Vol. 24, No.

25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29283

Progressive rear-view mirror for motorcycles

CHI-WEN CHANG,1,8 HAN-YIN SUN,2,3,8 CHI-TING HORNG,4,5,6 CHI-HUNG
LEE,7,* AND SHUAN-YU HUANG2,3
1
Department of Medicine, Kaohsiung Armed Forced General Hospital, Kaohsiung 802, Taiwan
2
Department of Optometry, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, 40201, Taiwan
3
Department of Ophthalmology, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, 40201, Taiwan
4
Department of Ophthalmology, Kaohsiung Armed Forced General Hospital, Kaohsiung 802, Taiwan
5
Institute of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung
40201, Taiwan
6
Department of Pharmacy, Tajen University, Pingtung 90741, Taiwan
7
Department of Electrical Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung, 40724, Taiwan
8
These authors contributed equally to the paper
*chihlee@fcu.edu.tw

Abstract: In this work, we present the design and fabrication of a progressive rear-view
mirror for motorcycles. In the context of physiological and physical background knowledge,
we first analyze the geometric relationships among the profile of the mirror, the blind spot,
the field of view, and the reflected image size. On the basis of Walker’s eye model, the
binocular disparity is further calculated according to the image size on each retina. We
present the polynomial expansion that specifies our progressive mirror’s profile, as well as
the fused deposition modeling process for fabricating physical mirrors. Compared with a
conventional aspheric or flat mirror, this progressive mirror can achieve a wider horizontal
viewing angle and shows a more stable image, thus enhancing riding safety.
©2016 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (080.4035) Mirror system design; (330.7326) Visual optics, modeling; (220.4610) Optical fabrication.

References and links

1. W. W. Wierwille, W. A. Schaudt, J. M. Spaulding, S. K. Gupta, G. M. Fitch, D. M. Wiegand, and R. J.
Hanowski, Development of a performance specification for camera/video imaging systems on heavy vehicles.
Report no DOT HS 810 960, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, United Sates (2008).
2. H. Kondo, S. Oota, T. Yamada, H. Oota, and H. Kondo, “Automobile mirror assembly,” U.S. Patent 5,793,542
1998).
3. H. Graff, “Wide-angle mirror for automobiles and the like,” U.S. Patent 4,331,382 (1982).
4. J. Roger, Goolsby “Blind spot sideview mirrors,” U.S. Patent 6,270,225 B1 (2001).
5. B. Yang, J. Makinen, M. Aikio, G. Jin, and Y. Wang, “Free-form lens design for wide-angle imaging with an
equidistance projection scheme,” Optik (Stuttg.) 120(2), 74–78 (2009).
6. S. Zwick, R. Fessler, J. Jegorov, and G. Notni, “Resolution limitations for tailored picture-generating freeform
surfaces,” Opt. Express 20(4), 3642–3653 (2012).
7. S. Yamazaki, K. Inoguchi, Y. Saito, H. Morishima, and N. Taniguchi, “Thin wide-field-of-view HMD with free-
formsurface prism and applications,” Proc. SPIE 3639, 453–462 (1999).
8. H. Lee, D. Kim, and S. Yi, “Horizontally progressive mirror for blind spot detection in automobiles,” Opt. Lett.
38(3), 317–319 (2013).
9. http://www.statista.com/statistics/252261/us-motorcycle-salesin-units/.
10. D. M. Wiegand and R. J. Hanowski, “Study of diver performance/acceptance using aspheric mirrors in light
vehicle applications,” NHTSA DOT HS 33, 810–959 (2008).
11. L. L. C. Zemax, https://www.zemax.com/.
12. E. J. McIsaac, and V. D. Bhise, “Automotive field of view analysis using polar plots,” SAE Technical Paper
950602 (1995).
13. S. O’Day, “Binocular disparity in aspherical mirrors,” SAE paper No. 980918.
14. B. H. Walker, Optical Design for Visual Systems (SPIE, 2000).
15. D. Qin, M. Takamatsu, and Y. Nakashima, “Disparity limit for binocular fusion in fovea,” Opt. Rev. 13(1), 34–
38 (2006).
16. Chuang qin Co., LTD., http://www.cid.com.tw

