Enhanced Night Visibility Series, Volume III: Phase II—Study 1: Visual Performance During Nighttime Driving in Clear Weather
View Table of Contents
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Research, Development, and Technology
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
FOREWORD
The overall goal of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Visibility Research Program is to enhance the safety of road users through near-term improvements of the visibility on and along the roadway. The program also promotes the advancement of new practices and technologies to improve visibility on a cost-effective basis.
The following document summarizes the results of a study on the visual performance of drivers during nighttime driving in clear weather. The study was conducted under Phase II of the Enhanced Night Visibility (ENV) project, a comprehensive evaluation of evolving and proposed headlamp technologies under various weather conditions. The individual studies within the overall project are documented in an 18-volume series of FHWA reports, of which this is Volume III. It is anticipated that the reader will select those volumes that provide information of specific interest.
This report will be of interest to headlamp designers, automobile manufacturers and consumers, third-party headlamp manufacturers, human factors engineers, and people involved in headlamp and roadway specifications.
|
Michael F. Trentacoste Director, Office of Safety Research and Development |
Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The
U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.
The
U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. FHWA-HRT-04-134 |
2. Government Accession No. |
3. Recipient’s Catalog No. |
4. Title and Subtitle Enhanced Night Visibility Series, Volume III:
Phase II—Study 1: Visual Performance During Nighttime Driving in Clear Weather
|
5. Report Date December 2005 |
6. Performing Organization Code
|
7. Author(s)
Myra Blanco, Jonathan M. Hankey, and Thomas A. Dingus |
8. Performing Organization Report No. |
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
3500 Transportation Research Plaza
Blacksburg, VA 24061 |
10. Work Unit No.
|
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-98-C-00049 |
12. Sponsoring Agency
Name and Address
Office of Safety Research and Development
Federal Highway Administration
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
|
13.Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report |
14. Sponsoring Agency Code HRDS-05 |
15. Supplementary Notes
Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): Carl Andersen, HRDS-05
|
16. Abstract
Phase II—Study 1 was performed as a stepping stone to expand the knowledge of how different vision enhancement systems can affect detection and recognition of different types of objects. The empirical testing for this study was performed on the Smart Road testing facility during clear weather conditions. A total of 30 participants were involved in the study. A 12 by 9 by 3 mixed-factorial design was used to investigate the effects of different types of vision enhancement systems, types of objects on the roadway, and driver’s age on detection and recognition distances; subjective evaluations were obtained for the different systems as well.
The results of the empirical testing suggest that no vision enhancement system consistently performs best in clear weather conditions. However, the halogen headlamp tested (low-beam configuration) consistently provided one of the longest detection and recognition distances, and even when other systems provided farther detection distances, these distances were generally not significantly different from halogen low beam. The only exception was the infrared thermal imaging system tested, which resulted in significantly farther detection distances for pedestrians and cyclists wearing dark-colored (low-contrast) clothing.
|
17. Key Words
Age, Bicycle, Cyclist, Detection, Halogen, Headlamp, High Intensity Discharge (HID), Infrared, Pedestrian, Night Vision, Nighttime, Recognition, Visibility, Vision Enhancement System
|
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
|
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
|
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
|
21. No. of Pages 133 |
22. Price |
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ENHANCED NIGHT VISIBILITY PROJECT REPORT SERIES
This volume is the third of 18 volumes in this research report series. Each volume is a different study or summary, and any reference to a report volume in this series will be referenced in the text as “ENV Volume I,” “ENV Volume II,” and so forth. A list of the report volumes follows:
Volume |
Title |
Report Number |
I |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Executive Summary |
FHWA-HRT-04-132 |
II |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Overview of Phase I and Development of Phase II Experimental Plan |
FHWA-HRT-04-133 |
III |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase II—Study 1: Visual Performance During Nighttime Driving in Clear Weather |
FHWA-HRT-04-134 |
IV |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase II—Study 2: Visual Performance During Nighttime Driving in Rain |
FHWA-HRT-04-135 |
V |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase II—Study 3: Visual Performance During Nighttime Driving in Snow |
FHWA-HRT-04-136 |
VI |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase II—Study 4: Visual Performance During Nighttime Driving in Fog |
FHWA-HRT-04-137 |
VII |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase II—Study 5: Evaluation of Discomfort Glare During Nighttime Driving in Clear Weather |
FHWA-HRT-04-138 |
VIII |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase II—Study 6: Detection of Pavement Markings During Nighttime Driving in Clear Weather |
FHWA-HRT-04-139 |
IX |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase II—Characterization of Experimental Objects |
FHWA-HRT-04-140 |
X |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase II—Visual Performance Simulation Software for Objects and Traffic Control Devices |
FHWA-HRT-04-141 |
XI |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase II—Cost-Benefit Analysis |
FHWA-HRT-04-142 |
XII |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Overview of Phase II and Development of Phase III Experimental Plan |
FHWA-HRT-04-143 |
XIII |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase III—Study 1: Comparison of Near Infrared, Far Infrared, High Intensity Discharge, and Halogen Headlamps on Object Detection in Nighttime Clear Weather |
FHWA-HRT-04-144 |
XIV |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase III—Study 2: Comparison of Near Infrared, Far Infrared, and Halogen Headlamps on Object Detection in Nighttime Rain |
FHWA-HRT-04-145 |
XV |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase III—Study 3: Influence of Beam Characteristics on Discomfort and Disability Glare |
FHWA-HRT-04-146 |
XVI |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phase III—Characterization of Experimental Objects |
FHWA-HRT-04-147 |
XVII |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Phases II and III— Characterization of Experimental Vision Enhancement Systems |
FHWA-HRT-04-148 |
XVIII |
Enhanced Night Visibility Series: Overview of Phase III |
FHWA-HRT-04-149 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2—METHODS
CHAPTER 3—RESULTS
CHAPTER 4—DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX A—SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX B—INFORMED CONSENT FORM
APPENDIX C—VISION TEST FORM
APPENDIX D—TRAINING PROTOCOL
APPENDIX E—TRAINING SLIDES
APPENDIX F—IN-VEHICLE EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL
APPENDIX G—SMART ROAD
APPENDIX H—DEBRIEFING FORM
APPENDIX I—ONROAD EXPERIMENTER’S PROTOCOL
APPENDIX J—AIMING PROTOCOL
APPENDIX K—VALET PROTOCOL
REFERENCES
LIST OF FIGURES
- Photo. Pedestrian in black clothing.
