StatusInsurance Institute for Highway Safety Report | Highway Loss Data Institute Vol. 56, No. 1 February 26, 2021

Why are women at greater risk? Small speed increases lead to far worse crashes Rear autobrake cuts backing crashes Introducing teens to driving technology Vehicle choice, crash differences help explain why women face greater injury risks

Women are much more likely than men Though men are involved in more fatal to suffer a serious injury when they are in- crashes than women, on a per-crash basis ROADIIHS RESEARCH volved in a crash, but much of the height- women are 20-28 percent more likely than ened risk is related to the types of vehicles men to be killed and 37-73 percent more “Injury risks and crashworthiness women drive and the circumstances of their likely to be seriously injured after adjusting benefits for females and males: crashes, rather than physical differences, for speed and other factors. However, when Which differences are physiological?” new research from IIHS shows. IIHS researchers limited the comparison to by M.L. Brumbelow and J.S. Jermakian “Our study shows that today’s crash test- similar crashes, they found those discrepan- To request this paper, email ing programs have helped women as much cies mostly disappeared and that crashwor- [email protected]. as men,” says Jessica Jermakian, IIHS vice thiness improvements have benefited men president of vehicle research and one of and women more or less equally. the study’s authors. “That said, we found “The numbers indicate that women that women are substantially more likely to more often drive smaller, lighter cars and suffer leg injuries, which is something that that they’re more likely than men to be will require more investigation.” driving the struck vehicle in side-impact

2 | Status Report — Vol. 56, No. 1 and front-into-rear crashes,” says Jer- men and women, the researchers then re- One explanation of the higher injury rates makian. “Once you account for that, the peated the analysis with a limited set of for women could be vehicle choice. Men and difference in the odds of most injuries nar- “compatible” front crashes. This subset was women crashed in minivans and SUVs in rows dramatically.” restricted to single-vehicle crashes and two- about equal proportions. However, around Recently, the discrepancy in injury risk vehicle crashes in which the vehicles were a 70 percent of women crashed in cars, com- for men and women has prompted calls similar size or weight or the crash configu- pared with about 60 percent of men. More for new crash test dummies that better re- ration was such that a size or weight differ- than 20 percent of men crashed in pickups, flect how women’s bodies react to the forces ence would not have played a big role. To compared with less than 5 percent of women. of collisions and other changes to crash-test- further reduce differences among crashes, Within vehicle classes, men also tended to ing programs. only those with a front airbag deployment crash in heavier vehicles. Larger, heavier ve- In a 2019 article, Consumer Reports were included. hicles provide more protection in crashes argued that the absence of a dummy that The sample included too few cases to do than smaller, lighter ones, so both differenc- represents an average adult female has the same thing with side crashes. es mean women are exposed to greater risk. had “deadly consequences.” The same Limiting the analysis to compatible front In a separate analysis of data from the fed- year, author Caroline Criado Perez flagged impacts flattened the disparity considerably, eral Fatality Analysis Reporting System, the the issue in her book Invisible Women: though women were still twice as likely to be researchers also found that in two-vehicle Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, moderately injured and a bit more likely to front-to-rear and front-to-side crashes, men prompting many newspaper articles on be seriously hurt. are more likely to be driving the striking ve- the subject. A further analysis of those crashes, as hicle. Because the driver of the striking ve- With this new study, IIHS sought to shed well as the unrestricted set of side crashes, hicle is at lower risk of injury than the struck more light on the issue and to see what kind showed that good ratings in the Institute’s vehicle in such crashes, this could also ac- of changes to its vehicle testing program moderate overlap front and side tests low- count for some of the differences in crash might be warranted. ered the odds of most injuries more or less outcomes for men and women. The researchers analyzed the injuries of equally for both sexes. In the compatible The researchers’ analysis of compatible men and women in police-reported tow- front crashes, the benefits of a good rating in front crashes did show some sex-related dif- away front and side crashes from 1998-2015. the moderate overlap front test were greater ferences, however. Women were still more In front crashes, they found women were for women except in the case of leg injuries, than 2½ times as likely to suffer moderate 3 times as likely to experience a moderate where the benefit was similar. In the side- leg injuries. They were also about 70 percent injury such as a broken bone or concussion impact crashes, a good rating in the side more likely than men to suffer serious leg and twice as likely to suffer a serious one like test benefited men and women about equal- injuries, though that figure wasn’t statistical- a collapsed lung or traumatic brain injury. In ly where moderate injuries were concerned, ly significant. side crashes, the odds of a moderate injury but the benefits of a more crashworthy vehi- “The good news is that changes like were about equal for men and women, while cle were greater for women for most types of strengthening the occupant compartment women were about 50 percent more likely to serious injuries. and improving seat belts and airbags have be seriously injured, but neither of those re- These results are in line with previous re- helped protect both men and women,” says sults was statistically significant. search that shows serious and fatal injury Jermakian. “Homing in on the risk dispari- To determine how much of the discrepan- risk has declined more for women than men ties that still exist in compatible crashes gives cy was due to physical differences between as vehicles have gotten safer. us an opportunity to make further gains.” n

