Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

LED Stop Lamps Help Reduce

the Number and Severity of


Automobile Accidents

Application Note 1155-3

Auto World quotes Robert by as much as a factor of two.


NOTE: Schumacher, Delphis director of This means that braking response
Light Emitting Diodes advanced engineering, as follows: time of the following driver would
Our research shows that be adversely affected by the
(LEDs) illuminate 200
between 37% and 74% of rear-end response time of the trucks stop
milliseconds faster than
collisions are preventable by early lamp. In addition, the light output
incandescent bulbs warning systems.... Just 0.5 of the signal light can be reduced
For an automobile this seconds [500 ms] in early warning to 5% of the nominal value, which
means a faster braking would reduce rear-end collisions could cause the following driver
distance response time, by 60%. Two UMTRI studies to confuse the tail and stop signal
about a full car length conclude that LED signals provide functions. Thus, the use of LED
of extra stopping a braking response time brake lights for heavy trucks
distance at 65 MPH. advantage between 170 and 200 would provide an even larger
ms under favorable lighting safety benefit than for passenger
conditions and up to 300 ms vehicles.
under adverse lighting conditions
(e.g., viewing at a distance with In addition to the benefits caused
Summary high-intensity illumination on the by the faster response time of
Another benefit of LED rear brake lamp surface). Note that a 200 ms LED brake lamps, another safety
lamps is their significantly faster improvement in braking response benefit is that emergency flashers
turn-on time than conventional time is equivalent to a 19.1 feet using LED signal lights reduce the
incandescent signal lamps. This reduction in stopping distance at electrical current drain on the car
faster turn-on time provides a a speed of 65 MPH. battery. The expected electrical
safety benefit to the vehicle current required for LED signal
following the vehicle using faster In addition, the turn-on time for lights is covered in detail in
brake lights in situations requiring incandescent bulbs is adversely Application Note 1155-2,
fast braking responses. The affected by reduced voltage at the Electrical Power Consumption
National Highway Traffic Safety signal light. A study by NHTSA of Savings for LED Signal Lights.
Administrations (NHTSA) 1996 546 large trucks showed that Reduced electrical current usage
Traffic Safety Facts estimates some trucks have such large increases the operating time of
that 28% of all accidents are voltage drops in the wiring that the flashers as well as reduces the
caused by one vehicle rear-ending the voltage across the signal lamp likelihood of a dead battery.
another vehicle. This is the is reduced to voltages in the range
second largest cause of accidents of 5.5 to 8.8 V. A study by UMTRI Studies by NHTSA indicate that
(the largest cause being angled shows that at these reduced the braking response time
collisions between two vehicles at voltages, the turn-on times of improvement for the use of
36%). A recent article in Wards incandescent bulbs can increase incandescent bulb Center High
2

Mount Stop Lamps (CHMSL) is in incandescent bulb CHMSL is in A number of incandescent bulbs
the range of 90 ms for light trucks the range of 90 to 110 ms. were characterized to determine
and 110 ms for passenger Therefore, it is reasonable to the turn-on time when driven with
vehicles. NHTSA has evaluated assume that the economic cost a fast rise time circuit. The basic
the long-term effectiveness of savings of LED rear brake lights circuit used a high current power
CHMSL for reducing accidents and CHMSLs should be supply (>17 A) supplying current
and concluded that they reduce significantly larger in reducing the to the bulb and power MOSFET
the incidence of rear-end number and severity of motor switch. The power supply was set
collisions by 4.33 per cent. At the vehicle crashes than the to 12.8 V. The power MOSFET
time the study was done, almost economic cost savings of had an on resistance of 0.1 ohm
all of the CHMSL on the road used incandescent bulb CHMSLs alone. and switching speed of 50 ns. The
incandescent bulb technology. bulb was mounted at the end of a
The report concludes that if every Detail #16 gauge 10 foot wire harness
car and light truck had a CHMSL It is generally well known that (20 feet supply and return) to
that they would reduce property LED technology has a simulate the effect of wire
damage associated with motor significantly faster turn-on time inductance that would be
vehicle crashes by $655 million than incandescent bulbs. Typical experienced in an automotive
per year. Another NHTSA report incandescent bulbs used for application. Typical results for
concluded that property damage automotive signal lighting have one of the bulbs and an LED
only accounts for 35% to 24% of turn-on times in the range of 100 CHMSL array are shown in Figure
the complete economic costs due to 300 ms.[1] In general, the turn- 1. The summary of results is
to motor vehicle crashes. Thus, on of LED lamps is less than 100 shown in Table 1.
the total economic cost saved by ns. Further, LED lamps dont
the use of incandescent bulb exhibit a high in-rush current,
CHMSL is in the range of $1.87 which might further delay the
billion to $2.73 billion per year. turn-on time. This faster turn-on
Considering that there are time provides a safety benefit to
192,213,000 registered vehicles the vehicle following the vehicle
during the year of the study, then using faster brake lights in
the total economic cost saving for situations requiring fast braking
the use of incandescent bulb responses. For example, at a
CHMSL is in the range of $9.73 to speed of 65 miles per hour, a 200
$14.19 per vehicle per year. If the ms faster braking response time
average life of a motor vehicle is from the driver in the following
10 years, then the total economic vehicle would reduce the
savings for the use of an minimum braking distance by:
incandescent bulb CHMSL is in
the range of $97 to $141. Distance traveled = (65 mph)(5280 feet/mile)(1/3600 hour/sec)(0.2 sec)

