Insurance Institute for Highway SafetyHighway Loss Data Institute

2015 in review and first look 2016

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an inde-pendent, nonprofit scientific and educational organiza-tion. The mission of IIHS is to reduce the losses — deaths, injuries and property damage — from crashes on the nation’s roads.

The Highway Loss Data Institute shares and sup-ports this mission through scientific studies of insur-ance data representing the human and economic losses resulting from the owner-ship and operation of motor vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and model.

Contents3 Message from

the president

4 Ratings timeline

6 Crashworthiness

10 Headlights

12 Front crash prevention

14 Vehicle Research Center

18 Children & teens

20 Behavioral research

22 HLDI

24 Communications

28 Bibliography

30 HLDI reports

31 Leadership team

2 | 2015 in review

Intr

oduc

tion

2015 in review | 3

Adrian Lund | President

A message from Adrian Lund, President of IIHS and HLDI

The prospect of autonomous vehicles dominates media coverage of the automotive industry. Al-though it might seem as if self-driving vehicles are a panacea, our research shows that not all of the automated technology available on current production vehicles performs as expected. There also is the question of driver acceptance. We know that drivers like some systems, for instance auto-matic braking, but not others, such as lane departure warning. While we await the gradual rollout of autonomous vehicles, it is possible to realize Vision Zero by continuing to look at roads and drivers, as well as vehicles.

Many of the solutions are tried and true: Strong laws and well-publicized enforcement to encourage motorists to buckle up and to deter alcohol-im-paired driving; lower speed limits; more stringent graduated driver licensing systems; automated technology to reduce red light running and speed-ing; and roundabouts in place of intersections.

At IIHS, one important way we move the needle is through our ratings for consumer information. We marked the 20th anniversary of our first crash-worthiness ratings program during 2015 and began rating the ease of use of LATCH child restraint attachment hardware in vehicles. So far in 2016, we have added headlight ratings to assess how well this basic equipment illuminates the road ahead while minimizing glare for oncoming drivers. Other ratings initiatives are being explored.

To make room for our growing programs, we expanded the Vehicle Research Center in Ruckers-ville, Va., and celebrated the project’s completion in 2015. As part of the September event, IIHS and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced a historic automaker commitment to voluntarily add standard automatic braking systems to their fleets.

Our work also sets the example for others. I recently was honored to accept two awards on behalf of the Institutes. Global NCAP presented us with the 2015 Innovation Award in recognition of the small overlap front crash test. SAE International honored us with the 2015 SAE Arnold W. Siegel Humanitarian Award.

I am proud of all that we have accomplished in the past year and am excited by the research projects under way in 2016. We are grateful to our member companies for the support that enables us to continue to raise the bar in our research, ratings and communications programs as we work to reduce the deaths and injuries on our nation’s roads.

Glob

al N

CAP

Adrian Lund (center) receives the Global NCAP Innovation Award from Max Mosley, Global NCAP chairman (left), and David Ward, Global NCAP secretary-general.

4 | 2015 in review

1995

| M

oder

ate

over

lap

fron

t cr

ash

and

head

res

trai

nts

1995 2003

20041995

2004

| Dy

nam

ic te

st to

eva

luat

e se

at/h

ead

rest

rain

ts a

dded

to g

eom

etri

c ev

alua

tions

2003

| Si

de im

pact

Ratings timeline

The first IIHS crashworthiness ratings program, the moderate overlap front

crash test, turned 20 years old in 2015. Since that 1995 launch, we have

added 8 more ratings. Our goal is to educate consumers and encourage

manufacturers to make improvements to save lives and reduce injuries.

2015 in review | 5

2008 2012 2015

2013 20162009

2008

| Bo

oste

r se

ats

2009

| Ro

of s

tren

gth

2012

| Sm

all o

verl

ap fr

ont c

rash

2013

| Fr

ont c

rash

pre

vent

ion

2015

| LA

TCH

hard

war

e in

veh

icle

s

2016

| He

adlig

hts

6 | 2015 in review

Cras

hwor

thin

ess

Rating vehicles for safety

IIHS ratings help consumers pick the safest vehicles for their families and encourage auto manufacturers to refine vehicle designs to optimize pro-tection for people in crashes and avoid collisions in the first place. These efforts have led directly to a reduction in crash deaths and injuries.

Much of our work centers on crashworthiness, that is, how well a vehicle’s structure and restraint systems protect occupants in a crash. IIHS rates vehicles good, acceptable, marginal or poor, based on per-formance in five tests: small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side impact, roof strength and head restraints.

Our crashworthiness ratings program launched in 1995 with what we then called the offset frontal crash test. Today, it’s known as the moderate overlap front test. IIHS research has shown that drivers of vehicles rated good in the test are about half as likely to die in a serious frontal crash than drivers in poor-rated vehicles. Roughly half of the vehicles we evaluated in 1995 earned marginal or poor ratings, and more were rated poor than good. Now, all vehi-cles earn good ratings for protection in a moderate overlap frontal crash.

IIHS in 1995 began rating head restraints based on their potential to protect people’s necks in rear-end crashes. Vehicles with seat/head restraint combinations that we rate good have 15 percent fewer insur-ance claims for neck injuries than vehicles with poor ratings.