Head, neck, Female injury risk torso relative to males and pelvis Leg/foot injuries injuries ALL FRONT CRASHES Moderate Serious Moderate Serious CONTROLLING FOR VEHICLE AND CRASH DIFFERENCES +338%

* not statistically significant +172% * * +74% +72% +70% * +71% +31% -2%*

February 26, 2021 | 3 Crash tests show how higher speeds undermine advances in crash protection

Drivers want to save time, and local trans- minutes faster, but is the trade-off of get- likelihood of fractures to the long bones in portation agencies want to improve traffic ting severely injured or even losing one’s life the lower leg. flow, but at what cost? With posted speed worth it if a crash occurs?” “Our crash test dummies are instrument- limits increasing on roadways around the The AAA Foundation collaborated with ed with hundreds of sensors to measure the country, a vehicle’s ability to protect drivers IIHS and Humanetics, the leading manufac- injury risk so that we understand the sci- in crashes is in doubt. turer of biofidelic crash test dummies, to ex- entific limits of safety and injury preven- Small speed increases can have huge ef- amine how speed affects the likelihood and tion. Understanding that the risk of serious fects on crash outcomes, as shown in new severity of occupant injury in a crash. Three and permanent injury becomes significant- crash tests by the AAA Foundation for Traf- 2010 Honda CR-V EX crossovers were used ly higher in crashes beyond statutory speed fic Safety, IIHS and Humanetics. The safety because they represented the average age limits clearly demonstrates why there are organizations conducted crashes at three (11.8 years) of a typical vehicle on U.S. road- limits in the first place,” says Jack Jensen, vice different impact speeds (40, 50 and 56 mph). ways and earned the top rating in the IIHS president of engineering at Humanetics. They found the slightly higher speeds were moderate overlap front test. Calspan Corpo- At both 50 and 56 mph, the steering enough to increase the driver’s risk of severe ration conducted all the tests in its crash lab- wheel’s upward movement caused the dum- injury or death. oratory in Buffalo, New York. my’s head to go through the deployed airbag. Drivers often travel faster than posted As the crash speed increased in the tests, re- This caused the face to smash into the steer- speed limits, but when officials raise limits searchers found more structural damage and ing wheel. Measurements taken from the to match travel speeds, people still go faster. greater forces on the dummy’s entire body. dummy showed a high risk of facial frac- Today, 41 states allow speeds of 70 mph or “Higher speed limits cancel out the ben- tures and severe brain injury. higher on some roadways. Of those, eight efits of vehicle safety improvements like air- When correctly set and enforced, speed states have maximum speeds of 80 mph or bags and improved structural designs,” says limits improve traffic flow and maximize all more. A 2019 IIHS study found that rising Dr. David Harkey, IIHS president. “The public road users’ safety. speed limits have cost nearly 37,000 lives faster a driver is going before a crash, the less “Cars are safer than they’ve ever been, over 25 years. AAA and IIHS urge pol- likely it is that they’ll be able to get down to a but nobody’s figured out how to make them icymakers to factor in this danger from survivable speed even if they have a chance defy the laws of physics,” says Harkey of higher speeds when considering speed to brake before impact.” IIHS. “Rather than raising speed limits, limit changes. At the 40 mph impact speed, there was states should vigorously enforce the limits “We conducted these crash tests to assess minimal intrusion into the driver’s space. they have. This includes using proven coun- the effect of speeds on drivers and learned But at the 50 mph impact speed, there was termeasures like high-visibility enforcement that a small increase could make a big differ- noticeable deformation of the driver side and carefully implemented speed-camera ence on the harm to a human body,” says Dr. door opening, dashboard and foot area. At programs to consistently and equitably en- David Yang, executive director of the AAA 56 mph, the vehicle interior was significant- force speed limits 24/7.” Foundation for Traffic Safety. “A speeding ly compromised, with the dummy’s sen- Speed limits should not be raised or low- driver may arrive at their destination a few sors registering severe neck injuries and a ered only to manipulate traffic volume on a

