# Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Rearview Mirrors > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AE9-4500 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** March 4, 2009 - **Citation:** 74 FR 9478 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0041] RIN 2127-AK43 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Rearview Mirrors AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). SUMMARY: This document initiates rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors , 1 to improve a driver's ability to see areas to the rear of a motor vehicle in order to mitigate fatalities and injuries associated with backover incidents. The agency and Congress are concerned that vehicles have “blind zones,” 2 areas behind the vehicle in which drivers may have difficulty seeing and avoiding a person or other obstacle. Through this notice, NHTSA presents its initial research efforts and solicits additional information that will enable the agency to develop an effective proposal to mitigate backover incidents related to vehicle rear blind zones. 1 49 CFR 571.111, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. 2 We note that this is different than what many people informally call a “blind spot,” a term used to describe an area to the side of the car where people may not be able to see a vehicle when changing lanes. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2009. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Fax: 202-493-2251 Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov . Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For technical issues: Ms. Elizabeth Mazzae, Vehicle Research and Test Center, Telephone: (937) 666-4511. Facsimile: (202) 366-3171. For legal issues: Ari Scott, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to these officials at: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: NVS-010, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary II. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 III. Existing Regulatory Requirements for Rear Visibility A. U.S. B. Other Countries IV. Backover Safety Problem A. Injuries and Fatalities in Backing Incidents B. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing Incidents C. Age Involvement in Backing Incidents D. SCI Backover Case Summary E. Assessment of Backover Crash Risk by Pedestrian Location V. Technologies for Improving Rear Visibility A. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors B. Rearview Video Systems C. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems D. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Video Camera) Systems E. Future Technologies F. Summary and Questions Regarding Technologies for Improving Rear Visibility VI. Drivers' Use and Associated Effectiveness of Available Technologies to Mitigate Backovers A. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors B. Rearview Video Systems C. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems D. Multi-technology (Sensor + Camera) Systems E. Summary F. Questions VII. Rear Visibility of Current Vehicles VIII. Relationship Between Rear Visibility and Backing/Backover Crashes IX. Options for Mitigating Backover Incidents A. Approaches for Improving Vehicles' Rear Visibility B. Cost Benefit Scenarios C. Questions X. Options for Measuring a Vehicle's Rear Visibility A. Rear Visibility Measurement Procedures B. Rear Visibility Measurement Method Variability C. Comparison of Human-Based Versus Laser-Based Rear Visibility Measurement Protocols D. Input From Industry Regarding Rear Visibility Measurement E. Questions XI. Options for Assessing the Performance of Rear Visibility Countermeasures A. Countermeasure Performance Test Object B. Countermeasure Performance Test Area C. Countermeasure Performance Test Procedure D. Questions XII. Options for Characterizing Rear Visibility Countermeasures A. Options for Display Characteristics B. Options for Rearview Video System Camera Characteristics C. Questions XIII. Conclusion XIV. Public Participation XV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Appendix A—Methodology for Assessing Backover Crash Risk by Pedestrian Location Appendix B—Method for On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems Appendix C—Details Regarding Development of a Possible Countermeasure Application Threshold Based on Rear Blind Zone Area Appendix D—Results for Analysis of Correlation Between Rear Blind Zone Area Measurement Field Size and Backing Crashes I. Executive Summary This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) initiates rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors , to improve a driver's ability to see areas to the rear of a motor vehicle to reduce backover incidents. The agency is issuing an ANPRM for two reasons. First, the agency is obligated, pursuant to the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (the “K.T. Safety Act”) Public Law 110-189, February 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 639, to undertake rulemaking to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents and initiate the rulemaking in a specified time period. Second, as there are a wide variety of means to address the problem of backover incidents, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is interested in soliciting public comment on the current state of research and the efficacy of available countermeasures. The problem of backovers claims the lives of approximately 292 people, many of them children every year. A backover is a specifically-defined type of incident, in which a non-occupant of a vehicle (i.e., a pedestrian or cyclist) is struck by a vehicle moving in reverse. Unlike most other types of crashes, many backovers occur off public roadways, in areas such as driveways and parking lots. Furthermore, a disproportionate number of victims of backovers are children under 5 years old and adults 70 or older. While there are several potential reasons for this, children are particularly likely to be missed by drivers of rear-moving vehicles because they cannot be seen due to a “blind zone” 3 in the area directly to the rear of vehicle. In addition, children are more likely to move unknowingly into a blind zone when the driver does not suspect anyone to be there. 3 We note that this is different than what many informally call a “blind spot,” a term used to describe an area to the side of the car where people may not be able to see a vehicle when changing lanes. NHTSA believes that the problem of backovers warrants an appropriate agency action. In response to a Congressional requirement of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 4 , NHTSA has been gathering data on backover incidents from a wide variety of sources. Based on this research, the agency estimates that on average there are 292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries (3,000 of which are judged to be incapacitating) resulting from backovers every year. Of those, 228 fatalities and 17,000 injuries were attributed to backover incidents involving passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds. While all passenger vehicle types (cars, sport utility vehicles, pickups, and vans) are involved in backover fatalities and injuries, the data indicate that backover fatality numbers show pickup trucks (72 of 288) and utility vehicles (68 of 228) to be overrepresented when compared to all non-backing traffic injury crashes and to their proportion to the passenger vehicle fleet. Regardless of the type of vehicle involved, backover incidents have garnered significant attention, due to the fact that many have involved parents accidentally backing over their own children or similar situations. In this notice, NHTSA describes some of the research and information-gathering activities it has performed. This research centers on four major topic areas. 4 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law No. 109-59, section 1109, 119 Stat. 1114, 1168 (2005). The first area involves the nature of backover incidents and backing crashes generally. NHTSA has reviewed the details of documented backover incidents, including the locations of backover victims, the paths the victims took to enter the path of the vehicle, and the visibility characteristics of the vehicles involved. This notice outlines the information we have about these crashes, whether the lack of visibility is playing a significant role, and whether or not the characteristics of a class or type of vehicle are a contributing factor. A second area of focus involves the evaluation of various strategies for improving rear visibility. For example, one strategy could be to ensure that the vehicles which are over represented in terms of fatalities and injuries are improved. Such a strategy would focus on pickup trucks or utility vehicles. 5 Another strategy, could seek to establish a minimum blind zone area for vehicles under 10,000 pounds. Our research indicates that a vehicle's rear blind zone area is statistically correlated with its rate of backing crashes. 6 Using this correlation, it may be possible to determine which vehicles most warrant rear visibility improvement based on the size of their rear blind zones and the setting of a “threshold”. Possible strategies such as these are discussed in this notice and comments are requested. 5 Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes, NHTSA Report to Congress (2008). 6 Partyka, S., Direct-View Rear Visibility and Backing Risk for Light Passenger Vehicles (2008). The third topic involves the evaluation of various countermeasures. NHTSA has consulted past agency research, industry and other outside sources, and conducted new research to help determine the costs, effectiveness, and limitations of a wide variety of countermeasures. Four types of countermeasures are described in this notice, including direct vision (i.e., what can be seen by a driver glancing directly out a vehicle's windows), rear-mounted convex mirrors, rear object detection sensors (such as ultrasonic or radar-based devices), and rearview video (RV) systems. While research is ongoing, this notice describes how these systems work, how well they perform in identifying pedestrians, and how effectively drivers may use them. Where possible, we have also included preliminary cost and benefit information. While we examine several application scenarios (all passenger cars and all light trucks, only light trucks, and some combinations) and discount rates of 3 and 7 percent, the net cost per equivalent life saved for camera systems ranged from $13.8 to $72.2 million. 7 For sensors, it ranged from $11.3 to $62.5 million. According to our present model, none of the systems are cost effective compared to our comprehensive cost estimate for a statistical life of $6.1 million. 8 7 PRIA, Executive Summary. 8 $6.1 million is the comprehensive value that NHTSA used for a statistical life. Further information about this value is available in the PRIA published with this notice. A fourth topic involves consideration of technical specifications and test procedures that could be used to describe and evaluate the performance aspects of direct view, and rear-mounted convex mirrors, rear object detection sensors, and rearview video (RV) systems. The agency presents preliminary information on potential technical specifications and test procedures that we have identified and we want to solicit information on how these specifications and procedures should be refined for the purposes of developing repeatable compliance tests. Finally, NHTSA presents a series of questions in this notice. We are requesting public input on a variety of areas, including the areas described above, studies on the effectiveness of various indirect rear visibility systems (i.e., devices that aid a driver in seeing areas around a vehicle, such as mirrors or video systems) that have been implemented in the U.S. and abroad, or technological possibilities that can enhance the reliability of existing technologies. The agency is also seeking information on the costs of implementation of all available technologies to develop more robust cost and benefit estimates. II. Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 Subsection (b) of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act, directs the Secretary of Transportation to initiate rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors , to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents. The relevant provisions in subsection (b) are as follows: (b) Rearward Visibility—Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking to revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 (FMVSS 111) to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents, particularly incidents involving small children and disabled persons. The Secretary may prescribe different requirements for different types of motor vehicles to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents, particularly incidents involving small children and disabled persons. Such standard may be met by the provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or other technology to expand the driver's field of view. The Secretary shall prescribe final standards pursuant to this subsection not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act. (c) Phase-In Period— (1) PHASE-IN PERIOD REQUIRED—The safety standards prescribed pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) shall establish a phase-in period for compliance, as determined by the Secretary, and require full compliance with the safety standards not later than 48 months after the date on which the final rule is issued. (2) PHASE-IN PRIORITIES—In establishing the phase-in period of the rearward visibility safety standards required under subsection (b), the Secretary shall consider whether to require the phase-in according to different types of motor vehicles based on data demonstrating the frequency by which various types of motor vehicles have been involved in backing incidents resulting in injury or death. If the Secretary determines that any type of motor vehicle should be given priority, the Secretary shall issue regulations that specify— (A) which type or types of motor vehicles shall be phased-in first; and (B) the percentages by which such motor vehicles shall be phased-in. Congress emphasized the protection of small children and disabled persons, and added that the