A look back at how advanced semi-autonomous front crash prevention technology slashes police-reported rear-end crashes. Wayne Gerdes – CleanMPG – January 28th, 2016 Computers and the sensors that feed them prove to be much more aware and smarter than the average driver. Looking back at an IIHS release from early 2016, if all vehicles had been equipped with autobrake, there would have been at least 700,000 fewer police-reported rear-end crashes in 2013 alone. According to IIHS in their first study of the feature's effectiveness using U.S. police-reported crash data, vehicles equipped with front crash prevention are much less likely to rear-end other vehicles. The same IIHS stats show vehicles with automatic braking reduce rear-end crashes by approximately 40 percent, while forward collision warning alone reduces their occurrence by up to 23 percent. The autobrake systems also greatly reduce vehicle occupant injury! If all vehicles had been equipped with autobrake that worked as well as the systems studied, there would have been at least 700,000 fewer police-reported rear-end crashes in 2013. That number represents 13 percent of police-reported crashes overall. Just imagine the number of traffic jams we have been exposed to due to a two, three, four or more car pileup that we would not have been waiting for? David Zuby, IIHS Chief Research Officer: Front crash prevention is steadily becoming more prevalent, but in most cases it is offered as optional equipment. That may soon change, however. In September, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and IIHS announced an agreement in principle with automakers to make autobrake standard on all models. The new IIHS findings are in line with earlier research by HLDI based on insurance claim rates (see "Evidence continues to mount in favor of front crash prevention," Aug. 26, 2015, and Status Report special issue: crash avoidance, July 3, 2012). I hope to find more up to date write-ups as soon as they are published/released. Using police reports allows researchers to identify front-to-rear crashes to gauge vehicle front crash prevention systems' effectiveness specifically for the type of collision they are designed to address. For the study, researchers looked at police-reported rear-end crashes in 22 states during 2010-14 involving Acura, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Subaru and Volvo vehicles with optional front crash prevention. The crash rates of vehicles equipped with the technology were compared with the crash rates of the same models without front crash prevention. Individual vehicles with the technology were identified using trim level information or, in some cases, lists of vehicle identification numbers supplied by the manufacturers. A separate analysis of City Safety, Volvo's standard low-speed autobrake system, was conducted by comparing the S60 with other midsize luxury four-door cars and the XC60 with other midsize luxury SUVs. Unlike the City Safety-equipped Volvos, none of the comparison vehicles had standard front crash prevention. Percent difference in police-reported crash rates, vehicles with front crash prevention vs. vehicles without. Only rear-end crashes in which the study and comparison models struck other vehicles were considered. Crashes in which those vehicles were struck from behind but didn't strike a vehicle in front were left out, since front crash prevention wouldn't be expected to prevent them. Information from HLDI's database was used to control for factors that might have affected crash rates, including the vehicle's garaging location and driver characteristics. The analyses show that forward collision warning alone reduces rear-end crashes by 23 percent, while forward collision warning with autobrake reduces them by 39 percent. The reduction for City Safety is 41 percent. These vehicle crash stats prove without a doubt that forward collision warning and autonomous braking work! The study also shows that autobrake reduces injuries. The rate of rear-end crashes with injuries decreases by 42 percent with forward collision warning with autobrake and 47 percent with City Safety. Forward collision warning alone is associated with a 6 percent decrease in rear-end injury crashes, though that finding isn't statistically significant. Jessica Cicchino, the study's author and the Institute's VP for Research: One difficulty in studying optional front crash prevention systems is that they often are packaged with other crash avoidance technologies. For example, all of the study vehicles except for some Honda Accords and most of the City Safety-equipped Volvos had adaptive cruise control. Adaptive cruise control works like regular cruise control but uses sensors to track the vehicle in front to maintain a safe following distance. It is possible that some of the observed benefit for front crash prevention systems in avoiding rear-end collisions is a result of adaptive cruise control. However, unlike front crash prevention, drivers must activate adaptive cruise control every time they use it, and the feature generally isn't used for all types of driving. Lane departure warning was packaged with front crash prevention on the Hondas, Subarus and some Volvos included in the study, but it is unlikely to have affected rear-end crashes. Cicchino performed an additional analysis of City Safety vehicles to see how the effect of the system varied depending on a road's speed limit. The study vehicles had a version of City Safety that works at speeds up to 19 mph. (The latest versions work at speeds up to 30 mph.). Percent difference in rates of police-reported rear-end strikes by speed limit, Volvo S60 and XC60 combined vs. other midsize luxury cars and SUVs combined. Despite its speed limitation, City Safety had the biggest effect on roads with speed limits of 40-45 mph. The equipped Volvos rear-ended other vehicles 54 percent less frequently than comparable vehicles on those roads. The reduction was 39 percent on roads with speed limits of 35 mph or less and 25 percent on roads with speed limits of 50 mph or higher. The IIHS launched its front crash prevention rating program in 2013 to help consumers sort through a maze of technologies and zero in on the most effective systems. The ratings are based on research by HLDI indicating that forward collision warning and autobrake systems help drivers avoid front-to-rear crashes at both low speeds and moderate speeds. Under the three-tier rating program, models with optional or standard front crash prevention systems are rated as superior, advanced or basic. Ratings are determined by whether the vehicles have available autobrake, and, if so, how it performs in tests at 12 and 25 mph. The availability of forward collision warning also is factored in. If you are considering a new automobile, seriously consider and include this excellent accident avoidance technology within. The accident you avoid could very well be your own.
Too bad the chump behind you who is texting while driving his 1997 Buick doesn't have that technology , huh ?
Irony. A new car with autobrake with rear-end damage. Just happened to a colleague with a brand new RAV-4. And texting was suspected in the RAV-4 accident.