ROADIIHS RESEARCH “Impact of speeds on drivers and vehicles — results from crash tests” by W. Kim et al.

To request this paper, email [email protected].

4 | Status Report — Vol. 56, No. 1 particular roadway. States are urged to use engineering and traffic surveys when setting maximum speed limits. 40 MPH “Policymakers need to also think beyond enforcement to control speeds and should consider infrastructure changes based on road type to calm traffic flow appropriate- ly so that posted speed limits are followed,” says Jake Nelson, AAA director of traffic safety advocacy and research. This study is the second part of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety research exam- ining the effect of posted speed limit chang- es on safety. In the Foundation’s first study, traffic engineers were asked how posted 50 speed limits are set and what factors they MPH consider in changing them. The research tests were conducted follow- ing the same protocol that is used for the IIHS moderate overlap evaluation; only the speed was varied. With a test dummy repre- senting an average-sized male in the driver’s seat, the cars were crashed with 40 percent of the vehicle’s front on the driver side over- lapping the barrier. IIHS has been conducting this type of test, which simulates a head-on, partial-overlap 56 impact between two vehicles of the same MPH weight and size traveling at the same speed, since 1995. Since 2013, 100 percent of new vehicles have earned a good rating when tested at the 40 mph impact speed. n

Tests were conducted at three different impact speeds. Slightly higher speeds were enough to increase the driver’s risk of severe injury or death.

February 26, 2021 | 5 Evidence mounts for effectiveness of rear autobrake

Front automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems have great- Both front and rear AEB use sensors like cameras or radar to er potential to save lives, but rear AEB is saving drivers the hassle detect when the vehicle is getting too close to an obstacle and auto- and expense of many a fender bender, an updated analysis from matically apply the brakes to avoid or mitigate collisions. IIHS tests HLDI shows. and rates both systems. Only front crash prevention performance is Rear AEB was the standout feature in HLDI’s annual compilation a criterion for the Institute’s TOP SAFETY PICK and TOP SAFETY of its research on the impact of crash avoidance technologies. PICK+ awards. The updated rear AEB analysis adds insurance data for model year 2015-18 Subaru vehicles with and without the feature to an earlier analysis of 2014-15 vehicles. The researchers found Effect of crash avoidance features that vehicles equipped with rear AEB had 28 percent fewer property on insurance claim rates damage liability claims and 10 percent fewer collision claims across the two manufacturers. Forward collision Front Rear Parking Rear warning AEB AEB sensors camera Collision insurance covers damage to the insured driver’s vehicle, 5% while property damage liability insurance covers damage to the other vehicle involved in a crash when the insured driver is at fault. 0% “We haven’t seen that kind of reduction in claims for vehicle and -5% other property damage from any other advanced driver assistance -10% system,” says HLDI Senior Vice President Matt Moore. The impact of rear AEB on injury crashes was relatively small, -15% which makes sense based on the type of crashes the technology is de- -20% signed to avoid. -25% “Backing crashes generally happen at lower speeds than front-to- rear crashes,” Moore says. “That means they’re less dangerous, but the -30% costs from vehicle damage can add up.” Collision Medical payment Low-speed backing crashes represent a substantial portion of in- Property damage liability Personal injury protection surance claims, a separate HLDI analysis that looked at the point of Bodily injury Statistically significant impact of crashes found. Collision claims with rear damage of less than $2,000 accounted for 17 percent of all collision claims and over HLDI also found that two other features designed to prevent back- $8 billion in estimated damage during calendar years 2010–17. ing crashes, parking sensors and rear cameras, which are both more In comparison, HLDI has found that front AEB reduces the fre- common than rear AEB, were much less effective. Data from seven quency of collision claims by 3 percent and property damage liabil- other manufacturers showed that rear cameras reduced the fre- ity claims by 14 percent. However, it slashes the frequency of bodily quency of property damage liability claims by 5 percent and actually injury liability claims, which are for injuries that at-fault drivers in- increased the frequency of collision claims slightly, though that in- flict on occupants of other vehicles or others on the road, by nearly crease was not statistically significant. Parking sensors also reduced a quarter. the frequency of property damage liability claims by 5 percent and A similar study of police-reported crashes by IIHS found that the reduced the frequency of collision claims by 1 percent. technology reduced front-to-rear crashes by 50 percent. “Claims data show that collision avoidance technologies that auto- matically intervene to prevent or mitigate crashes are more effective than warning-based systems,” says Moore, noting that forward colli- sion warning is also associated with smaller claims reductions than ROADHLDI RESEARCH front AEB. “Compendium of HLDI collision avoidance research” Aside from rear AEB, front AEB and forward collision warning are HLDI Bulletin Vol. 37, No. 12: December 2020 the only stand-alone driver assistance features analyzed by HLDI that show double-digit percent reductions in claim frequency under any To request this paper, email [email protected]. type of coverage. n