The braking response time due to Distance traveled = 19.1 feet


the use of LED signals is in the
order of 200 to 300 ms for
passenger vehicles, and even
more for large trucks. NHTSA
concluded that the braking
response time for the use of
3

1.0

LED
0.9

0.8
#1141 BULB
NORMALIZED LIGHT OUTPUT

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
RESPONSE TIME (ms)

Figure 1. Typical turn-on times of #1141 incandescent filament bulb and


LED signal light at 12.8 V.

Table 1. Turn-on time of commonly used automotive signal bulbs.

Bulb type Application Design V Design I Approximate 0 to 90%


(V) (A) candlepower response
(mscd) time (ms)
912 CHMSL 12.8 1.0 12 131
921 CHMSL 12.8 1.4 21 155
922 CHMSL 12.8 0.98 15 118
1141 CHMSL 12.8 1.44 21 164
1156 Rear Stop 12.8 2.1 32 225
1157 Rear Stop 12.8 2.1 32 219
2057 Rear Stop 12.8 2.1 32 218
3057 Rear Stop 12.8 2.1 32 245
3157 Rear Stop 12.8 2.1 32 246

Over the years a number of in response to an LED stop lamp from their paper:
studies have been made on the and an incandescent bulb stop
braking response times of drivers lamp. For their tests, they The results of this
to LED and incandescent reported a 60 ns (10% to 90%) turn investigation provide evidence
technology automotive stop on time for the LED stop lamp that the LED HHSL has a
lamps. One of the first studies (100 ns, 0 to 90% turn on time) significant advantage over the
was done by the University of and a 140 ms (10% to 90%) turn on conventional incandescent
Michigan Transportation Institute time for the bulb stop lamp (250 HMSL in terms of the response
(UMTRI) and published in their ms, 0 to 90% turn on time).[2] The time of following drivers. The
paper 87-13 titled Evaluation of measured braking response times rise-time characteristics of the
an LED High-Mounted Signal had a mean braking response time two types of lamps led to an
Lamp. The study compared the of 430 ms for the LED stop lamp expected response time
braking response times for 20 and 690 ms for the bulb stop difference of about 0.14
subjects with ten trials per lamp lamp.[3] The following is a quote second. Under the conditions
4

