Patent Issued for Route scoring for assessing or predicting driving performance (USPTO 11868915): State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

2024 JAN 25 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Insurance Daily News -- According to news reporting originating from Alexandria, Virginia, by NewsRx journalists, a patent by the inventors Fields, Brian Mark (Phoenix, AZ, US), Wilson, J. Lynn (Normal, IL, US), filed on February 14, 2023, was published online on January 9, 2024.

The assignee for this patent, patent number 11868915, is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Bloomington, Illinois, United States).

Reporters obtained the following quote from the background information supplied by the inventors: “Current technologies used for insurance and fleet management collect vehicle telematics data to assess driving behavior. For example, the telematics data may be analyzed to determine the acceleration, braking and cornering of a vehicle, and the results of the analysis may be used to measure the performance of the driver of the vehicle over time. However, these measures of driving performance can be misleading. For example, two drivers who do most of their driving along their respective commutes to and from work may receive similar driving performance scores over a particular time span, and therefore may be considered to have similar risk profiles with respect to driving performance (e.g., for underwriting purposes). If the first driver commutes along a flat, straight route and the second driver commutes along a hilly route filled with turns, however, the second driver may have had to exhibit superior driving skills just to obtain the same score as the first driver. Other factors, such as driving in heavier traffic or worse visibility, may make the comparison between drivers even more misleading.

“Because driving performance of different drivers is not compared in an “apples to apples” manner, drivers are at risk of being unfairly penalized for driving performance under relatively difficult circumstances. For their part, insurance providers may be unable to generate accurate risk profiles for determining premiums, and fleet managers may be unable to accurately determine how well a particular fleet driver drives relative to the rest of the fleet. Moreover, insurance providers and/or fleet managers may be unable to accurately predict how a driver’s scores for driving performance in one area will translate to driving performance in another area (e.g., if the driver starts a new work route, moves to a new city, etc.).”

In addition to obtaining background information on this patent, NewsRx editors also obtained the inventors’ summary information for this patent: “The present embodiments may, inter alia, enable a fleet manager, insurance provider, or other individual or entity to make more meaningful comparisons of driving performance among different drivers by assigning scores to the routes driven by those drivers. Thus, for example, a fleet manager may more accurately identify the best and worst drivers in a fleet, and/or an insurance provider may more accurately assess risk for a number of different drivers. Additionally, or alternatively, the present embodiments may enable a fleet manager, insurance provider or other individual or entity to predict driving performance for drivers with respect to new or future routes. Thus, for example, an insurance provider may be able to determine an insurance rating for a driver planning to move to a new geographic area that has very different road characteristics than the driver’s current area.

“In one aspect, a computer-implemented method of assessing driving performance using route scoring may include receiving, by one or more processors, driving data indicative of operation of a vehicle while the vehicle was driven on a driving route, and receiving, by one or more processors, road infrastructure data indicative of one or more features of the driving route. The method may also include calculating, by one or more processors and using the road infrastructure data, a route score for the driving route, and calculating, by one or more processors and using (i) the driving data and (ii) the route score for the driving route, a driving performance score for a driver of the vehicle. The method may further include sending, via a network and by one or more processors, data to a client device to cause the client device to display one or both of (i) the driving performance score, and (ii) a ranking based on the driving performance score, and/or may include using, by one or more processors, the driving performance score to determine a risk rating for the driver of the vehicle.

“In another aspect, a computer system for assessing driving performance using route scoring includes one or more processors, one or more hardware communication interfaces configured to communicate data, and a program memory coupled to the one or more processors. The program memory may store executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to receive, via the one or more hardware communication interfaces, driving data indicative of operation of a vehicle while the vehicle was driven on a driving route, receive, via the one or more hardware communication interfaces, road infrastructure data indicative of one or more features of the driving route, calculate, using the road infrastructure data, a route score for the driving route, and calculate, using (i) the driving data and (ii) the route score for the driving route, a driving performance score for a driver of the vehicle. The instructions may further cause the computer system to send, via the one or more communication interfaces, data to a client device to cause the client device to display one or both of (i) the driving performance score, and (ii) a ranking based on the driving performance score, and/or may cause the computer system to use the driving performance score to determine a risk rating for the driver of the vehicle.

“In another aspect, a computer-implemented method of predicting driving performance using route scoring may include determining, by a hardware server, one or more driving performance scores indicative of past driving performance for a driver, determining, by the hardware server, one or more route scores indicative of difficulty of a driving route, and calculating, by the hardware server and using (i) the one or more driving performance scores and (ii) the one or more route scores, one or more predicted driving performance scores that predict driving performance for the driver on the driving route. The method may also include sending, via a network and by the hardware server, data to a client device to cause the client device to display the one or more predicted driving performance scores to an individual, and/or may include using, by the hardware server, the one or more predicted driving performance scores to determine a risk rating for the driver.”

The claims supplied by the inventors are:

“1. A computer-implemented method of predicting driving performance using route scoring, the method comprising: receiving, at a hardware server, one or more driving performance scores indicative of past driving performance for a driver of a vehicle on at least a first driving route; determining, by the hardware server, one or more route scores indicative of difficulty with respect to at least a road signage characteristic of a second driving route not taken by the vehicle; calculating, by the hardware server and using (i) the one or more driving performance scores and (ii) the one or more route scores, one or more predicted driving performance scores that predict driving performance for the driver on the second driving route; and at least one of: sending, via a network and by the hardware server, data to a client device to cause the client device to display the one or more predicted driving performance scores to an individual, or using, by the hardware server, the one or more predicted driving performance scores to determine a risk rating for the driver.