#275681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.24.029283
Journal © 2016 Received 16 Sep 2016; revised 12 Nov 2016; accepted 28 Nov 2016; published 9 Dec 2016
 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29284

1. Introduction
In transportation, the blind spot is an area within a vehicle that the driver or passenger cannot
observe directly. The A-pillar, side rear-view mirror, and interior rear-view mirror can all
limit a driver’s view and create blind spots. A straightforward way to eliminate the side blind
spot is to enlarge the field of view (FOV) by adopting a convex or aspheric rear-view mirror.
In the United States, however, only planar mirrors are permitted for use on the driver side of
a vehicle, because a planar mirror provides a reflected image that appears to have the same
size as an identical object at an equivalent distance being viewed without the mirror. A flat
mirror’s “unit magnification” characteristic does not distort the relative distance or
approaching speed of vehicles seen in the mirror [1].
To alleviate distortion and maintain unit magnification simultaneously, vehicle designers
have offered aspheric mirrors and multiradius mirrors [2–4], most of which have a relatively
flat section and a curved section. The flat part can be used for correct distance perception,
and the convex section can be used as a “presence” detector. As shown in Fig. 1(a), the
rearview mirror is composed of a convex portion and a flat portion. This combination,
however, has a side-effect, image jump, which is produced by the sudden introduction of the
prismatic power when the eye looks across from the flat portion into the convex portion. A
similar problem can also occur as the driver looks through the borders between sections of
the multi-radius mirror, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). Consequently, most users have to learn to
physiologically adapt to the jump. One way to eliminate image jump completely is to use a
mirror with a progressive reflecting power, which can be realized by a freeform mirror. The
freeform mirrors do not utilize borders at all, so reflected images transits smoothly between
various reflecting powers, allowing the eye to adjust well as it moves. Moreover, freeform
optics is becoming increasingly useful in the imaging, illumination, and simplification of
optical systems [5–7], because freeform optical devices provide more degrees of design
freedom. In traffic applications, freeform reflectors can be used to enlarge the viewing angle
and minimize distortion. Lee [8] designed a freeform transition zone between an upper zone
(for distance vision) and a lower zone (for viewing nearby objects) of a side rear-view mirror
for cars. A conventional two-section aspheric mirror has an inflection that extends from the
boundary of the aspheric outer zone and to the edge of the mirror. A progressive mirror with
an added transition zone has inflection only within the progressive zone between the inner
and outer zones; such a mirror can provide an FOV of 36.3°.

Fig. 1. Image jump can be observed when the eye sees across the borders between sections
with different orientations and curvatures. The borders of (a) a mirror composed of a convex
portion and a flat portion and (b) a multiradius mirror.

A recent report [9] indicated that in each year from 2011 to 2014, approximately 450,000
motorcycles were sold to customers in the United States. However, the design of side rear-
view mirrors for motorcycles has been seldom mentioned. One reason is that regarding
mirrors being required on motorcycles, as well as other motorcycle equipment, the United
 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29285

