Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
New Findings on Crash Avoidance Technology
AAMVA Annual Region 1 Conference July 19, 2011 Jessica S. Jermakian, D.Sc.
2
Success of crash avoidance technology depends on answers to 5 questions
What is size and nature of crash problem? Is present technology capable of addressing the problem? Will drivers use and accept technology? What kinds of information will elicit right responses from drivers? How will driver behavior change in response to technology?
6
Systems available on vehicles sold in United States
number of makes 2008 2011 forward collision warning 8 19 lane departure warning 6 12 side view assist 24 adaptive headlights 16 23
7
Annual crashes potentially prevented or mitigated
By type of system all injury fatal forward collision warning 1,165,000 66,000 879 lane departure warning 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
8
Percent of crashes that potentially could be prevented or mitigated
injury fatal all crashes 5,825,000 698,000 33,035 total unique crashes 1,866,000 149,000 10,238 percent of crashes 32% 21% 31%
9
Do Volvo and Infiniti owners use and accept crash avoidance technologies
I would delete the method slide and change the title here
10
Percent of owners who drive with system turned on
didn’t know it was on vehicle never sometimes always (n = 86) (n = 294) (n = 184) (n = 301)
11
Percent of owners who find system annoying
12
Timing difference of Volvo vs. Infiniti lane departure warning
13
Percent of owners who want system again
14
Percent of owners who reported potentially safer behaviors
Forward collision warning Followed vehicle ahead less closely (46%) Lane departure warning and/or prevention Drift from lane less often (67-70%) Use turn signal more often (54-64%) Side view assist Check side mirrors more often (25%)
15
Percent of owners who reported potentially less safe behaviors
Forward collision warning Looked away from road more often (5%) Followed vehicle ahead more closely (2%) Side view assist Rely on system rather than turning head to look (13%) Change lanes more frequently (9%) Adaptive headlights More willing to drive at night (40%) Willing to drive faster (18%)
16
Effectiveness of a low speed forward collision avoidance system
19
Property damage liability claim frequencies for 2010 Volvo XC60
With City Safety vs. other Volvos and midsize luxury SUVs
20
Property damage liability claim frequencies by size of claim
Volvo XC60 vs. other Volvos and other midsize luxury SUVs
21
Summary and next steps Potential applicability of crash avoidance systems is huge Owner survey data indicate some annoyance with the technology, but most “early adopters” are leaving it active Vehicles with City Safety show significant reductions in collision claims compared with similar non-equipped vehicles Will drivers adapt behavior in ways to offset benefits of the technology? Some indication in surveys, but effectiveness studies are needed Some adaptation may be slow to appear 1st bullet – why are you telling them this? They don’t know about earlier estimate. I wouldn’t show the third bullet -- it won’t be interesting to them. I would add a bullet want to survey other early adopters with non luxury vehicles.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.