6 | Status Report — Vol. 56, No. 1 ROADIIHS RESEARCH

Parents worry vehicle tech “Learning to drive: parental attitudes toward introducing teen drivers to advanced driver might prevent teens from assistance systems” by R.A. Weast, A.S. Mueller and K. Kolodge mastering the basics To request this paper, email [email protected].

Advanced driver assistance features have the potential to improve safety for young, novice drivers, but parents have mixed opinions about how to introduce such tech- nologies to their teenagers, a new study from IIHS shows. “Parents who have used advanced driv- ing assistance features with their teens worry that things like blind spot monitor- ing or lane departure warning systems could prevent them from learning the basics of driving, but they’re also aware those same features might save them from a crash,” says IIHS Research Scientist Rebecca Weast, the lead author of the study. Teenage drivers are 3 times as likely as those 20 or older to be involved in a fatal crash. Those deaths are often the result course when it drifts out of its lane. While Parents’ opinions were split about wheth- of single-vehicle crashes caused by speed- many parents said they believe these fea- er new drivers should be introduced to the ing or other errors that cause the driver to tures provide some safety benefits, they were driving assistance features at the begin- lose control. divided about when and how they should be ning of the learning process or after they’d Because teens most often drive older, used during the process of learning to drive. learned some of the basic skills. “I’m train- cheaper vehicles, they’re also less likely to “Those features make driving safer, but ing my daughter to use all the technolo- benefit from proven crash prevention tech- they don’t make you a safer driver,” said gy that’s available with the car,” said a third nologies like automatic emergency braking one parent. parent, adding that young people are often (AEB) — which is expected to be installed “Say my teen is driving in a car with all more tech-savvy than older adults. “If it’s in less than a quarter of the vehicles on U.S. those features engaged [and] that’s what there, why not?” roads by 2023 despite a major push from they get used to. Then they go out and buy The study did not include parents who manufacturers. But AEB and other features their own car, and it’s got none of those fea- had decided not to use these features at all like blind spot monitoring systems and sen- tures. That would be really scary for me.” during the learning process. However, some sors that warn the driver when the vehicle Overall, the parents expressed doubts said they turned the features off after exper- is drifting out of its lane are becoming more about the technology more often than imenting with them during driving prac- and more common on the cars that their strong faith in its effectiveness. Some com- tice to ensure their child didn’t use them as parents drive and they learn on. plained that the beeps and buzzes and warn- a crutch. These parents said they would later To explore how parents feel about these ing lights could themselves be distracting, or incorporate them into their sessions, since technologies, IIHS worked with J.D. Power that systems that momentarily take over the such technology was only going to become to conduct three focus groups. The discus- steering wheel to prevent lane departures more common. sions involved a total of 21 parents who had could startle their teen into overreacting. “More research is needed to determine used a vehicle equipped with at least four However, others were optimistic that the what role these features should play in learn- common driver assistance features to teach technologies could give fearful teens the ing to drive and how to ensure new driv- their teens to drive. These common features confidence to learn. A few used the system ers use these features properly,” says Weast. included blind spot monitoring, forward alerts to help monitor the teen’s driving and “That’s complicated because owners of vehi- collision warning, front or rear AEB, lane give immediate feedback about unsafe ma- cles with advanced driver assistance systems departure warning and lane departure pre- neuvers. AEB had already helped another often themselves don’t understand their ca- vention — which steers the vehicle back on parent’s teen avoid a crash. pabilities and limitations.” n

