The Effectiveness of a Rearview Camera and Parking Sensor System Alone and Combined for Preventing a Collision With an Unexpected Stationary or Moving Object

Abstract

Objective:

This study measured the effectiveness of a parking sensor system, a rearview camera, and a sensor system combined with a camera for preventing a collision with a stationary or moving child-size object in the path of a backing vehicle.

Background:

An estimated 15,000 people are injured and 210 are killed every year in backover crashes involving light vehicles. Cameras and sensor systems may help prevent these crashes.

Method:

The sample included 111 drivers (55 men, 56 women), including 16 in the no-technology condition, 32 in the sensor condition, 32 in the camera condition, and 31 in the camera-plus-sensor condition. A stationary or moving child-size object was surreptitiously deployed in the path of participants backing out of a parking stall.

Results:

A significantly smaller proportion of participants in the camera condition hit the stationary object compared with participants in the no-technology condition; however, this benefit was greatly reduced when the stationary object was partially or completely in the shade. Significantly fewer participants hit the moving object than the stationary object. The percentage of participants in the sensor, camera, and camera-plus-sensor conditions who hit the moving object was not different from the no-technology condition.

Conclusion:

The camera was the only technology that was effective for preventing collisions with the stationary object. The variation in collision outcomes between the stationary- and moving-object conditions illustrates how the effectiveness of these technologies is dependent on the backing situation.

Application:

This research can help the selection and development of countermeasures to prevent backovers.

Keywords

rearview cameras backup cameras parking sensors backover crashes backover prevention

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bliss

J. P.

Gilson

Deaton

(1995). Human probability matching behavior in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics, 38, 2300–2313.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cumming

(2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29.

Edworthy

Loxley

Dennis

(1991). Improving auditory warning design: Relationship between warning sound parameters and perceived urgency. Human Factors, 33, 205–231.

Goh

Wiegmann

D. A.

Madhavan

(2005). Effects of automation failure in a luggage screening task: A comparison between direct and indirect cueing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 492–496). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Heckman

G. M.

Kim

R. S.

Lin

Rauschenberger

Young

D. E.

Lange

(2012). Drivers’ visual behavior during backing tasks: Factors affecting the use of rearview camera displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (pp. 2236–2240). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Hurwitz

D. S.

Pradhan

Fisher

D. L.

Knodler

M. A.

Muttart

J. W.

Menon

Meissner

(2010). Backing collisions: A study of drivers’ eye and backing behavior using combined rear-view camera and sensor systems. Injury Prevention, 16, 79–84.

International Organization for Standardization. (2007). Road vehicles: Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems. Occlusion method to assess visual demand due to the use of in-vehicle systems (ISO 16673:2007). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO Copyright Office.

Kidd

D. G.

Brethwaite

(2014). Visibility of children behind 2010-2013 model year passenger vehicles using glances, mirrors, and backup cameras and parking sensors. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 66, 158–167.

10.

Kim

Rauschenberger

Heckman

Young

Lange

(2012). Efficacy and usage patterns for three types of rearview camera displays during backing up. In SAE 2012 World Congress & Exhibition (Paper No. 2012-01-0287). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.

11.

Llaneras

R. E.

Green

C. A.

Kiefer

R. J.

Chundrlik

W. J.

Jr. Altan

O. D.

Singer

J. P.

(2005). Design and evaluation of a prototype rear obstacle detection and driver warning system. Human Factors, 47, 199–215.

12.

Llaneras

R. E.

Neurauter

M. L.

Green

C. A.

(2011). Factors moderating the effectiveness of rear vision systems: What performance-shaping factors contribute to drivers’ detection and response to unexpected in-path obstacles when backing. In SAE 2011 World Congress & Exhibition (Paper No. 2011-01-0549). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.

13.

Marshall

D. C.

Lee

J. D.

Austria

P. A.

(2007). Alerts for in-vehicle information systems: Annoyance, urgency, and appropriateness. Human Factors, 49, 145–157.

14.

Mazzae

E. N.

(2010). Drivers’ use of rearview video and sensor-based backing aid systems in a non-laboratory setting (Docket No. 2010-0162). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

15.

Mazzae

E. N.

(2013). Rearview video system use by drivers of a sedan in an unexpected obstacle event (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

16.

Mazzae

E. N.

Barickman

Baldwin

G. H. S.

Ranney

(2008). On-road study of drivers’ use of rearview video systems (ORSDURVS) (DOT HS 811 024). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

17.

Mazzae

E. N.

Garrott

W. R.

(2006). Experimental evaluation of the performance of available backover prevention technologies (DOT HS 810 634). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

18.

McLaughlin

S. B.

Hankey

J. M.

Green

C. A.

Kiefer

R. J.

(2003). Driver performance evaluation of two rear parking aids. In Proceedings of the 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (Paper No. 522). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

19.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2014). Final regulatory impact analysis: Backover crash avoidance technologies FMVSS No. 111 (Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162). Washington, DC: Author.

20.

Newcombe

R. G.

(1998). Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: Comparison of eleven methods. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 873–890.

21.

Perez

Angell

L. S.

Hankey

Deering

R. K.

Llaneras

R. E.

Green

C. A.

Neurauter

M. L.

Antin

J. F.

(2011). Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies (ACAT) Program: Final report of the GM-VTTI backing crash countermeasures project (DOT HS 811 452). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

22.

Rudin-Brown

C. M.

Burns

Hagen

Roberts

Scipione

(2012). Behavioural adaptation as a consequence of extended use of low-speed backing aids. In Sullman

Dorn

(Eds.), Advances in traffic psychology (pp. 285–294). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

23.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

24.

Tilley

A. R.

(2002). The measure of man and woman: Human factors in design. New York, NY: Wiley.