Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
|
Highway Loss Data Institute
Status Report
4Rising horsepower is
pushing up vehicle speeds
4Interlocks reduce alcohol crash deaths
4India requires motorcycle ABS, but no sign of U.S. action
ALSO IN
THIS ISSUE
Vol. 51, No. 5
May 24, 2016
muscle
Flexing
Sports car ratings show range of performance
2
|
Status Report — Vol. 51, No. 5
T
hink “muscle car” performance, and
images of speed and power are more
likely to come to mind than crash
tests and safety ratings. Because no one
buys a sports car to drive in the slow lane,
the best all-around occupant crash protec-
tion is crucial. IIHS recently put a trio of
iconic sports coupes through their paces,
and unlike more sedate sedans, none earns
the scores needed to clinch a TOP SAFETY
PICK award.
IIHS evaluated 2016 models of the Chev-
rolet Camaro, Dodge Challenger and Ford
Mustang in the full battery of crashwor-
thiness evaluations. e Mustang comes
closest to earning TOP SAFETY PICK,
while the Camaro falls short in one cate-
gory and lacks an available front crash pre-
vention system. e Challenger is most in
need of improvement.
To qualify for TOP SAFETY PICK, ve-
hicles must earn good ratings in the small
overlap front, moderate overlap front, side,
roof strength and head restraint evalua-
tions and have a basic-rated front crash
prevention system. To qualify for the Insti-
tute’s highest award, TOP SAFETY PICK+,
vehicles must earn good ratings in the ve
crashworthiness tests and an advanced or
superior rating for front crash prevention.
IIHS doesn’t typically crash-test sports
cars as they make up a small share of the
consumer market. IIHS engineers decided
to evaluate these models with optional V-8
engines because they are big sellers in their
class, and consumers oen ask how they
would perform in crash tests.
Insurance data point to high losses for
sports cars. As a group, they have the high-
est losses among passenger vehicles for
crash damage repairs under collision cov-
erage, data from the Highway Loss Data
Institute show. Collision coverage insures
against physical damage to the at-fault pol-
icyholder’s vehicle in a crash.
Sports cars may be fast, but are
they as safe as more sedate sedans?
May 24, 2016
|
3
“Given that sports cars have high crash
rates, it’s especially important that they oer
the best occupant protection possible in a
crash,” says Adrian Lund, IIHS president.
e Camaro, Challenger and Mustang
earn good ratings for occupant protection
in a moderate overlap front crash, as well
as a side impact.
In the newest and toughest IIHS crash-
worthiness evaluation, the small overlap
front test, the Camaro earns a good rating,
the Mustang earns acceptable, and the
Challenger is rated marginal.
“e Mustang is just one good rating
away from earning TOP SAFETY PICK,”
Lund points out. “Its small overlap rating
holds it back.”
Added in 2012, the small overlap test
replicates what happens when a vehi-
cle runs o the road and hits a tree or
pole or clips another vehicle that has
crossed the center line. In the test, 25
percent of the total width of the vehi-
cle strikes the 5-foot-tall rigid barrier
on the driver side at 40 mph. It is an espe-
cially challenging test because it involves a
vehicle’s outer edges, which aren’t well-pro-
tected by the crush-zone structures. Crash
forces go directly into the front wheel, sus-
pension system and rewall.
e Challenger wasn’t up to the chal-
lenge of the small overlap test. Extensive
intrusion into the lower occupant com-
partment limited the driver’s survival space
and resulted in a poor rating for structure
and for leg/foot protection. Measures taken
from the dummy indicate a high likelihood
of serious lower leg injuries.
“During the crash, the Challenger’s front
wheel was forced rearward into the occu-
pant compartment, and the footwell in-
trusion trapped the dummy’s le foot and
deformed its ankle,” Lund explains. “Our
technicians had to unbolt the dummy’s foot
from its leg in order to free it. Entrapment »
Chevrolet Camaro Ford Mustang Dodge Challenger
Small overlap front test
Small overlap front test results were mixed. The Camaro’s safety cage resisted
intrusion, while the driver’s survival space wasn’t well-maintained in the Mustang.
In the Challenger test, the force of the crash shoved the wheel back toward the
occupant compartment, and the resulting intrusion trapped the dummy’s left foot.
