DOT HS 809 973
`
`December 2005
`
`Assessment of Headlamp Glare and
`Potential Countermeasures
`
`Survey of
`Advanced Front Lighting System (AFS)
`Research and Technology
`
`VWGoA EX1030
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of
`Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
`in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings
`and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the
`author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of
`Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety
`Administration. The United States Government assumes no
`liability for its content or use thereof. If trade or manufacturer’s
`names or products are mentioned, it is because they are
`considered essential to the object of the publication and should not
`be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government
`does not endorse products or manufacturers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Technical Report Documentation Page
`1. Report No.
`2. Government Accession No.
`
`
`DOT HS 809 973
`4. Title and Subtitle
`Assessment of Headlamp Glare and Potential Countermeasures:
`Survey of Advanced Front Lighting System (AFS)
`
`7. Author(s)
`Yukio Akashi, John Van Derlofske, Jennifer Watkinson, Charles
`Fay
`9. Performing Organization Name and Address
`Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
`21 Union St
`Troy, NY 12180
`12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
`National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`NHTSA, NRD-13
`400 7th St SW
`Washington, DC 20590
`15. Supplementary Notes
`Michael Perel was the NHTSA COTR for this project.
`
`3. Recipient's Catalog No.
`
`
`5. Report Date
`December 2005
`6. Performing Organization Code
`
`8. Performing Organization Report No.
`
`
`10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
`
`11. Contract or Grant No.
`DTNH22-99-D-07005
`13. Type of Report and Period Covered
`Task 7 Final Report
`
`
`14. Sponsoring Agency Code
`
`
`16. Abstract
`The goal of advanced front lighting systems (AFS) is to actively control headlamp beam
`patterns to meet the dynamic requirements of changing roadway geometries and visibility
`conditions. AFS is being rapidly introduced worldwide due to its attractive styling aspects and
`potential safety benefits. However, before AFS becomes more aggressively implemented, it is
`necessary to better understand the impacts of AFS on drivers, other vehicles, and
`pedestrians. To achieve this understanding, this survey investigated comments on AFS from
`the NHTSA database (Docket 13957), reviewed relevant literature, and held a phone
`conference with automobile and headlamp manufacturers for industry feedback. The detailed
`results of the survey are described in this report.
`This survey led to a general conclusion that, although a significant number of studies on AFS
`have been done, due to inconsistency in metrics used and lack of information on experimental
`procedure and scenarios, further research is still needed to quantify the effectiveness of AFS.
`In order to evaluate AFS technology, it is important to first identify the appropriate visibility,
`glare, and safety metrics and test methods. Second, based on these common metrics and test
`methods, examine the effectiveness of AFS compared to other vehicle forward lighting
`systems. Based on these findings, two tasks are proposed as future NHTSA research: (1)
`identify appropriate metrics, performance measures, and test scenarios for AFS; and (2)
`develop an AFS prototype for evaluation.
