Can Headway Reduction in Fog Be Explained by Impaired Perception of Relative Motion?

Objective: The goal of this study was to provide a better understanding of driver behavior in fog. Background: Impaired perception of changes in headway is hypothesized to be one of the reasons for shorter following distances in foggy conditions as compared with clear weather. Method: In the experiments described here, we measured response time for discriminating between whether the vehicle ahead is getting closer or farther away. Several visibility conditions were studied, ranging from a no-fog condition to a condition in which the vehicle could be seen only by its rear fog lights. Results: Fog conditions increased response times when the outline of the vehicle was barely visible or not visible at all. The longer response times in fog were attributable to the low contrast of the vehicle outline when still visible and to the smaller spacing between the two lights when the outline could not be properly perceived. Moreover, response times were found to be shorter for shorter following distances and for faster accelerations. Conclusion: Reducing headway could be a way for drivers to achieve faster discrimination of relative motion in foggy weather. More specifically, shortening one’s following distance until visibility of the lead vehicle changes from bad to good may have a perceptual control benefit, insofar as the response time gain compensates for the reduction in headway under these conditions. Applications: Potential applications include improving traffic safety. The results provide a possible explanation for close following in fog and point out the importance of rear-light design under these conditions.

[1]  R. Snowden,et al.  The Effect of Contrast upon Perceived Speed: A General Phenomenon? , 1999, Perception.

[2]  H Summala,et al.  Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving. , 1999, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  D. Proffitt.  CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Distance Perception , 2022 .

[4]  S. Nishida,et al.  Contrast Sensitivity of the Motion System , 1996, Vision Research.

[5]  S Krafczyk,et al.  OBJECT‐MOTION DETECTION AFFECTED BY CONCURRENT SELF‐MOTION PERCEPTION: APPLIED ASPECTS FOR VEHICLE GUIDANCE , 1987, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[6]  Rudolf G. Mortimer.  The Value of an Accelerator Release Signal , 1971 .

[7]  D J Jeffery,et al.  SOME ASPECTS OF MOTORWAY TRAFFIC BEHAVIOUR IN FOG , 1980 .

[8]  F. Quere,et al.  Analyse spectrale des mouvements de volant par temps de brouillard sur simulateur de conduite , 1991 .

[9]  Stuart Anstis,et al.  Moving objects appear to slow down at low contrasts , 2003, Neural Networks.

[10]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

[11]  Giselle Paulmier.  Fog Luminance Evaluation in Daytime , 2002 .

[12]  E R Hoffmann,et al.  Scaling of relative velocity between vehicles. , 1996, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[13]  Stephen T. Hammett,et al.  Speed can go up as well as down at low contrast: Implications for models of motion perception , 2006, Vision Research.

[14]  V. Cavallo,et al.  La surestimation de la distance intervéhiculaire dans le brouillard , 2000 .

[15]  C Berthelon,et al.  PERCEPTION OF ROAD USERS' MOTION , 2002 .

[16]  George J. Andersen,et al.  Effects of Reduced Visibility from Fog on Car-Following Performance , 2008 .

[17]  L. O. Harvey,et al.  Detectability of relative motion as a function of exposure duration, angular separation, and background , 1974 .

[18]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Car Backlight Position and Fog Density Bias Observer-Car Distance Estimates and Time-to-Collision Judgments , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[19]  John A. Michon,et al.  The perception of lead vehicle movement in darkness , 1976 .

[20]  Don Scott,et al.  Car following decisions under three visibility conditions and two speeds tested with a driving simulator. , 2007, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[21]  Talib Rothengatter,et al.  Strategic adaptations to lack of preview in driving , 1998 .

[22]  H Summala,et al.  Driving experience and perception of the lead car's braking when looking at in-car targets. , 1998, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[23]  Viola Cavallo,et al.  Distance Perception of Vehicle Rear Lights in Fog , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[24]  Albert Yonas,et al.  Improving the Ability of Drivers to Avoid Collisions with Snowplows in Fog and Snow , 2006 .

[25]  H Ross.  MIST, MURK AND VISUAL PERCEPTION , 1975 .

[26]  Lucien Duckstein,et al.  Variable Perception Time in Car Following and Its Effect on Model Stability , 1970 .

[27]  R. Rothery,et al.  Detection of the Sign of Relative Motion When following a Vehicle , 1974, Human factors.

[28]  Stéphane Caro,et al.  Risky driving in fog: psychological explanations , 2007 .

[29]  Eric Dumont,et al.  Extended Photometric Model of Fog Effects on Road Vision , 2002 .

[30]  Jeroen Hogema,et al.  DRIVING BEHAVIOUR IN FOG: ANALYSIS OF INDUCTIVE LOOP DATA , 1994 .

[31]  S Krafczyk,et al.  Interaction between perceived self-motion and object-motion impairs vehicle guidance. , 1984, Science.

[32]  George J. Andersen,et al.  Optical Information for Car Following: The Driving by Visual Angle (DVA) Model , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[33]  Paulo Noriega,et al.  VEHICLE'S MOTION DETECTION: INFLUENCE OF ROAD LAYOUT AND RELATION WITH VISUAL DRIVER'S ASSESSMENT , 1999 .

[34]  R. Hawkins.  Motorway Traffic Behaviour in Reduced Visibility Conditions , 1988 .

[35]  Stéphane Caro,et al.  Perception et contrôle de la distance intervéhiculaire en condition de brouillard : Etude sur simulateur , 2008 .

[36]  Erwin R. Boer.  A statistical model of looming detection , 1999 .