G A
How 2016 sports cars rate in IIHS evaluations
G
Good
A
Acceptable
M
Marginal
P
Poor
Small
overlap
front
Moderate
overlap
front Side
Roof
strength
Head
restraints
& seats
Front
crash
prevention
Ford Mustang
Dodge Challenger
G
A
M
G
G
G
G
G
G
A G
G G
A A
Chevrolet Camaro
Basic Not available
crashworthiness
front crash prevention
M
4
|
Status Report — Vol. 51, No. 5
Vehicles are packing more horsepower,
and the trend is influencing travel speeds
T
he association between higher speed limits and faster vehicle
speeds is well-established, but not as much is known about
how horsepower aects travel speeds. A new IIHS study nds
that high-horsepower vehicles are more likely to exceed the speed
limit, particularly by 10 mph or more, and have higher mean speeds
than vehicles with less powerful engines.
Faster speeds increase both the risk of crashing and the severity
of injuries that occur. IIHS research has shown that rising speed
limits have resulted in higher fatality rates (see Status Report, April
12, 2016, at iihs.org).
“We know that speeds and fatality rates are going up, and part of
the problem is that states have raised speed limits. What this new
study tells us is that a trend toward
more powerful engines is also to
blame,” says Chuck Farmer, the Insti-
tute’s vice president for research and
statistical services.
It’s not just sports cars that are pack-
ing more power. Even mainstream
sedans have high-performance capa-
bilities. From model year 1985 to model year 2015, mean vehicle
power, dened as horsepower per 100 pounds of vehicle weight,
increased by 60 percent for cars, 65 percent for pickup trucks and
66 percent for SUVs, data from the Highway Loss Data Institute
(HLDI) show. Prior analysis by HLDI indicates that vehicle power
is strongly associated with higher insurance losses (see Status
Report special issue: Speed, Jan. 31, 2008).
In the new study, IIHS researchers used speed cameras to collect
speeds of free-owing trac on heavily traveled roads in Northern
Virginia with various speed limits during o-peak hours in spring
2013, as well as photographs of license plates and drivers. License
plate numbers were sent to driver licensing agencies to obtain ve-
hicle identication numbers (VINs) and the vehicle owner’s age,
gender and ZIP code. Vehicles were included in the study if the
age and gender of the photographed driver matched the owner’s
age and gender. VINs were decoded to obtain the curb weight and
horsepower of vehicles. Researchers calculated the eects of vehi-
cle power on mean travel speeds and estimated the eects of vehicle
power on the likelihood of a vehicle traveling over the speed limit
and more than 10 mph over the limit.
A 3-unit increase in horsepower per 100 pounds of vehicle weight
was associated with a 38 percent increase in the likelihood of a ve-
hicle exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph, a 7.7 percent
increase in the likelihood of a vehicle exceeding the speed limit by
The Dodge Challenger struggled in the small over-
lap test. Extensive occupant compartment in-
trusion limited survival space for the
driver. The footwell deformed
around the dummy’s left
foot, and technicians had to
unbolt the dummy’s leg to
free it from the wreckage.
Vehicle horsepower is
increasing, and speed
limits are rising. These
trends are driving up
speeds and fatality
rates on U.S. roads.
Foot entrapment
0
10
20
30
40
Exceeding
speed limit
by >10 mph
Exceeding
speed limit
by any amount
May 24, 2016
|
5
Trends in mean passenger vehicle horsepower
per 100 pounds of vehicle weight (1985-2015 models)
Percent increase in likelihood of exceeding
speed limit per 3-unit increase in vehicle power
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2015201020052000199519901985
■ passenger cars
■ pickups
■ SUVs
any amount and a 2.2 percent increase in mean vehicle speed, IIHS
found. is was the case aer controlling for driver characteristics,
speed limit, vehicle type and trac volume. A 3-unit increase in ve-
hicle power is equivalent to an increase of 90 horsepower for a mid-
size 3,000-pound car.
To illustrate how increasing vehicle power aects travel speeds,
researchers compared the 1981 Honda Accord and the base model
2015 Accord midsize sedan. e 1981 Accord with a 4-cylin-
der engine has 75 horsepower and a curb weight of 2,249 pounds,
yielding a vehicle power of 3.3 horsepower per 100 pounds of ve-
hicle weight. e 2015 Accord base model with a 4-cylinder engine
has 185 horsepower and a curb weight of 3,254 pounds, yielding a
vehicle power of 5.7 per 100 pounds.
A vehicle with the same vehicle power as the 2015 Accord would
travel an estimated 1.7 percent faster on average and have a 6.1 per-
cent higher likelihood of speeding and a 29 percent higher likeli-
hood of speeding by more than 10 mph, compared with a vehicle
meeting the 1981 Honda’s vehicle power, the study found.
e eects are magnied as horsepower increases. e 2015
Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat, for example, has 707 horsepower
and a curb weight of 4,439 pounds, giving it a vehicle power of 15.9.
