## 5 Conclusions  
In this paper, the relative distance was measured, compared, and analyzed to verify the safety evaluation method of the AEB function utilizing a monocular camera after the AEB was operated with a monocular camera and DGPS equipment using the pedestrian evaluation scenario suggested in the previous study. The KIAPI conducted vehicle testing, and the following conclusions were drawn:  
1. In a previous study, using a vanishing point detected in the video taken by the monocular camera and geometric information that calculates the lane width from a lane, a theoretical formula was proposed to calculate the relative distance from the vehicle in front. 2. A vehicle test was conducted using a pedestrian safety emergency braking scenario tailored to the domestic road environment. 3. The vehicle test was conducted by a real vehicle at the vehicle-road link test intersection of the KIAPI. It was repeated three times with the same equipment and the driver to ensure objectivity, dummies of adults and children were used for pedestrians, and the vehicle used was a Genesis G90. 4. In the same test vehicle, the relative distance measured by measurement equipment like precise DGPS and relative distances using a monocular camera was compared. In the results of CPNA, the minimum deviation was 13 cm in 30-3, and the maximum deviation were 25 cm in 25-1. In the results of CPFC, the minimum deviation was 2.3 cm in 30-3, and the maximum deviation was 21.9 cm in 25-1. In the results of CPNC, the minimum deviation was 3 cm in 25-3, and the maximum deviation was 12 cm in 20-2, 20-3 and 25-1. 5. The cause of each scenario and the maximum deviation is because the lane recognition in the camera image was not accurate. In particular, in the scenario CPFC 20-1, 25-1, it is judged \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Scenario**} & **Measured Value Using** & **Results Value Using** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Deviation**} \\  & **Monocular Camera** & **Measurement Equipment** & \\ \hline
20-1 & 167 & 147.0 & 20 \\
20-2 & 154 & 139.5 & 14.5 \\
20-3 & 148 & 135.1 & 12.9 \\
25-1 & 235 & 213.1 & 21.9 \\
25-2 & 158 & 141.4 & 16.6 \\
25-3 & 205 & 193.0 & 12 \\
30-1 & 183 & 191.9 & 8.9 \\
30-2 & 237 & 222.0 & 15 \\
30-3 & 196 & 198.3 & 2.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Error factor by scenario of measured value using monocular camera vs results value using measurement equipment (CPNC), [cm]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Scenario**} & **Measured Value Using** & **Results Value Using** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Deviation**} \\  & **Monocular Camera** & **Measurement Equipment** & \\ \hline
20-1 & 154 & 147 & 7 \\
20-2 & 186 & 174 & 12 \\
20-3 & 207 & 195 & 12 \\
25-1 & 286 & 274 & 12 \\
25-2 & 204 & 194 & 10 \\
25-3 & 199 & 196 & 3 \\
30-1 & 180 & 170 & 10 \\
30-2 & 62 & 53 & 9 \\
30-3 & 51 & 44 & 7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Error factor by scenario of measured value using monocular camera vs results value using measurement equipment (CPNC), [cm]. that the emergency braking operation was delayed due to the belated recognition of the small children's dummy. In this study, to verify pedestrians' safety evaluation method using a monocular camera, the distance measurement method using the monocular camera of the previous study was applied to the AEB evaluation scenario. The result of comparative analysis by acquiring the relative distance through the vehicle test showed a minimum deviation of 2.3 cm in 30-3 of the CPFC, and the maximum deviation is 25 cm of the CPNA. Accordingly, the evaluation results of The AEB using a monocular camera in the driving state of the real vehicle was seen that the stopping distance is slightly longer compared to the evaluation results of the existing DGPS. The reason was judged on the measurement error when measuring the variables required for Equation (6).