摘要

研究指出交通事故駕駛人的嚴重受傷度中，對撞的發生對駕駛人而言，受傷程度為最高死亡，本研究預瞭解對於「對向汽車警示訊號燈的安全視認性」，首先藉由「模擬攝影法」測量35位青年(15-25歲)，瞭解來車減速時，於有前燈與無車前燈的狀況下的反應時間，並探討不同參數下（車速、距離、日夜、燈具），對反應時間的影響；其次藉由實驗測得的三組車前燈對駕駛人在減速時的反應時間，瞭解不同類型的燈具(主動型燈具-強光燈；被動型-危險燈、方向燈)所需的最小安全距離。

研究結果顯示(1)駕駛人的反應能力於對向來車減速時，警示燈亮同時減速下，較直接減速(無燈)來的好。 本研究於白天、車速80Km/hr的狀況下、車子在受測者前方40公尺處減速（分別為直接減速與警示燈亮同時減速的狀況）有警示燈的減速較無警示訊號燈快1.44秒(2.1倍)，並可增加安全反應距離32公尺，T檢定下具有顯著差異，可能為警示訊號燈的視覺刺激較高，較直接減速無燈的反應快上許多(2) 相對車速80 Km/hr及相對車速100 Km/hr測試結果在反應力上沒有明顯差異，因速度過於相近難以有明顯差異；(3) 警示訊號燈於近距離40公尺、日夜間的反應力沒有差異，但夜間遠距離80公尺對駕駛人的反應力較差，可能是夜間遠處的視線較差所致，數據顯示警示訊號燈的反應力與日夜間及距離有相關。 在距離80公尺、車速80 Km/Hr或提升至100 Km/Hr的情況下，日間反應力較夜間快1.6倍~1.8倍，而反應距離相差18.3 ～ 19.2公尺，且在夜間的反應力落差也較日間來的大，可能在夜間遠處的視線較差所致；(4)主動型燈具(強光燈)的反應力較被動型 (危險燈、方向燈)好。 於夜間的狀況下，距離80公尺處，閃燈後減速，主動型燈具(強光燈)的反應力較被動型 (危險燈、方向燈)快0.55秒～0.79秒(1.53倍~1.75倍)，尤其在夜間遠處反應力極佳，且無論日夜間在遠處80公尺處的反應力落差也較被動型車燈來的小，可能為強光燈(主動型)有強烈的光源，對視覺刺激較危險燈及方向燈(被動型)高，因此在反應力上強光燈也較其他兩者佳。

Abstract

According to researches, for drivers, the highest fatality occurs in head-to-head collision from the rating of seriously injured drivers by traffic accidents. This research intends to understand “The Safety Legibility Of Warning signal From Cars On Opposite Lane”. First, it measures the reaction time of 35 young men (15-25 years old) when they realize that counter car with or without head light slows down by using “simulation video filming method”, and discuss the influences of different parameters (car speed, distance, day or night, light) to reaction time. Second, to understand the minimum safe distance required by different types of lights (active type – blaze light; passive type – warning signal, turn signal) through the driver’s reaction time for slowing down as to three sets of headlights measured by experiments.

The research result shows (1) the reaction of a driver is better when counter car is slowing down with warning signal on than directly slowing down (without light on). Under 80Km/hr car speed during day time, the car slows down at 40 meters in front of testee (under circumstances in slowing down directly and slowing down with warning signal on respectively), in which the slowing down with warning signal on is 1.44 seconds (2.1 times) faster than the one without waning light on, and also increases safe reaction distance by 32 meters. It is significant difference in T test, the reason of which may be the visual stimulation of warning signal is higher and thereby the reaction is much faster than directly slowing down without warning signal; (2) it is no significant difference between 80Km/hr and 100Km/hr comparative car speed, because the speeds are too close to have significant difference; (3) the reaction has no difference between day and night for warning signal in 40 meters short distance, instead the reaction of drivers in 80 meters long distance is bad, it might be caused by worse vision to distance place at night. It shows that the reaction to warning signal is related to day and night and distance. In distance of 80 meters, 80Km/hr car speed or increasing to 100 Km/hr, the reaction dung day time is faster 1.6~1.8 times than during night time, meanwhile the difference of reaction distance is 18.3~19.2 meters. In addition, the variance of reaction during night time is bigger than day time, it might be caused by the worse vision to distance place at night; (4) the reaction to active type (blaze light)
is better than passive type (warning signal, turn signal). During the night with distance of 80 meters, the reaction to active type (blaze light) is 0.55 second ~0.79 second (1.53 ~ 1.75 times) faster than passive type (warning signal, turn signal) as slowing down by flashing light, especially the reaction to distance place at night is excellent, and even the reaction variance in distance of 80 meters either during day or night time is also smaller than passive type, which probably is that blaze light (active type) has sharp light source with higher visual stimulation than warning signal and turn signal (passive type). Therefore, as to reaction, the blaze light is better than the other two.