`
`17. Key Words
`headlamp, headlight, disability glare, discomfort glare,
`visibility, AFS, bending beam, town beam, motorway
`beam, adverse weather beam
`19. Security Classif. (of this report)
`Unclassified
`Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
`
`21. No. of Pages
`
`
`22. Price
`
`18. Distribution Statement
`
`
`20. Security Classif. (of this page)
`Unclassified
`Reproduction of completed page authorized
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`

`

`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii
`List of Figures................................................................................................................................ iv
`Section 1: Executive Summary........................................................................................................1
`Section 2: Introduction.....................................................................................................................3
`
`2.1: History of AFS ……………………………………………………...................................3
`
`2.2: Outline of the Eureka Project …………………………………….....................................4
`
`2.3: Objectives and procedure of this study ……………………………………......................4
`
`2.4: Summary of findings ………………………………………………… .............................5
`Section 3: Manufacturer Input……………………………………………………… .....................7
`Section 4: NHTSA Docket Summary............................................................................................10
`Section 5: AFS Literature Review .................................................................................................19
`
`5.1: Relevant literature.............................................................................................................19
`
`5.2: Reviewed literature and summary ....................................................................................19
`
`5.3: Literature review and analysis ..........................................................................................21
`
`5.3.1: Overall benefits and acceptance of AFS .......................................................................21
`
`5.3.2: Bending beam ...............................................................................................................22
`
`5.3.3: Town beam ....................................................................................................................42
`
`5.3.4: Motorway beam .............................................................................................................47
`
`5.3.5: Adverse weather light ....................................................................................................52
`
`5.3.6: Regulations ....................................................................................................................62
`
`5.3.7: Technology ....................................................................................................................65
`
`5.3.8: Other applicable AFS research areas ............................................................................68
`Section 6: Research Needs.............................................................................................................70
`Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................74
`Appendix A: Relevant Literature...................................................................................................75
`Appendix B: Reviewed Literature .................................................................................................79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`List of Tables
`Table 4.1. Failures and corresponding fail-safe modes. (after NAL’s response to Question #17 of
`NHTSA Docket 13957)
`
`Table 5.1. Bending beam methodology summary. Beam type: E = Europe; J = Japan; NA =
`North America.
`
`Table 5.2. Town beam methodology summary. Beam type: E = Europe; J = Japan; NA = North
`America.
`
`Table 5.3. Motorway beam methodology summary. Beam type: E = Europe; J = Japan; NA =
`North America.
`
`Table 5.4. Design goals for basic beams (after Kobayashi et al., 1999).
`
`Table 5.5. Road illumination requirements for an adaptive lighting system.
`
`Table 5.6. Adverse weather light methodology summary. Beam type: E = Europe; J = Japan; NA
`= North America.
`
`Table 5.7. Technology summary. Beam type: E = Europe; J = Japan; NA = North America.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iii
`
`

`

`
`
`List of Figures
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2.1. Proposed AFS beam patterns (from http://visteon.wieck.com/image database).
`
`Figure 2.2. Tucker Torpedo in 1948 (copy right: Smithsonian Institute).
`
`Figure 5.1. Accidents in curves occurring in Washington state, 1993 to 1996. According to HSIS
`Database (after Von Hoffmann, 2001). Solid circles represent nighttime accidents on unlit roads.
`Solid triangles represent daytime accidents.
`
`Figure 5.2. Three forms of dynamic bending beam systems. (1) Two-lamp symmetric swivel (2)
`one-lamp swivel (3) two-lamp asymmetric swivel (after Schwab, 2003).
`
`Figure 5.3. Illuminance of middle of driving lane at entry point of S-curve (Left-hand curve
`turning into right-hand curve, R=30 m, swivel angle=13 degrees; after JARI, 2002).
`
`Figure 5.4. Example of illuminance calculation at a point (after Ikegaya and Ohkawa, 2003).
`
`Figure 5.5. Comparison of eye fixation points (after Diem, 2003).
`
`Figure 5.6. Eye fixation points and bending beam function (after Hara et al., 2001).
`
`Figure 5.7. Glare evaluations using the de Boer rating (after McLaughlin et al., 2003).
`
`Figure 5.8. Glare illuminances (after Sivak et al., 2001). Glare illuminance reaching the eyes of
`an oncoming driver on curves with a radius of 240 m from US and European low beams, with
`nominal aim and a 10 degree beam shift into the curve (also included are illuminances needed for
`a de Boer discomfort glare rating of 4—threshold of glare tolerance).
`
`Figure 5.9. Beam patterns of an adaptive forward headlamp system (after Kalze, 2001).
`
`Figure 5.10. Results of detection distance. RI: ambient roadway illuminance (%), HL: headlamp
`intensity (%) (after Akashi et al., 2003).
