Effectiveness of collision avoidance technologies

Transcription

1 Effectiveness of collision avoidance technologies Chesapeake Region Safety Council Annual Safety Conference Laurel, MD October 10, 2018 Ian J. Reagan, Ph.D. iihs.org

2 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. Established HLDI shares this mission by analyzing insurance data representing human and economic losses from crashes and other events related to vehicle ownership. Established Both organizations are wholly supported by auto insurers.

3 Member groups AAA Carolinas The General Insurance Plymouth Rock Assurance Acceptance Insurance Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Progressive Insurance Alfa Alliance Insurance Corporation Goodville Mutual Casualty Company PURE Insurance Alfa Insurance Grange Insurance Qualitas Insurance Company Allstate Insurance Group Hallmark Financial Services Redpoint County Mutual Insurance Company American Family Mutual Insurance Company Hanover Insurance Group The Responsive Auto Insurance Company American National The Hartford Rider Insurance Ameriprise Auto & Home Haulers Insurance Company, Inc. Rockingham Group Amica Mutual Insurance Company Horace Mann Insurance Companies RSA Canada Auto Club Enterprises Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company Safe Auto Insurance Company Auto Club Group Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Company Safeco Insurance Auto-Owners Insurance Infinity Property & Casualty Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Company Bitco Insurance Companies Kemper Corporation SECURA Insurance California Casualty Group Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies Sentry Insurance Censtat Casualty Company Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Shelter Insurance Companies CHUBB Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Sompo America Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company The Main Street America Group South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Concord Group Insurance Companies Mercury Insurance Group Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company COUNTRY Financial MetLife Auto & Home State Auto Insurance Companies CSAA Insurance Group Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company State Farm Insurance Companies CSE Insurance Group MMG Insurance Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company Desjardins Insurance Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Direct General Corporation Mutual Benefit Group The Travelers Companies Elephant Insurance Company Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company United Educators EMC Insurance Companies Nationwide USAA Erie Insurance Group New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group Utica National Insurance Group Esurance Nodak Mutual Insurance Company Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Farm Bureau Financial Services Norfolk & Dedham Group West Bend Mutual Insurance Company Farm Bureau Insurance of Michigan North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Western National Insurance Group Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho Northern Neck Insurance Company Westfield Insurance Farmers Insurance Group Ohio Mutual Insurance Group XL Group plc Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company of Iowa Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company Farmers Mutual of Nebraska Old American Indemnity Company Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Oregon Mutual Insurance Company Funding associations Frankenmuth Insurance Paramount Insurance Company American Insurance Association Gainsco Insurance Pekin Insurance National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies GEICO Corporation PEMCO Insurance Property Casualty Insurers Association of America

4 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 113 employees as of October 2018 Arlington, VA headquarters 42 employees Ruckersville, VA VRC 71 employees

5 U.S. motor vehicle crash deaths and deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled , ,000 50,000 Motor vehicle crash deaths , ,000 35,000 Crash deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled per billion 37,461 deaths 30,

6 Collision avoidance systems

7

8 Theoretical crash reductions if 100% effective Crashes relevant to 4 crash avoidance systems (FARS and GES, ) all injury fatal front crash prevention 1,165,000 66, lane departure prevention 179,000 37,000 7,529 side view assist 395,000 20, adaptive headlights 142,000 29,000 2,484 total unique crashes 1,866, ,000 10,238

9 Factors affecting effectiveness of driver assistance and collision avoidance features And research efforts to understand these factors Physical testing examines capabilities and limitations of technology Sensor ranges e.g. LIDAR vs RADAR Sensor resolution e.g. camera vs LIDAR Strategies for filtering false-positives Human-factors methods examine how drivers adapt to technology Surveys of owner experience Surveys of system settings at service centers Test drive experiences with and without instrumentation On-track experiments

10 Estimating real world effectiveness of collision avoidance systems

11 Insurance basics Collision coverage: insures against physical damage to vehicle of at-fault driver Property damage liability: insures against physical damage that at-fault driver causes to other vehicles and property Bodily injury liability: insures against injuries that at-fault drivers inflict on people in other vehicles Medical payment (MedPay): sold in states with traditional tort insurance system, covers injuries to insured drivers and the passengers in their vehicles but not injuries to people in other involved vehicles Personal injury protection (PIP): sold in states with no-fault insurance systems, pays up to a specified amount for injuries, regardless of who is at fault in a collision.