States has no national standard. Motorcycle riders often have limited views of the road, and
motorcycle accidents often result in severe, life-threatening injuries for the rider. Therefore, it
is crucial to design adequate side rear-view mirrors for motorcycles.
In this work, we show that the design considerations for motorcycle side rear-view
mirrors are similar to those for car mirrors. The main difference is that a motorcycle rider’s
eyes are higher and closer to the mirror compared with those of a car driver. Thus, our
proposed method simultaneously considers the FOV, reflected image size, and the binocular
image disparity for optimizing the profile of the mirror. The resultant mirror has a freeform
horizontal profile and a constant vertical curvature; therefore, it provides favorable image
quality.
2. Design and simulation
Among the competing priorities in the design of a side rear-view mirror, a horizontal FOV,
reflected image size, and distortion are the first three to consider.
To enlarge a horizontal FOV, aspheric mirrors have become increasingly common on
light vehicles in Europe under European Directive 2003/97/EC. The inner two-thirds of a
typical aspheric mirror of the type currently used in the European Union is spherical and
convex; it may have a larger horizontal radius of curvature than that of a typical spherical
convex mirror. The outer one-third is an aspheric portion intended to increase the overall
FOV. In [10], Wiegand et al. statically tested various driver-side rear-view mirrors. As
illustrated in Fig. 2(a), in the case of a flat mirror, the FOV was approximately 12°, whereas
for a convex mirror with 2000-mm radii of curvature, the FOV was enhanced to
approximately 21°, and for an aspheric convex mirror with 2000-mm radii of curvature, the
FOV was as high as approximately 40°. However, these tests were based on the assumption
that a nominal driver sees from a single point on the bridge of the nose between the eyes (the
right and left monocular vision segments). The side rear-view mirror in a typical car is
approximately 16 cm wide, and the distance from the middle eye centroid to the mirror is
approximately 90 cm. Using ZEMAX [11], the calculated binocular FOV of this
configuration is approximately 14°, 2° more than the measured value in [10]. The whole
FOV, therefore, depends on the mirror profile, mirror width, interpupillary distance (between
the centers of the pupils), and the rider’s direction and distance to the mirror. To completely
cover the blind spot, the horizontal FOV from a rear-view mirror must be over 45°. As
illustrated in Fig. 2(b), our goal for aspheric motorcycle mirrors is an FOV greater than 45°
using two eyes, below which the blind spot is not sufficiently large to conceal another
motorcycle.
The reflected image size is determined by the “image minification” factor, which is the
ratio of the image size seen in a convex mirror compared with that seen in a corresponding
flat mirror. As depicted in Fig. 3, the motorcycle rider views an image at a distance, -l, from
the mirror, whether it is flat or convex. For a flat mirror, the distance from the mirror to the
virtual image is lf. For a convex mirror with a curvature radius R, the corresponding distance
is the ratio of the angle ωc subtended by the convex mirror to the angle ωf subtended by the
flat mirror, which is expressed in Eq. (1) [10]:
ωc R (−l + l f )
= (1)
ω f −2ll f + R (−l + l f )
It is immediately apparent that the minification factor is less than 1. The convex mirror
accepted by most car drivers generally reduces the apparent size of the image to
approximately half. Our minification factor for the spherical convex portion of a motorcycle
mirror is therefore set to 0.5. When the rider is 0.51 m ( = -l) from the spherical convex
portion and a vehicle is located 30 m ( = lf) behind the rider, these values can be substituted
in Eq. (1) to show that the curvature radius R is approximately 1000 mm.
A complex rear-view mirror has an outer aspheric portion that distorts images. This
distortion narrows the horizontal dimension relative to the vertical dimension. It is caused by
 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29286

astigmatism, which is defined as the difference between the powers in the horizontal and
vertical directions [8]. The power difference between the inner spherical and outer aspheric
portions can cause binocular image disparity when viewed with two eyes. If the image
disparity is above a certain threshold, the viewer sees a double image with two depths. The
calculation of binocular image disparity is typically based on a polar plot [12] derived by
measuring images in the mirror as angular displacements relative to the driver’s eye. To
simplify, we modify the method by directly adopting the image length on the retina. Our
binocular image disparity (ID) is defined as follows [13]:
lR − lL
ID = (2)
lR
where lR is the image length (in microns) of the target projected on the rider’s right eye, and
lL is the length on the rider’s left eye. ID measures the percentage change between the image
sizes on the retinas of both eyes.

Fig. 2. Diagram depicting (a) the FOV of various rear-view mirrors for cars, and (b) the FOV
goal of the proposed mirror for motorcycles.

Fig. 3. Diagram illustrating the subtended angles of virtual images.