revised standard may be met by the “provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or other technology to expand the driver's field of view.” While NHTSA does not interpret the Congressional language to necessarily require that all of these technologies eventually be integrated into the final requirement, we are examining the merits of each of them. Applicability With regard to the scope of vehicles covered by the mandate, the statute refers to all motor vehicles less than 10,000 pounds (except motorcycles and trailers). This language means that the revised regulation would apply to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 lbs. Statutory Deadline The Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 specified a rapid timeline for development and implementation of this rulemaking. Specifically, the Secretary is required to publish a final rule within 36 months of the passage of the Act (February 28, 2011). Moreover, the agency must initiate rulemaking within 12 months of the Act (February 28, 2009). However, it should be noted that under Section 4 of the Act, 9 if the Secretary determines that the deadlines applicable under this Act cannot be met, the Secretary shall establish new deadlines, and notify the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate of the new deadlines describing the reasons the deadlines specified under the Act could not be met. 9 Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007, S.694, 110th Cong. section 4 (2007). III. Existing Regulatory Requirements for Rear Visibility As of today, no country has minimum rear field of view requirements for vehicles weighing less than 10,000 lbs. All countries do, however, have standards for side and interior rearview mirrors, although differences do exist in terms of mirror requirements. No country requires rearview video systems or any other type of indirect vision device for viewing areas directly behind the vehicle; however, Europe does have performance requirements for systems for indirect vision, if installed. A. U.S. FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors establishes requirements for the use, field of view, and mounting of motor vehicle rearview mirrors for rear visibility. 10 This standard was enacted in 1976 and applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses and motorcycles. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver of a motor vehicle does not have a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear. With respect to passenger cars, the standard requires that manufacturers mount flat (also referred to as “plane” or “unit magnification”) mirrors both inside the vehicle and outside the vehicle on the driver's side. The inside mirror must, except as specified below, have a field of view at least 20 degrees wide and a sufficient vertical angle to provide a view of a level road surface extending to the horizon beginning not more than 200 feet (61 m) behind the vehicle. In cases where the interior mirror does not meet the specified field of view requirements, a plane or convex exterior mirror must be mounted on the passenger's side of the car. While a specific field of view is not indicated for the passenger-side rearview mirror, the driver's side rearview mirror is required to be a plane mirror that provides “the driver a view of a level road surface extending to the horizon from a line, perpendicular to a longitudinal plane tangent to the driver's side of the vehicle at the widest point, extending 2.4 m (7.9 ft) out from the tangent plane 10.7 m (35.1 ft) behind the driver's eyes, with the seat in the rearmost position.” 10 49 CFR 571.111, Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors. If a manufacturer uses an interior rearview mirror which meets the field of view requirements, and wishes to install an exterior passenger-side mirror voluntarily, it may use any type of mirror for that purpose. In the case of light trucks, manufacturers may either comply with the passenger car requirement or have plane or convex outside mirrors with reflective surface area of not less than 126 square centimeters (19.5 square inches) on each side of the vehicle. Reflectance (image brightness) criteria are also established in this standard. FMVSS No. 111 does not currently establish minimum rear field of view requirements for vehicles, nor does it contain minimum requirements for indirect vision systems, such as rearview video systems. Because of the current absence of a federal regulation of this aspect of performance, there is the possibility that there may be existing State laws or regulations that regulate the vehicle's rear field of view of passenger vehicles. 11 However, as of this time, NHTSA is not aware of any such State laws or regulations. However, we request comment on existing or pending State laws or regulations in this area, as well as the basis and effect of such regulation, if any exist. 11 See Federalism discussion below in section XV. B. Other Countries ECE In 1981, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) enacted Regulation 46 which details uniform provisions concerning the approval of devices for indirect vision. 12 ECE 46 defines devices for indirect vision as those that observe the area adjacent to the vehicle which cannot be observed by direct vision, including “conventional mirrors, camera-monitors or other devices able to present information about the indirect field of vision to the driver.” While ECE 46 contains specifications for exterior rearview mirrors, it does not, directly regulate the rear field of view. Specifications are provided to define the required minimum size of the interior rearview mirror's surface area, but not its field of view. This regulation applies to all power-driven vehicles with at least four wheels that are used for the carriage of people or goods, and vehicles with less than four wheels that are fitted with bodywork which partly or wholly encloses the driver. 12 ECE 46-02, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of: Devices for Indirect Vision and of Motor Vehicles with Regard to the Installation of these Devices, (August 7, 2008). ECE 46 requires driver and passenger “flat” side rearview mirrors as found in FMVSS No. 111. ECE 46 differs from FMVSS No. 111 in that it also permits wide-angle convex mirrors on the driver's side of the vehicle for all classes of vehicles except for certain vehicles over 7.5 tons, for which they are required. The ECE 46 regulation also outlines requirements for devices for indirect vision other than mirrors for vehicles with more than eight seating positions and those configured for refuse collection. Specifically, it contains a general requirement that camera-monitor devices, if present, shall perceive a visible spectrum and shall always render this image without the need for interpretation into the visual spectrum. The device's visual display is required to be located approximately in the same direction as the interior rearview mirror. The monitor is required to render a minimum contrast under various light conditions as specified by International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15008:2003 13 and have an adjustable luminance level. The regulation also defines detection distance, the distance measured at ground level from the eye point to the extreme point at which a critical object can be perceived, as an aspect of camera-monitor device performance. 13 ISO 15008:2003 Road vehicles—Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems—Specifications and compliance procedures for in-vehicle visual presentation. A January 2008 amendment to ECE Regulation 46 required that a camera-monitor system must display to the driver a flat horizontal portion of the road directly behind the vehicle from the rear bumper outward to a distance of 2000 mm (6.6 ft). It further specified that if an indirect vision device other than a camera-monitor is used, a test object 50 cm (19.7 in) in height and 30 cm (11.8 in) in diameter must be visible in the specified area. However, in a later amendment of UNECE 46 (dated August 7, 2008) this requirement was removed and replaced with the statement, “Vehicles may be equipped with additional devices for indirect vision.” 14 This change allows for indirect vision systems to be installed on European vehicles without meeting any performance requirements. 14 Section 15.3.5 of ECE 46-02, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of: Devices for Indirect Vision and of Motor Vehicles with Regard to the Installation of these Devices, (August 7, 2008). Canada Canada has rearview mirror requirements that are essentially identical to those in the U.S. All passenger cars are required to have a driver's-side outside rearview mirror. Passenger cars are also required to be equipped with an interior rearview mirror providing “the driver with a field of view to the rear that is not less than 20 degrees measured horizontally rearward from the projected eye point and extends to the horizon and includes a point on the road surface not more than 60 m (200 feet) directly behind the vehicle.” If the interior rearview mirror does not meet these requirements, a side rearview mirror must be mounted on the passenger side of the vehicle opposite the driver's side. Japan Japanese regulation, Article 44, provides a performance based requirement for rearview mirrors. 15 For light vehicles, rearview mirrors must be present that enable drivers to check the traffic situation around the left-hand lane edge and behind the vehicle from the driver's seat. 16 The regulation requires that the driver be able to “visually confirm the presence of a cylindrical object 1 m high and 0.3 m in diameter (equivalent to a 6-year-old child) adjacent to the front or the left-hand side of the vehicle (or the right-hand side in the case of a left-hand drive vehicle), either directly or indirectly via mirrors, screens, or similar devices.” Article 44 does not specify requirements for rear-mounted convex mirrors and rearview video systems, therefore these devices are allowed, but not required under the standard. Rear-mounted convex mirrors are commonly used as backing aids on sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and vans in Japan; however, NHTSA is not aware of research documenting the effectiveness of these mirrors in mitigating backover crashes. 15 Japanese Safety Regulation Article 44 and attachments 79-81. 16 Vehicles manufactured for the Japanese market are right-hand drive. Korea The Korean regulation on rearview mirrors, Article 50, 17 outlines rearview mirror requirements for a range of vehicles. Article 50 requires a flat or convex exterior mirror mounted on the driver's side for passenger vehicles and buses with less than 10 passengers. For buses, cargo vehicles, and special motor vehicles, flat or convex rear-view mirrors are required on both sides of the vehicle. Article 50 does not address rear-mounted convex mirrors and rearview video systems, therefore these devices are allowed, but not required under the standard. Again, rear-mounted convex mirrors are commonly used as backing aids on SUVs and vans in Korea; however, NHTSA is not aware of research documenting the effectiveness of these mirrors in mitigating backover crashes. 17 Korean Safety Regulation Article 50. IV. Backover Safety Problem Based on our information to date, NHTSA has found that the problem of backovers claims the lives of hundreds of people every year. NHTSA defines backover as a specifically-defined type of incident, in which a non-occupant of a vehicle (i.e., a pedestrian or cyclist) is struck by a vehicle moving in reverse. However, because many backovers occur off public roadways, in areas such as driveways and parking lots, NHTSA's ordinary methodologies for collecting data as to the specific numbers and circumstances of backover incidents have not always given the agency a complete picture of the scope and circumstances of these types of incidents. The following sections detail NHTSA's attempts to both quantify the number of backover incidents and determine their nature. A. Injuries and Fatalities in Backing Incidents In response to SAFETEA-LU Sections 2012 and 10305, NHTSA developed the Not in Traffic Surveillance (NiTS) system to collect information about all nontraffic crashes, including nontraffic backing crashes. NiTS provided information on these backing crashes that occurred off the traffic way and which were not included in NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) or the National Automotive Sampling System—General Estimates System (NASS-GES). The subset of backing crashes that involve a pedestrian, bicyclist, or other person not in a vehicle, is referred to as “backovers.” This is distinguished from the larger category of “backing crashes,” which would include such non-backover events such as a vehicle going in reverse and colliding with another vehicle, or a vehicle backing off an embankment or into a stationary object. While the primary purpose of this rulemaking is to prevent backovers, any technology that improves rear visibility should have a positive effect on backing crashes in general. Based on 2002-2006 data from FARS and NASS-GES, and 2007 data from NiTS, NHTSA estimates that 463 fatalities and 48,000 injuries a year occur in traffic and nontraffic backing crashes. 18 Most of these injuries are minor injuries, but an estimated 6,000 per year are incapacitating injuries. Overall, an estimated 65 percent (302) of the fatalities and 62 percent (29,000) of the injuries in backing crashes occurred in nontraffic situations. 