`
`Figure 5.11. Results of detection distance with oncoming glare. HL: forward lighting (%), Glare
`or No-glare: with or without oncoming glare (after Akashi et al., 2003)
`
`Figure 5.12. Motorway light distribution (after Damasky and Huhn, 1997). Zones and
`illuminance measured on a screen, 25 m away: 1. overhead signs: E<2 lx, 2. glare area: E<1 lx,
`3. shoulder mounted signs: E< 1.5 lx, 4. fixation area: 25 lx <E< 100 lx, 5. foreground right:
`E>15 lx, 6. fore ground center: 5 lx <E< 25 lx, 7. foreground left: E>15 lx.
`
`Figure 5.13. Mean value of glare luminance of both headlamps, observed from the drivers’ eye
`position at distance d=0m, d=50m. 1: dry, 2: wet road condition (after Freiding, 1999).
`
`Figure 5.14. Illuminance at drivers’ eyes for wet condition as a function of distance. 1: dry, 2:
`wet road condition (after Rosenhahn, 1999).
`
`Figure 5.15. Schematic illustration of modular designed light distribution (after Freiding, 1999).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5.16. Adverse weather light distribution for rain and wet roadway surfaces (after Kalze,
`2001).
`
`Figure 5.17. Distribution of luminance caused by a headlamp system, 1: with both side
`headlamps, 2: with right headlamp, 3: with left headlamp (after Rosenhahn, 2001).
`
`Figure 5.18. Fog luminance distribution as a function of aiming position for a visibility distance
`of 50 m (after Rosenhahn, 2001).
`
`Figure 5.19. A fog light distribution (after Kaltz, 2001).
`
`Figure 5.20. Proposed headlamp inclination angle as a function of visibility distances of fog.
`The vertical axis represents inclination angle of headlamps (after Rosenhahn, 2001).
`
`Figure 5.21. Proposed measurement points to restrict the luminous intensity (after Rosenhahn,
`2001).
`
`Figure 5.22. SAE cornering light legal requirements (after Boebel, 2003; Barton, 2003).
`
`Figure 5.23. ECE cornering light legal requirements (after Boebel, 2003; Barton, 2003).
`
`Figure 5.24. Function structure (after Roslak, 2003).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 1: Executive Summary
`
`The goal of advanced front lighting systems (AFS) is to actively control headlamp beam patterns
`to meet the dynamic requirements of changing roadway geometries and visibility conditions. To
`identify the current state of knowledge regarding AFS, the Lighting Research Center (LRC)
`surveyed comments on AFS from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
`database (Docket 13957), reviewed relevant literature, and held a phone conference with
`automobile and headlamp manufacturers for industry feedback. The following summary gives a
`brief overview of these activities and presents suggestions for future research.
`
`
`Survey of Docket 13957
`The LRC reviewed all comments on Docket 13957 and summarized the responses to the
`questions asked, both from individual drivers and vehicle lighting manufacturers. Unfortunately,
`responses from drivers provided little useful information. However, the fact that most driver
`respondents complained of glare from standard high intensity discharge (HID) lamps implies that
`it is important to reduce glare through the use of AFS.
`
`Manufacturers’ responses, based on results from several studies, suggest that AFS would provide
`positive overall experiences to drivers, oncoming drivers, and pedestrians. Manufacturers also
`stated that AFS will improve drivers’ visibility and will not increase glare to oncoming vehicles.
`
`
`Literature review
`Many studies evaluated several types of AFS functionality by using various evaluation methods.
`Unfortunately, reports on these studies do not generally supply enough information, such as light
`levels, specific beam distributions, and experimental procedures. Additionally, the majority of
`these studies did not use common performance metrics that have been proven to be related to
`traffic safety. These factors make it difficult to reproduce the studies (and thus, the results),
`generalize the findings to other conditions, and ultimately determine the effectiveness of AFS.
`The overall conclusion of this review is that further research is needed to determine useful
`metrics for evaluating and comparing AFS systems.
`
`Regardless of the limitations mentioned, all current research on AFS was reviewed and
`summarized to better understand the current status of AFS.
