Bilateral cataract surgery and driving performance

Background: Cataract surgery is one of the most common medical procedures undertaken worldwide. \ud \ud Aims: To investigate whether cataract surgery can improve driving performance and whether this can be predicted by changes in visual function. \ud \ud Methods: 29 older patients with bilateral cataracts and 18 controls with normal vision were tested. All were licensed drivers. Driving and vision performance were measured before cataract surgery and after second eye surgery for the patients with cataract and on two separate occasions for the controls. Driving performance was assessed on a closed-road circuit. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity and kinetic visual fields were measured at each test session. \ud \ud Results: Patients with cataract had significantly poorer (p<0.05) driving performance at the first visit than the controls for a range of measures of driving performance, which significantly improved to the level of the controls after extraction of both cataracts. The change in contrast sensitivity after surgery was the best predictor of the improvements in driving performance in patients with cataract. \ud \ud Conclusions: Cataract surgery results in marked improvements in driving performance, which are related to concurrent improvements in contrast sensitivity

On-road measures of pedestrians' estimates of their own nighttime conspicuity

PROBLEM: Most pedestrian fatalities occur at night. Although researchers have long understood that drivers have difficulty seeing pedestrians at night and that reflective clothing can dramatically enhance pedestrian conspicuity, the extent to which pedestrians understand these facts is unclear. This experiment quantified pedestrians' estimates of the ability of an approaching driver to recognize the presence of roadside pedestrians. METHOD: Ten younger and 10 older participants walked in place on the far shoulder of a closed-road circuit and pressed a button when they were confident that the approaching driver could first recognize that a pedestrian was present. RESULTS: Pedestrians overestimated their visibility and dramatically underestimated the benefit of conspicuity treatments. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that pedestrians fail to understand the magnitude of the nighttime conspicuity problem and the value of conspicuity treatments. Pedestrians may therefore unknowingly place themselves in danger at night. IMPACT: These results underscore the need to educate pedestrians about the dangers of interacting with traffic at night and about treatments that increase their safety

Bicyclists overestimate their own night-time conspicuity and underestimate the benefits of retroreflective markers on the moveable joints

Conspicuity limitations make bicycling at night dangerous. This experiment quantified bicyclists’ estimates of the distance at which approaching drivers would first recognize them. Twenty five participants (including 13 bicyclists who rode at least once per week, and 12 who rode once per month or less) cycled in place on a closed-road circuit at night-time and indicated when they were confident that an approaching driver would first recognize that a bicyclist was present. Participants wore black clothing alone or together with a fluorescent bicycling vest, a fluorescent bicycling vest with additional retroreflective tape, or the fluorescent retroreflective vest plus ankle and knee reflectors in a modified ‘biomotion’ configuration. The bicycle had a light mounted on the handlebars which was either static, flashing or off. Participants judged that black clothing made them least visible, retroreflective strips on the legs in addition to a retroreflective vest made them most visible and that adding retroreflective materials to a fluorescent vest provides no conspicuity benefits. Flashing bicycle lights were associated with higher conspicuity than static lights. Additionally, occasional bicyclists judged themselves to be more visible than did frequent bicyclists. Overall, bicyclists overestimated their conspicuity compared to previously collected recognition distances and underestimated the conspicuity benefits of retroreflective markings on their ankles and knees. Participants mistakenly judged that a fluorescent vest that did not include retroreflective material would enhance their night-time conspicuity. These findings suggest that bicyclists have dangerous misconceptions concerning the magnitude of the night-time conspicuity problem and the potential value of conspicuity treatments

Seeing Pedestrians at Night: Visual Clutter Does Not Mask Biological Motion

The phenomenon of biological motion – placing reflective markers on a pedestrians’ major joints – has been shown to make pedestrians more conspicuous to drivers at night. However most relevant studies have been conducted in scenarios relatively free of visual clutter. Because clutter could mask the perception of biological motion, we tested whether extraneous points of light degrade drivers’ ability to detect pedestrians. Twelve younger and 12 older volunteers drove along a closed road at night and indicated whenever they saw a pedestrian. A pedestrian walked in place wearing all black clothing alone or with retroreflective markings in one of four configurations. On half of the trials the pedestrian was surrounded by reflective cones and posts (clutter). Clothing configuration dramatically influenced conspicuity. The pedestrian was usually not seen when he wore no reflective markings or when he wore a reflective vest. But when he wore reflectors on his ankles and wrists the younger and older drivers responded at mean distances of 285 m and 141 m, respectively. Importantly, the presence of visual clutter did not significantly influence performance. These results confirm that biological motion can enhance the conspicuity of pedestrians; this effect is robust to the presence of visual clutter

Even Moderate Visual Impairments Degrade Drivers\u27 Ability to See Pedestrians at Night

PURPOSE. To determine the effect of moderate levels of refractive blur and simulated cataracts on nighttime pedestrian conspicuity in the presence and absence of headlamp glare. METHODS. The ability to recognize pedestrians at night was measured in 28 young adults (M ¼ 27.6 years) under three visual conditions: normal vision, refractive blur, and simulated cataracts; mean acuity was 20/40 or better in all conditions. Pedestrian recognition distances were recorded while participants drove an instrumented vehicle along a closed road course at night. Pedestrians wore one of three clothing conditions and oncoming headlamps were present for 16 participants and absent for 12 participants. RESULTS. Simulated visual impairment and glare significantly reduced the frequency with which drivers recognized pedestrians and the distance at which the drivers first recognized them. Simulated cataracts were significantly more disruptive than blur even though photopic visual acuity levels were matched. With normal vision, drivers responded to pedestrians at 3.6- and 5.5-fold longer distances on average than for the blur or cataract conditions, respectively. Even in the presence of visual impairment and glare, pedestrians were recognized more often and at longer distances when they wore a ‘‘biological motion’’ reflective clothing configuration than when they wore a reflective vest or black clothing. CONCLUSIONS. Drivers’ ability to recognize pedestrians at night is degraded by common visual impairments, even when the drivers’ mean visual acuity meets licensing requirements. To maximize drivers’ ability to see pedestrians, drivers should wear their optimum optical correction, and cataract surgery should be performed early enough to avoid potentially dangerous reductions in visual performance

Modest visual impairments and headlamp glare reduce pedestrian visability at night

Background: This study investigated the effects of experimentally induced visual impairment, headlamp glare and clothing on pedestrian visibility. Methods: 28 young adults (M=27.6±4.7 yrs) drove around a closed road circuit at night while pedestrians walked in place at the roadside. Pedestrians wore either black clothing, black clothing with a rectangular vest consisting of 1325 cm2 of retroreflective tape, or the same amount of tape positioned on the extremities in a configuration that conveyed biological motion (“biomotion”). Visual impairment was induced by goggles containing either blurring lenses, simulated cataracts, or clear lenses; visual acuity for the cataract and blurred lens conditions was matched. Drivers pressed a response pad when they first recognized that a pedestrian was present. Sixteen participants drove around the circuit in the presence of headlamp glare while twelve drove without glare. Results: Visual impairment, headlamp glare and pedestrian clothing all significantly affected drivers’ ability to recognize pedestrians (p<0.05). The simulated cataracts were more disruptive than blur, even though acuity was matched across the two manipulations. Pedestrians were recognized more often and at longer distances when they wore “biomotion” clothing than either the vest or black clothing, even in the presence of visual impairment and glare. Conclusions: Drivers’ ability to see and respond to pedestrians at night is degraded by modest visual impairments even when vision meets driver licensing requirements; glare further exacerbates these effects. Clothing that includes retroreflective tape in a biological motion configuration is relatively robust to visual impairment and glare.\u