Backing collisions: a study of drivers' eye and backing behaviour using combined rear-view camera and sensor systems

Abstract

Context Backing crash injures can be severe; approximately 200 of the 2,500 reported injuries of this type per year to children under the age of 15 years result in death. Technology for assisting drivers when backing has limited success in preventing backing crashes. Objectives Two questions are addressed: Why is the reduction in backing crashes moderate when rear-view cameras are deployed? Could rear-view cameras augment sensor systems? Design 46 drivers (36 experimental, 10 control) completed 16 parking trials over 2 days (eight trials per day). Experimental participants were provided with a sensor camera system, controls were not. Three crash scenarios were introduced. Setting Parking facility at UMass Amherst, USA. Subjects 46 drivers (33 men, 13 women) average age 29 years, who were Massachusetts residents licensed within the USA for an average of 9.3 years. Interventions Vehicles equipped with a rear-view camera and sensor system-based parking aid. Main Outcome Measures Subject’s eye fixations while driving and researcher’s observation of collision with objects during backing. Results Only 20% of drivers looked at the rear-view camera before backing, and 88% of those did not crash. Of those who did not look at the rear-view camera before backing, 46% looked after the sensor warned the driver. Conclusions This study indicates that drivers not only attend to an audible warning, but will look at a rear-view camera if available. Evidence suggests that when used appropriately, rear-view cameras can mitigate the occurrence of backing crashes, particularly when paired with an appropriate sensor system.

Use, perceptions, and benefits of automotive technologies among aging drivers

“…Several studies have addressed the use, effectiveness, and perceptions of these systems. One study investigating glance behavior found that people of all ages rarely (8–20 %) looked at backup camera displays before backing up, but nearly one-half would look at the display after they were presented with an obstacle detection alert (Hurwitz et al 2010). A naturalistic driving study of 37 drivers (age 25–60) of vehicles equipped with a rear camera (with and without obstacle detection) revealed that drivers look at rearview video displays during backing maneuvers at least some of the time, with approximately 10–14 % of glances going to the display while backing.…”

“…The study found that: when compared to no backup system: participants parallel parked closer to the curb (8 cm on average); for backing into a perpendicular parking space, participants parked significantly closer to the back of the space; and participants were significantly better at aligning a trailer hitch to a trailer. Some studies have investigated the ability of systems with obstacle detection (with and without a rear camera) to prevent a collision with an obstacle (usually a traffic cone) placed behind the vehicle by an experimenter without the knowledge of the participant (Hurwitz et al 2010; Mazzae et al 2008; McLaughlin et al 2003; Llaneras et al 2011). These studies have found high rates of hitting the obstacle (over 80 %).…”

“…This study found that: nearly all drivers never turned the system off and received warnings at least once a week; 56 % reported that they had heard an alert and noticed an obstacle behind their vehicle for which they were previously unaware; 30 % reported that the system often provides alerts when there was nothing behind the vehicle; 95 % reported that they would want the system in their next vehicle; 55 % reported that the system relieved stress; and 1 % reported that the system was distracting. Other studies that have investigated older drivers’ impressions of backup assistance systems have found that: there is some confusion about how the systems operate; people thought the system would help them avoid crashes; and systems that included both a rear camera and an obstacle warning were more highly regarded (Hurwitz et al 2010; Mazzae et al 2008; McLaughlin et al 2003; AAAFTS 2008). …”

Risk management of emergency service vehicle crashes in the United States fire service: process, outputs, and recommendations

“…Visibility concerns were often raised in conjunction with backing incidents since driver’s rearward field of vision is practically obscured in all fire apparatuses. Fortunately, back up cameras and rear facing cameras have been found to be generally effective in reducing backing related incidents in civilian drivers, though their use has been rarely if ever tested in the emergency services [ 19 , 20 ]. Clarke et al found that emergency responders in the UK had generally low “blame worthiness” levels in emergency response collisions; however, failure to check blind spots was the most common factor in at-fault collisions [ 21 ].…”

Risk Factors Associated with Injury and Mortality from Paediatric Low Speed Vehicle Incidents: A Systematic Review

“…A proposition is underway in the United States for a new safety regulation to improve rearward visibility in every new vehicle by year 2014 [53]. A recent study from USA provides some evidence suggesting that reversing cameras when used appropriately (drivers glance at the system at the appropriate time) can successfully mitigate the occurrence of backing crashes into static objects, particularly when paired with an appropriate audible warning system [54]. …”