18 Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes, NHTSA Report to Congress (2008). With regard to injuries and fatalities related specifically to backovers, these account for an estimated 63 percent (292) of the fatalities and 38 percent (18,000) of the injuries in backing crashes for all vehicles (cars, light trucks or vans, heavy trucks, and other/multiple vehicles). Other backing crash scenarios account for an estimated 171 fatalities (37 percent) and 30,000 injuries (62 percent) per year. Table 1 shows the fatalities and injuries in all backing crashes. Table 1 also demonstrates that backover victims tend to be more seriously injured than individuals in other backing crashes (i.e., non-backover crash incidents). In fact, more than half (10,000 of 18,000) of the injuries in backovers are more severe than possible (minor) injuries. Table 1—Annual Estimated Fatalities and Injuries in All Backing Crashes for All Vehicles 19 Injury severity Total Estimated total Sample count Backovers Estimated total Sample count Other backing crashes Estimated total Sample count Fatalities 463 1,610 292 716 171 894 Incapacitating Injury 6,000 304 3,000 131 3,000 173 Non-incapacitating Injury 12,000 813 7,000 372 5,000 441 Possible Injury 27,000 929 7,000 179 20,000 750 Injured Severity Unknown 2,000 48 1,000 23 2,000 25 Total Injuries 48,000 2,094 18,000 705 30,000 1,389 Source: FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007. Note: Estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding. B. Vehicle Type Involvement in Backing Incidents 19 Id. Most backover fatalities and injuries involve passenger vehicles. As indicated in Table 2, 78 percent of the backover fatalities and 95 percent of the backover injuries involved passenger vehicles. An estimated fifteen percent (68) of the backing crash fatalities occur in multivehicle crashes, and an estimated thirteen percent (62) occur in single-vehicle non-collisions such as occupants who fall out of and are struck by their own backing vehicles. About half of the backing crash injuries (20,000 per year) occur in multivehicle crashes involving backing vehicles. Table 3 indicates that all major passenger vehicle types (cars, utility vehicles, pickups, and vans) are involved in backover fatalities and injuries. However, the data indicate that some vehicles may have a greater risk of involvement in backing crashes than other vehicles. Table 3 illustrates that pickup trucks and utility vehicles are overrepresented in backover fatalities when compared to all non-backing traffic injury crashes and to their proportion to the passenger vehicle fleet. Table 2—Injuries and Fatalities and Injuries by Backing Crash Type for All Vehicles Backing crash scenarios All vehicles Fatalities Injuries Passenger vehicles Fatalities Injuries Backovers: Striking Nonoccupant 292 18,000 228 17,000 Backing: Striking Fixed Object 33 2,000 33 2,000 Backing: Noncollision 62 1,000 53 1,000 Backing: Striking/Struck by Other Vehicle 68 24,000 39 20,000 Backing: Other 8 3,000 8 3,000 Total Backing 463 48,000 361 43,000 Table 3—Passenger Vehicle Backover Fatalities and Injuries by Vehicle Type Backing vehicle type Fatalities Percent of fatalities Estimated injuries Estimated percent of injuries Percent of vehicles in non-backing traffic injury crashes Percent of fleet Car 59 26 9,000 54 62 58 Utility Vehicle 68 30 3,000 20 14 16 Van 29 13 1,000 6 8 8 Pickup 72 31 3,000 18 15 17 Other Light Vehicle 0 0 * 2 1 <1 Passenger Vehicles 228 100 17,000 100 100 100 Source: FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007. Note: * indicates estimate less than 500, estimates may not add up to totals due to independent rounding. C. Age Involvement in Backing Incidents Table 4 contains the age of the backover victim for fatalities and injuries for all backovers as well as backovers involving passenger vehicles. Table 4 also details the proportion of the United States (U.S.) population in each age category from the U.S. Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program for comparison. Similar to previous findings, backover fatalities disproportionately affect children under 5 years old and adults 70 or older. When restricted to backover fatalities involving passenger vehicles, children under 5 account for 44 percent of the fatalities, and adults 70 and older account for 33 percent. The difference in the results between all backovers and passenger vehicle backovers occurs because large truck backovers, which are excluded from the passenger vehicle calculations, tend to affect adults of working age. Table 4—All Backover Fatalities and Injuries by Age of Victim Age of victim Fatalities Percent of fatalities Estimated injuries Estimated percent of injuries Sample count of injuries Percent of population All Vehicles: Under 5 103 35 2,000 8 37 7 5-10 13 4 * 3 33 7 10-19 4 1 2,000 12 75 14 20-59 69 24 9,000 48 383 55 60-69 28 9 2,000 8 54 8 70+ 76 26 3,000 18 107 9 Unknown * 2 16 Total 292 100 18,000 100 705 100 Passenger Vehicles: Under 5 100 44 2,000 9 35 7 5-10 10 4 1,000 3 30 7 10-19 1 1 2,000 12 71 14 20-59 29 13 8,000 46 319 55 60-69 15 6 1,000 8 46 8 70+ 74 33 3,000 19 95 9 Unknown * 2 12 Total 228 100 17,000 100 608 100 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population Estimates; FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007. The proportion of backover injuries by age group is more similar to the proportion of the population than for backover fatalities. However, while children under 5 years old appear to be slightly overrepresented in backover injuries compared to the population, adults 70 and older appear to be greatly overrepresented. One reason for the relatively large proportion of injuries in backover crashes among older adults may be that backovers involving younger nonoccupants may not result in an injury while the same backover involving an older nonoccupant may result in a fall and a broken bone. Table 5 presents passenger vehicle backover fatalities by year of age for victims less than 5 years old. Out of all backover fatalities involving passenger vehicles, 26 percent (60 out of 228) of victims are 1 year of age and younger. Table 5—Breakdown of Backover Fatalities and Injuries Involving Passenger Vehicles for Victims Under Age 5 Years Age of victim (years) Number of fatalities 0 <1 1 59 2 23 3 14 4 3 Total 100 Note: Estimates may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2007 Population Estimates; FARS 2002-2006, NASS-GES 2002-2006, NiTS 2007. D. Special Crash Investigation Backover Case Summary In addition to collecting police-reported backovers through NHTSA's data collection infrastructure, NHTSA's efforts to understand backover incidents have included a Special Crash Investigation (SCI) program. The SCI program was created to examine the safety impact of rapidly changing technologies and to provide NHTSA with early detection of alleged or potential vehicle defects. SCI began investigating cases related to backovers in October 2006. 20 SCI receives notification of potential backover cases from several different sources including media reports, police and rescue personnel, contacts within NHTSA, reports from the general public, as well as notifications from the NASS. As of July 1, 2008, SCI had received a total of 52 notifications from a combination of all sources regarding backovers. 21 For the purpose of the SCI cases, an eligible backover was defined as a light passenger vehicle where the back plane strikes or passes over a person who is either positioned to the rear of the vehicle or is approaching from the side. SCI primarily focuses on cases involving children; however, it investigates some cases involving adults. The majority of notifications received do not meet the criteria for case assignment. Typically the reasons for not pursuing further include: 20 Fatalities and Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes, NHTSA Report to Congress (2008). 21 Since SCI investigates as many relevant cases that they are notified about as possible and not on a statistical sampling of incidents, results are not representative of the general population. ○ The reported crash configuration is outside of the scope of the program, ○ Minor incidents with no fatally or seriously injured persons, or ○ Incidents where cooperation can not be established with the involved parties. As an example, many reported incidents are determined to be side or frontal impacts, which exclude them from the program. NHTSA requests that commenters submit any other existing backover incident data that could aid in providing a clearer picture of the range of backover accidents. The SCI effort to examine backover crashes includes an on-site inspection of the scene and vehicle, as well as interviews of the involved parties when possible. When an on-site investigation is not possible, backover cases are investigated remotely through an examination of police-provided reports and photos as well as interviews with the involved parties. For each backover case investigated, a case vehicle visibility study is also conducted to determine the vehicle's blind zones and also to determine at what distance behind the vehicle the occupant may have become visible to the driver. Through July 2008, NHTSA had completed special crash investigations of 52 backover cases. 22 The 52 backing vehicles were comprised of 17 passenger cars, 21 sport utility vehicles, and 14 pickup trucks. Only 4 of the cases (8 percent) contained vehicles equipped with a backup or parking aid. Eighty-eight percent of the backover crashes (46 of the 52) involved children, ranging in age from less than 1 year old up to 13 years old, who were struck by vehicles. Adults were generally excluded from the study unless they were seriously injured or killed or if the backing vehicles were equipped with backing or parking aids. A total of 6 cases were investigated involving struck adults. Of the 52 backover cases, exactly half (26) involved fatally injured nonoccupants. 22 The data obtained for the SCI cases cited in this report are based on preliminary case information. Data are subject to change based on final investigative findings. A breakdown of the victim's path of travel prior to being struck is as follows: 24 were approaching from the right or left of the vehicle, 19 were stationary behind the vehicle, 10 were unknown, and one was “other.” 23 23 Note that one or more cases examined involved multiple victims, causing the total of the path breakdown scenarios to be 53 rather than 52. E. Assessment of Backover Crash Risk by Pedestrian Location NHTSA believes it would be helpful to know whether and to what degree the pedestrian's location at the start of a vehicle's backing plays a part in the likelihood of the pedestrian being struck. As such, NHTSA used data from a recent NHTSA study of drivers' backing behavior 24 to estimate the relative risk of a pedestrian colliding with a vehicle during a backing maneuver. 24 Mazzae, E. N., Barickman, F. S., Baldwin, G. H. S., and Ranney, T. A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811 024. A Monte Carlo simulation was used to calculate a probability-based risk weighting for a test area centered behind the vehicle. The probability-based risk weightings for each grid square were based on the number of pedestrian-vehicle backing crashes predicted by the simulation for trials for which the pedestrian was initially (i.e., at the time that the vehicle began to back up) in the center of one square of the grid of 1-foot squares. A total of 1,000,000 simulation trials were run with the pedestrian initially in the center of each square. Additional details about assumptions relating to the vehicle and pedestrian, as well as the simulation, are presented in Appendix A. Figure 1 summarizes the calculated relative crash risk for each grid square. Note that the white shaded area does not have a zero backover risk; it merely has a low (less than 15 percent of the maximum) risk. This analysis shows that the probability of crash decreases rapidly as the pedestrian's initial location is moved back, further away, from the rear bumper of the vehicle. There are substantial side lobes, giving pedestrians some risk of being hit even though they were not initially directly behind the vehicle. The results suggest that coverage of an area 12 feet wide by 36 feet long centered behind the vehicle would address pedestrian locations having relative crash risks of 0.15 and higher. To address crash risks of 0.20 and higher, an area 7 feet wide and 33 feet long centered behind the vehicle would need to be covered. NHTSA seeks comment on the coverage area that is needed to establish a reasonable safety zone behind the vehicle. BILLING CODE 4910-59-P EP04MR09.000 BILLING CODE 4910-59-C V. Technologies for Improving Rear Visibility Since the early 1990s, NHTSA has actively researched approaches to mitigate backing crashes for heavy and light vehicles by assessing the effectiveness of various backing aid technologies. In recent years, manufacturers have added object detection sensors and video cameras to vehicles to aid drivers in performing backing maneuvers. According to Ward's 2008 Automotive Yearbook, backing aids utilizing sensors and/or video cameras were installed in approximately 14 percent of model year 2007 light vehicles. 25 While these systems are becoming increasingly available, they have typically been marketed as parking aids to help drivers detect and avoid obstacles in low-speed backing scenarios. 25 2008 Ward's Automotive Yearbook. To assess whether or not these systems could also be used to detect pedestrians, the agency has, and continues to, evaluate them. The agency has also evaluated rear-mounted convex mirrors and rearview video systems. In the following sections, we outline the technologies we have evaluated, research conducted by the agency and others, and offer our preliminary observations on how they would meet the Congressional directive to improve the rear visibility of current vehicles. A. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors Description Rear-mounted convex mirrors are mirrors with a curved reflective surface thereby providing a wider field of view than plane (i.e., flat) mirrors. These mirrors can be mounted at the upper center of the rear window with the reflective surface pointing at the ground (commonly referred to as backing mirrors, under mirrors, or “look-down” mirrors), the driver's side upper corner of the vehicle (commonly seen on delivery vans or mail delivery trucks and called “corner mirrors”), or integrated into the inside face of both rearmost pillars (called “cross-view” mirrors). While center or corner-mounted convex rearview mirrors show the driver an area behind the vehicle, rear cross-view mirror pairs are intended to aid a driver when backing into a right-of-way by showing objects approaching on a perpendicular path behind the vehicle. To view the area behind a vehicle, interior rear-mounted convex mirrors can be viewed directly by the driver, if in his direct line of sight, or they may be looked at indirectly by viewing their reflection in the interior or exterior rearview mirror. In the case of a rear “look-down mirror,” the driver can either glance rearward directly at this mirror, or view its reflection in the interior rearview mirror. For a rear convex corner mirror, the driver must look into the driver's side (i.e., exterior) rearview mirror to view the reflection of the rear convex corner mirror. In the case of rear cross-view mirrors, they can be viewed directly by the driver or indirectly by viewing their reflection in the interior rearview mirror. In the U.S., rear-mounted convex mirrors are sometimes seen on delivery trucks and vans. Rear-mounted convex mirrors are primarily available as aftermarket products in the U.S., but are also available as original equipment on one sport utility vehicle. 