IIHS researchers estimate that a vehicle matching the 2015 Hellcat’s
power would travel nearly 10 percent faster on average and have a
26 percent higher likelihood of speeding and a 233 percent higher
likelihood of speeding by more than 10 mph relative to a vehicle
with the power of a 1981 Honda.
For a copy of “Eects of vehicle power on passenger vehicle
speeds” by A.T. McCartt and W. Hu, email publication[email protected]g. n
(« from p. 3) is pretty rare. at’s only happened ve other times in
a small overlap test.”
In contrast, survival space for the driver in the Camaro was well-
maintained, and the risk of injuries to the dummy’s legs and feet
was low. e Camaro was redesigned for the 2016 model year.
“e Camaro’s safety cage is built to resist intrusion in a small
overlap crash, and that’s good news for Camaro drivers,” Lund says.
e Mustang’s structural performance in the small overlap test
fell short of the Camaro’s but was an improvement over the Chal-
lenger. e roof buckled, and the driver’s survival space was com-
promised by considerable intrusion of the door hinge pillar and
instrument panel. Still, measures taken from the dummy indicated
low risk of injuries to all body regions, including the legs and feet.
e Camaro and Mustang earn good ratings for head restraints
and seats to protect against neck injuries in rear crashes. e Chal-
lenger’s head restraints are rated acceptable.
e Mustang earns a good rating for roof strength, and the Camaro
and Challenger earn acceptable. Stronger roofs crush less in rollovers, re-
ducing the risk that people will be injured by contact with the roof itself
and the risk that unbelted occupants will be ejected. Strong roofs are es-
pecially important for sports cars, which have among the highest driver
death rates in single-vehicle rollovers (see Status Report, Jan. 29, 2015).
Ford and Dodge oer optional forward collision warning systems
on the Mustang and Challenger, and both coupes earn a basic rating
for front crash prevention because their systems meet performance
criteria set by the National Highway Trac Safety Administration. n
Amping up
horsepower
increases the
odds that a
vehicle will
exceed speed
limits.
6
|
Status Report — Vol. 51, No.5
Interlocks cut alcohol-related crash deaths
L
aws that require alcohol interlocks for
anyone convicted of driving under
the inuence (DUI) of alcohol or
drugs have reduced alcohol-involved crash
deaths by 15 percent, a study by research-
ers at the University of Pennsylvania found.
Interlocks prevent people who have been
drinking alcohol from starting their cars.
Drivers must blow into a breath-testing
unit, and if the reading exceeds a preset
level, the vehicle won’t start.
Penn researchers mined federal fatal
crash data from the 18 states that mandated
interlocks for all DUI convictions by 2013
and the 32 states with less-stringent laws.
e ndings further bolster the evidence
that mandatory interlocks prevent alcohol-
impaired driving. Previous studies by IIHS
and other groups have found that oend-
ers who get interlocks are much less likely
to be arrested again on DUI charges than
those who don’t.
For example, an IIHS study of the eects
of Washington’s interlock requirement found
a 12 percent drop in the recidivism rate aer
the state expanded its interlock requirement
to cover everyone convicted of DUI (see
Status Report, March 6, 2012, at iihs.org).
e law change was associated with an 8.3
percent reduction in single-vehicle late-night
ey compared the number of alcohol-in-
volved crash deaths during 1999-2013 for
the two groups of states, controlling for
such factors as annual vehicle miles trav-
eled, state highway speed limits and trac
law changes.
Compared with states having less strin-
gent laws, those states with mandatory in-
terlock laws saw a decrease of 0.8 deaths
for every 100,000 people each year. e re-
searchers note that this is comparable to the
estimated number of lives saved by frontal
airbags (0.9 lives saved per 100,000 people).
In states with universal interlock laws,
915 lives were saved between 2007-13, the
researchers estimate. e authors assumed
that the laws had no eect in the rst three
years aer implementation.
during the study period as factors that
could have lowered the eectiveness of in-
terlock requirements in the study states.
Mandatory interlocks may be the key to
reigniting stalled progress in reducing the
number of alcohol-impaired driving deaths,
which plunged during the 1980s and early
1990s. Since then, the proportion of fatally
injured drivers with a blood alcohol con-
centration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or higher
has remained at about one-third. In 2014, 6
percent of drivers with BACs of 0.08 percent
or higher who were involved in fatal crashes
had previous alcohol-impaired driving
convictions within the past three years on
their records. IIHS estimates that 650 of the
deaths in 2014 could have been prevented
if these drivers had zero BACs.
