Innovative Vehicle Technology Emergency Braking Warning Systems were First and they are still a Superior Solution


IVT Developed the original solution to the problem of emergency braking situations and the catastrophe of horrific pileups that result on the Nation’s highways.
Patent #6,249,219 represents the early device developed which flashed the middle brake light at a rate reflecting the severity of braking by that vehicle.

Patent #6,714,127 built upon the earlier patent to provide signaling to other vehicles following and traveling in the same direction in order to alert those that may not have a line-of-sight on the emergency braking situation that lies ahead.  This patent also brought in the concept of ‘beacons’ to provide a means of triggering similar warnings for other hazards, including road construction, stopped school busses, etc..

Collectively, we use the term Emergency Braking Warning System (EBWS) to describe the technology we developed.

In the last couple of years, many automotive and related companies have announced similar concepts, typically based on inter-vehicle communications.  However, our readings of these developments is that these are applications ‘borrowed’ from our original designs, which are trying to find a validation for the integration of streaming communications into vehicles.  This may sound as a harsh assessment of the industry developments, but the reality is that the method proposed – specifically passing the signal from vehicle to vehicle – do not effect the margin of safety improvement desired by the DOT.

The primary concern by IVT is that a hopping signal as a communication method depends upon all vehicles on the road having the technology in place.  If one vehicle does not, the signal is not passed along and the warning chain is broken.  As an industry, can we really afford to mandate and install a solution that will perform marginally until a sufficient percentage of vehicles are of the new technology?  By some estimates, the average turn-over rate for vehicles is over 10 years.  On this basis, we might forecast a period of 7 to 8 years before the benefit of EBWS are realized.  This means that the car companies and consumers are paying for an installed system that has marginal value over that period.

EBWS is an important tool to improve the safety of our Nation’s highways, and the technology should not be short-changed just so that it fits in with a communication scheme more in line for entertainment.

Our system is designed to alert all vehicles within the area of the potential emergency, and is thereby not dependent upon a certain percentage of adoption before the signal is passed along appropriately.

Furthermore, the design is stand-alone, in that it can be offered as an after-market to any existing vehicle (i.e. not dependent on a vehicle’s technological age).  This affords early and rapid adoption.  We do not depend upon GPS, On-Star or other similar technologies that are dependent upon reaching outside resources, nor does IVT’s system require integration with resources within the vehicle (shared sensors and communication paths), although the potential of such was envisioned as the system became standard equipment on new vehicles.

The bottom line here is that IVT pioneered an EBWS solution that does not have the limitations of designs being proposed by the industry today.  The design can be manufactured for retrofit into any vehicle, communicates directly to all vehicles that are within the danger area, and encompasses the aspect of stationary ‘beacons’ to provide warnings of other dangers a driver may encounter.  We believe that the IVT EBWS deserves another look in light of recent papers and discussions, and we welcome partnership inquiries.