26 In Korea and Japan, rear-mounted convex mirrors are used on small school buses, short delivery trucks, and some multipurpose vehicles (e.g., SUVs) to allow drivers to view areas behind a vehicle. 26 Rear cross-view mirrors have been available on the Toyota 4Runner base model vehicles since MY 2003. While rear convex cross-view mirrors are available as aftermarket products that mount to the inside of the rear window for all passenger car body types, this is not the case for look down mirrors. Rear convex look-down or corner convex mirrors need to have a rear window that is vertically aligned with the rear of the vehicle (such as a station wagon, SUV or van) in order to have a clear view of the area behind the vehicle. Research NHTSA has conducted research on rear-mounted convex mirrors for use on medium straight trucks and to a limited extent, passenger vehicles (i.e., cars, trucks, vans, SUVs). The research and how its results may be related to the improvement of rear visibility are discussed below. Passenger Vehicle Research In response to Section 10304 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), 27 NHTSA conducted a study to evaluate methods to reduce the incidence of injury, death, and property damage caused by backing collisions of passenger vehicles. 28 The examination of two convex mirror systems revealed that pedestrians and objects were not visible in some areas directly behind the vehicle (this area could be described as the area bounded by the vertical planes formed by the sides of the vehicle, and extending rearward). The research also found that the convexity of the mirrors caused significant image distortion, and reflected objects were difficult to discern. It is unknown if this issue can be addressed in future designs. For the tested designs, concentrated glances were necessary to identify the nature of rear obstacles; it is not known if a driver making quick glances prior to initiating a backing maneuver would allocate sufficient time to allow recognition of an obstacle or pedestrian shown in the mirror. 27 SAFETEA-LU, Sec. 1109, 119 Stat. 1168. 28 Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 2006. Current Mirror Research NHTSA is currently evaluating the image quality (distortion and minification) and field of view of rear-mounted convex mirrors. The mirror types being examined include an aftermarket rear convex look-down mirror, aftermarket rear corner convex mirror, aftermarket rear convex cross-view mirrors designed for SUVs and passenger cars (e.g., sedans, coupes), and original equipment rear convex cross-view mirrors on a 2003 Toyota 4Runner. Figure 2 below illustrates the types of measurements that NHTSA plans to collect to evaluate the image quality and field of view for rear convex mirrors. As illustrated in the Figure, using a test device that simulates a 1-year-old child, the rear convex look-down mirror shows an area directly behind a vehicle (a 2007 Honda Odyssey minivan) but beyond 15 feet from the bumper, the image could not be discerned. BILLING CODE 4910-59-P EP04MR09.001 BILLING CODE 4910-59-C Using the same 1-year-old child-sized test device, Figure 3 illustrates the measured field of view for an exemplar rear convex cross-view mirror system. The area behind the vehicle cannot be seen, rather, only the area that extends outward from both rear corners of the vehicle. EP04MR09.002 NHTSA previously evaluated the quality of images displayed by a rear corner convex mirror mounted on a 1996 Grumman-Olsen step van with a 12-foot long box. 29 Using those data, an analysis was performed in which linear extrapolation and two-dimensional interpolation 30 were applied to estimate at which of four locations behind the vehicle a 1-year-old child dummy (i.e., anthropomorphic test device, or ATD) could be visible to a driver using a rear corner convex mirror. The four locations assessed are labeled A through D in Figure 4. 29 Mazzae, E.N., and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies for Medium Straight Trucks, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 865, November 2007. 30 Measured minutes of arc subtended by the test object were first linearly extrapolated to estimate the effects of differences in the distance from the driver eyepoint to the side rearview mirror and the distance from the side rearview mirror to the rear corner convex mirror. Two-dimensional linear interpolation was then used to correct for reducing the vehicle width from the 7.0 feet for the step van to the 6.0 feet more typical of light passenger vehicle and for estimating minutes of arc subtended at the four locations, A through D. Note that estimates based upon multiple multi-linear extrapolation/interpolation were made because they could be done quickly using data that NHTSA had previously collected. EP04MR09.003 The reflected image of the 1-year-old dummy becomes less minified and is easier for the driver to discern as the location of the dummy moves either forward towards the rear bumper of the vehicle or laterally towards the driver's side of the vehicle. Therefore, for a vehicle for which the dummy is visible at Point A, the dummy is expected to be visible anywhere across the entire width of the vehicle for distances up to at least 10 feet from the vehicle's rear bumper. Estimated visibility of the 1-year-old dummy for each of the four locations (identified in Figure 4) for 9 vehicles is shown in Table 6. Table 6—Visibility of a 1-Year-Old Child Dummy Using a Corner Rear Cross-View Mirror Year Make Model Can see Point A? Can see Point B? Can see Point C? Can see Point D? 2008 Chevrolet Express No No No Yes. 2003 Volvo XC90 No No Yes Yes. 2005 Nissan Armada No No No Yes. 2007 Saturn Vue No No Yes Yes. 2007 Jeep Commander No No Yes Yes. 2008 Toyota Highlander No No Yes Yes. 2007 Ford Edge No No Yes Yes. 2005 Chevrolet Uplander No No No Yes. 2003 Toyota 4Runner No No Yes Yes. As the table indicates, it is not expected that a driver could see the 1-year-old dummy when the dummy is located directly behind the passenger's side of the vehicle at a distance of 6 or 10 feet back from the vehicle's rear bumper. The quality of the reflected image is better on the vehicle's centerline, with the dummy expected to be visible for six out of nine vehicles when it is located 10 feet back from the rear bumper and visually discernable to the driver for all nine vehicles when it is only 6 feet aft of the rear bumper. This mirror research is scheduled to be completed in 2009 and will be summarized in a published NHTSA report thereafter. Along with comments received to this notice, NHTSA hopes to use this research information in the development of a proposal. Observations Some advantages of rear-mounted convex mirrors include that when compared to video cameras and object detection sensors, they are relatively inexpensive (e.g., less than $40 retail as an aftermarket product) and have the potential to last the life of the vehicle. They also provide a wider field of view than that provided by plane mirrors. However, they also possess inherent disadvantages. In general, convex mirrors compress (i.e., minify) and distort the image of reflected objects in their field of view. This image distortion and image minification make objects and pedestrians appear very narrow and difficult for the driver to discern and identify. These aspects of image quality worsen as the length of the vehicle increases. Rear cross-view mirrors are positioned to show an area to the side and rear of the vehicle but they do not provide a good view of the area directly behind the vehicle (the area bounded by two imaginary planes tangent to the sides of the vehicle. As such, a pedestrian or object in this area could be invisible to the driver. They can however, help drivers see objects approaching the rear of the vehicle along a perpendicular path. NHTSA is aware that single rear convex look-down mirrors are commonly found on SUVs and vans in Korea and Japan. However, we are unaware of any publicly available studies that have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of these mirrors in improving rear visibility. We seek comment on the availability of any such studies. B. Rearview Video Systems Description A growing number of vehicles in the U.S. are equipped with rearview video systems. These systems can permit a driver to see much of the area behind the vehicle via a video display showing the image from a video camera mounted on the rear of the vehicle. The images may be presented to the driver using an existing screen in the vehicle, such as a navigation system or multifunction display screen, or by adding a display incorporated into the dashboard or interior rearview mirror. Costs for these rearview video systems are estimated at approximately $58-$88 for vehicles equipped with a navigation system or other type of multi-function visual display, to $158-$189 for vehicles requiring a dashboard-mounted display screen, or $173-$203 for vehicles with an RV display integrated into the interior rearview mirror. 31 31 PRIA, section VI. Research Recent research on rearview video systems conducted by NHTSA and our observations about the research are presented below. NHTSA Testing in Support of SAFETEA-LU In response to Section 10304 of SAFETEA-LU, NHTSA examined three rearview video systems (RV): One in combination with original equipment rear parking sensors, one aftermarket system combining both RV and parking sensor technologies, and one original equipment RV system. 32 This examination of RV systems included assessment of their field of view and their potential to provide drivers with information about obstacles behind the vehicle. 32 Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 2006. Through this study, the agency made the following observations. The rearview video systems examined provided a clear image of the area behind the vehicle in daylight and indoor lighting conditions. RV systems displayed images of pedestrians or obstacles behind the vehicle to a substantial range of 23 feet or more, except for an area within 8-12 inches of the rear bumper at ground level. Beyond the rear bumper, the rearview video systems also displayed areas wider than 50 feet. The location and angle at which the rearview video camera is mounted on the back of the vehicle affects the size of the field of view provided by the system. The longitudinal range of the images displayed by the two original equipment RV systems tested differed significantly. One rearview video system's camera presented an image having a limited vertical angle, resulting in a substantially shorter longitudinal range along the centerline of the vehicle (ending at approximately 23 feet from the rear bumper at ground level). For a 3-year-old child dummy centered 2 feet behind the vehicle, the shorter visible range exhibited by this particular RV system caused the top of the dummy's head to be out of view. Observations We found that RV systems can display areas on the ground almost directly adjacent to the bumper of the vehicle. Furthermore, RV systems offer the possibility of a wide field of view, with some systems able to show 180 degrees behind the vehicle. However, during the short course of testing, NHTSA also noted some operational issues with video camera performance in certain weather conditions, such as rain and snow. For example, rain drops and the buildup of ice on the video camera lens can significantly reduce the quality of the view provided by the RV system. Also, in evaluating these technologies we have not had the opportunity to assess the long-term performance and reliability of RV systems, as well as the effects of harsh weather conditions on their long-term operation. C. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems Description Sensor-based object detection systems use electronic sensors that transmit a signal which, if an obstacle is present in a sensor's detection field, bounces the signal back to the sensor producing a positive “detection” of the obstacle. These sensors detect objects in the vicinity of a vehicle at varying ranges depending on the technology. To date, commercially-available object detection systems have been based on short-range ultrasonic technology or longer range radar technology, although advanced infrared sensors are under development as well. Sensor-based object detection systems have been available for over 15 years as aftermarket products and for a lesser period as original equipment. Original equipment systems have been marketed as a convenience feature or “parking aid” for which the vehicle owner's manual can contain language denoting sensor performance limitations with respect to detecting children or small moving objects. Aftermarket systems, however, are frequently marketed as safety devices for warning drivers of the presence of small children behind the vehicle. NHTSA has investigated the cost of sensor-based rear object detection systems. Currently, we estimate the cost of a backing system based on ultrasonic technology to be $51-$89 and the cost of a system based on radar technology to be approximately $92. 33 33 PRIA, section VI. Research NHTSA Research in Support of SAFETEA-LU NHTSA examined eight sensor-based original equipment and aftermarket rear parking systems in response to Section 10304 of the SAFETEA-LU mandate. 34 NHTSA conducted testing to measure the object detection performance of short range sensor-based systems. Measurements included static field of view (i.e., both the vehicle and test objects were static), static field of view repeatability, and dynamic detection range for different laterally moving test objects. The agency assessed the system's ability to detect a 74-inch-tall adult male walking in various directions to the rear of the vehicle. Detection performance was also evaluated in a series of static and dynamic tests with 1-year-old and 3-year-old children. 