 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29287

Our mirror is 160 mm wide and 90 mm high, as shown in Fig. 4(a). To enlarge the
horizontal FOV, the curvature radius between the far and near views is horizontally
progressive (from Ri for far viewing to Ro for near viewing) and vertically constant (Ri). The
FOV is the angle between the near and far views, as depicted in Fig. 4(b). The mirror has an
extended polynomial front surface, and its sag equation is Eq. (3), which is composed of two
portions: the conic aspheric surface and the extended polynomial deviation:
cr 2 N
z= +  Ai x m y n (3)
1 + 1 − (1 + k )c 2 r 2 i =1

where N is the number of polynomial terms, Ai is the ith polynomial coefficient, m and n are
integers, and x and y are the normalized coordinates. It was discovered in this research that
higher-order (≥ 6) polynomial terms only slightly improve the optical performance and can
be disregarded. In addition, the freeform surface is symmetric with respect to the y–z plane.
Therefore, only three terms are included in the extended polynomial to describe the freeform
surface:
cr 2
z= + A1 y 2 + A2 y 4 + A3 y 6 (4)
1 + 1 − (1 + k )c 2 r 2

Fig. 4. (a) Rear-view mirror dimension. Dotted line indicates the horizontal line. (b) Design
layout.

Once the sag terms were selected, the optical performance of the mirror was simulated
using ZEMAX software. As shown in Fig. 5, three viewed targets were modeled on the
computer. Most cars or motorcycles travel above 60 kilometers per hour. For a rider
preparing to make turns, if a car 30 m behind can be well viewed, the rider has enough
reaction time (about 2 seconds) to avoid road crashes. The first target is therefore set to 30 m
behind in the direction of 0°. On the other hand, some fatal crashes occur as two vehicles are
side-by-side. The sensing of the presence of a near-by car or motorcycle is important.
Consequently, the other two “nearby” targets are set to 4 m behind in the direction of 22.5°
and 2 m behind in the direction of 45°. Under all conditions, the distance from the rider’s
middle eye centroid to the mirror was held constant at 510 mm. The mirror was aimed
vertically to keep the target image in the center of the mirror.
Next, the mirror was combined with the Walker schematic eye model [14] with a 4-mm
pupil diameter. This eye model is one of the most commonly used models for designing
visual instruments because it achieves a useful compromise between simplicity and accuracy.
 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29288

The reason why a 4-mm pupil diameter is set has to do with the typical riding condition.
The normal pupil size in adults varies from 2 to 4 mm in diameter in bright light to 4 to 8 mm
in the dark. To ride safely in the dark, motorcycles headlights are commonly used to enhance
the ambient light level and provide enough visibility. As a result, a pupil diameter of 4 mm is
assumed in the analysis.
The ZEMAX implementation using Walker’s eye model to design the freeform mirror is
reported in Fig. 6(a), as it appears in the ZEMAX “Sequential Component Editor” at the
beginning of the optimization procedure. The surface of object (OBJ) with a thickness 2000
mm represents a target point that locates 2000 mm away from the freeform mirror. Surfaces
from no. 1 to no. 3 represent a tilted freeform mirror. Surfaces from no. 4 to no. 11 represent
the middle eye centroid, composed of the dummy, cornea, anterior chamber, pupil, crystal
lens, vitreous humor and retina, respectively. Among the surfaces, surface no. 2 is described
by an extended polynomial. The three terms, A1y2, A2y4 and A3y6 in Eq. (4), selected in the
extended polynomial to describe the freeform surface are defined in the columns X0Y2,
X0Y4 and X0Y6 of Surface no. 2 in the ZEMAX “Extra Data Editor”, as shown in Fig. 6(b).
The corresponding Radius and Coefficients are labeled by a V, denoting variables for the
optimization procedure.
Calibration of the freeform mirror in the ZEMAX environment has been performed using
the custom merit function reported in Fig. 7, as it appears in the ZEMAX Merit Function
Editor in the middle of optimization procedure. For example, the operand of edge thickness
value (ETVA) is used to set a constraint on the maximal deviation between the edge and
vertex of the mirror. Operand no. 6 is “default merit function start” (DMFS), which here
represents all operands after DMFS are used to minimize the spot diagram on the retina.
All the simulations were performed for monochromatic light (λ = 560 nm). There were
three points (“far”, “middle”, and “near” points at which the power for far, middle, and near
vision were measured; see Fig. 8), for which the retinal image quality of the eyes (binocular
disparity and modulation transfer function (MTF) were estimated. Thus, the eye model was
initially located in the middle eye centroid and could rotate around the rotation point of the
eye. We optimized the horizontal line (shown in Fig. 4(a)) to have the chosen points’ real
image heights projected to the intersection of the optical axis and the retina under a maximal
deviation of 20 mm between the edge and vertex of the mirror, because the overall angle
between the near and far views was over 45°. The final profile can be described by the
following expression:

0.01( X 2 + Y 2 ) Y 2 Y 4 Y 6
z= + 4.3651( ) + 3.485( ) − 0.733( ) (5)
1 + 1 − 0.000001( X + Y )
2 2 160 160 160
After determining the profile, we simulated a pair of eyes with an interpupillary distance
of 65 mm. To calculate the binocular disparity, we further set the target in the three riding
scenarios to be horizontal linear bars, which are 100, 180 and 1220 mm for the near, middle
and far scenarios, respectively, and measured the image lengths on the retina of each eye. The
eyes were simulated to gaze at a point moving across the horizontal line; the maximum
binocular disparities for the three scenarios are shown in Table 1. The maximum ID changed
only slightly when the target distance was increased from 2 m (1.33%) to 4 m (2.1%) and
then to 30 m (2.61%). The acceptable ID is dependent on the image contrast and driver’s
state of adaptation to the mirror image. If the ID is too high, double vision occurs, which
makes the rider perceive two images of a single object. According to Qin’s research about
Penum’s fusional area [15], the acceptable horizontal disparity limit in fovea has to be below
32 arcmin or 155 micron on retina, which is much larger than the image length difference on
both retinas for the three riding scenarios. Similarly, the maximum binocular disparities for
the three scenarios of a commercial mirror are also calculated for comparison and shown in
Table 2. The mirror is composed of two sections. The inner two-thirds spherical portion has a
radius of 2000 mm and the outer one-third aspherical portion a radius of 200 mm. The
maximum ID also changed only slightly when the target distance was increased from 2 m
 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29289

(2.22%) to 4 m (0.22%) and then to 30 m (1.14%). For a near-by object, the freeform mirror
induces less ID and less double image. As a result, the disparity values of our design were
sufficiently low and also comparable with those of a conventional rear-view mirror for cars.

Fig. 5. Three viewed targets, which represent far, middle, and near vision conditions.

Fig. 6. Screenshots of (a) the ZEMAX sequential component editor showing the initial layout
and (b) the ZEMAX extra data editor.
 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29290

Fig. 7. Screenshot of the ZEMAX Merit Function Editor showing the custom merit function
implemented for determining the profile of freeform mirror.

Fig. 8. Incident beam simulated by ZEMAX for different field angles from far, middle and
near views.

Table 1. Binocular Disparity of the Freeform Mirror for Each Scenario

Length on Retina Length on Retina

Target Target Image
View
Distance width Disparity
(Left Eye) (Right Eye)

Near 2000 mm 100 mm 517.8 μm 524.8 μm 1.33%

Middle 4000 mm 180 mm 1094.3 μm 1117.3 μm 2.10%

Far 30000 mm 1220 mm 320.8 μm 329.4 μm 2.61%

 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29291

Table 2. Binocular Disparity of a Commercial Mirror for Each Scenario

Length on Retina Length on Retina

Target Target Image
View
Distance width Disparity
(Left Eye) (Right Eye)

Near 2000 mm 100 mm 219.9 μm 224.9 μm 2.22%

Middle 4000 mm 180 mm 1512.1 μm 1515.4 μm 0.22%

Far 30000 mm 1220 mm 457.6 μm 462.9 μm 1.14%

The layout of the system is shown in Fig. 9. It provided an overall FOV of approximately
52.4∘ (the combination of right and left vision) for the three scenarios, which is larger than
the design specification, 45∘. The mirror had a rectangular size of 160 (W) × 90 (H) mm2. To
evaluate the mirror, this research calculated the modulation transfer function (MTF) of
images on the retinas of two eyes for the three riding scenarios. For a normal eye, the
standard definition of normal visual acuity (20/20 vision) is the ability to resolve a spatial
pattern separated by a visual angle of 1 minute of arc, which corresponds to 83 lps/mm in the
scale of MTF. If the mirror yields serious aberration, the MTF at 83 lps/mm will perform far
below the diffraction-limit requirement. For the final profile, the MTF plots of right and left
eyes seeing an object at the three distances (30, 4, and 2 m backward from the mirror) are all
higher than 0.3 at 83 lp/mm. Figure 10 shows the MTF plots for both eyes seeing an object at
30 m through the mirror. For the freeform mirror with a polished surface, the incident rays
from a distant target passing through the rider’s pupil can be considered nearly paraxial and
converges well to a small spot, which yields high image quality on the retina. On the other
hand, we found the real image quality is mainly degraded by the irregularities of the freeform
mirror’s surface. It can be seen that the MTF relies more on the surface condition and a
suitable fabrication method is significant.

