It is sometimes supposed that increase of pedestrian conspicuity could lead to substantial reductions in pedestrian accidents at night. Available evidence is, however, not particularly encouraging. It is suggested that other factors affecting drivers' and pedestrians' perception may be involved.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrandtT.WistE. R.YoungL. R.Foreground and background in dynamic spatial orientation. Perception and Psychophysics, 1975, 17, 497–503.
2.
DichgansJ.BrandtT.Visual-vestibular interaction. In HeldR.LeibowitzH. W.TeuberH. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sensory physiology. Vol. VIII. Perception. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1978. Pp. 755–804.
3.
EpsteinD.IngelstamE.JanssonK.TengrothB.Low-luminance myopia as measured with a laser optometer. Acta Opthalmologica, 1981, 59, 928–943.
4.
EriksonE. S.Movement parallax, anisotrophy, and relative size as determinants of space perception. Report 131, Dept. of Psychology, Univer. of Uppsala, Sweden, 1972.
5.
FoleyJ. M.Primary distance cues. In HeldR.LeibowitzH. W.TeuberH. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sensory physiology. Vol. VIII. Perception. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1978. Pp. 181–213.
6.
HazlettR. D.AllenM. J.The ability to see a pedestrian at night: the effect of clothing, reflectorization, and driver intoxication. American Journal of Optometry and Archives of the American Academy of Optometry, 1968, 45, 246–257.
7.
HicksR. A.LindsethK.HawkinsJ.Daylight savings-time changes increase traffic accidents. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1983, 56, 64–66.
8.
HillsB. L.Vision, visibility and perception in driving. Perception, 1980, 9, 183–216.
9.
JuleszB.Foundations of cyclopean perception. Chicago, IL: Univer. of Chicago Press, 1971.
10.
LeibowitzH. W.OwensD. A.Night myopia and the intermediate dark-focus of accommodation. Journal of Optical Society of America, 1975, 65, 1121–1128.
11.
LeibowitzH. W.PostR. B.BrandtT.DichgansJ.Implications of recent developments in dynamic spatial orientation and visual resolution for vehicle guidance. In WertheimA. H.WagenaarW. A.LeibowitzH. W. (Eds.), Tutorials in motion perception. New York: Plenum, 1982. Pp. 231–260.
12.
LuriaS. M.KinneyJ. A. S.Judgement of distance under partially reduced cues. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 1019–1028.
13.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H.The perception of slant under reduced viewing conditions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1981, 53, 146.
14.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H.Nonveridical factors of visual perception and close following on the road. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1985, 61, 255–258.
15.
RobertsonL. S.Injuries: causes, control strategy and public policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1983.
16.
RogersB. J.GrahamM. E.Similarities between motion parallex and stereopsis in human depth perception. Vision Research, 1982, 22, 261–270.
17.
RossH. E.Water, fog and size distance hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology, 1967, 58, 301–313.
18.
RumarK.Pedestrian safety in night driving. In HakkertA. S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Pedestrian Safety. Vol. 1. Haifa: Michlol, 1976. Pp. 7A1–7A5.
19.
SchneiderG. E.Contrasting visuomotor functions in tectum and cortex in the golden hamster. Psychologische Forschung, 1967, 31, 52–62.
20.
ShinarD.The effects of expectancy, clothing reflectance, and detection criterion on nighttime pedestrian visibility. Human Factors, 1985, 27, 327–333.
21.
ShinarD.RockwellT. H.MaleckiJ. A.The effects of changes in driver perception on rural curve negotiation. Ergonomics, 1980, 23, 263–275.
22.
SmeedR. J.Pedestrian accidents. In HakkertA. S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Pedestrian Safety. Vol. 2. Haifa: Michlol, 1977. Pp. 7–21.
23.
ThompsonS. J.FraserE. J.HowarthC. I.Driver behaviour in the presence of child and adult pedestrians. Ergonomics, 1985, 28, 1469–1474.
