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.