Fig. 9. Overall FOV in the horizontal direction, which is the combination of right and left
vision, approaches 52.4°.
 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29292

Fig. 10. MTF plots of the far view. MTF plots as (a) the left eye sees through the inner zone
(Y ~0 mm, Z = 0 mm) and (b) the right eye sees through the inner zone (Y ~0 mm, Z = 0
mm).

3. Fabrication
Current designed freeform mirror is non-rotational-symmetrical, which is composed of
different curvatures in different orientations and hard to precisely make in traditional turning
machining. Usually a 5-axis ultra-precision computer numerical control (CNC) machine is
the first choice to manufacture this optical surface with micrometer form accuracy, because it
has additional degrees of freedom to reduce the geometric errors. But its fabrication fee was
beyond our budget too much, we used three dimensional (3D) printing instead. The prototype
of a motorcycle rear-view mirror was realized using fused deposition modeling (FDM) [16],
which is a kind of 3D printing. Because our mirror is an asymmetric object, the required
 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29293

fabrication process was markedly complex. To simplify the process, a larger symmetric
substrate, which was four times larger than the intended product, was fabricated and then
partitioned into the design size after FDM. FDM comprised four steps. The first step involved
exporting a stereolithography file format (STL file) to the machine and mathematically
slicing the model for the printing process. In the second step, the substrate was produced by
extruding small strings of molten acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) to form a coarse
substrate layer-by-layer as the material hardened immediately after extrusion. Afterward, a
computer-numeric-control machine was used to fine polish the surface of the ABS substrate.
In the fourth step, the polished side of the ABS substrate was coated with aluminum to
enhance reflectivity. After FDM, the object was scanned to confirm its profile. Figure 11
shows four views of the fabricated object, illustrating the geometry before the partitioning
into four pieces. The right view shows that the vertical curvature radius approaches the
designed value of 1000 mm and the height is 90 mm after the partitioning. The front view
shows that the gap between the edge and center is close to 20 mm, which matches the
maximal deviation value of 20 mm, as illustrated in Fig. 8.

Fig. 11. Four views of the fabricated object. (a) Top view; (b) perspective view; (c) right view;
(d) front view.

To measure the performance of the partitioned mirror, two lasers were used to represent
the viewing positions of the right and left eyes. As shown in Fig. 12, the beams from the
lasers were traced to obtain an overall FOV of 52.7° in the horizontal direction, which was
slightly larger than the design specification of 52.4°. The image in Fig. 13(a) shows a view of
a scene with a traditional flat mirror, whereas the image in Fig. 13(b) shows a view of the
same scene using our mirror. The red dash outlines the scene reflected by the flat mirror. The
mirror gives an overall FOV of 52.7°, which is sufficiently large to eliminate the blind spot
for riders. Our mirror can reflect a scene four times larger than the scene reflected by a flat
mirror.
 Vol. 24, No. 25 | 12 Dec 2016 | OPTICS EXPRESS 29294

Fig. 12. Optical bench for measuring the overall FOV of the partitioned mirror by the ray-
trace method.

Fig. 13. Reflective images of (a) a flat mirror and (b) a freeform reflector.

4. Conclusion
We demonstrated the design and fabrication procedures of a progressive rear-view mirror for
motorcycle riders. We presented the evaluation equations of the achievable FOV, the
reflected image size, and the binocular disparity. For a 160 × 90 mm progressive mirror, the
overall FOV can reach 52.4° in the horizontal direction, whereas the maximum binocular
disparity is less than 5.5%. The proposed mirror can reflect a scene four times larger than that
reflected by a flat mirror.