Understanding Technological Advances in Vehicle Safety to Reduce Claims Costs in the Future

1. Understanding Technological Advances in Vehicle Safety to Reduce Claims Costs in the Future Matthew Avery, Thatcham

2. Thatcham, Berkshire, UK

3. Thatcham Facts and Figures • Established in 1969 - 140 staff – Engineers/Technicians • Owned jointly by the members of the Association of British Insurers and Lloyd’s Market Association • Financed by a levy on members €12 million – 2008 FY • Safety Research – Euro NCAP • Damageability Research – RCAR • Whiplash • Vehicle Theft • Repair Standards • Collision Avoidance Research - P-SAFE

4. Secondary Safety • Secondary Safety: • technology that helps the human occupant survive the forces of an inevitable crash • Focus on the need to protect the occupant in a crash • Technology that reduces the risk of injury: • Driver and passenger airbags • Side curtain airbags • Seat belt pre-tensioners with load limiters • Seat belt reminders • Child Seats • Strong and stable occupant compartments

5. Thatcham Seat Ratings>450 cars seats ratings published for Europe over 4 model years www.thatcham.org/ncwr

6. Head RestraintsSeat performance – the difference between high and low injury riskin identical 16 km/h sled test GOOD POOR

7. New Designs ImplementedThatcham pressure encouraged Mercedes-Benz to develop anti-whiplash seats on all cars

8. Primary Safety • Prevention is better than cure • Primary Safety: • Technologies that help to avoid/prevent the crash in the first place • New technologies will have a significant effect on the way the public view crash safety • Huge potential for injury and damage reduction • Cars being able to avoid or mitigate (reduce) the likelihood of a crash occurring in the first place “The beginning of the collision avoidance revolution… the future of crash safety”

9. Safety Systems Collision Probability Time CRASH

10. P-Safe Scope & Aims • RCAR: Research Council for Automobile Repairs • Network of over 25 global insurance based research centres in 17 countries • Primary Safety working group: • An insurer focussed research/advisory group • AIM: ….“to investigate new Primary Safety technologies entering the vehicle market and investigate their potential influence on motor insurance Claims (benefits and disbenefits)”

11. RCAR P-Safe members: Allianz Cesvimap Centro Zaragoza Dekra Folksam GDV IAG ICBC IIHS (Jiken Center) Motordata Research Consortium State Farm Winterthur AXA RCAR P-Safe Meeting • Chairman: Mr. Matthew Avery (Thatcham) Other members: Loughborough University, Transport Canada

12. P-SAFE: TechnologiesFocussed activities on ESC, Collision Avoidance, LDW Lane Departure Warning (LDW) Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Forward Collision Avoidance

13. Group Activities • ESC – global fitment ratings (now Euro NCAP) • ESC - dynamic vehicle testing • Collision Avoidance technology demonstrations • Real world collision research and identification of crash scenarios where P-SAFE technology may influence crash rates

14. Electronic Stability Control (ESC)Three letters to save your life

15. Forward Collision Avoidance Technologies

16. Forward Collision Avoidance Systems • Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) • Widely available on high-end vehicles (Lexus, Mercedes) and progressively available on mainstream vehicles (Honda, Audi) • ACC Stop/Go • Adds functionality of complete stop and re-start (Merc, Audi) • Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) • Automatic braking system uses ACC sensor array to provide driver alert and/or automatic braking • Honda, Mercedes, Volvo, Volkswagen, Ford • Low Speed Avoidance • LIDAR sensor array provides autonomous emergency braking in low speed collisions to completely avoid or mitigate accidents • Volvo City Safety

17. ACC Stop/GoAvailability This table is just an indication, and not comprehensive

18. ACC Stop/GoMercedes DISTRONIC PLUS • Adaptive Cruise Control – ACC • Controls acceleration and braking to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front • Most ACC systems only work above 20-30 m.p.h • ACC Stop/Go will allow the car to come to a complete stop, then accelerate away once traffic conditions allow • Mercedes DISTRONIC PLUS • 24-GHz short-range radar combined with the 77-GHz DISTRONIC radar

19. ACC Stop/GoMercedes DISTRONIC PLUS

20. Collision Mitigation Braking SystemHonda CMBS • Sold as Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) • ACC plus CMBS

21. Collision Mitigation Braking SystemHonda CMBS

22. Repairability IssuesSensor Location • The radar units used on some systems may be fitted at the very front of the vehicle to help them sense a collision partner as quickly as possible • However, many of these are in the vulnerable area around the front bumper and a typical £1300 repair cost could double, if the sensors are unprotected • Sensor costs range from £1000 +

23. Sensor LocationReplacement Cost

24. Low Speed AvoidanceVolvo City Safety • Autonomous braking at low speed • 80% of crashes occur under 20 mph • In heavy urban traffic, low speed queuing and parking situations many collisions occur as a result of distraction • City Safety will prevent or mitigate such collisions to minimize injuries and damage in low speeds (20 mph) • 0.5g braking can be automatically applied • LIDAR (laser) mounted in top of windscreen • City Safety activated to prevented or mitigate crashes: • Under 15 km/h the collision is prevented • Between 15-30 km/h the collision is mitigated

25. Low Speed AvoidanceVolvo City Safety • Introduced as standard fit on Volvo XC60 • Launch due November 2008 • Tier 1 system from Continental Teves • City Safety is autonomous • City Safety cannot be turned OFF • There is no warning given • Only dashboard indication after intervention so that drivers understand what happened

