Global NCAP Annual Meeting, November 2015

1. Front crash prevention tests
Points awarded based on speed reduction targets
20 km/h test 40 km/h test
speed reduction
(km/h)
points
speed reduction
(km/h)
points
less than 8 0 less than 8 0
8 to 15 1 8 to 15 1
16 or more 2 16 to 35 2
36 or more 3
1 point awarded to vehicles that meet NHTSA FCW NCAP requirement

2. iihs.org
Update on Vehicle Safety Testing
Plans at IIHS
Global NCAP Annual Meeting
Brasilia, Brasil
November 2015
Adrian Lund,
President, IIHS & HLDI

3. Crashworthiness

4. Front small overlap,
beginning 2012
IIHS crashworthiness tests
Front moderate overlap,
beginning 1995
Side impact,
beginning 2003
Rear crash (whiplash mitigation),
beginning 2004
Roof strength,
beginning 2009

5. Crash protection ratings by model year
Improvements beginning in 1995
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Moderate overlap front
Roof strength
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Small overlap front
Side impact Head restraints and seats
poor
marginal
acceptable
good

6. Death and injury reductions
Good versus poor in IIHS tests
Front offset with moderate overlap test
– Fatality risk in head-on crashes is 46 percent lower
Side impact crash test
– Fatality risk in side impact crashes 70 percent lower
– In addition to the benefit of adding side airbag protection for the head
Rear impact test (seat only)
– Neck injury risk in rear crashes is 15 percent lower
– Risk of neck injury requiring 3+ months treatment is 35 percent lower

7. Front crash prevention
testing and rating

8. Autobrake performance tests
12 mph
24 mph
Volvo S60 with City Safety Subaru Outback with Eyesight

9. Front crash prevention ratings
vehicles without forward collision warning or autobrake; or
vehicles equipped with a system that doesn’t meet NHTSA or
IIHS criteria
vehicles earning 1 point for forward collision warning
or 1 point in either 20 or 40 km/h test
vehicles with autobrake that achieve 2-4 points for forward
collision warning and/or performance in autobraking tests
vehicles with autobrake that achieve 5-6 points for forward
collision warning and/or performance in autobraking tests

10. Front crash prevention releases
Update of FCP ratings
May 2014
24 additional models evaluated
79 million
Inaugural FCP ratings
September 2013
74 models evaluated
Estimated audience –
58 million

11. Front crash prevention ratings
2013 – 2015 models (as of October 2015)
137
39
11 10
113
51
28
19
81
56
39
33
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Not qualified/not
available
Basic Advanced Superior
2013 2014 2015

12. Front crash prevention systems are preventing
crashes reported to insurers
Systems intended to prevent front to rear crashes
10 percent reduction, on average, in property damage liability
claims for vehicles with forward collision warning
14 percent reduction, on average, in PDL claims when FCW
includes emergency autobrake
19 percent reduction in bodily injury claims for vehicles with FCW
and autobrake
If every vehicle had had FCW with autobrake in 2014, we estimate
there would have been more than 700 thousand fewer PDL claims
and more than 200 thousand fewer injury claims.

14. Hyundai Super Bowl advertisement

15. Ten manufacturers have committed to making
automatic braking standard on new vehicles
Joint IIHS & NHTSA announcement, September 11, 2015

16. All major auto manufacturers are now represented
in the AEB standard fitment working group
Late January target for agreement

17. Automaker working group for standard fitment of
autonomous emergency braking (AEB)
Work plan
Document what is known about the benefits of AEB
Choose a test protocol (or a group of protocols) from existing test
protocols that can be used to verify the presence of the AEB
functionality
Determine what would constitute standardization of AEB
– e.g. define the classes of vehicle to which AEB functionality would apply
– e.g. by setting a minimum percent of a manufacturer’s fleet)
Agree a timeframe for implementation of AEB functionality across
the light vehicle fleet

18. Top Safety Pick and Top
Safety Pick Plus
TSP/TSP+

19. TSP and TSP+ criteria change to reflect market
Higher bar encourages improvement
2013 models (effective Dec. 2012)
– TSP required good ratings in moderate front, side, rear and rollover evaluations
– TSP+ required at least acceptable performance in small overlap test
2014 models (effective Dec. 2013)
– Acceptable rating in small overlap added to TSP
– TSP+ required basic or better ratings for FCP
2015 models (effective Dec. 2014)
– TSP requirement unchanged
– Advanced or Superior FCP rating required for TSP+
2016 models (effective Dec. 2015)
– Rating of Good in all 5 crashworthiness tests for TSP
– TSP+ also requires Advanced or Superior front crash prevention rating

20. Crashworthiness research

21. Driver/passenger small overlap crash performance
Driver-side impact Passenger-side impact
2015 Honda CRV
2015 Toyota RAV4
2013 Honda CRV
2013 Toyota RAV4
G
M
P
G
A
P
G P
Upcoming test vehicles
 2015 Mazda CX-5
 2015 Subaru Forester
 2015 Buick Encore
 2015 Nissan Rogue
 2016 Hyundai Tucson

22. Ratings for vehicles with 2013 side impact
fatalities
Not rated
3,680
69%
Rating split by
optional SAB
fitment
170
3%
Good
706
13%
Acceptable
182
4%
Marginal
161
3%
Poor
422
8%
Rated
1,471
28%