“Although crashes and crash fatalities
decline, we’re not seeing a signicant re-
duction in the proportion of those involv-
ing alcohol,” says the study’s senior author,
Douglas J. Wiebe. “We’re encouraged by
the increasing number of states enacting
mandatory interlock laws since 2013 and
hope these ndings advance public health
conversations aimed at saving more lives.”
In May, Maryland became the 27th state to
mandate interlocks for all drivers convicted
of DUI. An additional 12 states require in-
terlocks for oenders with high BACs (usu-
ally 0.15 percent or higher) and for repeat
oenders, ve states and certain California
counties require them only for repeat of-
fenders, and one state requires them only for
high-BAC oenders and oenders convict-
ed of a felony regardless of BAC. Four states
and Washington, D.C., have no mandatory
interlock requirements.
An estimated 318,714 interlocks were in
use during 2014 in the U.S.
e advocacy group Mothers Against
Drunk Driving in a report published in
February estimates that ignition interlocks
have prevented more than 1.77 million
would-be alcohol-impaired drivers in the
U.S. from starting their vehicles since states
rst passed ignition interlock laws.
“Impact of state ignition interlock laws
on alcohol-involved crash deaths in the
United States” by E.J. Kaufman and D.J.
Wiebe appears in the May 2016 issue of the
American Journal of Public Health. n
A driver blows into a breath-testing unit
that checks for the presence of alcohol.
If the reading exceeds a preset level,
the car won’t start.
crash risk, suggesting a general deterrent
eect of the expanded interlock requirement.
Not all oenders covered by interlock
laws actually install them. Some risk driving
on a suspended license during the interlock
period for economic and personal reasons.
IIHS research indicates that laws requir-
ing all DUI oenders to drive with an inter-
lock before regaining their full license would
result in further reductions in recidivism.
e Penn study authors note that their
ndings likely underestimate the poten-
tial eect of universal interlocks. ey
cite failure to install interlocks by all driv-
ers required to use them; dierences in en-
forcement among states; local laws that are
stricter than state requirements and changes
in penalties, monitoring and administration
I
ndia has joined a growing number of
countries that require antilock braking
systems (ABS) on motorcycles — an im-
portant step for highway safety that U.S.
regulators have yet to take.
ABS prevents wheels from locking up, al-
lowing riders to brake fully in an emergency.
It’s essential safety equipment for motorcy-
cles. e technology cuts fatal motorcycle
crashes by 31 percent and insurance claims
for rider injuries by 28 percent (see Status
Report, May 30, 2013, at iihs.org).
“Motorcycle ABS saves lives, and it’s good
to see highway safety regulators around the
globe recognizing that fact,” says Adrian
Lund, president of IIHS and HLDI. “We hope
NHTSA will be next, so that all riders in the
U.S. can benet from this technology, too.”
Despite the lack of a U.S. mandate, mo-
torcycle ABS has become more widely
available in recent years. Nearly half of
2015 model motorcycles registered in the
U.S. had standard ABS, while another 23
percent had it available as an option. at’s
May 24, 2016
|
7
India is latest to require motorcycle ABS;
no action in U.S. despite clear evidence
A rider demonstrates a motorcycle equipped
with ABS on the Institute’s test track.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20152014201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002
Motorcycle ABS availability in the U.S. by model year
n standard n optional n not available
a big jump since 2008, when it was stan-
dard on just 2 percent of motorcycles and
optional on 22 percent.
Nearly 4,300 motorcyclists were killed in
the U.S. in 2014, accounting for 13 percent
of all crash deaths. A motorcycle ABS re-
quirement could put a signicant dent in
overall fatalities, which, according to pre-
liminary 2015 data, are on the rise (see
Status Report, Dec. 10, 2015).
In India, the impact of ABS could po-
tentially be even greater, since there are far
more motorcycles than cars there. More
than 137,000 people were killed in crashes
in India in 2013, and about one-third of
them were riders of motorized two- or
three-wheelers, according to government
statistics. (e World Health Organization
says the total number of fatalities is actually
higher — more than 200,000.)
Based on those ndings, IIHS and HLDI
petitioned the National Highway Trac
Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2013
to require ABS on new motorcycles. e
agency hasn’t responded to the petition.
Meanwhile, other countries are moving
forward. India’s rule, announced in March,
will require all new motorcycles with an
engine displacement of more than 125 cc
to have ABS beginning in April 2018. Car-
ryover models get another year to comply.
In the European Union, new models over
125 cc must have ABS as of this year, and car-
ryover models must have it next year. e
same requirement will take eect in Japan
in 2018 for new models and 2021 for carry-
overs and in Taiwan in 2019 for new models
and 2021 for carryovers. In Brazil, mandatory
ABS for motorcycles with 300 cc engines or
greater is being phased in through 2019.
