Search Results

The increasing availability of camera-based displays for indirect vision in vehicles is providing new opportunities to supplement drivers' direct views of the roadway and surrounding traffic, and is also raising new issues about how drivers perceive the positions and movements of surrounding vehicles. We recently reported evidence that drivers' perception of the distance to rearward vehicles seen in camera-based displays is affected not only by the visual angles subtended by the images of those vehicles, but also by the sizes of those images relative to the sizes of the displays within which they are seen (an influence that we have referred to as a framing effect). There was also evidence for a similar, but weaker, effect with rearview mirrors.

The importance of eye-to-display distance for distance perception in rear vision may depend on the type of display. At least in terms of its influence on the effective magnification of images, eye-to-display distance is almost irrelevant for flat rearview mirrors, but it is important for convex rearview mirrors and for other displays, such as video displays, that create images closer to the driver than the actual objects of interest. In the experiment we report here, we investigate the influence of eye-to-display distance on distance perception with both flat rearview mirrors and camera-based video displays. The results indicate that a simple model of distance perception based on the visual angles of images is not very successful. Visual angles may be important, but it appears that relationships between images of distant objects and the frames of the displays are also important. Further work is needed to fully understand how drivers might judge distance in camera-based displays.

The effects of image size on perceived distance have been of concern for convex rearview mirrors as well as camera-based rear vision systems. We suggest that the importance of image size is limited to cases-such as current rearview mirrors-in which the field of view is small. With larger, richer fields of view it is likely that other distance cues will dominate image size, thereby substantially diminishing the concern that distortions of size will result in distortions of distance perception. We report results from an experiment performed in a driving simulator, with static simulated rearward images, in which subjects were asked to make judgments about the distance to a rearward vehicle. The images showed a field of view substantially wider than provided by any of the individual rearview mirrors in current systems. The field of view was 38 degrees wide and was presented on displays that were either 16.7 or 8.5 degrees wide, thus minifying images by factors of 0.44 or 0.22.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards currently require driver-side rearview mirrors to be flat. For rearview mirrors of typical size, this requirement normally results in a blind zone on the driver side that is large enough to conceal an average size passenger car. In recent years a number of studies have suggested that nonplanar rearview mirrors may be an effective solution to this problem. This paper reviews the evidence on possible effectiveness of nonplanar mirrors, assesses the strength of that evidence, and makes tentative recommendations. The main conclusion is that the use of nonplanar mirrors would probably result in a net gain in safety, but that the effectiveness of the mirrors is likely to depend on details of how they are implemented. Issues that should be resolved by additional research (some of which is already underway) are: (1) How would U.S. drivers respond to a mixed fleet of vehicles, some of which had flat mirrors and some of which had nonplanar mirrors?

This study was designed to provide photometric information about current U.S. low-beam headlamps. The sample included 35 low-beam headlamps manufactured for use on the 23 best-selling passenger cars, light trucks, and vans for model year 1997. These 23 vehicles represent 45% of all vehicles sold in the U.S. The lamps were purchased directly from vehicle dealerships, and photometered in 0.5° steps from 45° left to 45° right, and from 5° down to 7° up. The photometric information for each lamp was weighted by 1997 sales figures for the corresponding vehicle. The results are presented both in tabular form for the 25th-percentile, the median (50th-percentile), and the 75th-percentile luminous intensities, as well as in graphical form (for the median luminous intensities, and median illuminance values reaching the road surface). The information is presented in aggregate form, as well as broken down by vehicle type and light source.

One of the primary reasons that FMVSS 111 currently requires flat rearview mirrors as original equipment on the driver's side of passenger cars is a concern that convex mirrors might reduce safety by causing drivers to overestimate the distances to following vehicles. Several previous studies of the effects of convex rearview mirrors have indicated that they do cause overestimations of distance, but of much lower magnitude than would be expected based on the mirrors' levels of image minification and the resulting visual angles experienced by drivers. Previous studies have investigated mirrors with radiuses of curvature up to 2000 mm. The present empirical study was designed to investigate the effects of mirrors with larger radiuses (up to 8900 mm). Such results are of interest because of the possible use of large radiuses in some aspheric mirror designs, and because of the information they provide about the basic mechanisms by which convex mirrors affect distance perception.