`
`Specific issues examined in this study
`1. Most AFS functions are reported in recent publications to increase drivers’ visibility and
`reduce glare to oncoming vehicles in certain traffic scenarios. The effect of these AFS
`functions on traffic safety is not yet known.
`2. It is not appropriate to generally apply the results of studies in Europe and Japan to
`headlamps in North America. Differences in headlamp beam patterns between the United
`States and other countries, as well as differences in driving scenarios, are likely to affect
`experimental results.
`3. Target detection tests, illuminance calculations, and subjective evaluations are normally used
`for visibility evaluations. Illuminance and veiling luminance at a driver’s eye are also used to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`evaluate discomfort glare and disability glare. Subjective evaluations using the de Boer rating
`scale is the most common form of discomfort glare evaluation.
`4. Only simplified scenarios are used in recent AFS studies, including straight roads, single
`curves, and S-curves with different curvatures.
`5. To extend those simple scenarios into more practical roadway situations, various complex
`scenarios such as hilly roadways and slightly curved highways need to be considered. It is
`also important to consider headlamp beam patterns for transient periods of time between one
`AFS category and another.
`6. No studies examined behavioral adaptation possibilities from using AFS.
`
`
`Manufacturer input
`The LRC held a phone conference on June 2, 2004 to discuss AFS with automobile and
`automotive lighting manufacturers. In addition to the LRC, eight organizations participated in
`the meeting: Ford, General Motors, General Electric, Guide, Hella, OSRAM SYLVANIA,
`Philips, and Visteon. Two goals were accomplished with this discussion: Input was received
`from each participating organization about their vision of AFS in the near and far term, and
`potential gaps in knowledge on AFS research and implications were identified.
`
`
`Research needs
`This survey found significant conflicts in evaluation of AFS performance among existing studies.
`However, it is difficult to identify the cause of such conflicts, since metrics and evaluation
`methods used in these studies often differ from each other. It is important to establish common
`metrics that will allow for consistent evaluation of the effects of AFS on drivers’ performance
`and safety. Based on this finding, the two tasks should be performed in parallel: (1) identify
`appropriate metrics for AFS; and (2) develop an AFS prototype.
`1. Identify metrics for AFS
`Identify metrics and criteria so as to consistently and meaningfully compare the effects of
`(cid:120)(cid:3)
`AFS functionality on human performance, including visibility, glare, and satisfaction,
`under various scenarios.
`(cid:120)(cid:3) Calculate illuminance/luminance distributions of AFS functions and evaluate their effects
`using the developed metrics and criteria.
`(cid:120)(cid:3) Tie the metrics and criteria to driver behavior (i.e. 100-car naturalistic study) in order to
`determine the potential consequences of AFS on traffic safety.
`2. Develop an AFS prototype
`(cid:120)(cid:3) Develop a prototype to independently develop and evaluate AFS functionality. This
`prototype should be mountable to a vehicle and composed of actuators, sensors, and
`multi-functional headlamps.
`(cid:120)(cid:3) Conduct human performance evaluation studies using the developed AFS prototype.
`These studies should prioritize:
`o Bending beam (individually examine the luminous intensity distribution and
`swiveling algorithm)
`o Dimming under high ambient illumination to reduce glare (town beam)
`o Other functions such as a motorway beam and an adverse weather beam
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 2: Introduction
`
`The goal of Advanced (or Adaptive) Forward (or Front) Lighting Systems (AFS) is to actively
`control headlamp beam patterns to meet the dynamic requirements of changing roadway
`geometries and visibility conditions. In the past, vehicle forward lighting innovations have been
`limited due to the available technology. Recent advances in lamps, reflectors, actuators, sensors,
`and controller technologies now allow a variety of variable beam patterns to be introduced.
`Currently, advanced front lighting systems are categorized by beam “type.” These types are:
`bending beam, town beam, motorway beam, and adverse weather beam (Figure 2.1).