26. CEO’s Car as target

27. City SafetyPotential Effectiveness – RCAR P-SAFE Research

28. Real World CollisionsRCAR P-Safe Group Research • Analysis of insurance claims • Frequency of accident scenarios • System capabilities should match relevant accident scenarios in order to push developments in the right direction • Identify collision scenarios where primary safety systems may be effective • Identify collision scenarios where systems might help reduce claims • Analyse effectiveness of the technologies in the real world • Analyse ALL crash types (not only severe injury) • Possibly support design of testing procedures

29. IIHS Relevant Crashes: 2002-2006Potential Crash reduction of associated technologies NB: Total isn’t sum of counts in each column because some crashes are relevant to more than one of the five technologies

30. Folksam (Sweden) in-depth studiesTypical Real World Collisions – All Crashes Collision type where Low Speed Avoidance (e.g. City Safety) system might help to reduce collisions n = 2516

31. GDV (German Insurance)Typical Real World Collisions – All Crashes Collision type where Low Speed Avoidance (e.g. City Safety) system might help to reduce collisions

32. AXA Winterthur – SwitzerlandTypical Real World Collisions – All Crashes Collision type where Low Speed Avoidance (e.g. City Safety) system might help to reduce collisions

33. Thatcham (UK Insurance) Typical Real World Collisions – All Crashes Collision type where Low Speed Avoidance (e.g. City Safety) system might help to reduce collisions n = 1000

34. Potential Effectiveness: Crash Severity United Kingdom 57% of reported collisions are under 10 m.p.h

35. Folksam EstimationsCasualty Reduction - Whiplash

36. Potential Effectiveness: Crash ReductionUnited Kingdom • 2 million insurance crashes in the UK (ABI, 2008) • 26% are simple front into rear crashes (Thatcham analysis of UK insurance claims) • ≈520,000 crashes • 50% of drivers brake in response to an accident situation, 50% don’t brake (Mercedes-Benz) • ≈260,000 crashes • Over 80% of crashes are at speeds under 25km/h (KTI, 2006) • ≈208,000 crashes where City Safety could prevent collision • ≈52,000 crashes where City Safety could mitigate collision

37. Potential Effectiveness: Injury ReductionUnited Kingdom • 450,000 whiplash claims in UK (ABI, 2008) • 70% of whiplash injuries are from impacts (rear and front) in longitudinal direction (RWIC, Thatcham, 2008) • ≈316,350 whiplash injuries • 50% of drivers brake in response to an accident situation, 50% don’t brake • ≈158,175 whiplash injuries where City Safety could compensate for drivers who don’t brake

38. Potential Effectiveness: Damage and Whiplash Reduction SummaryUnited Kingdom • Assuming every vehicle has City Safety type system: • 208,000 fewer crashes • 52,000 mitigated severity • 158,000 fewer injuries • €1.8 Billion reduction in Repair and Whiplash Compensation

39. Thatcham Research & Tests: Low Speed Avoidance

40. Volvo S80 fitted with City SafetyARR 144 • Mileage: 18,000 kilometres • 9 drivers (male + female 24-72) • Business trips • Mainly motorways and dual carriageways • Single carriageway urban roads • Single carriageway rural roads • Dense City Traffic • Intersections • Roundabouts • No reported False Positive Triggers

41. Events & Demonstrations260+ M/F Drivers (144 / 897)

42. Thatcham Inflatable CarBalloon car used in Collision Avoidance testing • Inflatable made of PVC • Small family car • (VW Golf) • Additional vinyl attached using self-adhesive Velcro protects against damage • Optional Rear Reflective foil

43. City Safety DemonstrationsDriver Behaviour • From demonstrations (≈260 people 17 – 72 M/F) • An estimated 10% of demo drivers braked instinctively and had to re-run the demo drive despite clear instructions • 80% of drivers commented on unpleasant sensation in allowing the car to brake so late and automatically • 15% refused to let system brake due to nervousness of such late braking

44. Collision AvoidanceInvestigation of Technologies Low Speed Avoidance e.g. City Safety - 80% of Crashes

45. City Safety DemonstrationsDriver Experience Comments • Very low risk of “Driver Adaptation” (risk compensation) • Extremely late intervention - unpleasant/scary to experience • Brakes sound harsh and unpleasant • From all demonstrations drivers feedback was: • Such late emergency braking is unpleasant, frightening • During demo most drivers have to resist urge to brake – axiomatic response • Driver urge to panic brake occurs well before City Safety intervenes • Drivers would not incorporate automatic braking by City Safety into their normal driving • >95% believe the technology to be of positive benefit and would want the functionality on their car

46. City Safety TestingMIRA and TRL Test Tracks • City Safety targeted against the traffic cones and inflatable car/cars: • Under 15-20 Km/h collisions was avoided (straight line) • Between 20-30 km/h the collisions mitigated (straight line) • Same result with offsets up to approximately 75% • Maximum avoidance velocity 27 Km/h (good surface) • City Safety activated against the balloon boy: • Pedestrian moving at 5 km/h and car at 15 km/h to meet with boy in centre of vehicle • In a straight line the collision was mitigated (minor contact) NB. City Safety is not designed to recognise pedestrians but may have positive benefits depending on clothing reflectivity

47. Pedestrian RigTRL UK • Two A-Frames stand at either end and are anchored to concrete blocks by a cable • Upper cable provides support • Lower cable loop runs continuously, with motorised carriage • Pedestrian shape can be suspended from carriage • Runs continuously back and forth • Can be triggered by a car driving over a trigger strip • Speed adjustable for ‘walk’ to ‘run’

48. Pedestrian Inflatable with City Safety

49. Car to Modified Bumper Barrier ImpactCity Safety – Full Stop

50. Full Car to Car Crash TestCity Safety – Full Stop