The Visibility of Pedestrian-Size Targets Under Headlight

Illumination

Dr Paul L. Olson
University of Michigan

Introduction

This paper describes an investigation into the visibility of various targets, including
pedestrians, using the illumination provided by automotive headlamps. It was carried out as part
of an effort to evaluate alternative lighting systems, working toward improvements in motor
vehicle headlighting (Olson and Sivak, 1983). When reading the paper it would be well to
remember that the testing was done under the assumption of driving on the right-hand side of the
road.

Method

A total of six lighting systems were evaluated, two of which were included for control
purposes. These were standard US-type low beam and ECE low beam. The results obtained with
these two systems were similar. Therefore, this paper will focus on the results obtained with the
US units.
The targets were in three sizes. The smallest was 30 x 15 x 10 cm, and was wrapped in
blue denim. The medium target was 76 cm tall and 30 cm wide and was also covered in blue
denim. The largest target was an experimental assistant. In one version this person was attired in
blue denim, in the other he/she wore blue denim trousers and a white vest.
Twenty-eight subjects participated in the study. Of these 23 were in the age range of 18-
30, while five were 65 years of age or older (maximum 73)
The test car was a full-size station wagon, equipped with a precision system to control
voltage delivered to the lamp to 12.8 volts. The test lamps were mounted on a bar across the front
of the vehicle. Mounting height was 76 cm. The vehicle was also equipped with a digital
measuring system, working off the front wheel. This yielded counts accurate to about 50 cm.

Procedure

Subjects were run three at a time. One drove while the other two were seated next to
him/her in the front seat. Each had a response box equipped with six buttons with which they
were to indicate target size (large, medium or small) and position right or left of the car. Pressing
one of the buttons started a counter in front of the experimenter, who shut it off as the target was
passed, recorded the value, and reset the counter. The test speed was 40 km/h. A total of three
measures were made on each target for each subject.

55
Test facility

The test was conducted on an access road to an airport. During the hours when testing
was conducted there was no other traffic on the road. The road is flat and straight, about 760 m in
length and 9 m in width. It is located in a dark, rural area. There is no lighting visible to an
observer on this facility

Results

The results of this investigation are summarized in Figures 1 through 8. Each of these
figures shows the distribution of responses for all subjects on each target on both the right and
left side of the test car. The distributions are in the form of so-called normal probability
distributions. This is a convenient way of plotting data when percentile responses are of interest.
For example, looking at Figure 1, which is the results for the white-vest pedestrian target
standing to the right of the car, we see that about 5% of the responses were made at 160 feet (49
m) or less, while 95% of responses were made at 430 feet (131 m) or less. Conversely, 5% of
responses were made at 131 m or more. The median, or 50th percentile, was about 290 feet (89
m).
The first thing that is apparent from the results is that visibility to targets on the right side
of the car was substantially greater than those on the left. For example, the dark-clad pedestrian
targets were responded to at an average of half the distance when standing on the left side of the
vehicle than when standing on the right (Figures 3 and 4). This is a natural consequence of the
asymmetrical distribution of intensities in the US low-beam system.
Higher reflectivity targets were responded to at significantly greater distances than lower
reflectivity targets. For example the median response distance to the white-top pedestrian,
standing to the right of the test car (Figure 1) was about 280 feet (86 m), compared to the same
target without the white top (Figure 3), which was 150 feet (46 m).
The response distance to smaller targets (Figures 5-8) was less than to the pedestrian
targets, although there is little difference between the medium and small targets.

56
57
58
59
60
Implications

These data provide some indication of the expected visibility to various types of targets
using headlamp illumination. Clearly the subjects in this investigation were aware of what they
were looking for and about where it was located. In addition they had few of the concerns of
operating in normal traffic. Under these conditions it is to be expected that they would detect the
targets at a greater distance than they would under more realistic conditions. The question
becomes how much of a correction should be allowed when using data such as these in
determining whether a driver should have been able to avoid a collision under real-world
conditions.
The best data in estimating what is sometimes called a correction for expectancy comes
from Roper and Howard (1938). They brought in subjects ostensibly for the purpose of a
subjective evaluation of various headlighting systems. With that exercise completed they told
their subjects they could drive to the parking lot and return home. On the road to the parking lot
the experimenters had erected a mannequin wearing dark clothing. They measured the distance
from the mannequin at which the subject released the accelerator. This provided an “unalerted”
response distance. The subjects were now told the true purpose of the study and asked to back up
and approach the mannequin again at the same speed, releasing the accelerator when they saw it.
This yielded an “alerted” response distance. On average, the alerted response distances were
double those obtained under unalerted conditions. Similar results were obtained by Olson (1988)
using stop signs. Given this correction the expected median response distance to a dark-clad
pedestrian on the right of the car would not be 150 feet (46 m) as shown in Figure 3, but 75 feet
(23 m). A great deal of scatter could be expected about the median value.
The question an accident investigator must decide is whether a reasonably alert driver
would have been able to avoid a collision with some object. For conditions approximating those
investigated in this study the investigator should determine whether the combination of expected
visibility and speed would have allowed the driver to avoid impact. For a pedestrian-size target
having low reflectivity the approach speed must be very low in order to ensure that all reasonably
alert drivers will be able to deal with the situation effectively.

References

Olson, P. L. (1988). Minimum Requirements for Adequate Nighttime Conspicuity of Highway

Signs. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Report No. UMTRI 88-
8.

Olson, P. L. and Sivak, M. (1983). Improved Low-Beam Photometrics. The University of

Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Report No. UMTRI 83-9.

Roper, V. J. and Howard, E. A. (1938). Seeing with Motor Car Headlamps. Transactions of
the Illumination Engineering Society, Vol. XXXIII, No. 5, 417-438.

61