iihs.org

Maximizing Safety on the (Slow) Road to Autonomous Vehicles

Automotive Safety Council Annual MeetingTucson, ArizonaMarch 18, 2016

Adrian LundPresident, IIHS and HLDI

Motor vehicle crash deaths and deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled

1950-2013

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Motor vehiclecrash deaths

Crash deaths perbillion vehicle miles traveled

201311.0 per billion

32,719 deaths

US motor vehicle crash deaths and unemployment rate1950-2013

0

5

10

15

20

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

1950 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 2000 05 10

Motor vehicle crash deaths

Unemployment rate

7 percent

32,719

Motor vehicle crash deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled and unemployment rate1950-2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

5

10

15

20

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Unemployment rate

Crash deaths perbillion vehicle miles traveled

11.0 per billion

7 percent

Year-to-year percent changes in US motor vehicle crash deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled and unemployment rate1951-2013

-80

-40

0

40

80

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

1950 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 2000 05 10

Crash deaths perbillion vehicle miles traveled

Unemployment rate

Much of the improved highway safety picture is due to vehicle designs

Vehicle and non-vehicle factors and highway safetyPassenger vehicle driver deaths per million vehicles,

actual vs. expected for 1985 fleet

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

calendar year

actual rates

expected rates

What’s next for vehicle safety?

The Google visionAutonomous vehicles delivering occupants to pre-set destinations

14

How fast are autonomous vehicles coming?

Jeremy Carlson – IHS

3.5 million units of “self-driving” vehicles 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

USA TodayMay 31, 2013

March 11, 2016 NHTSA news release

“U.S. DOT to host public meetings on safe operation of automated

vehicles”

“Operational guidelines” “that clearly outline how we expect

automated vehicles to function – not only safely, but more safely –

on our roads.” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

Other initiatives reiterated:

– Budget proposal for 10-year, $3.9 billion investment in advancing

autonomous vehicle technology

– Working with states on model policy

– Regulatory effort to accommodate autonomous vehicles

– Determine if new regulatory tools are needed

Volpe review of FMVSS for automated vehiclesMarch 2016

“…there are few barriers...as long as the vehicle does not diverge

from a conventional vehicle design.”

“...alternative cabin layouts, omission of manual controls...would be

constrained....”

Which states regulate testing on public roads?November 2015

KYMD

DE

DC

MA

OR

RI

NJ

NH

ME

PA

WV

NC

SC

GA

FL

OH

MI

INIL

WI

IA

MO

LA

NM

CO

SDID

CA

WA

TN

VT

MS

MT ND

NV

AZ

UT

WY

NE

KS

OK

TX

AR

MN

AL

VA

NY

CT

AKHI

Prohibits local governments from

banning AV use

Silent on testing

Authorizes testing; requirements

are basic or undefined

Various requirements; testing up

to Level 3; prohibits equivalentof Level 4

Which states regulate public operation on public roads?November 2015

KYMD

DE

DC

MA

OR

RI

NJ

NH

ME

PA

WV

NC

SC

GA

FL

OH

MI

INIL

WI

IA

MO

LA

NM

CO

SDID

CA

WA

TN

VT

MS

MT ND

NV

AZ

UT

WY

NE

KS

OK

TX

AR

MN

AL

VA

NY

CT

AKHI

Authorizes operation with basic

requirements; levels unclear

Silent on operation

Public operation up to Level 2

Public operation up to Level 2;

pending for Levels 3 and 4

Crashworthiness ratings

New car assessment programs (NCAPs)By year of inception

1978 1995 1997 2006 2011

1993 1995 1999 2010 2012

IIHS crashworthiness tests

Front small overlap,

beginning 2012

Front moderate overlap,

beginning 1995

Side impact,

beginning 2003

Rear crash (whiplash mitigation),

beginning 2004

Roof strength,

beginning 2009

Crash protection ratings by model yearImprovements beginning in 1995

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

moderate overlap front

roof strength small overlap front

side impact head restraints and seats

poor

marginal

acceptable

good

Death and injury reductionsGood 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

Registered vehicle moderate overlap frontal offset crash test ratings by calendar yearAll registered vehicles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

unrated poor marginal acceptable good

Registered vehicle side impact crash test ratingsby calendar yearAll registered vehicles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

unrated poor marginal acceptable good

Crash avoidance technologies

Crashes relevant to 4 crash avoidance systemsFARS and GES, 2004-08

all injury fatal

front crash prevention 1,165,000 66,000 879

lane departure prevention 179,000 37,000 7,529

side view assist 395,000 20,000 393

adaptive headlights 142,000 29,000 2,484

total unique crashes 1,866,000 149,000 10,238

insurance claims

reductions in percent

Collision PDL BIL

front crash prevention

2A 9A 15A

2B 14B 19B

adaptive headlights 1 5 8

lane departure prevention 1C (1)C 3D

side view assist (blind spot) 2 10 16

Insurance claim frequency reduction for 4 crash avoidance technologiesPooled estimates across vehicle models