`
`The bending beam is forward lighting with an automatic directional control that turns light into
`road bends in order to direct the available light where it is needed. The town beam is designed
`for use in towns and urban areas and has a symmetrical cutoff, wide throw, and homogeneity
`across the entire area of illumination. The motorway beam is for high speed driving and has
`forward lighting with a symmetrical, long-throw, and narrow-width distribution to provide the
`driver with the greatest range of vision while minimizing glare to oncoming vehicles. The
`adverse weather beam is designed for use in rain, fog, and snow. Manufacturers have proposed
`that one of solution for adverse weather is forward lighting with high intensity light at the
`outward edge of the road and low intensity light in the immediate frontal zone.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2.1. Proposed AFS beam patterns (from http://visteon.wieck.com/image_database).
`
`
`
`2.1. History of AFS
`The earliest practical model of AFS was incorporated in 1948 in an American car, the Tucker
`Torpedo (Hamm, 2002). The car was equipped with three headlamps; the central one was
`synchronized with the turning angle of the wheels (Figure 2.2). Only 51 units were made before
`the company folded. The second attempt was made by Citroen in Europe in the 1950s, and again
`the headlamps were swiveled in combination with the steering wheel. Due to legal restrictions,
`this functionality was applied only to high beams, and the low probability of AFS usage
`opportunities during high beam operation did not encourage other manufacturers to follow this
`unique approach. In the early 1960s, a similar concept to the current AFS was proposed by
`Balder (1962). Unfortunately, the technologies of those days could not make the concept turn
`into a reality. Missing technologies were the optical accuracy in designing lamp/reflector
`systems and the stability of headlamp leveling mechanics (Westermann, 2002). Then, about 20
`years later, the Eureka Project began.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2.2. Tucker Torpedo in 1948 (copy right: Smithsonian Institute).
`
`
`
`2.2. Outline of the Eureka Project
`Eureka Project EU 1403 began in 1993. Countries and manufacturers (BMW, Bosch, Daimler-
`Benz, Fiat, Ford, Hella, Magneti-Marelli, Opel, Osram, Philips, PSA, Renault, Valeo,
`Volkswagen, Volvo, and ZKW) participating in the Eureka Project began defining requirements
`for advanced headlamp systems. There were three phases in the Eureka Project. The first phase
`was a marketing study to find problems with conventional headlamps and determine drivers’
`needs. The results of the marketing study prioritized AFS functions; including dynamic glare,
`and the influence of shape, area, and partition of headlamps on glare, as well as on vehicle
`appearance to other vehicles. In the second phase, initial plans called for the exploration of
`reflectance of wet and dry road surfaces, reflectance of pedestrians, and locations of road signs
`and pedestrians. However, due to budget limitations, the focus was restricted to glare and
`appearance issues only. AFS prototypes were developed and tested by a field evaluation. In the
`third phase, based on the results of the first and second phases, the Eureka Project drafted AFS
`regulations including: (1) development of a new AFS regulation (TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2002/18
`and 19); and (2) amendments for mounting and operating regulations of AFS systems in ECE
`regulation No. 48 (TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2002/20).
`
`Based on the accomplishments of the Eureka Project, the above described ECE regulations have
`been modified. AFS will be officially released in Europe in two stages. The first stage, approved
`in 2003, allows swiveling (or bending) of the low beam function. The second stage is forecast for
`approval in 2005. This could include situation-related functions, such as motorway and town
`lighting.
`
`
`2.3. Objectives and procedure of this study
`Before AFS becomes more aggressively implemented in the United States, it is important to
`understand the impacts of AFS on drivers, other vehicles, and pedestrians. The two main goals of
`this study are to identify the current state of AFS development and application, and to examine
`the supportive research on AFS. The following are the detailed objectives of this study:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Identify and estimate the potential safety benefits of different AFS applications.
`2. Determine applications of European AFS research to North American roadways and beam
`patterns.