34 Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 2006. Sensor-based systems tested were generally inconsistent and unreliable in detecting pedestrians, particularly children, located behind the vehicle. Testing showed that, in most cases, pedestrian size affected detection performance, as adults elicited better detection response than 1 or 3-year-old children. Specifically, each system could generally detect a moving adult pedestrian (or other objects) behind a stationary vehicle; however, each system exhibited some difficulty in detecting moving children. The sensor-based systems tested were found to operate reliably (i.e., without malfunction), with the exception of one aftermarket ultrasonic system that malfunctioned after only a few weeks, rendering it unavailable for use in remaining tests. While examining the consistency of system detection performance, the agency observed that each sensor-based system exhibited some degree of variability in its detection performance and patterns. Specifically, detection inconsistencies were generally noticed at the periphery of the detection zones and typically for no more than 1 foot in magnitude. On average, these sensor-based systems had detection zones which generally covered an area directly behind the vehicle. The system with the longest detection range could detect a 3-year-old child up to 11 feet from the rear bumper (along a 3-5 ft wide strip of area along the vehicle's centerline). The majority of systems were unable to detect test objects less than 28 inches in height. The response times of sensor-based systems were also evaluated in this study. In order for sensor-based backover avoidance systems to assist in preventing collisions, warnings must be generated by the system in a timely manner and the driver must perceive the warning within sufficient time to respond appropriately to avoid a crash. With regards to system response times, ISO 17386:2004, 35 “Manoeuvring Aids for Low Speed Operation (MALSO)—Performance requirements and test procedures”, outlines performance requirements for sensor-based object detection systems. This standard recommends a maximum system response time of 0.35 seconds. NHTSA's tests showed that the response times for the eight tested sensor systems varied from 0.18 to 1 second, and only three of them met the ISO response time limit. For the systems that did not meet the recommended 0.35-second limit, it is unlikely (assuming typical backing speeds 36 and driver reaction times) that warnings would be provided to a driver in sufficient time to allow the driver to bring the vehicle to a stop and avoid a possible collision with an obstacle or moving child. 35 ISO 17386:2004 Transport information and control systems—Manoeuvring Aids for Low Speed Operation (MALSO)—Performance requirements and test procedures. 36 Note that average backing speed was found to be 2.26 mph in NHTSA's “On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS).” Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney, T.A. (2008). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811 024, page 34. NHTSA Experimental Research: Performance of Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems NHTSA's 2008 study of drivers' use of rearview video systems 37 involved an observation of drivers of vehicles equipped with an ultrasonic-based rear parking sensor system in addition to an RV system. In a staged experimental trial in which an unexpected obstacle was presented to test participants while backing out of a garage, the rear parking sensor system on the particular vehicle involved in this study detected the obstacle and provided a warning indication of the presence of the obstacle behind the vehicle in 38 percent (5 out of 13) of the event trials for participants with vehicles equipped with the combination system. These data describing the performance of a sensor-based rear parking aid as used by average drivers reflect similar detection performance deficiencies as have been observed in NHTSA's laboratory testing of the detection performance of sensor-based object detection systems. 38 39 37 Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney, T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811 024. 38 Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 634, September 2006. 39 Mazzae, E.N. and Garrott, W.R., Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of Available Backover Prevention Technologies for Medium Straight Trucks, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 865, November 2007. Paine, Macbeth & Henderson Proximity Sensor Research Paine, Macbeth & Henderson tested the performance of proximity sensor backing aids. 40 They reported that proximity sensors tested exhibited limited ability to detect objects for vehicles traveling at 5 km/h (3.1 mph) or more. According to their conclusions, proximity sensors were prone to produce “nuisance alarms” in some driving situations and were deemed an unviable option to reduce backing incidents. While the authors suggested that a more effective system to mitigate backing incidents may be to incorporate sensors and wide-angle video camera technology, no data were provided to support this statement. 40 Paine, M., Macbeth, A., and Henderson, M. (2003). The Danger to Young Pedestrians from Reversing Motor Vehicles. 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. Paper Number 466. GM Experimental Research on Sensor-Based Systems for the Reduction of Backing Incidents GM outlined the functional capabilities of their ultrasonic rear park assist system. The system was designed to detect larger poles and parking barriers greater than 7.5 cm in diameter with a length of 1.0 meter or more. It was not designed to detect objects less than 25 cm in height. In addition, the system was not designed to detect obstacles directly below the bumper or under the vehicle. GM notes that smaller or thinner objects or pedestrians may not be detected by this system, and indicates this fact explicitly in the system's instructional materials. 41 42 41 Instructional materials include the following warning: “If children, someone on a bicycle, or pets are behind your vehicle, (ultrasonic rear park assist) won't tell you they are there. You could strike them and they could be injured or killed.” 42 Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982. Observations The development of sensor-based systems for use as parking aids has been in progress for at least 15 years. Ultrasonic sensors inherently have detection performance that varies as a function of the degree of sonic reflectivity of the obstacle surface. For example, objects with a smooth surface such as plastic or metal reflect well, whereas objects with a textured surface, such as clothing, may not reflect as well. Radar sensors, which are able to detect the water in a human's body, are better able to detect pedestrians, but demonstrate inconsistent detection performance, especially with regard to small children. NHTSA is aware that the performance of current sensor-based systems can be influenced by the algorithms that are used for detection. As stated previously, these systems are implemented as parking aids rather than safety systems and thus this may have attributed to the observed performance. While it is possible to modify the detection algorithms of sensor-based object detection systems to allow for better detection of children, one result of such a modification could result in other less favorable aspects of system performance, such as increased false alarms. From a driver confidence standpoint, an increase in false alarms could have the effect of decreasing the system's overall effectiveness as a driver's desire to use the system decreases. D. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Video Camera) Systems Description In the context of this document, multi-technology backing aid systems are those systems that utilize both video and sensor-based technologies. Prior to MY 2007, these technologies functioned independently if both were present on a vehicle. Recently, truly integrated systems that use data from rear object detection sensors to present obstacle warnings that are superimposed on the RV display image have become commercially available. Whether integrated or not, vehicles equipped with both rearview video and sensor technologies have the ability to detect obstacles (via a rear parking sensor system) and alert a driver (by directing their attention to the rearview video system display) to the presence of the obstacle. Research As previously mentioned in Part C of this section, NHTSA's work in response to Section 10304 of the SAFETEA-LU mandate included the measurement of the object detection performance of short range sensor-based systems. One of the systems examined was the integrated rearview video and ultrasonic-based rear parking aid system of a 2007 Cadillac Escalade. This system used object detection information from an ultrasonic rear parking aid to present obstacle warnings to the driver through warning symbology superimposed on the RV display image. Specifically, a warning triangle symbol was shown on the RV display image in the approximate location of the obstacle. While the performance of the ultrasonic-based rear parking aid system showed the same issues as other tested systems using that sensor technology, the presentation of integrated warnings may be useful in directing a driver's attention to the image of a rear obstacle presented on the rearview video display. However, in order to assess the effectiveness of this or any other integrated system in mitigating backover incidents, research with drivers using the system is needed. Observations Testing of the vehicle examined showed that the integrated rear parking aid and rearview video aspects of the backing aid system performed, from a sensor point of view, the same as would these two technologies if tested separately. The performance of the backing aid technologies present on this vehicle may not represent the performance of all such systems commercially available today. With improved technology integration that may utilize image processing to confirm the presence of rear obstacles, performance enhancements may be possible. The agency seeks comment on whether any recent studies have been performed with other integrated multi-technology backing aid systems. E. Future Technologies Description NHTSA is aware of two additional sensor technologies being developed that could be used to improve a vehicle's rear visibility; infrared-based object detection systems and video-based object recognition systems. As with other sensor systems, infrared-based systems emit a signal, which if an object is within its detection range, will bounce back and be detected by a receiver. Rear object detection via video camera uses real-time image processing capability to identify obstacles behind the vehicle and alert the driver of their presence. Research Ongoing NHTSA Backing Crash Countermeasure Research In addition to the previously mentioned rear-mounted convex mirror research, NHTSA is currently engaged in cooperative research with GM on Advanced Collision Avoidance Technology relating to backing incidents. The ACAT backing systems project is assessing the ability of more advanced technologies to mitigate backing crashes, and refining a tool to assess the potential safety benefit of these technologies. The focus of the ACAT Backing Crash Countermeasure Program is to characterize backing crashes in the U.S. and investigate a set of integrated countermeasures to mitigate them at appropriate points along the crash timeline (prior to entering the vehicle and continuing throughout the backing sequence). The objective of this research is to estimate potential safety benefits or harm reduction that these countermeasures might provide. A Safety Impact Methodology (SIM), consisting of a software-based simulation model together with a set of objective tests for evaluating backing crash countermeasures, will be developed to estimate the harm reduction potential of specific countermeasures. Included in the SIM's methods for estimating potential safety benefits will be a consideration of assessing and modeling unintentional potential disbenefits that might arise from a countermeasure. Observations While these technology applications may eventually prove viable, because of their early stages of development it is not possible at this time to assess their ability to effectively expand the visible area behind a vehicle. Similarly, the completion of NHTSA's advanced technology research effort is not expected until calendar year 2011 and thus will not occur prior to the Congressional deadline. The agency seeks comments on the timeframe for the commercial availability of these technologies, and on any other advanced technology developments not identified here. F. Summary and Questions Regarding Technologies for Improving Rear Visibility Given the mandate from Congress to improve the rear visibility of vehicles, NHTSA's preliminary assessment of the known research to date seems to indicate that RV systems have greater potential to improve vehicles' rear visibility than sensor-based rear object detection systems and rear-mounted convex mirrors. However, we believe it is premature to limit manufacturers' design options at this time. To this end, we put forth the following questions and solicit comments on our assessments of these technologies, and any information on the feasibility of alternative approaches or systems. (1) While the objective to “expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind” the vehicle implies enhancement of what a driver can visually see behind a vehicle, the language of the K.T. Safety Act also mentions that the “standard may be met by the provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or other technology.” NHTSA seeks comment regarding the ability of object detection sensor technology to improve visibility and comply with the requirements of the Act. (2) What specific customer feedback have OEMs received regarding vehicles equipped with rear parking sensor systems? Have any component reliability or maintenance issues arisen? Is sensor performance affected by any aspect of ambient