Recognizing that many people were dying in side crashes, IIHS add-ed a side crash test in 2003. Drivers of vehicles with good ratings in our side barrier test are 70 percent less likely to die in a driver-side crash compared with drivers in vehicles rated poor. The ratings encouraged manufacturers to add standard side airbags to their fleets, a move that has sharply reduced fatality risk in side crashes. Today nearly all vehi-cles earn good side ratings; few did when we introduced the side test.

To address deaths in rollover crashes, we began publishing roof-strength ratings in March 2009. The ratings were based on a 2008 IIHS study indicating that strong roofs reduce the risk of fatal or incapacitating injury when vehicles roll over. This was confirmed by a second IIHS study using a different set of vehicles. These were the first studies to demonstrate the link between roof strength and injury risk. They showed that stronger roofs reduce the risk of ejection and the risk of injury for occupants remaining in the vehicle.

2015 in review | 7

moderate overlap front test

side test

roof strength

head restraints

86 crash tests

4�43 small overlap

4�3 moderate overlap

4�6 side impact

4�17 roof crush

8 | 2015 in review

To help drive further improvements in crash protec-tion, IIHS in 2012 introduced the small overlap front test. It replicates what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another vehicle or an object like a tree or utility pole. Manufacturers have respond-ed to the challenge in two ways. One is by taking the test into account when models are redesigned. The other is by making smaller modifications to beef up the front structure and improve airbags even before a

model gets a full overhaul. The test is based on IIHS research showing the need for improved occupant protection in small overlap crashes. In a 2009 IIHS study of vehicles with good ratings for frontal crash protection, small overlap crashes accounted for nearly a quarter of the frontal crashes involving serious or fatal injury to front-seat occupants.

Subaru and Volkswagen displays at the 2016 Detroit auto show

Awards honor safest vehicles

Each year, we recognize the highest-rated vehi-cles with a TOP SAFETY PICK+ or TOP SAFETY

PICK award. Winners of the “plus” award must meet extra criteria. The idea is to encourage man-ufacturers to reach for ever-higher levels of safety. To do this, we aim to raise the bar each year.

Winners of our 2016 awards earn good ratings in the small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as have a basic-rated standard or optional front crash prevention system. Win-ners of the plus award also have a superior- or advanced-rated front crash prevention system with automatic braking capabilities.

We plan to tough-en the criteria for the 2017 accolades. To earn TOP SAFETY PICK, models must have good crashworthiness ratings across-the-board and earn an advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention. To earn the plus award, models also must earn a good or acceptable rating for head-light performance.

2015 in review | 9

Advertising mentions

596 ads approved to use TOP SAFETY PICK/TOP SAFETY PICK+ claims

4�130 online

4�118 print

4�66 miscellaneous

4�90 TV

4�23 radio

4�15 social media

4�93 direct marketing

4�56 Canadian market

4�5 other foreign markets

10 | 2015 in review

Head

light

s

New ratings show need to improve

Technologies to prevent crashes from happening at all continue to be a growing focus of our vehicle research and ratings programs. We now have two crash avoidance evaluations: front crash pre-vention and headlights.

Headlights are the newest addition to our bat-tery of vehicle evaluations. We laid the ground-work for the program during 2015 and published the first ratings in March 2016.

Headlights are very basic but essential equipment. With about half of traffic deaths occurring either in the dark or in dawn or dusk conditions, improved vehicle lighting has the potential to bring about substantial reductions in fatalities.

The new ratings fill an important gap because government standards for headlights, based on laboratory tests, allow huge variation in the amount of illumination that headlights provide in actual on-road driving.

IIHS engineers measure the illumination provided by headlights as vehicles travel straight and on four different curves on the test

2015 in review | 11

Headlights

4�116 tests

track at night. They also measure glare for oncoming drivers to make sure it is not excessive.

Additional credit is given for high-beam assist, a feature which automatically switches between high beams and low beams, de-pending on the presence of other vehicles. IIHS research shows that most drivers don’t use their high beams enough.

Out of 31 midsize cars evaluated, only one — the Toyota Prius v — is available with headlights that earn a good rating. The best available headlights on 11 cars earn an acceptable rating, while nine only reach a marginal rating. Ten of the vehicles can’t be purchased with anything other than poor-rated headlights.

12 | 2015 in review

Fron

t cra

sh p

reve

ntio

n

Quick progress for autobrake

Our front crash prevention ratings program entered its third year in 2015, and progress has been quick and substantial. The goal of the program is to help consumers pinpoint the most effective technologies and en-courage automakers to offer them on their vehicles. We rate the autobrake capability of models equipped with a front crash prevention sys-tem to prevent or mitigate certain frontal crashes. Vehicles earn an advanced or superior rating, depending on how they perform in our tests. Models with a forward collision warning system earn a basic rating.

Front crash prevention is becoming more prevalent, but in most cases it is optional equipment. About 50 of the winners of the 2016 TOP SAFETY PICK+ award have an available superior- or advanced-rated front crash prevention system.