`3. Identify and assess the validity of methods that have been used to evaluate AFS in terms of
`driver safety-related performance and acceptance.
`4. Identify and categorize driving scenarios that have been used to study driver performance
`using AFS.
`5. Identify additional scenarios that need to be studied to provide a more complete assessment
`of AFS capabilities and limitations.
`6. Identify any studies that have examined behavioral adaptation possibilities from using AFS.
`7. Recommend research studies needed to determine what AFS performance requirements
`would improve safety and minimize unnecessary glare.
`
`
`2.4. Summary of findings
`Many studies evaluated several types of AFS by using various evaluation methods.
`Unfortunately, reports on these studies do not generally supply enough information, such as light
`levels, specific beam distributions, and experimental procedures. Additionally, the majority of
`these studies did not use common performance metrics that have been proven to be related to
`traffic safety. These factors make it difficult to reproduce the studies (and thus, the results),
`generalize the findings to other conditions, and ultimately determine the effectiveness of AFS.
`The overall conclusion of this review is that further research is needed to determine useful
`metrics for evaluating and comparing AFS systems.
`
`On the basis of the facts, this survey reached the following conclusions for each objective:
`1. Various types of AFS functions including bending beam, town beam, and motorway beam
`may increase drivers’ visibility and reduce glare to oncoming vehicles in certain traffic
`scenarios. However, it is important to establish robust metrics and criteria to quantify the
`effect of each AFS function and possibly relate it to traffic safety.
`2. It is not appropriate to assume that the results of studies in Europe and Japan apply to
`headlamps in North America. Differences in headlamp beam patterns, traffic patterns, and
`roadway geometries are likely to produce conflicts in experimental results between North
`America and other countries, especially with regard to glare. This assumption is based on
`conflicts found in similar studies.
`3. Several methods are commonly used to evaluate visibility and glare. To evaluate drivers’
`forward visibility, target detection tests, illuminance calculations, and subjective evaluations
`are typically used. Target detection tests and illuminance calculations typically provide more
`objective outcomes than subjective opinions. Although eye fixations were used in several
`studies, there is little agreement on how to interpret those data. It is not appropriate to use eye
`fixations as a metric of AFS performance until it becomes clearer how eye fixation points are
`related to driving safety and comfort.
`
`Subjective evaluation using the de Boer rating scale is the most common form of discomfort
`glare evaluation. As a simple measure of discomfort glare, illuminance at a driver’s eye, or
`so-called glare illuminances, is also used. To evaluate disability glare, veiling luminance is
`used. While there is agreement on the calculation of disability glare in terms of veiling
`luminance, it is not yet clear if the glare illuminance corresponds to the discomfort glare
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`sensation. It also is not clear how low glare illuminance should be in order to prevent drivers
`from feeling discomfort. It is first important to identify the validity of glare illuminance as a
`discomfort glare index and establish the criteria for various scenarios.
`4. Scenarios used in recent AFS studies were straight roads, single curves and S-curves with
`different curvatures, well-lit areas, motorways, and inclement weather conditions.
`5. To extend those scenarios into more practical roadway situations, more complex scenarios
`such as hilly winding roadways and slightly curved highways need to be considered in
`conjunction with different AFS functions. It is also important to develop appropriate
`headlamp beam patterns for transient periods of time between one AFS functional category
`and another; improper transient adaptation caused by poorly engineered transition algorithms
`may result in glare and lower visibility.
`
`
`This survey found significant conflicts in evaluation of AFS performance among existing studies.
`However, it is difficult to identify the cause of such conflicts, since metrics and evaluation
`methods used in these studies are often different from each other. It is important to establish
`common metrics that will allow for consistent evaluation of the effects of AFS on drivers’
`performance and safety. Based on this finding, the two tasks should be performed in parallel: (1)
`identify appropriate metrics for AFS; and (2) develop an AFS prototype.