12 Collision avoidance analysis methodology Does the insurance claim experience differ for vehicles with collision avoidance relative to vehicles without collision avoidance? Claim frequency Claim severity Vehicle series feature data at the VIN level was paired with insurance coverage and claim data Vehicles with a feature were compared to identical vehicles without that feature Vehicles with multiple features were compared to vehicles with fewer features The analyses control for rated driver factors and garaging location

13 Forward collision warning Change in vehicle damage claim frequency 10% 0% -10% -20% PDL -30% Audi General Motors (with LDW) Honda Accord (with LDW) collision Honda Accord Touring (with LDW, ACC) Honda Odyssey (with LDW) Mercedes-Benz (with ACC) Volvo (with ACC, Distance Alert) weighted average

14 Front AEB Change in vehicle damage claim frequency 10% 0% -10% -20% PDL -30% Acura (with ACC) Audi Pre Sense Front Audi Pre Sense Front City General Motors (with LDW, ACC) Honda (with LDW, ACC) collision Mazda Smart City Brake Mazda Smart City Brake (with FCW, ACC) Mercedes-Benz (with ACC) Subaru (with LDW, ACC) Volvo (with LDW, ACC, Distance Alert, Fatigue Warning) weighted average

15 Front AEB Change in collision claim severity and overall losses 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% collision claim severity overall losses -40% Acura (with ACC) Audi Pre Sense Front Audi Pre Sense Front City General Motors (with LDW, ACC) Honda (with LDW, ACC) Mazda Smart City Brake Mazda Smart City Brake (with FCW, ACC) Mercedes-Benz (with ACC) Subaru (with LDW, ACC) Volvo (with LDW, ACC, Distance Alert, Fatigue Warning) weighted average

16 Honda Accord forward collision warning Camera vs. radar available on trims other than Touring change in collision claim severity -$29 standard on Touring trim change in collision claim severity $341

17 99+% of U.S. market 20 automakers have committed to make AEB a standard feature by September 2022

18 Blind spot warning Change in claim frequency 10% 5% 5 0% 0-5% -10% -15% -20% PDL collision -25% Acura Audi General Motors (with RCTA) Honda Pilot (with RCTA) Mazda (with RCTA) Mercedes-Benz Subaru (with RCTA) Volvo weighted average

19 Rear camera Change in vehicle damage claim frequency 8% 4% 0% -4% -8% PDL collision -12% Audi General Motors (with Surround view camera) Honda Pilot Honda Odyssey Mazda Mercedes-Benz Subaru weighted average

20 Rear AEB Change in vehicle damage claim frequency 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% PDL collision -50% General Motors Subaru weighted average

21 Lane departure warning Change in claim frequency 10% PDL collision 0% -10% -20% Audi Mercedes-Benz Mazda (with automatic high beams) weighted average

22 Summary of technology effects on insurance claim frequency Results pooled across automakers 40% 30% Collision Property Damage Liability Bodily Injury Liability MedPay PIP 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% FCW front AEB curve-adaptive headlights LDW BSW parking sensors rear camera rear AEB

23 Using police-reported crashes to measure effectiveness

24 HLDI and police-reported crash data Insurance data Large amount of timely data Limited information on crash circumstances Police-reported crash data More detailed information on crash type Limitations Some crashes not reported to police Delay in obtaining data Data collected not uniform among states, and not all states have information to determine crash types

25 Most crash avoidance technologies are living up to expectations Effects on relevant police-reported crash types 20% all severities injury statistically significant 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% forward collision warning low-speed autobrake FCW with autobrake lane departure warning side-view assist (blind spot)

26 Rear automatic braking increases effectiveness Percent difference in police-reported backing crash rates for General Motors vehicles 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% parking sensors only rear camera only camera + sensors rear automatic braking + camera + sensors

27 Front crash prevention System on?

28 Percent of vehicle owners who reported driving with forward collision warning turned on unknown never sometimes always 0 Toyota Volvo Dodge and Jeep

29 On-off status of front crash prevention systems 2016 IIHS observations of privately owned vehicles at dealership service centers percent with system on number observed Chevrolet Cadillac Volvo Mazda Honda total

30 Lane departure warning System on?

31 Percent of vehicle owners who reported driving with lane-maintenance systems turned on unknown never 20 sometimes always 0 Volvo lane departure warning Infiniti lane departure warning Infiniti lane departure prevention Toyota lane departure prevention

32 Low use is likely limiting system effectiveness 2016 IIHS observations of privately owned vehicles at dealership service centers percent with system on number observed Ford/Lincoln Honda Chevrolet Cadillac Lexus/Toyota Volvo Mazda total

33 GM lane departure warning on-off status by warning modality percent with system on number observed Cadillac beep Chevrolet total Cadillac vibrating seat Chevrolet total

34 On-off status by maximum observable lane-maintenance intervention level Percent with system on lane departure warning (n=547) lane departure prevention (n=336) active lane keeping (n = 78)

35 Forty percent of drivers may not be able to respond to lane departure warnings Weighted percent of crashes with serious injury or fatality lane drifts all lane departures incapacitated sleeping BAC 0.08, not incapacitated medical, not incapacitated other/unknown physical factor total incapacitated or sleeping total physical factors

36 Conclusion Consistent, robust reductions in the rates of insurance claims and police reported crashes for front crash prevention systems Drivers keep these systems turned on Lane departure warning is preventing the crash types it was designed to address Effects are modest Drivers disuse systems; many drivers in lane drift crashes were incapacitated Beginning to see benefits for rear parking aids and blind spot monitoring systems

37 More information and links to our YouTube channel and Twitter feed at iihs.org Ian Reagan, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist iihs.org