“2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further including normalizing the received one or more driving performance scores.

“3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more driving performance scores includes one or more scores each indicative of performance with respect to a different type of vehicle operation.

“4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the one or more driving performance scores includes at least one of (i) a cornering score, (ii) a braking score, and (iii) an acceleration score.

“5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining one or more route scores includes determining a score indicative of difficulty with respect to expected driving conditions for the second driving route.

“6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein determining one or more route scores includes determining a score indicative of one or more of (i) weather conditions along the second driving route, (ii) traffic density along the second driving route, (iii) traffic direction along the second driving route, (iv) speed of traffic along the second driving route, or (v) vehicle types in traffic along the second driving route.

“7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining one or more route scores includes: receiving, by one or more processors, road infrastructure data indicative of one or more features of the second driving route; and calculating, by one or more processors and using the road infrastructure data, the route score for the second driving route, wherein the route score is based on the one or more features.

“8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the one or more features comprises at least one of (i) bicycle lane characteristics including markings and/or location of a bicycle lane, (ii) whether a road on the second driving route is a rural road, (iii) whether a road on the second driving route is an interstate road, (iv) whether a road on the second driving route is a highway, (v) whether a road on the second driving route is a city street, (vi) total length of the second driving route, (vii) number of lanes, (viii) type of lane markings, (ix) changes in road elevation, (x) road curve characteristics, (xi) road intersection characteristics, or (xii) road surface characteristics.

“9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the road signage characteristic includes a size of a sign and/or a size of letters on the sign.

“10. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein receiving road infrastructure data includes receiving at least one of: data that was collected by the vehicle from one or more road infrastructure communication devices; or data that was collected using one or more sensors carried by the vehicle and configured to sense an environment external to the vehicle.

“11. A computer system for predicting driving performance using route scoring, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or more hardware communication interfaces configured to communicate data; and a program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to: receive one or more driving performance scores indicative of past driving performance for a driver of a vehicle on at least a first driving route; determine one or more route scores indicative of difficulty with respect to at least a road signage characteristic of a second driving route not taken by the vehicle; calculate, using (i) the one or more driving performance scores and (ii) the one or more route scores, one or more predicted driving performance scores that predict driving performance for the driver on the second driving route; and at least one of send, via a network, data to a client device to cause the client device to display the one or more predicted driving performance scores to an individual, or use the one or more predicted driving performance scores to determine a risk rating for the driver.

“12. The computer system of claim 11, wherein the executable instructions cause the computer system to normalize the one or more driving performance scores.

“13. The computer system of claim 11, wherein: the executable instructions cause the computer system to receive one or more driving performance scores each indicative of performance with respect to a different type of vehicle operation.

“14. The computer system of claim 13, wherein the executable instructions cause the computer system to receive one or more driving performance scores that include at least one of (i) a cornering score, (ii) a braking score, and (iii) an acceleration score.

“15. The computer system of claim 11, wherein the executable instructions cause the computer system to determine one or more route scores by determining a score indicative of difficulty with respect to expected driving conditions for the second driving route.

“16. The computer system of claim 15, wherein the executable instructions cause the computer system to determine one or more route scores by determining a score indicative of one or more of (i) weather conditions along the second driving route, (ii) traffic density along the second driving route, (iii) traffic direction along the second driving route, (iv) speed of traffic along the second driving route, or (v) vehicle types in traffic along the second driving route.

“17. The computer system of claim 11, wherein the executable instructions cause the computer system to determine one or more route scores by: receiving road infrastructure data indicative of one or more features of the second driving route; and calculating, using the road infrastructure data, the route score for the second driving route, wherein the route score is based on the one or more features.

“18. The computer system of claim 17, wherein the one or more features comprises at least one of (i) bicycle lane characteristics including markings and/or location of a bicycle lane, (ii) whether a road on the second driving route is a rural road, (iii) whether a road on the second driving route is an interstate road, (iv) whether a road on the second driving route is a highway, (v) whether a road on the second driving route is a city street, (vi) total length of the second driving route, (vii) number of lanes, (viii) type of lane markings, (ix) changes in road elevation, (x) road curve characteristics, (xi) road intersection characteristics, or (xii) road surface characteristics.

“19. The computer system of claim 17, wherein the executable instructions cause the computer system to receive road infrastructure data by receiving at least one of: data that was collected by the vehicle from one or more road infrastructure communication devices; or data that was collected using one or more sensors carried by the vehicle and configured to sense an environment external to the vehicle.

“20. The computer system of claim 11, wherein the road signage characteristic includes a size of a sign and/or a size of letters on the sign.”

For more information, see this patent: Fields, Brian Mark. Route scoring for assessing or predicting driving performance. U.S. Patent Number 11868915, filed February 14, 2023, and published online on January 9, 2024. Patent URL (for desktop use only): https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/external.html?q=(11868915)&db=USPAT&type=ids

(Our reports deliver fact-based news of research and discoveries from around the world.)