February 26, 2021 | 7 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute 4121 Wilson Boulevard, 6th floor Arlington, VA 22203 IIHS-HLDI Vehicle Research Center 988 Dairy Road Ruckersville, VA 22968

MEMBER GROUPS Insurance Group Status Report Acceptance Insurance MetLife Vol. 56, No. 1 February 26, 2021 Acuity Insurance Metromile | Insurance Group Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company AmericanAg MMG Insurance Editor: Sarah Karush American Family Insurance Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. American National Mutual Benefit Group® Writer: Jason Overdorf Amica Mutual Insurance Company Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company Auto Club Enterprises Nationwide Creative Director: Leslie Oakey Auto Club Group NJM Insurance Group Auto-Owners Insurance Nodak Insurance Company Photographers: Craig Garrett and Celina Insurance Group The Norfolk & Dedham Group® Vladimir Shutov CHUBB North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Colorado Farm Bureau Insurance Company North Mutual Insurance Company Inquiries/print subscriptions: Commonwealth Casualty Company Northern Neck Insurance Company [email protected] Concord Group Insurance NYCM Insurance CONNECT, powered by American Family Insurance Ohio Mutual Insurance Group Copy may be republished with Cooperators Financial Services Limited Oregon Mutual Insurance Company COUNTRY Financial PEMCO Mutual Insurance Company attribution. Images require CSAA Insurance Group Rock Assurance permission to use. CSE Insurance Group Progressive Insurance Desjardins Insurance PURE Insurance Donegal Insurance Group Qualitas Insurance Company DTRIC Insurance Redpoint County Mutual Insurance Company IIHS is an independent, nonprofit scientific and ECM Insurance Group The Responsive Auto Insurance Company educational organization dedicated to reducing Elephant Insurance Company Rider Insurance EMC Insurance Group Rockingham Insurance the losses — deaths, injuries and property Encova Insurance Root Insurance Co damage — from motor vehicle crashes. Erie Insurance Group RSA Canada Esurance Safe Auto Insurance Company HLDI shares and supports this mission through Farm Bureau Financial Services Safeco Insurance® scientific studies of insurance data represent- Farm Bureau Insurance Company of Michigan Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Company Farm Bureau Insurance of Tennessee Say Insurance ing the human and economic losses resulting Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho SECURA Insurance from the ownership and operation of different Farmers Insurance Group Selective Insurance Company of America types of vehicles and by publishing insurance Farmers Mutual of Nebraska Sentry Insurance Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Shelter Insurance® loss results by vehicle make and model. Frankenmuth Insurance Sompo International Gainsco Insurance South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company® Both organizations are wholly supported by GEICO Corporation Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company auto insurers and insurance associations. The General Insurance State Auto Insurance Companies Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company State Farm Insurance Companies Goodville Mutual Casualty Company Stillwater Insurance Group Grange Insurance Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd iihs.org Grinnell Mutual Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. The Travelers Companies, Inc. The Hanover Insurance Group USAA The Hartford Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Haulers Insurance Company, Inc. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company Horace Mann Insurance Companies Westfield Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company facebook /iihs.org Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Indiana Farmers Insurance FUNDING ASSOCIATIONS twitter @IIHS_autosafety Infinity Property & Casualty American Property Casualty Insurance Association Kemper Corporation National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies instagram @iihs_autosafety Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies Liberty Mutual Insurance youtube IIHS Louisiana Farm Bureau Insurance Company Main Street America Insurance MAPFRE Insurance Group