Advancing vehicle safety at the
Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety in 2016 (and beyond)
crash.tech 2016
Munich, Germany
April 19, 2016
Adrian Lund
President, IIHS and HLDI
iihs.org
IIHS is an independent, nonprofit scientific and
educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses
— deaths, injuries and property damage — from crashes
on the nation’s roads (since 1959).
HLDI shares this mission by analyzing insurance
data representing human and economic losses from
crashes and other events related to vehicle ownership
(since 1972).
Both organizations are wholly supported by auto insurers.
Motor vehicle crash deaths in the US and
deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled
1950-2014
60,000
80
70
55,000
Motor vehicle
crash deaths
50,000
60
50
45,000
40
30
40,000
20
Crash deaths per
billion vehicle miles traveled
35,000
2014
1010.8 per billion
32,675 deaths
30,000
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
ETSC news release – 3/31/2016
It’s the economy …
US motor vehicle crash deaths and
unemployment rate
1950-2014
60,000
20
55,000
Motor vehicle crash deaths
15
50,000
45,000
10
40,000
6 percent
5
35,000
Unemployment rate
32,675
30,000
0
1950 55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95 2000 05
10
Motor vehicle crash deaths per billion vehicle
miles traveled and unemployment rate
1950-2014
20
80
70
Crash deaths per
billion vehicle miles traveled
15
60
50
10
40
30
6 percent
5
20
10.8 per billion
10
Unemployment rate
0
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year-to-year percent changes in US motor
vehicle crash deaths per billion vehicle miles
traveled and unemployment rate
1951-2014
20
80
15
10
Unemployment rate
40
5
0
0
-5
-10
-40
Crash deaths per
billion vehicle miles traveled
-15
-20
-80
1950
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
2000
05
10
Much of the improved
highway safety picture is
due to vehicle designs
Vehicle and non-vehicle factors and highway safety
Passenger vehicle driver deaths per million vehicles,
actual vs. expected for 1985 fleet
180
160
140
120
100
80
actual rates
60
expected rates
40
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
calendar year
IIHS efforts to improve
vehicle safety design
IIHS crashworthiness tests
Front moderate overlap,
beginning 1995
Roof strength,
beginning 2009
Side impact,
beginning 2003
Rear crash (whiplash mitigation),
beginning 2004
Front small overlap,
beginning 2012
Crash protection ratings by model year
Improvements beginning in 1995
100%
moderate overlap front
side impact
100%
80%
80%
80%
60%
60%
60%
40%
40%
40%
20%
20%
20%
0%
0%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
100%
head restraints and seats
100%
0%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
roof strength
100%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
small overlap front
poor
80%
80%
marginal
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
acceptable
good
0%
0%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Death and injury reductions
Good versus poor in IIHS tests
Front offset with moderate overlap test
– Fatality risk in head-on crashes is 46 percent lower
Side impact crash test
– Fatality risk in side impact crashes 70 percent lower
– In addition to the benefit of adding side airbag protection for the head
Rear impact test (seat only)
– Neck injury risk in rear crashes is 15 percent lower
– Risk of neck injury requiring 3+ months treatment is 35 percent lower
Front crash prevention ratings
2013-16 models (as of April 2016)
160
140
140
120
2013
114
2014
2015
2016
100
80
84
60
53
52
58
56
54
40
40
40
39
34
28
20
19
11
0
Not qualified/not
available
Basic
10
Advanced
Superior
Front crash prevention systems are preventing
crashes reported to insurers
Systems intended to prevent front to rear crashes
10 percent reduction, on average, in property damage liability
claims for vehicles with forward collision warning
14 percent reduction, on average, in PDL claims when FCW
includes emergency autobrake
19 percent reduction in bodily injury claims for vehicles with FCW
and autobrake
If every vehicle had had FCW with autobrake in 2014, we estimate
there would have been more than 700 thousand fewer PDL claims
and more than 200 thousand fewer injury claims.
Effects of systems on rear-end strikes
Percent difference in police-reported crash rates
60%
warning with
autobrake
warning only
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
Honda
Accord
camera
(w/LDW)
Honda MercedesAccord
Benz
radar
(w/LDW
+ACC)
Volvo
warning
only
pooled
Acura
Mercedes- Subaru
Benz
(w/LDW)
Volvo autobrake
(w/LDW)
pooled
Twenty automakers have committed to make
FCW + AEB a standard feature by September 2022
Represent > 99 percent of U.S. market
Are autonomous vehicles the
“next big thing?”