`
`Identify metrics for AFS
`Identify metrics and criteria so as to consistently and meaningfully compare the effects of
`(cid:120)(cid:3)
`AFS functionality on human performance, including visibility, glare, and satisfaction,
`under various scenarios.
`(cid:120)(cid:3) Calculate illuminance/luminance distributions of AFS functions and evaluate their effects
`using the developed metrics and criteria.
`(cid:120)(cid:3) Tie the metrics and criteria to driver behavior (i.e. 100-car naturalistic study) in order to
`determine the potential consequences of AFS on traffic safety.
`
`
`Develop an AFS prototype
`(cid:120)(cid:3) Develop a prototype to independently develop and evaluate AFS functionality. This
`prototype should be mountable to a vehicle and composed of actuators, sensors, and
`multi-functional headlamps.
`(cid:120)(cid:3) Conduct human performance evaluation studies using the developed AFS prototype.
`These studies should prioritize:
`o Bending beam (individually examine the luminous intensity distribution and
`swiveling algorithm)
`o Dimming under high ambient illumination to reduce glare (town beam)
`o Other functions such as a motorway beam and an adverse weather beam
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 3: Manufacturer Input
`
`3.1. Introduction
`The LRC held a phone conference on June 2, 2004 to discuss AFS with automobile and
`automotive lighting manufacturers. In addition to the LRC, eight organizations participated in the
`meeting: Ford, General Motors, General Electric, Guide, Hella, OSRAM SYLVANIA, Philips,
`and Visteon. There were two goals for this discussion: to get input from each participating
`organization about their vision of AFS in the near and far term, and to try to fill in potential gaps
`in our knowledge on AFS research and implications. The following section summarizes this
`meeting by outlining the responses to selected questions asked of the group.
`
`It should be noted here that this summary (Section 3) does not necessarily reflect the opinions of
`NHSTA or the LRC, but report participants statements in the meeting.
`
`In general, manufacturers were eager to discuss AFS functionalities now being introduced. For
`example, many stated that the bending beam functionality would most likely be introduced first
`on high-end vehicles in the United States, similar to the introduction of HID headlamp systems,
`but is already being introduced in Europe on mid-range vehicles. However, due to the
`confidentiality of product development, manufacturers did not speculate on the future of AFS or
`discuss any research findings that were not already published.
`
`3.2. Points of discussion and responses
`What are your organization’s short and long-term visions of AFS?
`(cid:120)(cid:3) The integration speed of AFS into the market depends on the region. Europe will lead the
`way with lower-middle class market segments and North America will probably start with
`luxury vehicles. In North America, bending beams are probably for luxury cars only; it will
`take awhile for bending beams to move down the market, similar to the introduction of HID.
`In Europe, AFS functions have been implemented on five middle class cars already. Japan
`has taken similar action.
`(cid:120)(cid:3) AFS is dependent on light source development. AFS demands more light from sources, so
`HID and higher luminance sources are preferred. There will be innovation in light sources
`with AFS. All the impacts of AFS on source performance are not known yet. For instance,
`frequent switching could affect source lifetime performance.
`(cid:120)(cid:3) What other functions will get packaged in AFS vehicles?
`o There are two considerations: safety impact and customer-perceived benefit. The
`driver can literally see the benefits of some AFS functions. In the absence of
`publicized proven safety benefits, the inclusion of additional safety functions that
`cannot be perceived by the driver will be minimized.
`o Different AFS functions will be introduced one at a time depending on car class;
`every function is not needed at once.
`o The objective for AFS is clearly based on performance, not affordability.
`Affordability for AFS is not pursued in the same way as it is for other safety
`measures, such as airbags, ABS brakes, and passive restraints.
`o One main issue is communication to the system: What types of signals and protocols
`should be used? Intra-vehicle communication systems are not standardized and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`different companies have different philosophies as to which functions should have
`priority; there will be compatibility issues.
`
`
`Are other beam functionalities for