Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

30
www.hldi.org Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing SAE 2012 Government/Industry Meeting Washington, DC January 25, 2012 Matthew Moore

description

Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing. SAE 2012 Government/Industry Meeting Washington, DC ● January 25, 2012 Matthew Moore. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

Page 1: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information TestingSAE 2012 Government/Industry MeetingWashington, DC ● January 25, 2012Matthew Moore

Page 2: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, founded in 1959, is an independent, nonprofit, scientific, and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries, and property damage — from crashes on the nation's highways.

The Highway Loss Data Institute, founded in 1972, shares and supports this mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and model.

Both organizations are wholly supported by auto insurers.

Page 3: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

HLDI data providers• 21st Century

• AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah

• Allstate

• American Family

• Amica

• ANPAC

• Auto Club Group

• Automobile Insurers Bureau of Mass.

• Chubb

• COUNTRY

• Erie

• Farm Bureau Financial Services (Iowa Farm Bureau)

• Farmers

• Foremost

• GEICO

• GMAC

• The Hartford

• High Point a Plymouth Rock Company

• Kentucky Farm Bureau

• Liberty Mutual

• MetLife

• Nationwide

• PEMCO

• Progressive

• Rockingham

• Safeco

• Secura Insurance

• State Farm

• Tennessee Farm Bureau

• Travelers

• Unitrin

• USAA

Page 4: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Volvo City Safety research overview

covariatescalendar year, vehicle series and model year,

rated driver age, rated driver gender, rated driver marital status, rated driver risk, state, registered vehicle density, deductible

model years 2009-10

calendar years 2009-10

collision exposure (in

years)

11,641 (Volvo XC60)472,243 (All other midsize luxury SUVs)

60,227 (All other Volvos)

collision claims

628 (Volvo XC60)32,563 (All other midsize luxury SUVs)

3,988 (All other Volvos)

Page 5: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Measures of loss

exposureExposure is expressed in insured vehicle years. One year of

exposure is defined as 1 vehicle insured for 1 year.

claim frequency Calculated by dividing claims by exposure.

claim severityMeasured in dollars.

Claim amounts are summed and divided by the number of claims.

overall loss Obtained by dividing the money spent on claims by the exposure.

Page 6: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Volvo City Safety

Page 7: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Volvo

XC60

all o

ther

s

Land

Rov

er L

R2

BMW

X5

Saab

9-7X

Volvo

XC90

BMW

X6

Acura

ZDX

Infin

iti FX35

Linco

ln M

KX

Lexu

s RX 4

50H h

ybrid

Acura

MDX

Lexu

s RX 3

50

Cadilla

c SRX

Mer

cede

s M

clas

s

Mer

cede

s G

LK

Infin

iti FX50

Acura

RDX

Linco

ln M

KT

BMW

X3

Audi Q

5 qu

attro

Infin

iti EX35

Mer

cede

s M

clas

s hy

brid

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Property damage liability claim frequencies for 2010 Volvo XC60With City Safety vs. other 2009-10 midsize luxury SUVs

Page 8: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Property damage liability claim frequencies for 2010 Volvo XC60With City Safety vs. other 2009-10 Volvos

XC60 all others

XC90 S40 V70 V50 S60 S80 C30 XC70 C700

1

2

3

4

Page 9: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Volvo XC60 City Safety

vs. other Volvos claimfrequency

claimseverity

overalllosses

property damage liability -24.5% -19.2% -13.7% $488 $646 $794 -$5 $2 $7

bodily injury -62.3% -49.2% -31.4%

collision -20.2% -16.7% -13.0% -$362 -$147 $58 -$72 -$53 -$36

vs. other midsize luxury SUVs

claimfrequency

claimseverity

overalllosses

property damage liability -29.3% -26.6% -23.9% $174 $270 $362 -$21 -$166 -$125

bodily injury -58.9% -51.1% -41.8%

collision -23.8% -22.0% -20.1% -$645 -$517 -$392 -$109 -$98 -$86

Page 10: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Property damage liability claim frequencies by size of claimVolvo XC60 vs. other midsize luxury SUVs

$0-$1,499 $1,500-$6,999 $7,000+0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Volvo XC60

all other midsize luxury SUVs

Page 11: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Collision claim frequencies by size of claimVolvo XC60 vs. other midsize luxury SUVs

< $2,000 $2,000-$4,999 $5,000-$11,999 $12,000+0

1

2

3

4

Volvo XC60

all other midsize luxury SUVs

Page 12: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Percent of claims and average damage amountBy point of impact and coverage, 2005-07 models

27.9$4,658

9.8$3,726

3.6$3,031

2.7$3,615

2.8$2,687

6.5$2,687

20.0$2,204

6.0$2,289

3.0$3,098

10.5$3,650

3.5$2,588

3.6$3,519

collisionN= 1,526,416 ($3,367)

FRONT

13.5$3,070

6.5$2,596

3.3$2,186

3.0$2,505

3.4$1,938

7.1$1,753

44.5$1,714

5.3$1,840

2.3$2,268

5.7$2,588

2.7$1,973

2.8$2,520

PDLN= 690,929 ($2,103)

FRONT

Page 13: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

IIHS – HLDI evaluations of crash avoidance systems

Page 14: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Preliminary summary VIN based analyses of insurance data

• Adaptive cruise control and forward collision warning with/withoutcollision mitigation systems associated with lower crash frequency

• Adaptive front lighting systems associated with lower crash frequency

– Although reductions seem too large

• Blind spot monitor systems associated with lower crash frequency

• No indication that lane departure warning systems lower crash frequency

• Some parking systems associated with lower crash frequency

Page 15: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Availability of featuresfor automobiles

Page 16: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

New vehicle series with driver frontal airbagBy model year

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

standard optional not available

Page 17: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Registered vehicles with driver frontal airbagBy calendar year

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

standard optional not available

Page 18: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

1984

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Registered vehicles with driver frontal airbag,actual and predictedBy calendar year

predicted

actual

Page 19: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

New vehicle series with electronic stability controlBy model year

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

standard optional not available

Page 20: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Registered vehicles with electronic stability controlBy calendar year

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

standard optional not available

Page 21: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Registered vehicles with electronic stability control,actual and predictedBy calendar year

1995

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

predicted

actual

Page 22: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

New vehicle series with forward collision warningBy model year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

standard optional not available

Page 23: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Registered vehicles with forward collision warningBy calendar year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

standard optional not available

Page 24: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.org

Registered vehicles with forward collision warning,actual and predictedBy calendar year

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

predicted

actual

Page 25: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.iihs.org

IIHS evaluations of crash avoidance systems

Page 26: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.iihs.org

Vehicle to stationary target tests

Page 27: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.iihs.org

Vehicle to moving target testing

Page 28: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.iihs.org

Also conducting vehicle to pedestrian testing

Page 29: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.iihs.org

Lessons learnedComparison testing is complicated

• Target fidelity to what it represents

– Depends on sensors

– Depends on algorithms

• Test surface coefficient of friction

– DRI GST incapable of 0.6 g braking at IIHS despite working at home

– Likely to affect measured auto-braking response

• Crash avoidance system error codes

– Can they be avoided?

– Do they affect system response?

– Can they be reset?

Page 30: Insurance Analyses of Crash Avoidance Systems and Implications for Consumer Information Testing

www.hldi.orgSource of insurance loss statistics on mostcar, SUV, pickup, and motorcycle modelson the road