iihs.org

Collision Avoidance – Updates on Advanced Driver Assistance Systems

2019 P&C Insurance SymposiumICT/AFACT July 12, 2019

David Harkey

IIHS-HLDI Research on driver assistance systemsProvided first evidence of real-world benefits

Most crash avoidance technologies are living up to expectationsEffects on insurance claim frequency

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

forwardcollisionwarning

FCW withautobrake

adaptiveheadlights

lanedeparturewarning

side-viewassist

(blind spot)

property damage liability bodily injury liability statistically significantcollisionMore

claims

Fewer

claims

Most crash avoidance technologies are living up to expectationsEffects on relevant police-reported crash types

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

forward collision warning low-speed autobrake FCW with autobrake lane departure warning side-view assist(blind spot)

all severities injury statistically significant

2019 TOP SAFETY PICK requirements

G Good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front,

side, roof strength and head restraint tests

or rating for front crash prevention

G Good rating in the passenger-side small overlap front test

G Good headlight rating

G Good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, moderate

overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests

or rating for front crash prevention

G Acceptable or good rating in the passenger-side small overlap front testA

G Acceptable or good headlight ratingA

20 automakers have committedto make AEB a standard feature by

September 2022

99+% ofU.S. market

Front crash prevention ratings2013 – 19 models, as of July 2019

10 1933

64

101

134

154

11

28

44

48

41

24

14

40

53

62

57

59

44

34

142

116

85

6144

26 17

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pedestrian AEB

U.S. pedestrian fatalities

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016

46%

Subaru EyeSight and pedestrians

HLDI Analysis:

Pedestrian-related insurance

claims reduced by 35 percent

Pedestrian test scenarios

Adult walking from the right side25 mph condition

Child running from the right side12 mph condition

Pedestrian ratingsSmall SUVs

Rear AEB

Benefit of rear autobrake

Rear crash prevention ratings

Rear parking sensors

Rear cross traffic alert

Rear autobrake

reversing car-to-car, 16” overlap reversing car-to-car, 45° angle

reversing car-to-car, 10° angle reversing toward fixed pole

What’s next for AEB?

Not all rear-end crashes are the same

Vehicles with AEB are overrepresented in some types of rear-end crashes (model results)Percent increase in likelihood that crash involved a vehicle with AEB

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

striking vehicleturning, changing lanes,

passing, merging

struck vehicleturning, changing lanes,

passing, merging

struck vehiclenot a passenger vehicle

or special use(vs. car)

snowy or icy road(vs. dry)

speed limit 70+(vs. 40-45)

relative to same model controls

relative to same class controls

Not all rear-end crashes are the same

Unrealized benefits

Status of crash avoidance systemsPercent with system on: mean values and value range

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

front crash prevention lane departure warning

23 – 77

87 – 98

Predicted registered vehicles by feature by calendar year

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

autobrake adaptiveheadlights

blind spotwarning

lanedeparturewarning

parkingsensors

rearviewcamera

2018

2023

2028

2033

2038

Understanding Level 2

Functional performance and user experience

2017 BMW 5 series

with Driving

Assistant Plus

2017 Mercedes

E-Class with

Drive Pilot

2016 Tesla Model S

with Autopilot

software ver. 7.1

2018 Volvo S90

with Pilot Assist

2018 Tesla Model 3

with Autopilot

software ver. 8.1

Lane keeping in curves

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BMW 5 seriesn=16

Volvo S90n=17

Mercedes E-Classn=17

Tesla Model Sn=18

Tesla Model 3n=18

disengaged

crossed lane line

on lane line

remained in lane

Lane keeping on hills

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BMW 5 seriesn=14

Tesla Model Sn=18

Volvo S90 n=17

Mercedes E-Classn=18

Tesla Model 3n=18

disengaged

crossed lane line

on lane line

remained in lane

Adaptive cruise control trusted more than active lane keepingPercentage of drivers who agreed or strongly agreed

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tesla Model SAutopilot

Volvo S90Pilot Assist

BMW 5 seriesDriving Assistant

Plus

Infiniti QX50ProPilot Assist

Mercedes E-ClassDrive Pilot

I trust the automation to maintain speed and distance to vehicle ahead

I trust the automation to keep me in center of lane

More information at iihs.org and on our social channels:

iihs.org

/iihs.org

@IIHS_autosafety

@iihs_autosafety

IIHS

Thank you!