of this test that were most braking response time of 503 ms times that were longer than
favorable for viewing light for the LED stop lamp and 662 ms one second for the neon, LED,
signals, the LED units provided for the standard #1157 stop and fast incandescent lamps
a response time advantage lamp.[5] In addition, the paper than for the standard
slightly greater than expected, examined the distribution of the incandescent lamp.[8]
about 0.20 second. Under less reaction times and found that the
favorable conditions (e.g., distributions were positively During the Society of Automotive
viewing at a distance, high- skewed (i.e., there were more Engineers International
intensity illumination on the long reaction times than expected Exposition trade show for 1991
lamp surface) the attention- with a normal distribution). The through 1993, Hewlett-Packard
getting properties of the LED subjects had 8.4% of their braking had a demonstration unit that
units appear to be less affected response times in excess of one allowed a show attendee to
than those of the incandescent second with the standard compare his braking response
units, and the response time incandescent bulb stop lamp, and times due to an LED CHMSL
advantage increased to about 3.4% of their responses greater versus an incandescent CHMSL.
0.30 second. than one second for the LED stop Over the three-year period, 790
lamp.[6] Thus, in addition to people participated in the study.
The fact that the response time improving the average braking The demo consisted of a car
advantage enjoyed by LED response times, the use of LED buck based on a Ford Taurus
signal lamps is greater than stop lamps can be expected to front seat, dashboard, steering
would be predicted based on reduce the cases of a missed wheel, and brake and gas pedals.
their rise-time characteristics braking signal. The following is a Mounted in front of the car buck
suggests that they may have quote from their paper: were four CHMSLs that were
greater conspicuity than turned on pseudo randomly by a
incandescent sources of the The main finding of this study microprocessor controller. The
same intensity. This greater is that there are several viable LED CHMSLs used an array of
conspicuity may be alternatives to the standard HPWA-MH00 LED lamps. The
attributable to the LEDs brief incandescent brake lamps, all bulb CHMSL used several #1141
rise-time. That is, a lamp that leading to substantially shorter bulbs. The microprocessor
quickly reaches maximum reaction times. The neon, LED, controller measured the delay
output may have better and fast incandescent bulbs all time from the instant that power
attention-getting yielded shorter reaction times was applied to the signal until the
characteristics than one that than did the standard time that the brake pedal was
takes a longer time to reach incandescent lamps. The depressed. Each participant
maximum output.[4] fastest reaction times were underwent six trials, consisting of
obtained from both the neon three each LED and bulb signals.
UMTRI published a second paper, and the LED lamps, followed As the demo was designed for
93-37, titled Reaction times to by the fast incandescent lamp. entertainment and not for
Neon, LED, and Fast Incandescent Averaged over both levels of scientific research, the trials were
Brake Lamps. The study luminous intensity, the not as well controlled as either of
compared the braking response difference between the neon the UMTRI studies cited earlier.
times for 16 subjects with eight and LED lamps, on the one
trials per lamp. Each of the fast hand, and the standard The average results are shown in
signal lamps was compared to the incandescent lamp, on the Figure 2. This graph shows the
braking response of a #1157 bulb. other hand, averaged 166 ms.[7] mean braking response times with
The fast incandescent lamp was all data points greater than 1.2
created by driving the standard A nonparametric analysis of seconds removed from the data
#1157 bulb with a special circuit very long reaction times set. Note that the braking
that kept the filament warm prior confirmed the advantage of the response times improved for each
to the turn-on of the bulb and neon, LED, and fast successive trial. However,
generated a brief over voltage at incandescent lamps. comparing the LED to
the time of turn-on. The measured Specifically, there were incandescent average braking
braking response time had a mean substantially fewer reaction response times at each trial
5

750 summarized in Table 3.

700 Reaction time to the onset of


#1141 BULB
light stimuli increases with
either an increase in the rise
650
time of the stimulus
(Flannagan and Sivak, 1989),
TIME (ms)

600 or a decrease in the intensity


of the stimulus (Teichner and
550
Krebs, 1972). Consequently,
LED
the obtained changes in rise
time and light output of
500
incandescent lamps as a
function of voltage are of
450
1 2 3 4 5 6
practical importance. Reduced
TRIAL voltage can be expected to
cause an increase in reaction
Figure 2. Average braking response times of #1141 incandescent bulb CHMSL times of following drivers to
and LED CHMSL at Hewlett-Packard trade show booth during 1991, 1992, and brake signals. Furthermore,
1993 SAE International Exhibition.
the reduced light output will
likely result in an increase
Table 2. Voltage at brake lamps for a sample of 546 large trucks in the frequency of missed
(adapted from Copenhaver et al., 1990)[10] brake signals.[12]