“How Driverless Cars Will Radically
Change Every Aspect of Our Lives”
“Nissan aims for fully
autonomous cars by 2020”
“Google’s self-driving cars
have autonomously driven
over 1 million miles”
“Honda says autonomous cars won't be ready until 2030 at the earliest”
Who is testing on public roads, and where?
Most major manufacturers and Tier 1 suppliers:
 California
 Nevada
– BMW
– Continental
– Bosch
– Daimler Trucks North America
– Cruise Automation
– Delphi Automotive
– Delphi Automotive
– Google
– Google
– Volkswagen Group of America
– Honda
– Mercedes-Benz
– Nissan
– Tesla Motors
– Volkswagen Group of America
 Michigan
– Bosch
– Continental
– Delphi Automotive
– Fiat Chrysler
– Ford
– General Motors
 Austin, Texas
– Google
Tom Gage at NHTSA Driver Behavior Meeting, 2016
14
Jeremy Carlson – IHS
Automotive Safety Council meeting, March 2016
3.5 million units of “self-driving” vehicles world-wide by 2025
– “driverless vehicles appearing but lagging far behind
4.5 million units of “driverless” vehicles by 2030
– Catching up with “self-driving” vehicles
Note: this does not necessarily mean fully autonomous from and
point A to point B
– Rather, these are vehicles that will be able to operate autonomously
under certain conditions
Geographic areas
Roadway types
Predicted counts of registered vehicles
equipped with front crash prevention
With 2022 voluntary commitment
100%
80%
80% in 2034
60%
50% in 2027
40%
20%
0%
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Next steps in
crash avoidance
Headlight rating system
Insurance claim frequency changes for various
crash avoidance systems
Pooled estimates across vehicle models
percentage change
Collision
PDL
BIL
forward collision warning
-2
-9
-15
FCW with autobrake
-1
-14
-19
adaptive headlights
-1
-5
-8
lane departure warning
+2
-5
+6
rear camera
+1
-3
0
side view assist (blind spot)
-2
-10
-15
Dynamic headlight test setup
Vehicle approaches:
– 500 ft. radius left and right curves at 40 mph
– 800 ft. radius left and right curves at 50 mph
Light sensor array
– Straightaway at 40 mph
Record illuminance readings for:
– Visibility – edges of road at 10 in. above ground
– Glare – center of oncoming lane (3 ft. 7 in.)
500 ft. radius
straightaway
direction of travel
800 ft. radius
Translating test results to ratings
Rating based on distance at which illumination is 5 lux:
– Straightaway and curves (weighting roughly 60/40)
– Low and high beams (weighting roughly 75/25)
– Acceptable glare (marginal is best rating possible for system with glare)
Bonus given for automatic high beams (“high beam assist”)
Results of all tests combined into an overall demerit score with
rating boundaries applied
20
15
10
5
0
ACCEPTABLE
MARGINAL
25
GOOD
POOR
35
2016 Toyota Prius V
2016 Lexus IS
2016 Volvo S60
2016 Audi A3
2016 Honda Accord
2016.5 Subaru…
2016 Mazda 6
2016.5 Subaru…
2016 Nissan Maxima
2015 Infiniti Q50
2016 Volkswagen CC
2016 Lexus IS
2016 Volkswagen Jetta
2016 Lexus ES
2016 Subaru Legacy
2016.5 Subaru Legacy
2016.5 Subaru Legacy
2016 Subaru Legacy
2016 Lincoln MKZ
2016 BMW 3 series
2016 BMW 2 series
2015 Nissan Altima
2016 Mazda 6
2016 Toyota Camry
2016 Audi A4
2016 Honda Accord
2015 Chrysler 200
2016 Lexus ES
2016 Ford Fusion
2016 Acura TLX
2016 Toyota Camry
2016 Volkswagen Jetta
2016 Subaru Outback
2016 Subaru Legacy
2016 Subaru Outback
2016 Kia Optima
2016 Kia Optima
2015 Cadillac ATS
2016 Mercedes…
2016 Subaru Legacy
2016 Mercedes C300
2016 Hyundai Sonata
2015 Chevrolet Malibu
2016 Volvo S60
2016 Hyundai Sonata
2016 Kia Optima
2016 Volkswagen…
2016 Mercedes C300
2016 Nissan Maxima
2016 Toyota Prius V
2016 Cadillac ATS
2015 Nissan Altima
2016 Chevrolet Malibu
2015 Chevrolet Malibu
2015 Chevrolet Malibu
2016 Buick Verano
2015 Infiniti Q50
2016 Audi A3
2016 Volkswagen…
2016 BMW 2 series
2016 Nissan Altima
2015 Chrysler 200
2016 Mercedes C300
2016 Mercedes…
2016 BMW 3 series
2016 BMW 3 series
Demerits
Headlamp ratings for midsize cars
March 2016 – 66 systems available on 33 cars
50
45
40
30
BMW 3 series halogen and Toyota Prius v LED
Low beams
100 ft
200 ft
300 ft
400 ft
Consumer comments on headlight ratings
I wanted to thank IIHS for the headlight ratings report that you
released last week.
