Front crash prevention testsPoints awarded based on speed reduction targets20 km/h test40 km/h testspeed reduction (km/h)pointsspeed reduction (km/h)pointsless than 80less than 808 to 1518 to 15116 or more216 to 35236 or more3

1 point awarded to vehicles that meet NHTSA FCW NCAP requirement

1

Update on Vehicle Safety Testing Plans at IIHSGlobal NCAP Annual Meeting Brasilia, BrasilNovember 2015Adrian Lund,President, IIHS & HLDI

iihs.org

Crashworthiness

Front small overlap,beginning 2012

IIHS crashworthiness testsFront moderate overlap,beginning 1995Side impact,beginning 2003Rear crash (whiplash mitigation),beginning 2004Roof strength,beginning 2009

4

Crash protection ratings by model yearImprovements beginning in 1995Moderate overlap frontRoof strengthSmall overlap frontSide impactHead restraints and seats

poormarginalacceptablegood

Death and injury reductionsGood versus poor in IIHS testsFront offset with moderate overlap testFatality risk in head-on crashes is 46 percent lowerSide impact crash testFatality risk in side impact crashes 70 percent lowerIn addition to the benefit of adding side airbag protection for the headRear impact test (seat only)Neck injury risk in rear crashes is 15 percent lowerRisk of neck injury requiring 3+ months treatment is 35 percent lower

Front crash prevention testing and rating

Autobrake performance tests12 mph24 mphVolvo S60 with City Safety Subaru Outback with Eyesight

8

Front crash prevention ratings vehicles without forward collision warning or autobrake; or vehicles equipped with a system that doesnt meet NHTSA or IIHS criteria

vehicles earning 1 point for forward collision warningor 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

Front crash prevention releases

Update of FCP ratingsMay 201424 additional models evaluated

79 millionInaugural FCP ratingsSeptember 201374 models evaluated

Estimated audience 58 million

10

Front crash prevention ratings2013 2015 models (as of October 2015)

Front crash prevention systems are preventing crashes reported to insurersSystems intended to prevent front to rear crashes10 percent reduction, on average, in property damage liability claims for vehicles with forward collision warning14 percent reduction, on average, in PDL claims when FCW includes emergency autobrake19 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.

Hyundai Super Bowl advertisement

Ten manufacturers have committed to making automatic braking standard on new vehiclesJoint IIHS & NHTSA announcement, September 11, 2015

Timeline is still being developed but both groups will set specific performance criteria for manufacturers to meet their commitment.AudiBMWFordGeneral MotorsMazdaMercedes-BenzTeslaToyotaVolkswagenVolvo

15

All major auto manufacturers are now represented in the AEB standard fitment working groupLate January target for agreement

Timeline is still being developed but both groups will set specific performance criteria for manufacturers to meet their commitment.Below is a list of companies in the group:>BMW>Fiat-Chrysler>Ford>General Motors>Honda>Hyundai-Kia>Jaguar Land-Rover>Mazda>Mercedes-Benz>Mitsubishi>Nissan>Subaru>Tesla>Toyota>Volkswagen/Audi>Volvo

16

Automaker working group for standard fitment of autonomous emergency braking (AEB)Work plan Document what is known about the benefits of AEBChoose 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 AEBe.g. define the classes of vehicle to which AEB functionality would applye.g. by setting a minimum percent of a manufacturers fleet) Agree a timeframe for implementation of AEB functionality across the light vehicle fleet

Top Safety Pick and Top Safety Pick PlusTSP/TSP+

TSP and TSP+ criteria change to reflect marketHigher bar encourages improvement2013 models (effective Dec. 2012)TSP required good ratings in moderate front, side, rear and rollover evaluationsTSP+ required at least acceptable performance in small overlap test2014 models (effective Dec. 2013) Acceptable rating in small overlap added to TSP TSP+ required basic or better ratings for FCP2015 models (effective Dec. 2014) TSP requirement unchangedAdvanced or Superior FCP rating required for TSP+2016 models (effective Dec. 2015)Rating of Good in all 5 crashworthiness tests for TSPTSP+ also requires Advanced or Superior front crash prevention rating

19

Crashworthiness research

Driver/passenger small overlap crash performanceDriver-side impactPassenger-side impact2015 Honda CRV2015 Toyota RAV42013 Honda CRV2013 Toyota RAV4

GMPGAPGP Upcoming test vehicles2015 Mazda CX-52015 Subaru Forester2015 Buick Encore2015 Nissan Rogue2016 Hyundai Tucson

Ratings for vehicles with 2013 side impact fatalities

Detailed analysis of real-world side impact cases

Vehicles with good IIHS ratingNASS-CDS or CIREN side impactsAny occupant with AIS3 injury or fatalityIncluded both near- and far-side occupants

109 total occupants found (2005-12 calendar years)These were evaluated and categorized based on injury-producing factorsEstimated relevance of specific potential changes to the IIHS side impact test

23

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 testRelevance of specific IIHS side test changes

56 year-old driver with AIS 3 chest injuries

24

Next stepsReproduce some of the cases with crash tests, possibly including different dummiesPriorities (wont necessarily cover all of them):Cases with striking vehicle aligned forward of B-pillarCases with larger and/or faster striking vehicle and forward alignmentCases with far-side occupant

25

Crash avoidance research

relevance in percentinsurance claimsreductions in percentmulti-vehicleall crashesallinjuryCollisionPDLBILfront crash prevention2029162A10A15A3B14B19Blane departure prevention3231C(1)C(38)Cside view assist (blind spot)710521016adaptive headlights2