Vehicle Type Min. (V) Max. (V) Mean (V) Standard Thus the use of an LED signal
Deviation (V) lamp provides an improved
Dump trucks 10.3 13.1 12.2 0.8 braking response time on the
Vans 8.8 13.8 11.6 1.0 order of 200 ms as compared to a
Tankers 7.5 13.4 11.5 1.2 conventional incandescent signal
Flat-beds 6.5 13.2 11.4 1.2
lamp. In addition, the faster rise
time of the LED signal lamp is
Double Trailers 6.0 12.4 9.8 1.5
more attention getting than the
Triple Trailers 5.5 11.1 8.4 1.6 slower rise time of a conventional
incandescent signal lamp. The
difficulty is in equating these
results in an average braking Ching, 1990).[9] At idle speed the benefits for LED signal lamps into
response time reduction of 130 voltages measured at the signal cost savings either for the car
ms. lights were substantially less than manufacturer or car owner.
the nominal ignition voltage as
Besides their generally slower shown in Table 2. The following NTHSA has evaluated the
turn-on times, bulbs have the table is summarized from their different causes of accidents.
further disadvantage that their paper. Their technical report, DOT HS
turn-on times are further 808 649, titled Traffic Safety
increased when they are driven at UMTRI has published another Facts 1996, estimates that 28% of
lower voltages. This can be paper, 93-28, titled Effects of all accidents are caused by one
especially a problem due to the Voltage Drop on Rise Time and vehicle rear-ending another
voltage drop in the wiring Light Output of Incandescent vehicle. This is the second largest
harness. By comparison, the turn- Brake Lamps on Trucks. This cause of accidents. The largest
on time of LED lamps is relatively study measured the turn-on time cause of accidents at 36% is one
insensitive to drive current. The and luminous intensity (through a vehicle colliding with a second
U.S. Department of red filter) for an #1157 bulb at vehicle in an angled collision.
Transportation studied 546 large voltages lower than its 12.8 V These types of collisions are
trucks (Copenhaver, Guirrier, and design voltage. The results are much more frequent than single-
6

Table 3. Turn-on time and normalized luminous intensity of with CHMSL was 0.09 seconds
#1157 bulb at reduced voltages.[11] shorter than for drivers
following a truck without
Voltage 0 to 90% Normalized CHMSL. That is just a slightly
turn-on time (ms) Luminous Intensity lower benefit than in
12.8 259 1.00 passenger cars, where the
12 282 0.79 reduction in reaction time with
CHMSL was 0.11 seconds.[16]
11 294 0.59
10 320 0.42
The NHTSA report gives several
9 372 0.28 hypotheses why CHMSL might
8 410 0.18 stimulate a quicker reaction time
7 487 0.10 than conventional stop lamps.
6 575 0.05 These hypotheses include:

1. Central raised location being in


the central field of view of the
car collisions with a fixed object evaluated the cost effectiveness driver.
(i.e., post, ditch, tree, guard rail, of the CHMSL in reducing 2. Lack of ambiguity in the
embankment, etc.) at 15% or accidents. meaning of the signal.
collisions with an unfixed object 3. High mounting location is
(i.e. parked car, animal, In 1998, NHTSA published a generally visible through the
pedestrian, bicycle, train, etc.) at technical report, DOT HS 808 696, windows of a following vehicle
12%.[13] titled The Long-term allowing a third vehicle in a
Effectiveness of Center High chain to react to the braking of
A recent article in Wards Auto Mounted Stop Lamps in the first car.
World quotes Robert Schumacher, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. 4. Interpretation of the signal as a
Delphis director of advanced This report compares the accident warning, causing following
engineering, as follows: Our statistics of cars and light trucks drivers to follow at a safer
research shows that between 37% equipped with CHMSLs versus distance.
and 74% of rear-end collisions are similar vehicles without them. At
preventable by early warning the time the study was done, Based on an average rear collision
systems. Mr. Schumacher tells a almost all vehicles on the road accident reduction rate of 4.33
group of journalists during a used incandescent bulb per cent, the NHTSA report
future technology seminar at technology CHMSLs. The report concluded that:
Delphi headquarters in Troy, MI. determined that the most
Just 0.5 seconds [500 ms] in early important finding of the When all cars and light trucks
warning would reduce rear-end evaluation is that, in the long have CHMSL, the lamps will
collisions by 60%.[14] term, passenger car CHMSLs prevent an estimated 92,000 -
reduce rear impacts by 4.3 per 137,000 police-reported
Several years ago, the National cent (confidence bounds: 2.9 to crashes per year, and
Highway Traffic Safety 5.8 per cent).[15] approximately 102,000
Administration (NHTSA) unreported crashes. CHMSL
mandated the use of center high- Quoting from the NHTSA report, will reduce property damage
mounted stop lamps (CHMSL) on cited earlier: and its associated societal
passenger cars and light trucks. costs by approximately
Their initial studies showed a In 1988, NHTSA conducted $655,000,000 per year (in 1994
reduction in accidents due to the extensive tests of the reaction dollars) in reported and
faster braking response time of times of volunteers to unreported crashes. The lamps
following cars and improved simulated light trucks with will prevent 58,000 - 70,000
conspicuity of the signal lamp. CHMSL or with conventional injuries per year. [17]
Following the promulgation of the brake lights. The reaction time
CHMSL, NHTSA has further for drivers following a truck
7