1.Berkhout J .1979.“Information transfer characteristics of moving light signals”, Human Factors，Vol.21(4):445-455.
2.Erich S Phillips,Tara Khatua,Garrison Kost, and Robert Pizial.1990.”Vision and visibility in vehicular accident reconstruction”, SAE technical paper series 900369.
3.Erikson EH.1963.Childhood and Socieyty.New York:Norton.
4.Hankey J.1996. Unalerted emergency avoidance at an intersection and possible implications for ABS implementation. Ames: University of Iowa.
5.Heuer H,Owens DA.1989.眼睛之垂直注視方向與休息姿勢，Perception,Vol.18 :353-377
6.Hood DC,Finkelstein MA.1986.對光線之敏感度, New York:Wiley
7.Kockelman KM, Kweon YJ. 2002.“Driver injury severity: an application of ordered probit models”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.34:313-321.
8.Tang KH.2003.”A field study on validation of supplemental brake lamp with flashing turn signals for motorcycles”, Industrial Ergonomics ,Vol.3l:295-302.
9.Kuge Nobuyuki, Matsushita Yasuhiro ,Shimoyama Osamu.2002.”Cevelopment of a high-functionality tail lamp system in the second phase of the ASV program ”,JASE Review ,Vol.23(3):371-377.
10.Markowitz J.1971.“Optimal flash rate and duty cycle for flashing visual indicators”,Human Factors , Vol.13(5):427-434.
11.Mortimer RG,Kupec JD.1983.“Scaling of flash rate for a deceleration signal”,Human Factors ,Vol.25(3):313-318.
12.Mudd S.1968.“Assessment of the fidelity of dynamic flight simulators”, Human Factors, Vol.10:351-358.
13.Miller RJ.1990.視覺調節適應在概念,操縱與測量上的陷阱,人因工程,Vol.32:27-44
14.Neville M.1990.”Designing for transportation safety in light of perception, attention,and mental models”Ergonomics,Vol.33(6):1201-1213.
15.Nilsson L, Alm H. 1991.“Safety and mobility in older drivers”.Strategic highway research program and traffic safety on two continents.Gothenburg: Sweden.
16.O’Donnell CJ, Connor DH.1996.“Predicting the severity of motor vehicle accident”, Accident Analysis and Prevention,Vol.28(6):739-753.
17.Reynolds RF, Whit RM, Hilgendorf RI.1972.“Detection and recognition of color signal lights”,Human Factors ,Vol.14(3):227-236.
18.Snyder HL .1985.意象品質:測量與視覺效能, New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
19.Samuel PS , Deborah JO.1982.“Effect of glare and background luminance on visual activity and contrast sensitivity: Implic actions for driver night vision testing” , Human factors ,Vol.24 (3):374-360.
20.Thomas ZD, Daniel VM, Natarajan M, Steven KJ, Cher C, Jonathan MH.1997.“Human Factors Field Eield Evaluation of Automotive Headway Maintenance/Collision Warning Device”,Human Factors,Vol.39(2):216-229.
21.Teichner WH, Kreb MJ.1972“Estimating the detectability of target
luminances“, Human Factors,Vol.14(6):511-519.
22.Tolin, P.1984.“An information transmission of signal flash rate discriminability ”, Human Factors,Vol.26（4）:489-493.
23.Tomoko SAITO, Haruhiko IIZUKA.1992 .“Model of Night Driving Vision Characteristics”, JSAE Review , Vol.13(2):83-87.
24.Woodson WE, Conover DW.1964“Human engineering guide for equipment designers（2d ed.）”,Berkeley: University of California Press.
25.Wickens CD.1984.“Engineering psychology and human performance” Columbus, OH: Merrill.
26.交通部網站，2005.7，交通統計，主要國家交通統計比較，公路，表號4-1「汽車登記數」。
27.交通部網站，2005.7，交通統計，交通統計月報，公路，表號4-15「臺閩地區道路交通事故及違規概況」。
28.交通部網站，2005.7，交通統計，交通統計月報，公路，表號4-16「臺閩地區道路交通事故發生原因按車種別分」。
29.內政部營建署，2003.3，市區道路人行道設計。
30.交通部網站，2004.8.26修正，道路交通安全規則 。
31.交通部網站，2005.7，交通法規之附件七-車輛燈光與標誌檢驗規定。
32.林大煜，1998，道路交通事故之趨勢與特性分析，道路交通安全育資訊年刊八十七年版，國立教育資料館，台北。
33.林大煜，1992a，汽車第三煞車燈之效用評估，交通部運輸研究所研究報告 。
34.林大煜，1992b，汽車第三煞車燈之效用評估，交通部運輸研究所研究報告。
35.張劭卿、何志宏，1999，「利用跟車駕駛模擬績效發展簡單型汽車駕駛模擬器驗證分析程序之研究」，運輸計畫季刊，第二十八卷第二期:203-234。
36.廖崧富,林裕勳,2003,「清潔人員反光衣之類型與行為對於夜間駕駛者可辨識率之研究」,第十屆中華民國人因工程學會暨研討會論文集:532-537。
37.賴新喜、管倖生，1991a，汽機車駕駛視覺效應及人因工程安全性之研究〈Ⅰ〉機車煞車操作反應與尾燈設計之研究，國家科學委員會專案研究報告。
38.賴新喜，1991b，汽機車駕駛視覺效應及人因工程安全性之研究〈Ⅰ〉汽車後車燈調查與方向盤和儀表板間視覺干涉之研究，國家科學委員會專案研究報告。
39.賴新喜，1991c，汽機車駕駛視覺效應及人因工程安全性之研究〈Ⅰ〉汽機車駕駛者基本視覺之視域、感光反應與訊號辨識性之研究，國家科學委員會專案研究報告。