Dinesh Mohan, an Indian highway safety
expert and former IIHS researcher, esti-
mates that if all motorcycles on the road in
India had ABS, it would reduce overall traf-
c fatalities by more than 10 percent. at’s
about double the reduction he estimates
would result from airbags in every passen-
ger vehicle plus universal safety belt use.
However, the new rule won’t come close
to that kind of an eect because most mo-
torcycles sold in India will be exempt.
For bikes with engines of 125 cc or less,
manufacturers can install either ABS or a
combined braking system (CBS), which in-
tegrates front and rear brake controls. It’s not
known how eective CBS is by itself, though
HLDI research has shown that the combina-
tion of ABS and CBS is more eective than
ABS alone (see Status Report, May 30, 2013).
Small engines are far more common in
India, where motorcycles serve as a low-
cost commuting option, than in the U.S.,
where recreational riding is the norm. Out
of more than 16 million motorcycles sold
in India in the year beginning April 2015,
86 percent had engines of 125 cc or less, ac-
cording to statistics compiled by the Society
of Indian Automobile Manufacturers.
Still, Mohan points out, in just the rst
year the new rule will improve safety for
the 2.3 million Indian motorcycle riders
who purchase larger bikes. n
IIHS is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries and
property damage — from crashes on the nation’s roads.
HLDI shares and supports this mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses
resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make
and model.
Both organizations are wholly supported by the following auto insurers and funding associations:
MEMBER GROUPS
AAA Carolinas
Acceptance Insurance
AIG PC Global Services, Inc.
Alfa Alliance Insurance Corporation
Alfa Insurance
Allstate Insurance Group
American Family Mutual Insurance Company
American National
Ameriprise Auto & Home
Amica Mutual Insurance Company
Auto Club Enterprises
Auto Club Group
Auto-Owners Insurance
Bankers Insurance Group
Bitco Insurance Companies
California Casualty Group
Censtat Casualty Company
CHUBB
Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Concord Group Insurance Companies
COUNTRY Financial
CSAA Insurance Group
CSE Insurance Group
Direct General Corporation
Elephant Insurance Company
Erie Insurance Group
Esurance
Farm Bureau Financial Services
Farm Bureau Insurance of Michigan
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho
Farmers Insurance Group
Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company of Iowa
Farmers Mutual of Nebraska
Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Companies
Frankenmuth Insurance
Gainsco Insurance
GEICO Corporation
The General Insurance
Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Goodville Mutual Casualty Company
Grange Insurance
Hallmark Financial Services
Hanover Insurance Group
The Hartford
Haulers Insurance Company, Inc.
Horace Mann Insurance Companies
ICW Group
Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company
Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
Infinity Property & Casualty
Kemper Corporation
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
The Main Street America Group
Mercury Insurance Group
MetLife Auto & Home
Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company
MMG Insurance
Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.
Mutual Benefit Group
Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company
Nationwide
New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group
Nodak Mutual Insurance Company
Norfolk & Dedham Group
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Northern Neck Insurance Company
Ohio Mutual Insurance Group
Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Old American Indemnity Company
Oregon Mutual Insurance Company
Paramount Insurance Company
Pekin Insurance
PEMCO Insurance
Plymouth Rock Assurance
Progressive Insurance
PURE Insurance
Qualitas Insurance Company
The Responsive Auto Insurance Company
Rider Insurance
Rockingham Group
Safe Auto Insurance Company
Safeco Insurance
Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Company
SECURA Insurance
Sentry Insurance
Shelter Insurance Companies
Sompo America
South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company
State Auto Insurance Companies
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies
The Travelers Companies
United Educators
USAA
Utica National Insurance Group
Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
West Bend Mutual Insurance Company
Western National Insurance Group
Westfield Insurance
XL Group plc
FUNDING ASSOCIATIONS
American Insurance Association
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
This publication is printed on recycled paper.
Inquiries/print subscriptions:
StatusReport@iihs.org
Copy may be republished with attribution.
Images require permission to use.
Editor: Kim Stewart
Writer: Sarah Karush
Art Director: Steve Ewens
Muscle cars fall short of clinching
TOP SAFETY PICK in new ratings42
Rising horsepower is pushing up
vehicle travel speeds44
Interlocks reduce alcohol-involved
crash deaths by 15 percent 46
India requires motorcycle ABS, but
no sign of action in the U.S.47
Vol. 51, No. 5
May 24, 2016
Status Report
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Highway Loss Data Institute
youtube.com/IIHS
@IIHS_autosafety
iihs.org/rss
iihs.org