The NHTSA report, DOT HS 808 for heavy trucks. The NHTSA Electrical Performance
649 titled Traffic Safety Facts report concluded that the braking Characteristics of Rear
1996, estimates that in 1994 there response time of incandescent Lighting equipment On In
were 192,213,000 registered bulb CHMSL is in the range of 90 Service Truck Trailers,
vehicles and 2,358 billion miles to 110 ms. Thus, it is reasonable Department of Transportation
traveled.[18] Thus, the to assume that the economic cost Report No. DOT HS 807 545
incandescent bulb CHMSL can be savings of LED rear brake lights (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
expected to reduce property and CHMSLs in reducing the Department of Transportation,
damage by ($655,000,000 / number and severity of motor 1990) 11.
192,213,000) or $3.40 per vehicle vehicle crashes should be
per year or ($655,000,000 / 2,358 significantly larger than the 10. Michael Sivak, Takashi Sato,
billion miles) or $0.278 per 1000 economic cost savings of and Michael J. Flannagan,
miles driven per year. If the incandescent bulb CHMSLs alone. Effects of Voltage Drop on
average life of a vehicle is 10 Rise Time and Light Output
years, the use of incandescent References of Incandescent Brake Lamps
bulb CHMSLs can be expected to on Trucks, University of
reduce property damage by $34. 1. GE Lighting, Miniature and Michigan Transportation
Sealed Beam Lamp Catalog, Research Institute Report No.
Property damage is only one of (Cleveland, OH: GE Lighting, UMTRI 93-28 (Ann Arbor, MI:
the many economic costs of motor 9/97) 23. UMTRI, 1993) 1.
vehicle crashes. The NHTSA
report, DOT HS 808 425, titled 2. Paul L. Olson, Evaluation of 11. Sivak Effects 4.
The Economic Cost of Motor an LED High-Mounted Signal
Vehicle Crashes, evaluated the Lamp, University of Michigan 12. Sivak Effects 5.
total economic costs. These costs Transportation Research
include property damage costs, Institute Report No. UMTRI 13. Traffic Safety Facts 1996,
productivity losses, medical costs, 87-13 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMTRI, Department of Transportation
rehabilitation costs, travel delay 1987) 1. Report No. DOT HS 808 649
costs, legal and court costs, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
emergency service costs, 3. Olson 16. Department of Transportation,
insurance and administration 1997) 54.
costs, funeral costs, and costs to 4. Olson 23.
employers. On average for all 14. Delphi Sees Collision
types of motor vehicle crashes, 5. Michael Sivak, Michael J. Avoidance Technology
property damage costs only Flannagan, Takashi Sato, Eric Catching on First Oversees,
account for 35% of the total C. Traube, and Masami Aoki, Wards Auto World, April 1998:
economic costs.[19] For motor Reaction Times to Neon, LED, 43.
vehicle crashes with non-fatal and Fast Incandescent Brake
injuries only, property damage Lamps, University of Michigan 15. Charles J. Kahane and Ellen
accounts for only 24% of the total Transportation Research Hertz, The Long-Term
economic costs.[20] Accounting Institute Report No. UMTRI Effectiveness of Center High
for these other economic costs 93-37 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMTRI, Mounted Stop Lamps in
and assuming that the average car 1993) 8 Passenger Cars and Light
has a 10 year life, then the total Trucks, Department of
economic cost savings of the 6. Sivak Reaction 11. Transportation Report No.
incandescent bulb CHMSL is DOT HS 808 696 (Washington,
about $135. 7. Sivak Reaction 12. D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1998) vi.
The braking response time 8. Sivak Reaction 13.
reduction for LED signal lights is 16. Kahane 5.
on the order of 200 to 300 ms for 9. M. M. Copenhaver, J. Guerrier,
passenger vehicles and even more and H. Ching, Photometric and 17. Kahane 71.
18. DOT Facts 15.

19. Lawence J. Blincoe, The


Economic Cost of Motor
Vehicle Crashes, 1994,
Department of Transportation
Report No. DOT HS 808 425
(Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Transportation,
1994) 1.

20. Blincoe 12.

www.hp.com/go/led_lamps
For technical assistance or the location of
your nearest Hewlett-Packard sales office,
distributor or representative call:
Americas/Canada: 1-800-235-0312 or
(408) 654-8675
Far East/Australasia: Call your local HP
sales office.
Japan: (81 3) 3335-8152
Europe: Call your local HP sales office.
Data Subject to Change
Copyright 1998 Hewlett-Packard Co.
5968-1823E (11/98)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi