wu C, Zhang K (2015) Preliminary Study of roof airbag protecting rear-seat References occupants in frontal impact. The 24th ESV Conference Proceedings.

1. http://www.nhtsa.gov/ 17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance

2. Zaroug A, Khan A, Debnath N, Elamvazuthi I (2014) Automatic head-on anti- 18. Taoka G (1989) Break reaction times of unalerted drivers. ITE Journal 59: 19-21. collision system for vehicles using wireless communication. IEEE Int Symp on Robotics and Manufacturing Automation 33-38. 19. https://www.ntsb.gov/, primary report ID: HWY18FH011

Adv Automob Engg, an open access journal ISSN: 2167-7670 Volume 8 • Issue 1 • 1000190