Relationship between pedestrian detection specifications of parking sensor and potential safety benefits.

Measures to protect vulnerable road users during low-speed maneuvers are required. For example, systems that use cameras to display the vehicle's rearview are popular. However, some vehicles are difficult to equip with a rear view camera system. To avoid a crash when driving in reverse, it is also effective to identify the presence of pedestrians via an audible warning using a device (e.g., clearance sonar). It may be cheaper to install than a rearview camera system. Installation cost is also important for the spread of equipment that reduces a crash. It is necessary to clarify the minimum specifications that balance cost and reduce crashes. Device specifications (e.g., detection distance and response delay) may affect the crash reduction rate. There should be a detection distance required for the sonar to have the same crash reduction effect as the rear view camera system. Thus, in this study, we conducted experiments and obtained data about how a vehicle moves and driver reactions to audible warnings when driving in reverse. Based on the acquired data, a numerical simulation was performed to determine whether a driver could avoid a crash under various circumstances. As a result, it was shown that the clearance sonar must have a detection distance of 0.8 m or more to expect the same effect as a rearview camera system. In other words, to expect sonar to have the same performance as a rearview camera, a detection distance of at least 0.8 m should be set as a specification.

Engineering movement into automotive seating: Does the driver feel more comfortable and refreshed?

The concept of introducing movement in automotive seating was investigated. Three seat conditions, a control (no movement) and two movement conditions (fore-aft and cushion-backrest) were compared. Movement was introduced at a fixed speed, slow, smooth and within a small range. Ten participants took part in a 60 min simulated drive for each condition - single blind, repeated measures, and balanced order. Discomfort ratings were collected for six body areas and overall discomfort, together with a wellbeing questionnaire. Driver posture and Seat Fidgets and Movements (SFMs) were captured. There was a trend for lower ratings of discomfort, overall and in the neck, shoulders, lower back, buttocks, and ankles with both seat movement conditions. Wellbeing ratings were also better with movement. Significant differences were found at minute 60 for buttock discomfort - less discomfort with seat movement. Overall discomfort and SFMs frequency increased with time driving. Generally, passive seat movement was well received.