C = Mercedes & Mazda LDW onlyD = Mercedes only

A = FCW without autobrake

B = FCW with autobrake

Percent of vehicles with lane departure warning or forward collision warning activatedObservations at Honda Dealers - 2015

percent with

FCW on

percent with

LDW on

Accord99

(n = 98)

40

(n = 139)

CR-V100

(n = 6)

33

(n = 6)

Odyssey100

(n = 77)

25

(n = 120)

total99.5

(n = 182)

32

(n = 265)

Effects of systems on rear-end strikesPercent difference in police-reported crash rates

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Honda

Accord

camera(w/LDW)

Honda

Accord

radar(w/LDW+ACC)

Mercedes-

Benz

Volvo warning

only

pooled

Acura Mercedes-

Benz

Subaru

(w/LDW)

Volvo

(w/LDW)

autobrake

pooled

warning onlywarning with

autobrake

Front crash prevention systems are preventing crashes reported to insurersSystems 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.

Front crash prevention ratings2013-16 models (as of March 2016)

134

40

11 10

111

51

28

19

81

56

4034

45

52

38

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Not qualified/notavailable

Basic Advanced Superior

2013 2014 2015 2016

Twenty automakers have committed to make AEB a standard feature by September 2022Represent > 99 percent of U.S. market

Characteristics of AEB conforming to the commitment for standard fitment Based on U.S. NCAP and IIHS consumer information programs

Forward collision warning systems that meet a subset of NCAP

requirements from warning timing

– Subject encounters a slower moving lead vehicle

– Subject encounters a decelerating lead vehicle

Automated braking that meets IIHS requirements for a rating of

‘advanced’

– Speed reduction of 10 mph in either 12 or 24 mph test with stationary

lead vehicle; or

– Speed reduction of 5 mph in both 12 and 24 mph tests

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

predicted without mandate

predicted with 2022 mandate

Predicted counts of registered vehicles equipped with front crash preventionWith and without voluntary commitment

27 OCTOBER 2016

VIRGINIA, USA

GLOBAL NCAP FLEET SAFETY OPEN DAY

Headlight rating system

Vehicle approaches:

– 500 ft. radius left and right curves at 40 mph

– 800 ft. radius left and right curves at 50 mph

– 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.)

Dynamic headlight test setup

800 ft. radius

500 ft. radius

straightaway

direction of travel

Light sensorarray

Low beam illumination on straight roadh

alo

gen

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

LED

HID

ha

loge

n LED

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

LED

LED HID

LED

HID

ha

loge

n

HID

HID h

alo

gen

LED

LED

LED

LED

HID

HID

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2016Nissan

Maxima

2015Cadillac

ATS

2016HondaAccord

2016Subaru

Outback

2015NissanAltima

2016Mazda 6

2016Lincoln

MKZ

2016Mercedes

C300

2015Infiniti

Q50

2016SubaruLegacy

2015Chrysler

200

2016AcuraTLX

2015Chevrolet

Malibu

2016Buick

Verano

2016Ford

Fusion

2016VolvoS60

2016Mercedes

CLA250

5 lu

x di

stan

ce (

ft.)

not curve-adaptive system

curve-adaptive system

Differences in headlight illuminationDeer is 270 feet from front of car; approximate reach of Accord’s 5 lux

Honda Accord Mercedes C300

Translating test results to ratings

Rating based on:

– Straightaway and curve visibility (weighting roughly 60/40)

– Low and high beams (weighting roughly 75/25)

– Acceptable glare

Bonus given for automatic high beams (“high beam assist”)

Results of all tests will be combined into an overall demerit score

with rating boundaries applied

Results using draft demerit schemeIncludes all test conditions, glare assessment, auto-high-beam bonus

TOP SAFETY PICKs

Requirements for 2016 TOP SAFETY PICK awards

Good rating in moderate overlap front, small overlap front,

side, roof strength and head restraint tests

Basic rating for front crash prevention

meet TOP SAFETY PICK criteria

&Advanced or Superior rating for front crash prevention

&

Requirements for 2017TOP SAFETY PICK awardsProposed

Good rating in moderate overlap front, small overlap front,

side, roof strength and head restraint tests

Advanced or Superior rating for front crash prevention

meet TOP SAFETY PICK criteria

&Acceptable rating for front headlamp illumination

&

iihs.org

More information and links to our YouTube channeland Twitter feed at iihs.org