-EH (Medford, New Jersey)
I own a 2013 Ford Edge. It should have come with a Seeing Eye Dog.
For the first time in my life, I am afraid to drive at night.
-AM (Buckingham, Virginia)
Thank you for proving to my friends that I’m not crazy or blind.
-RW (Mentor, Ohio)
Thanks for the great work!
-RV (Tiverton, Rhode Island)
Requirements for 2016 TOP SAFETY PICK awards
rating in five tests: small overlap front, moderate overlap
G front, side, roof strength and head restraints
&
Basic rating for front crash prevention
meet TOP SAFETY PICK criteria
+
Advanced or Superior rating for front crash prevention
Changes for 2017 TOP SAFETY PICK awards
Small
overlap
front
Moderate
overlap
front
Rear
Front
Crash
Prevention
Side
Roof
Headlamps
2016 TSP
G
G
G
G
G
Basic
n/a
2016 TSP+
G
G
G
G
G
Advanced
or Superior
n/a
2017 TSP
G
G
G
G
G
Advanced
or Superior
Not
required
2017 TSP+
G
G
G
G
G
Advanced
Good or
or Superior Acceptable
Rear crash prevention
Police-reported backing crashes with rear
cameras and sensors
Percent difference in crash rates
10%
rear camera
parking sensors
sensors +
camera
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
Honda
Pilot
Mazda
MercedesBenz
Subaru
rear
camera
pooled
Buick
Lucerne
MercedesBenz
(front + rear
sensors)
parking
sensors
pooled
MercedesBenz
(front + rear
sensors)
Police-reported backing crashes with injuries to
pedestrians and bicyclists
Percent difference in crash rates
20%
rear camera
parking sensors
0%
sensors +
camera
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Honda
Pilot
Mazda
MercedesBenz
rear
camera
pooled
MercedesBenz
(front + rear
sensors)
MercedesBenz
(front + rear
sensors)
Effects of systems on backing crashes
by rated driver age
Percent difference in crash rates
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
under age 70
-30%
age 70+
-40%
parking sensors pooled
rear camera pooled
sensors + camera
(Mercedes-Benz)
IIHS/RCAR autobrake procedure
(RCAR)
IIHS has been working with RCAR to develop a rear autobrake
procedure
RCAR is a global association of insurance research centers
dedicated to improving vehicle safety, damageability, repairability
and security
Includes 24 centers in 19 countries on 5 continents
Working groups include Damageability, Primary Safety (PSAFE),
Repairability, etc.