23. Detailed analysis of real-world side impact cases
Vehicles with good IIHS rating
NASS-CDS or CIREN side impacts
Any occupant with AIS≥3 injury or fatality
Included both near- and far-side occupants
109 total occupants found (2005-12 calendar years)
These were evaluated and categorized based on injury-
producing factors
Estimated relevance of specific potential changes to the IIHS
side impact test

24. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Forward impact
location
Increased
severity
Adjust injury
criteria (or use
different
dummy)
Include far-side
dummy
Increase
severity and
forward impact
location
Increase
severity and
include far-side
dummy
Caseoccupantsaffected
Driver sustained
fatal injuries
from contact
with right door
Driver
sustained
skull
fracture,
possibly
from
contact
with
window sill
through or
under the
curtain AB.
Driver sustained right-side skull
fracture from contact with head of
unbelted passenger
73 year old passenger
sustained serious chest
injuries
Passenger
sustained fatal
chest injuries;
~20 cm more
crush than test
Relevance of specific IIHS side test
changes
56 year-old driver with AIS 3
chest injuries

25. Next steps
Reproduce some of the cases with crash tests, possibly including
different dummies
Priorities (won’t necessarily cover all of them):
1. Cases with striking vehicle aligned forward of B-pillar
2. Cases with larger and/or faster striking vehicle and forward
alignment
3. Cases with far-side occupant

26. Crash avoidance research

27. relevance in percent insurance claims
reductions in percent
multi-vehicle
all
crashes
all injury Collision PDL BIL
front crash prevention 20 29 16
2A 10A 15A
3B 14B 19B
lane departure prevention 3 2 3 1C (1)C (38)C
side view assist (blind spot) 7 10 5 2 10 16
adaptive headlights 2 <1 7 1 5 8
Theoretical relevance and insurance claim
frequency reduction for 4 crash avoidance
technologies
Pooled estimates across vehicle models
C = Mercedes & Mazda LDW only
A = FCW without autobrake
B = FCW with autobrake

28. Headlight testing –
November 2015

29. Motivation for headlight evaluation program
20,181 annual crash deaths in dark/unlit and dark/lit conditions
(2013 FARS)
Insurance claims data point to benefits for curve adaptive headlights
(2012 HLDI analyses of Mazda, Acura, Mercedes, Volvo claims)
Human factors experiments have established link between detection
performance and improved lighting
FMVSS 108 does not establish identical real-world performance

30. Dynamic headlight test setup
Vehicle approaches:
– 150 m radius left and right curves at 65 km/h
– 250 m radius left and right curves at 80 km/h
– Straightaway at 65 km/h
Record illuminance readings for:
– Visibility—edges of road at 25 cm above ground
– Glare—center of oncoming lane (1.1 m height)
250 m radius
150 m radius

31. Sample data: straightaway
3 different approaches for same vehicle
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
luxonRedgeofroad
Distance (m)

32. 30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
2014
Mercedes
GLK
2014 BMW
X5
2014
Cadillac
CTS
2014
Mazda 3
HID
2014 BMW
535
2014 Acura
RLX
2014
Dodge
Durango
R/T
2013
Mazda 3
HID
2014
Mercedes
E350
2014
Infiniti Q50
2013
Mazda 3
Halogen
Distanceat5lx(m)
AFS on AFS off
Observations:
1. AFS always helps
2. Wide range in performance
between different vehicles
(even with AFS)
3. Some headlights are better
statically than others when
swiveling
Low beam 4 curve average
Right edge of road

33. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2014
Mercedes
GLK
2014 BMW
X5
2014
Cadillac
CTS
2014
Mazda 3
HID
2014 BMW
535
2014
Acura RLX
2014
Dodge
Durango
R/T
2013
Mazda 3
HID
2014
Mercedes
E350
2014
Infiniti Q50
2013
Mazda 3
Halogen
Distanceat5lx(m)
Straight L side Straight R side
Observations:
1. Very wide range of performance!
Demonstrates how need for
headlight rating system goes
beyond improved curve illumination.
2. All systems better on R side, but
some have bigger R vs L
differences than others (narrower
beam pattern)
Low beam
Straightaway measurements

34. Headlight evaluation program
Vehicles will be tested dynamically and rated based on:
– Straightaway visibility
– Curve visibility
– High and low beams
– Acceptable glare
Dynamic tests allow assessment of curve-adaptive systems
Visibility metric is distance at which 5 lux illumination is achieved
25 cm above the road
Glare threshold is pass/fail based on illumination at eye location of
oncoming drivers
Midsize sedans will be first test group; testing begins November 2

35. Next steps in front crash
prevention testing

36. Vehicle and pedestrian movement
Single-vehicle pedestrian crashes, front of passenger vehicle
crashes 63% 29% 4%
deaths 72% 4% 16%

37. Vehicle and cyclist pre-crash movement
scenarios
Most likely to result in death of cyclist
crashes 9% 29% 3% 22%
deaths 45% 22% 6% 2%

38. Other IIHS ratings

39. iihs.org
More information and links
to our YouTube channel
and Twitter feed at iihs.org