- Photo. Cyclist in black clothing.
- Photo. Cyclist in white clothing.
- Photo. Pedestrian in white clothing.
- Photo. Child’s bicycle.
- Photo. Tire tread.
- Diagram. Data collection display screen.
- Photo. Five or three UV–A + halogen low beam.
- Photo. High output halogen or halogen high beam.
- Photo. Hybrid UV–A + high intensity discharge.
- Photo. Halogen low beam—low profile with infrared thermal imaging system.
- Photo. Smart Road.
- Diagram. Locations where the objects were presented for Study 1.
- Bar graph. Results on detection distances for the interaction: VES by Age.
- Bar graph. Results on detection distances for the interaction: Object by Age.
- Bar graph. Results on recognition distances for the interaction: Object by Age.
- Bar graph. Results on detection distances for the interaction: VES by Object: Pedestrians and cyclists in white clothing.
- Bar graph. Results on detection distances for the interaction: VES by Object: child’s bicycle, tire tread, and pedestrians and cyclists in black clothing.
- Bar graph. Results on recognition distances for the interaction: VES by Object: Pedestrians and cyclists in white clothing.
- Bar graph. Results on recognition distances for the interaction: VES by Object: child’s bicycle, tire tread, and pedestrians and cyclists in black clothing.
- Bar graph. Bonferroni post hoc results on detection and recognition distances for the main effect: age.
- Bar graph. Bonferroni post hoc results on detection and recognition distances for the main effect: VES.
- Bar graph. Bonferroni post hoc results on detection and recognition distances for the main effect: object.
- Bar graph. Bonferroni post hoc results on the ratings evaluating detection for the main effect: VES.
- Bar graph. Bonferroni post hoc results on the ratings evaluating recognition for the main effect: VES.
- Bar graph. Bonferroni post hoc results on the ratings evaluating visual discomfort for the main effect: VES.
- Equation. Braking distance.
- Equation. Total stopping distance for brake reaction time plus braking distance.
- Equation. AASHTO calculation of coefficient of friction for wet pavement.
- Bar graph. Comparison of the results obtained for UV–A headlamps with previous research.
- Bar graph. Participants’ visual acuity divided by age group.
- Bar graph. Participants’ contrast sensitivity at 1.5 cpd (cycles per degree) divided by age group.
- Bar graph. Participants’ contrast sensitivity at 3.0 cpd divided by age group.
- Bar graph. Participants’ contrast sensitivity at 6.0 cpd divided by age group.
- Bar graph. Participants’ contrast sensitivity at 12.0 cpd divided by age group.
- Bar graph. Participants’ contrast sensitivity at 18.0 cpd divided by age group.
- Photo. Aerial view of the Smart Road.
LIST OF TABLES
- Experimental design: 12 by 3 by 9 mixed-factor design (12 VES configurations, 3 age groups, 9 objects—see table 2 for objects).
- Nine objects presented in each cell in table 1.
- Example of the VES configuration order for a pair of participants.
- Description of the objects.
- Model for the experimental design.
- ANOVA summary table for the dependent measurement: detection distance.
- ANOVA summary table for the dependent measurement: recognition distance.
- Summary of significant main effects and interactions.
- ANOVA summary table for the Likert-type rating for detection.
- ANOVA summary table for the Likert-type rating for recognition.
- ANOVA summary table for the Likert-type rating for lane-keeping assistance.
- ANOVA summary table for the Likert-type rating for roadway direction.
- ANOVA summary table for the Likert-type rating for visual discomfort.
- ANOVA summary table for the Likert-type rating for overall safety rating.
- ANOVA summary table for the Likert-type rating for overall VES evaluation.
- Summary of significant main effects and interactions for the Likert-type rating scales.
- Mean detection and recognition distances during nighttime driving.
- Difference in reaction time available depending on vehicle speed based on the difference of detection time from HLB in seconds.
- Stopping distances needed for a dry roadway.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: IR–TIS.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: five UV–A + HLB.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: three UV–A + HLB.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: hybrid UV–A + HLB.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: HLB.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: HOH.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: HHB.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: five UV–A + HID.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: three UV–A + HID.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: hybrid UV–A + HID.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: HID.
- Detection distances by type of object and potential detection inadequacy when compared to stopping distance at various speeds: HLB–LP.
- Detection distances by age and VES: a comparison to HLB by age.
- Detection distances by age and VES: a comparison between age groups.
- Detection distances by age and type of object.
- Recognition distances by age and type of object.
- Mean detection distances.
- Detection distance difference between the different VES and HLB.
- Percentage of difference between the different VESs and HLB.
- Mean recognition distances.
- Recognition distance difference between the different VESs and HLB.
- Percentage of difference between the different VES and HLB.
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Next
|