IIHS/RCAR proposed backing scenarios
Car to car
45 degree corner/rear
20 percent overlap
10 degree corner/rear
IIHS/RCAR proposed backing scenarios
Car to pole
Center
20 percent overlap
Cadillac CTS
Car-to-pole
Jeep Cherokee
Car-to-car
Results: car to car
Cadillac CTS
test run
1
2
test run
3
1
2
test run
3
1
2
test run
3
1
2
test run
3
1
2
3
straight
left
right
Infiniti Q50
test run
1
2
test run
3
1
2
test run
3
1
2
test run
3
1
2
test run
3
1
2
3
straight
left
right
Jeep Cherokee
test run
1
2
test run
3
1
2
test run
3
1
2
test run
3
1
2
test run
3
straight
left
right
= avoid
= mitigate
= no effect
1
2
3
Results: car to pole
Cadillac CTS
test run
1
2
test run
3
1
2
3
straight
left
right
Infiniti Q50
test run
1
2
test run
3
1
2
3
straight
left
right
Jeep Cherokee
test run
1
2
test run
3
1
2
3
straight
left
right
= avoid
= mitigate
= no effect
Sensor locations and coverage areas
Pedestrian avoidance
4Active Systems
Mobile, ground-based test rig
Articulating and stationary adult and child pedestrian dummies
GPS-trigger and data collection
Variable dummy and vehicle speeds
Repeatable positioning at impact
Vehicle and pedestrian movement
Single-vehicle pedestrian crashes, front of passenger vehicle
crashes
63%
29%
4%
deaths
72%
4%
16%
Vehicle and cyclist pre-crash movement
scenarios
Most likely to result in death of cyclist
crashes
9%
29%
3%
22%
deaths
45%
22%
6%
2%
Crashworthiness
Overall ratings
2016 models
Ford F-150
Crew cab
Ford F-150
Extended cab
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Extended cab
Toyota Tundra
Extended cab
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
Crew cab
Toyota Tundra
Crew cab
Ram 1500
Crew cab
Ram 1500
Extended cab
Small
Overlap
Front
Moderate
Overlap
Front
G
Side
Roof
Strength
Head
Restraints
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
A
G
G
G
G
A
G
G
G
G
M
G
G
G
G
M
G
G
A
G
M
G
G
M
G
M
G
G
M
G
*Basic front crash prevention ratings for vehicles with optional equipment
Front
Crash
Prevention
Passenger-side
small overlap testing
Small overlap countermeasures are not always
applied to the passenger-side
Passenger-side moderate overlap tests
of two vehicles
Small overlap structure
on driver-side
 Moderate overlap tests indicates good
protection for the passenger and
performance is not affected by small
overlap countermeasures
 Many vehicles sold and tested as
right-hand drive in other markets
Toyota RAV-4 has driver-side only countermeasures
Rating comparison
Toyota RAV-4
Good
Poor
structure
driver
injury
head/neck
chest
thigh/hip
leg/foot
restraints and kinematics
driver
right front
passenger
How do Good rated vehicles perform on the
passenger-side?
Small SUVs with variety of countermeasures
Buick Encore
Hyundai Tucson
Mazda CX-5
Subaru Forester
Honda CR-V
Toyota RAV-4
Nissan Rogue
Driver/passenger small overlap crash ratings
driver-side
impact
passenger-side
impact
visible design
application
2016 Hyundai Tucson
symmetric
2015 Buick Encore
symmetric
2015 Honda CRV
symmetric
2015 Mazda CX-5
symmetric
2015 Nissan Rogue
symmetric
2014 Subaru Forester
driver-side
2015 Toyota RAV4
driver-side
Manufacturers already responding to
passenger-side small overlap research tests
Manufacturers and testing facilities have requested a
passenger-side testing protocol and have run in-house
passenger-side tests
5 manufacturers have committed to symmetric designs in all
small overlap vehicle designs
5 manufacturers with at least one driver-side only design
indicated designs will be updated to symmetric for future
generations
Next steps for passenger-side small overlap
crashes
Paper summarizing results to be published at IRCOBI in
September 2016
Continue to follow automaker strategies
– Additional research tests may be conducted on a different vehicle class
– Passenger-side small overlap rating protocol available Summer 2016
Possible rating in 2017 based on one of two options
– Based on automaker self-testing
– Passenger side test for models with good driver side rating
– A ratings test could become part of TSP as early as 2018
Side impact research
IIHS side ratings by model year
100%
80%
Poor
60%
Marginal
Acceptable
Good
40%
20%
0%
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
Relevance of specific IIHS side test changes
Percent of case occupants affected
60%
40%
20%
0%
forward impact
location
increased
severity
adjust injury criteria
(or use different
dummy)
include far-side
dummy
increase severity
and forward
impact location
increase severity
and include
far-side dummy
Summary
Next steps in vehicle safety design at IIHS
Crashworthiness
– Possible rating of passenger-side frontal small overlap crash in 2017
– Further research on occupant protection in side crashes
Crash avoidance
– Front crash prevention ratings to continue
– Headlamp ratings to continue (next group is small SUVs, report in May)
– Possible ratings of backing crash prevention – focus on AEB, with RCAR
– Possible Inclusion of pedestrian and bicyclist targets for front crash
prevention
More information and links
to our YouTube channel
and Twitter feed at iihs.org
Adrian Lund
President, IIHS & HLDI
[email protected]
iihs.org