weather conditions? (3) What specific customer feedback have OEMs received regarding vehicles equipped with rearview video systems? Have any rearview video system component reliability or maintenance issues arisen? (4) What are the performance and usability characteristics of rearview video systems and rear-mounted convex mirrors in low light (e.g., nighttime) conditions? (5) Is there data available regarding consumers' and vehicle manufacturers' research regarding backing speed limitation, haptic feedback to the driver, or use of automatic braking? (6) What types of rear visibility countermeasures are anticipated to be implemented in the vehicle fleet through the 2012 timeframe? (7) Can rear-mounted convex mirrors be installed on light vehicles other than SUVs and vans? What is the rationale for U.S. manufacturers' choosing to install rear parking sensors and video cameras, rather than rear-mounted convex mirrors as are commonly installed on SUVs and minivans in Korea and Japan? NHTSA is particularly interested in any information on the effectiveness of rear-mounted convex mirrors in Korea and Japan. (8) NHTSA seeks any available research data documenting the effectiveness of rear convex cross-view mirrors in specifically addressing backover crashes. (9) NHTSA seeks comment and data on whether it is possible to provide an expanded field of view behind the vehicle using only rear-mounted convex mirrors. (10) NHTSA is aware of research conducted by GM that suggests that drivers respond more appropriately to visual image-based confirmation of object presence than to non-visual image based visual or auditory warnings. Is there additional research on this topic? (11) NHTSA requests input and data on whether the provision of graphical image-based displays (e.g., such as a simplified animation depicting rear obstacles), rather than true-color, photographic visual displays would elicit a similarly favorable crash avoidance response from the driver. (12) To date, rearview video systems examined by NHTSA have displayed to the driver a rear-looking perspective of the area behind the vehicle. Recently introduced systems which provide the driver with a near 360-degree view of the area around the entire vehicle do so using a “birds-eye” perspective using images from four cameras around the vehicle. During backing, it appears that, by default, this birds-eye view image is presented simultaneously along with the traditional rear-facing camera image. NHTSA requests data or input on whether this presentation method is likely to elicit a response from the driver that is at least as favorable as that attained using traditional, rear-view image perspective, or whether this presentation is more confusing for drivers. VI. Drivers' Use and the Associated Effectiveness of Available Technologies To Mitigate Backovers In order to establish effectiveness estimates for different systems which may be utilized to mitigate backover crashes, the agency has conducted research on vehicles equipped with such systems, including those utilizing ultrasonic and radar sensors and rearview video cameras. As with any passive technology, NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to assume that in order for the technology to assist in preventing backing crashes, the driver must use the technology (e.g., look at the video display, if present), perceive the indication that a pedestrian or object is present, and respond quickly, and with sufficient force applied to the brake pedal, to bring the vehicle to a stop. While we have previously discussed the performance of the technologies, this section will outline what the agency knows about driver use and the resulting effectiveness of technologies that could be used to mitigate backover crashes. NHTSA has not conducted system effectiveness research with drivers for all of the four system types discussed in this notice. However, that relevant research NHTSA and industry have conducted is summarized here. A. Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors NHTSA has not conducted research focused on examining driver's use of mirrors to aid in the performance of backing maneuvers. However, NHTSA's study of drivers' use of rearview video systems during staged and naturalistic backing maneuvers did produce data regarding drivers' use of the side and interior rearview mirrors as well as direct glance behavior. 43 This behavior suggests that drivers would use the mirrors. Table 7 shows that the mean percentage of total glance time during a backing maneuver in which drivers glanced at the driver-side mirror, passenger-side mirror, and interior rearview mirror. Independent of the presence of a backing aid, drivers spent over 25 percent of the time during a backing maneuver glancing rearward over their right shoulder. 43 Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney, T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811 024. Table 7—Mean Percentage of Total Glance Time to Mirror Locations for a Backing Maneuver With Staged Obstacle Avoidance Event 44 Glance location Mean percentage of total glance time during a backing maneuver Driver-side Mirror/Driver-side Window 45 15 Interior Rearview Mirror 5 Passenger-side Mirror/Passenger-side Window 46 15 NHTSA is currently engaged in research to examine the performance of these mirrors in displaying images of rear obstacles. While NHTSA has not yet conducted driving research with these mirrors we are planning to conduct research to examine drivers' behavior and ability to avoid crashes with rear-mounted convex mirrors in 2009. Upon completion, this mirror research will be summarized in a published NHTSA report. Along with comments received to this notice, NHTSA hopes to use this research information in the development of a proposal. 44 Id. 45 Note that due to the close proximity of the mirror and window on each side of the vehicle, the driver-side mirror and driver-side window glance locations were impossible to distinguish from each other. 46 Note that due to the close proximity of the mirror and window on each side of the vehicle, the passenger-side mirror and passenger-side window glance locations were impossible to distinguish from each other. B. Rearview Video Systems NHTSA has conducted and we are aware of some work conducted by GM that examined drivers' use of rearview video based backing aids and their ability to use them to mitigate crashes. Below is a brief summary of this research. NHTSA Experimental Research: On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems NHTSA conducted experimental research aimed to determine whether drivers look at the RV display during backing. While hardware performance testing has shown the rearview video systems can provide to the driver an image of any obstacles behind the vehicle in the RV system's field of view, the driver must take the initiative to look at the display throughout the backing maneuver in order for the RV system to provide any benefit. The goal of this study was to further our understanding of the degree to which drivers may actively use RV systems while backing and whether the provision of such visual information will translate into decreased backing and backover incidents. This study also provided information useful in estimating the effectiveness of RV and supplemental sensors, in aiding drivers to avoid a backing crash. For example, the number of times per backing maneuver that a driver looked at the RV screen was tabulated. A driver that looks at the screen more often is more likely to notice when an obstacle appears. A look at the beginning of a backing maneuver is less likely to result in a driver's detection of an obstacle than would frequent checking of the screen throughout the maneuver. Drivers' use of rearview video systems was observed during staged and naturalistic backing maneuvers to determine whether drivers look at the RV display during backing and whether use of the system affects backing behavior. 47 Thirty-seven test participants, aged 25 to 60 years, were comprised of twelve drivers of RV-equipped vehicles, thirteen drivers of vehicles equipped with an RV system and a rear parking sensor system, and twelve drivers of vehicles with no backing aid system. All three system conditions were presented using original equipment configurations of the 2007 Honda Odyssey minivan. All participants had driven and owned a 2007 Honda Odyssey minivan as their primary vehicle for at least six months. Participants were not aware that the focus of the study was on their behavior and performance during backing maneuvers. 47 Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney, T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811 024. Participants drove their own vehicles for a period of four weeks in their normal daily activities while backing maneuvers were recorded. At the end of four weeks, participants returned to the research lab to have the recording equipment removed. At the lab, the participants took a test drive in which an unexpected 36-inch-tall obstacle consisting of a two-dimensional photograph of a child appeared behind the vehicle during a final backing maneuver. Additional details of the test method are provided in Appendix B of this notice. The results of the naturalistic driving and unexpected obstacle scenario are provided below. Results for Naturalistic Driving • A total of 6,145 naturalistic backing maneuvers were recorded in the study, none of which resulted in a significant collision; however, some collisions (i.e., with trash receptacles and other parked vehicles) occurred during routine backing. • In the real-world backing situations, drivers equipped with RV systems spent 8 to 12 percent of the time looking at the RV display during backing maneuvers. • On average, drivers made 2.17 glances per backing maneuver with the RV-only system, and 1.65 glances per maneuver with the RV and sensor system. • Overall, drivers looked at least once at the RV display on approximately 65 percent of backing events, and looked more than once at the RV display on approximately 40 percent of backing events. Results for Unexpected Obstacle Maneuver • Drivers with an RV system made 13 to 14 percent of glances at the RV video display during the initial phase of backing in the staged maneuvers, independent of system presence. • Drivers spent over 25 percent of backing time looking over their right shoulder in the staged backing maneuvers. • Only participants who looked at the RV display more than once during the maneuver avoided a crash during the staged crash-imminent obstacle event. • Results indicated that the RV system was associated with a statistically significant (28 percent) reduction in crashes with the unexpected obstacle as compared to participants without an RV system. All participants in the “no system” condition crashed, since the staged obstacle event scenario was designed such that drivers without an RV system could not see the obstacle. Results of this study indicate that drivers looked at the RV display in approximately 14 percent of glances in baseline and obstacle events and 10 percent of glances in naturalistic backing maneuvers. The agency recognized that the timing and frequency of drivers' glances at the RV display has a noticeable impact on the likelihood of rear obstacle detection. However, making single or multiple glances at the RV display at the start of the maneuver does not ensure that the path behind the vehicle will remain clear for the entire backing maneuver. Overall, this study estimates that video-based backing systems would mitigate approximately 28 to 42 percent of backover crashes 48 . 48 Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney, T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811 024. GM Experimental Research on Driver Performance Using Video-Based Backing Aid Systems GM conducted research to investigate ways to assist drivers in recognizing people or objects behind their vehicle while performing backing maneuvers. 49 One study compared parking behaviors for rear camera and ultrasonic rear parking assist systems together, separately, and under traditional parking conditions (i.e., neither system). An obstacle was placed unexpectedly behind a driver's vehicle prior to the start of a backing maneuver to assess the driver's performance in obstacle detection and avoidance. 50 Twenty-four participants struck the obstacle, while five participants avoided the obstacle. Of those participants who avoided the obstacle, three saw the obstacle while looking at the RV display (two in the RV system condition, one in the ultrasonic rear park assist and RV system condition), one saw the obstacle in their mirror (ultrasonic rear park assist and RV system condition), and one participant noticed the obstacle out of the back window (RV system condition). These results indicated that participants with an RV system were less likely to be involved in a backing incident. 49 Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982. 50 McLaughlin, S.B., Hankey, J.M., Green, C.A., and Kiefer, R.J. (2003). Driver Performance Evaluation of Two Rear Parking Aids. Proceedings of the 2003 Enhanced Safety Vehicle Conference. GM also sponsored a second research study to evaluate driver performance with rear camera systems. 51 In this study, each participant parked their vehicle using a rear camera and ultrasonic system more than 30 times, including practice trials. During one scenario, participants, unaware that an experimenter placed an obstacle behind the vehicle, were asked to perform a backing maneuver to engage the ultrasonic rear park assist and the rear camera system. In some cases, a flashing symbol was employed in the approximate location of the rear obstacle as presented on the video display screen. While there were no statistically significant effects of either the symbol or the location of the obstacle, 65 percent of participants avoided the obstacle. Greater experience with the camera system and an increased number of trials presented that involved a ruse may have attributed to a higher object avoidance rate in this study than compared to the first study. 51 Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982. Overall, GM's research on rearview video systems suggested that RV systems may provide limited benefit in some backing scenarios. 52 52 Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982. C. Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems NHTSA and GM have both conducted research on drivers' use of sensor-based backing aids and their ability to use them to mitigate crashes. Below is a brief summary of this research. NHTSA Experimental Research: Driver Performance With Rearview Video and Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems NHTSA's study of drivers' use of rearview video systems (discussed in detail earlier in this document) also involved an observation of drivers of vehicles equipped with both an RV system and an ultrasonic-based rear parking sensor system. The rear parking sensor system tested detected the obstacle and provided a warning indication of the presence of a rear obstacle to the driver in 38 percent (5 out of 13) of the event trials for participants with vehicles equipped with the combination system. Four of these 5 participants crashed into the obstacle. The test vehicle involved in the study had a control that allowed the driver to disable the parking sensor system. During the course of this study, half of the participants whose vehicles were equipped with a rear parking sensor system either stated or were observed to have turned the system off at least some of the time. Four participants made unsolicited comments to members of the research staff about turning off the rear parking sensor system on their vehicle. 53 One of the four participants reported that he just did not use it. The three other participants stated that they frequently turned the rear parking sensor system off when driving through a restaurant drive-through lane due to nuisance alarms (i.e., audible notifications of the presence of vehicles that the driver is already aware of). A sixth participant did not comment on not using the system, but was observed having the rear parking sensor system on their vehicle switched off during their initial meeting visit. This tendency for some drivers to turn the rear parking sensor system off causes NHTSA to be concerned about the potential for this technology to be effective in mitigating backover incidents. 53 Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney, T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811 024. GM Experimental Research on Driver Performance Using Sensor-Based Backing Aid Systems GM sponsored a study on the effectiveness of auditory backing warnings provided by a rear object detection system. 54 The study found that only 13 percent of drivers avoided hitting an unexpected obstacle, and over 87 percent of the drivers collided with the obstacle following the warning. Sixty-eight percent of drivers provided with the warning demonstrated precautionary behaviors in response to the warning, such as covering the brake with their foot, tapping the brake, or braking completely. While 44 percent of participants braked, these braking levels were generally insufficient to avoid a collision. Although data provides some evidence that warnings influenced driver behavior, warnings were unreliable in terms of their ability to induce drivers to immediately brake to a complete stop. 54 Green, C. and Deering, R. (2006). Driver Performance Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982. This study further suggests that knowledge and experience with a backing warning system may not significantly improve immediate driver response to a backing warning. While specific training on the operation of the system was provided to eight drivers, only one avoided the obstacle. In each case, drivers reported that they did not expect to encounter an obstacle in their backing path. Many drivers also reported that they searched for an obstacle following the warning, but “didn't see anything” and continued their backing maneuver. These perceptions suggest that drivers' expectations are important when seeking to influence driver behavior. NHTSA Experimental Research: Driver Performance With Sensor-Based Rear Object Detection Systems NHTSA is currently engaged in research to assess drivers' ability to avoid backing crashes in a vehicle equipped with only a sensor-based rear object detection system. This work is scheduled to be completed in 2009 and will be summarized in a published NHTSA report thereafter. Along with comments received to this notice, NHTSA hopes to use this research information in the development of a proposal. D. Multi-Technology (Sensor + Camera) Systems NHTSA has not conducted research examining drivers' use of any integrated, multi-technology systems designed to aid drivers in performing backing maneuvers. However, NHTSA's study of drivers' use of rearview video systems (discussed in detail earlier in this document) involved an observation of drivers of vehicles equipped with both an RV system and an ultrasonic-based rear parking sensor system that functioned independently. Data from this study indicated that equipping a vehicle with a rear object detection system and an RV system that are not integrated resulted in lesser backing crash avoidance effectiveness than attainable with RV alone. Although statistically not significant due to the relatively small number of test participants, more participants with vehicles equipped with both an RV and a rear parking sensor system (85 percent) crashed into an obstacle than did those (58 percent) driving vehicles equipped with only an RV system. However, the fact that the rear parking sensor system only detected the obstacle in 38 percent of test trials may help explain the result if the drivers relied on the sensor system first. NHTSA's research on the performance of currently available sensor-based systems in detecting rear obstacles has shown their performance to be inconsistent, particularly in the detection of small children. It is possible that those performance deficits for sensor-based rear object detection systems could have a negative impact on the overall effectiveness of RV systems, particularly if drivers rely on the sensor system's auditory alerts to cue them to look at the RV display. During our study, drivers of the vehicles with RV and sensors looked at the RV system visual display less frequently than did drivers of the same vehicle equipped with only the RV system. NHTSA seeks comment on whether there is research that would indicate why this would occur or if others have found a similar trend. E. Summary Table 8 presents a summary of the estimated effectiveness information for systems that may aid in the mitigation of backover incidents that NHTSA has collected to date. Estimates for system performance in detecting rear obstacles and overall effectiveness based on driver use are listed separately. System performance for rearview video systems was assumed to be 100 percent, since these systems have the capability to show any object within their field of view. System performance for sensor-based systems is based on object detection rates seen in the obstacle avoidance event presented in the study of drivers' use of rearview video systems. 55 Overall effectiveness values for rearview video systems alone and combined with a rear parking sensor system are based on results of NHTSA's study of drivers' use of rearview video systems. The value for rear parking sensor systems is calculated based on a combination of the 39 percent object detection rate from the study of drivers' use of rearview video systems and additional data that NHTSA has collected. We note that GM's study of drivers' use of backing warning systems found that only 13 percent of drivers were able to avoid a crash with a rear obstacle in a staged scenario using a rear parking sensor system. 56 55 Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney, T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811 024. 56 General Motors (2006). Driver Performance Research Regarding Systems for Use While Backing. Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 2006-01-1982. Table 8—Estimated System Performance and Overall Effectiveness Countermeasure System performance in object detection— percent detections Percent overall effectiveness (technology + driver) Rear-Mounted Convex Mirrors (Research underway) (Research underway). Rearview Video 100 42 57 . Rearview Video + Sensors 100 15 58 . Sensors 39 59 17.66 60 (estimate). F. Questions (1) NHTSA has not conducted research to estimate a drivers' ability to avoid crashes with a backing crash countermeasure system based only on sensor technology. We request any available data documenting the effectiveness of backing crash countermeasure systems based only on sensor technology in aiding drivers in mitigating backing crashes. (2) NHTSA has not conducted research to estimate drivers' ability to avoid crashes with a backing crash countermeasure system based on multiple, integrated technologies (e.g., rear parking sensors and rearview video functions in one integrated system). We request any available objective data documenting the effectiveness of multi-technology backing crash countermeasure systems in mitigating backing crashes. We also request comment on what types of technology combinations industry may consider feasible for use in improving rear visibility. 57 Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney, T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811 024. 58 Id. 59 Id. 60 PRIA, section V. (3) NHTSA requests any available data documenting the image quality of rear-mounted convex mirrors and their effectiveness in aiding drivers in preventing backing crashes. (4) NHTSA requests any available additional objective research data documenting the effectiveness of sensor-based, rearview video, mirror, or combination systems that may aid in mitigating backover incidents. (5) NHTSA requests information regarding mounting limitations for rear-mounted convex mirrors. VII. Rear Visibility of Current Vehicles The degree of direct rear visibility (i.e., what a driver can directly see with or without the aid of non-required mirrors or other devices) in a particular vehicle depends on a number of factors, including the driver's size and various aspects of the vehicle's design, such as the width of a vehicle's structural pillars (i.e., B and C pillars) and the size of its window openings. Rear seat head restraints can also affect direct rear visibility. 61 Additionally, due to their geometries and the position of a driver's eyes with respect to the bottom of the rear window (or top edge of a pickup truck's tailgate), vehicles with greater overall height and length are likely to have larger rear blind zone areas than shorter vehicles. 61 Note that 49 CFR Sec. 571.111 Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors, Section 5.1.1 states that “The line of sight may be partially obscured by seated occupants or by head restraints.” To assess a vehicle's rear visibility and how it varies from vehicle to vehicle, in 2007, 62 NHTSA measured the rear visibility characteristics of 44 recent-model light vehicles. 63 NHTSA's measurements involved assessment of the visibility of a visual target over an area stretching 35 feet to either side of the vehicle's centerline, 90 feet back from the vehicle's rear bumper, and 20 feet forward of the rear bumper. Rear visibility metrics were calculated using a subset of this area measuring 60 feet wide by 50 feet long (3000 square feet). The agency selected a 29.4-inch-tall visual target representing the approximate height of a 1-year-old child and the youngest walking potential backover victims. Rear visibility was measured for both a 50th percentile adult male driver (69.1 inches tall) and a 5th percentile adult female driver (59.8 inches tall). The areas over which the visual target was visually discernible using direct glances (i.e., looking out vehicle windows) and indirect glances (i.e., looking into side or interior rearview mirrors) were determined. 62 Mazzae, E.N., Garrott, W.R. (2008). Light Vehicle Rear Visibility Assessment. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 810 909. 63 Measured vehicles included the ten top-selling passenger cars and light trucks for calendar year 2006. While NHTSA measured the area indirectly visible to the driver in the side and interior rearview mirrors, we focused our assessment on direct rear visibility in order to assess the degree to which the vehicle's structure affects what a driver can see out the vehicle's windows. This permitted an assessment of how rear visibility is affected by a vehicle's structure and allowed for better vehicle comparison since this metric varied more than would rear visibility measured using both direct vision and indirect vision devices together. In other words, considering both direct and indirect rear visibility together would allow less room for distinguishing between the qualities of rear visibility amongst vehicles. Examples of the measured direct fields of view for four common vehicles types are shown in Figures 5-8. BILLING CODE 4910-59-P EP04MR09.004 EP04MR09.005 EP04MR09.006 EP04MR09.007 BILLING CODE 4910-59-C Through this study, NHTSA estimated that rear blind zone areas 64 for individual vehicles ranged from approximately 100 to 1,440 square feet over the 3,000 square-foot measurement area. When summarized by vehicle category and curb weight (as a surrogate indicator for vehicle size), as illustrated in Figure 9, the data shows that average direct-view rear blind zone areas varied within these groups. The greatest range of direct-view rear blind zone area size was seen for the 4,000-5,000 lb SUV group. Figure 10 illustrates that SUVs (as a whole) were associated with the largest average direct-view rear blind zone area as well as the largest range of values for the four body types examined. Overall, LTVs (vans, pickups, and SUVs) as a vehicle class were observed to have larger rear blind zone areas than passenger cars, as indicated in Figure 10. 