Visibility of children behind 2010-2013 model year passenger vehicles using glances, mirrors, and backup cameras and parking sensors.
This study identified the areas behind vehicles where younger and older children are not visible and measured the extent to which vehicle technologies improve visibility. Rear visibility of targets simulating the heights of a 12-15-month-old, a 30-36-month-old, and a 60-72-month-old child was assessed in 21 2010-2013 model year passenger vehicles with a backup camera or a backup camera plus parking sensor system. The average blind zone for a 12-15-month-old was twice as large as it was for a 60-72-month-old. Large SUVs had the worst rear visibility and small cars had the best. Increases in rear visibility provided by backup cameras were larger than the non-visible areas detected by parking sensors, but parking sensors detected objects in areas near the rear of the vehicle that were not visible in the camera or other fields of view. Overall, backup cameras and backup cameras plus parking sensors reduced the blind zone by around 90 percent on average and have the potential to prevent backover crashes if drivers use the technology appropriately.
The danger to young pedestrians from reversing motor vehicles
There is increasing concern about accidents involving young children being run over by slow moving vehicles, particularly in private driveways. The Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales coordinated and funded the initial investigations into this problem. Measurement of the rearward field of view for a range of popular passenger vehicles revealed most had a very poor view of objects the size of toddlers behind the vehicle. This was the case with conventional sedans as well as sport utility vehicles that are generally over-represented in this type of accident. Two vehicle-related countermeasures were examined: proximity sensors that warn the driver when an object is behind the vehicle and visual aids such as video cameras. Theoretical analysis shows that, in order to be able to stop in time, the reversing speed in kilometres per hour should be no more than twice the detection distance in metres. Proximity sensors that are designed as a parking aid have a typical detection distance of 1.5m and so the maximum reversing speed is 3km/h. This is likely to be too slow for typical driveway situations but, with simple technology, longer detection distances are likely to be associated with too many false alarms. Initial results suggest a combination of proximity sensors and video camera would provide the best assistance to the driver although the technology is improving rapidly and other solutions are possible. A method of assessing and rating the rearward field of view of vehicles has been developed by the Insurance Australia Group and the results for popular vehicles in Australia are presented. For the covering abstract see ITRD E825082.
PRELIMINARY HUMAN FACTORS GUIDELINES FOR CRASH AVOIDANCE WARNING DEVICES. INTERIM REPORT
This document presents a set of preliminary guidelines for the human factors aspects of in-vehicle crash avoidance warnings; that is, how information is displayed to the driver and how the device is operated. The guidelines contain a section addressing generic system requirements, which are intended to be applicable across all crash avoidance warning devices, as well as four sections addressing specific types of crash avoidance warning devices: blind spot warning devices, backup warning devices, driver alertness monitoring devices, and headway warning devices. Major topics addressed include: multiple levels of warning, unique imminent crash warning signals, dual modality for imminent crash warnings, non-specificity to sensor or display technology, warning prioritization, compatibility with driver behaviors, warning message content, device status and controls, and minimization of nuisance warnings. These guidelines are intended to serve several purposes: 1) to outline the features and functional requirements that any crash avoidance warning device, or collection of devices, should meet in order to perform adequately, regardless of the type of sensing technology employed; 2) to uncover those areas where additional research is required in order to define optimal criteria; 3) to propose recommendations that will anticipate and avoid many of the problems that can come about if warning products are designed in a piecemeal fashion; 4) to define issues explicitly so that they can be reviewed and debated by specialists within the human factors and IVHS communities.