64 “Rear blind zone area” is defined here to mean the area in square feet within a 50-foot wide by 60-foot long area and at ground level over which a 29.4-inch-tall object is visible using direct vision. EP04MR09.008 EP04MR09.009 For all 44 vehicles, NHTSA also measured the distance behind the vehicle at which the visual target could first be seen, i.e., the direct-view rear longitudinal sight distance. Average direct-view rear longitudinal sight distances were determined by mathematically averaging eight longitudinal sight distance measurements taken in 1-foot increments across the rear of each vehicle. As illustrated in Figure 11, LTVs generally had longer rear longitudinal sight distances than passenger cars. Exceptions to this trend included a few small pickup trucks for which average direct-view rear sight distance values were in the vicinity of those measured for smaller passenger cars, as shown in Figure 12. Average direct-view rear sight distance values were longest for a full-size van, SUVs and pickup trucks with a curb weight of 4,000 lbs or greater. EP04MR09.010 EP04MR09.011 Overall, our direct-view rear visibility measurements indicated that LTVs measured in this study exhibited worse rear visibility when compared with passenger cars, but there was overlap amongst all vehicle categories. VIII. Relationship Between Rear Visibility and Backing/Backover Crashes Using the direct-view rear blind zone area and longitudinal sight distance measurements 65 discussed in the prior section, NHTSA investigated whether a statistical relationship could be identified between these metrics and all backing crashes, as well as backover crashes (i.e., the subset of backing crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist being struck by a backing vehicle). 66 NHTSA assessed the relationship between real world backing/backover crashes and rear visibility based on three metrics: average rear longitudinal sight distance, direct-view rear visibility measurements for a 50 feet long by 60 feet wide 67 test area, and direct-view rear visibility for a 50 feet long by 20 feet wide 68 test area. 65 Mazzae, E.N., Garrott, W.R. (2008). Light Vehicle Rear Visibility Assessment. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 810 909. 66 Partyka, S., Direct-View Rear Visibility and Backing Risk for Light Passenger Vehicles (2008). 67 This area was chosen because it was the largest available measurement area for the facility in which these measurements were conducted. 68 The 50 feet long by 20 feet wide test area was examined to assess how much of the area behind the vehicle was critical to consider for rear visibility in relation to the prevention of backover incidents. Backing risk was estimated from police-reported crashes in the State Data System. 69 To calculate risk, backing rates were derived for 21 vehicle groups with vehicles that had at least 25 backing crashes to account for statistical variability. Backing rate data were provided by the following states for the specified calendar years: 69 The states provide annual files of their police-reported data under voluntary agreements with NHTSA. These are collected by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Office of Data Acquisition. The data are available for agency use. Public release of any of the files requires written approval from the individual state. • Alabama (2000-2003) • Florida (2000-2005) • Georgia (2000-2005) • Illinois (2000-2005) • Kansas (2001-2006) • Kentucky (2000-2005) • Maryland (2000-2005) • Michigan (2004-2006) • Missouri (2000-2005) • Nebraska (2000-2004) • New Mexico (2001-2006) • New York (2000) • North Carolina (2000-2005) • Pennsylvania (2000-2001, 2003-2005) • Utah (2000-2004) • Washington (2002-2005) • Wisconsin (2000-2005) • Wyoming (2000-2005) Simple correlation analysis 70 revealed an association between direct-view rear blind zone area and backing crash risk. Specifically, larger blind zone areas tended to be associated with a greater risk of being involved in a backing crash. A statistically significant relationship 71 between backing crash risk and direct-view rear blind zone area was discovered for both test areas, suggesting that this metric is a sensitive predictor of backing crash risk. However, in this analysis, the association between average rear longitudinal sight distance and backing risk was found to be weaker and not statistically significant due to the relatively small number of backover incidents, suggesting that this metric is not a sensitive predictor of backing crash risk. 72 70 A simple correlation measures the strength of the statistical relationship between two variables. For example, one can graph two variables (such as the real-world risk of being involved in a backing crash as a function of laboratory measures of rear visibility) as a scatter plot. A simple correlation analysis measures how closely the plot resembles a line. If the plot suggests a line, then we might conclude that the laboratory measures are useful in predicting real-world involvements. However, it is difficult to use this approach if one suspects that there are complicating (confounding) factors that affect the simple comparison between two variables. 71 r=0.51, p=0.02. 72 r=0.26. Logistic analysis 73 for the risk of a backover incident produced results that approached statistical significance for the rear blind zone area metrics, with a similar trend and magnitude as those for all backing crashes. Vehicles with the largest blind zone areas had 2-3 times the risk of a backover incident than those vehicles with the smallest blind zone areas. 74 Conversely, estimated results for the risk of backover using rear longitudinal sight distance were not statistically significant. 73 A logistic analysis allows us to account for complicating factors (such as systematic differences in how vehicles are used and by whom) by including them in a statistical model. This model predicts the risk of a crash being a backing crash as a function the laboratory measures of rear visibility after removing (controlling for) the effects of measurable complicating factors. 74 Partyka, S., Direct-View Rear Visibility and Backing Risk for Light Passenger Vehicles (2008). IX. Options for Mitigating Backover Incidents Using rear blind zone area as a metric, NHTSA's research seems to indicate that there is a range of performance amongst vehicles and that LTVs on average had worse rear visibility than passenger cars. NHTSA also found a statistically significant correlation between rear blind zone area and backing crashes. Finally, our crash data appear to indicate that LTVs are overrepresented in backing and backover crashes. Based on these findings, NHTSA has identified potential approaches to improve rear visibility and to address the backing and backover crash risks for passenger vehicles. A. Approaches for Improving Vehicles' Rear Visibility One approach would be to eliminate all rear blind zones by requiring that all vehicles have a rear blind zone size of 0 sq. ft. (i.e., no rear blind zone). Such a requirement would be met by a visibility enhancement countermeasure that allowed the driver to see or otherwise determine that a pedestrian is in a specified zone behind the vehicle. This strategy would improve rear visibility for all vehicles. Alternatively, NHTSA could specify that all LTVs as a vehicle class have no rear blind zone since our crash data indicated that this vehicle category seems to be overrepresented in backing and backover crashes. This alternative would target the class of vehicles which are disproportionately responsible for the largest portion of backover fatalities. Another approach would be to establish a maximum rear blind zone area limit (based on crash rate) that all vehicles, or LTVs as a vehicle class, would have to meet. 75 The threshold would be applied to all vehicles, such that any vehicle not meeting the minimum rear visibility threshold would be required to be equipped with a rear visibility countermeasure. Because styling engineers would have a target threshold giving them an idea of minimum “acceptable” rear visibility, such an approach would allow manufacturers the flexibility to consider and improve those attributes of a vehicle that contribute to rear visibility since they would have the option of not having to provide a rear visibility enhancement countermeasure. Depending on how high or low the threshold was set, for example, the agency could focus countermeasure application on vehicles with the largest rear blind zone areas and those vehicles that are most involved in backing and backover crashes. 75 Additional details on how a rear blind zone area based threshold might be developed are in Appendix D. Using these approaches, NHTSA offers our preliminary information regarding the benefits and costs of various scenarios. B. Cost Benefit Scenarios For the relevant technologies, we have generated estimates using two different types of video cameras available in the market today and two different types of object detection sensors. For rearview video systems, some manufacturers are using cameras with a 130-degree field of view while others are using ones with a 180-degree field of view. These are noted as “130 ° Camera” and “180 ° Camera,” respectively. Note that these angular values are camera specifications and indicate the angle of view with respect to the center of the camera lens and not the center of the rear of the vehicle. Due to styling issues, cameras on some vehicle models may be mounted off-center and, as a result, their fields of view may not be symmetrical with respect to the center of the vehicle's rear bumper. The sensor technologies included in the estimates are ultrasonic and radar. It should be noted that given our lack of information regarding the effectiveness of mirrors, we could not generate a cost benefit scenario using this technology. Using various scenarios, NHTSA has developed preliminary estimates of the costs and benefits for improving rear visibility assuming 16.6 million (8.5 million LTVs and 8.1 million passenger cars) total vehicles. 76 One scenario involves the application of a rear visibility countermeasure to all vehicles and a second assumes that a countermeasure is applied to all LTVs and no passenger vehicles. Given that a rear visibility threshold has not yet been established and that NHTSA has not measured all vehicle models sold in the U.S. to determine their rear blind zone areas, two additional, hypothetical scenarios were considered. One scenario assumes that a rear visibility countermeasure would be required for all LTVs and any passenger cars that do not comply with the rear visibility threshold (hypothetically assumed to encompass 25 percent of vehicles). 77 Another scenario assumes that a rear visibility countermeasure would be required for any light vehicle that does not comply with the rear visibility threshold (hypothetically assumed to encompass 75 percent of LTVs and 25 percent of passenger cars). 78 Table 9 presents the overall range of costs and benefits across these four scenarios. 76 This sales figure represents 2007 vehicle sales. For the subsequent NPRM, updated sales figures will be used. 77 To illustrate this approach, this example scenario assumes that 25 percent of passenger cars will not comply with the rear visibility threshold. 78 To illustrate this approach, this example scenario assumes that 75 percent of LTVs and 25 percent of passenger cars will not comply with the rear visibility threshold. Table 9—Preliminary Benefits and Costs Estimates—Across Four Countermeasure Application Scenarios 79 Countermeasure technology options Net cost (does not consider vehicles already equipped with RV) (in $M) Cost per life saved (in $M) Total fatalities avoided Total injuries avoided RV with 130 ° Camera and Interior Mirror Display $1,153-$2,577 $16.17-$57.27 26-69 1,279-5,189 RV with 130 ° Camera and In-Dash Display 981-2,294 15.69-56.41 26-69 1,279-5,189 RV with 180 ° Camera and Interior Mirror Display 1,325-3,005 13.76-50.99 31-82 1,689-6,141 RV with 180 ° Camera and In-Dash Display 1,234-2,811 14.61-52.76 31-82 1,689-6,141 Ultrasonic Rear Object Detection System 277-766 11.25-33.84 5-24 399-1,793 Radar Rear Object Detection System 571-1,397 21.02-49.84 6-26 479-1,976 Rear-mounted Convex Mirrors (Research in progress) Additional details regarding these calculations can be found in the preliminary regulatory impact analysis document, “Rear Visibility Technologies: FMVSS No. 111.” NHTSA will continue to gather information on price and vehicle equipment trends for use in refining these estimates of costs and benefits for improving rear visibility. 79 Cost calculations presented in Table 9 assume a 3 percent discount rate. Values also consider ranges of effectiveness for the technologies listed. Additional details regarding these calculations can be found in the PRIA. C. Questions NHTSA requests comments on benefits and costs for rear visibility enhancement countermeasures and the possibility of developing a rear blind zone area based minimum acceptable rear visibility threshold. Specific questions are as follows: (1) NHTSA seeks comment on the areas behind a vehicle that may be most important to consider when improving rear visibility. Furthermore, while the distribution of visible area behind the vehicle was not considered in the blind zone area metrics (e.g., rear blind zone area) discussed in this document, it may be helpful to specify some specific areas behind the vehicle that must be visible. (2) NHTSA invites comment as to how an actual threshold based on vehicles' rear blind zone area could be defined. (3) For vehicles whose rear visibility does not meet a required minimum threshold and thus require a countermeasure, OEMs may decide to further alter the styling of the rear of the vehicle to the detriment of direct rear visibility (e.g., making the rear window a tiny, circular porthole). Based on the fact that NHTSA's research 80 showed that drivers of RV-equipped vehicles glanced at least one time at the RV display in only 65 percent of backing maneuvers, maintaining good direct rear visibility may be important for the other 35 percent of cases in which the RV system is not used. Therefore, NHTSA is considering specifying a minimum portion of a vehicle's rear visibility that must be provided via direct vision (i.e., without the use of mirrors or other indirect vision device). NHTSA seeks comments on this approach, such as input regarding how a minimum threshold should be specified, and how much of a vehicle's rear area should be visible via direct vision? 80 Mazzae, E.N., Barickman, F.S., Baldwin, G.H.S., and Ranney, T.A. (2008). On-Road Study of Drivers' Use of Rearview Video Systems (ORSDURVS). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT 811 024. (4) NHTSA requests information regarding anticipated costs for rear visibility enhancement countermeas [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AE9-4500. Public record. Not legal advice.