A historic public-private commitment forged during 2015 raises the likelihood that new car buyers soon won’t have to request the technology as an extra because it will be standard on virtually all new models by September 2022.

David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer, and Nathaniel Beuse, director of the Office of Crash Avoidance for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), collaborated to seek a voluntary commitment from man-ufacturers to adopt standard autobrake. IIHS and NHTSA announced the plan in September 2015 and revealed the timetable in March 2016. Twenty automakers repre-senting more than 99 percent of the U.S. auto market have signed on.

2015 in review | 13

Autobrake

4�28 tests

14 | 2015 in review

Vehi

cle

Rese

arch

Cen

ter

More room for research

In 2015, we celebrated completion of the expanded research facilities on our 135-acre campus in central Virginia. The Vehicle Research Center, known as the VRC, is a world-class research and testing facility. It is the hub for our crashworthiness and crash avoidance ratings programs for consumer information. More than 3,000 people visited the facility during 2015.

IIHS opened the VRC in 1992 and in the intervening years has conducted more than 1,000 vehicle crash

tests in the 22,000-square-feet test hall. Evaluating how well vehicles protect people in crashes has com-prised the bulk of our work at the VRC. During recent years, studying how to prevent crashes from happen-ing in the first place and evaluating new technologies has become a bigger focus. Needing more room for these endeavors, we embarked on a $30 million expansion during March 2013 with the support of our member companies.

Since much of our work in crash avoidance takes place outside of the test lab, we need a lot of space

2015 in review | 15

VRC visitors/groups hosted

4 3,285 visitors

4�140 groups, including 52 insurer groups, 87 nonmember groups

to put vehicles through their paces in controlled areas. We now have 15 acres of track, both covered and open, to do that.

The most striking addition is a 5-acre covered test track, one of the largest fabric-covered structures in the United States. The iconic dome is easily seen as drivers approach Ruckersville on U.S. Route 29 and from vari-ous high points throughout the mountainous Charlottes-ville region. The weather-resistant covering allows us to conduct tests and demonstrations year-round. Seven steel spans arc over the 700-by-300-foot asphalt area

16 | 2015 in review

below. The spans contain 1,000 tons of steel fastened together with more than 10,000 nuts and bolts. The six composite-membrane panels weigh 36 tons and are made of 100 percent recyclable LEED-compliant fabric. Supporting the steel spans and fabric panels are 18 massive concrete piers, which contain more than 4,000 cubic yards of concrete, plus more than 39 miles of embedded steel reinforcement bars.

Our newly expanded open track is where our engineers conduct the tests for our new headlight evaluations. A driving course marked with a series of reflectors secured to the asphalt to simulate various straightaway and curved approaches helps us measure headlight illumination and glare.

We are working with Perrone Robotics on drop-in autonomy kits and target robot vehicles for use in crash avoidance tests.

Indoors, we gained office and conference facilities and freed up space in the original building for research use. In early 2015, staff moved into the new three-story building, and we were pleased to host several insurer and industry meetings. Our members are invited to reserve the Thomas C. Morrill Conference Center for their own gatherings. In 2016, we will com-plete a high-tech broadcast center for on-site interviews and satellite media tours to expand our outreach to journalists worldwide.

2015 in review | 17

18 | 2015 in review

Child

ren

& te

ens Boosters and LATCH

IIHS helps fill gaps in consumer knowledge when it comes to selecting appropriate booster seats and installing child restraints using the Lower An-chors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) hardware in vehicles.

In 2008, IIHS was first to compare booster seats and rate their potential effectiveness based on how well they fit children too old for child restraints but too young for adult lap/shoulder belts. We started the booster ratings program because our research indicated that many booster seats weren’t doing a good job of fitting safety belts cor-rectly and consistently on children in a variety of vehicles. Until IIHS began evaluating boosters, parents couldn’t be sure that the seat they were buying would provide safe belt fit for their child in their vehicle. Our ratings removed this guesswork by providing scientific criteria for assessing how well boosters do the job they were meant to do.

For 2015, 20 of 23 newly introduced models earn the highest rating of BEST BET, and three earn the second-high-est rating of GOOD BET. When we first introduced the ratings in 2008, only 10 of 41 models earned BEST BET, and there were 13 seats that we couldn’t recommend buying.

A BEST BET rating means that the booster seat provides good belt fit for typical 4 to 8 year-olds in almost any car, minivan or SUV. A GOOD BET booster provides acceptable belt fit in most cars, minivans or SUVs. Not recommended boosters don’t provide

good belt fit and should be avoided.The LATCH ratings we introduced in

2015 provide parents with information on how easy or hard it is to install child restraints using LATCH hardware in more than 100 vehicles. Child re-straints are notoriously tricky to install. Some frustrated parents have blamed themselves when they can’t locate the anchors in the vehicle or struggle with attaching the seats. Our ease-of-use rat-ings indicate that oftentimes the blame lies with the vehicle and not the parent.

Only 3 vehicles of more than 100 earn a good rating in the first round of evaluations. More than half are rated

2015 in review | 19

poor or marginal. Since the initial release in June 2015, some manufac-turers have made design improvements to their vehicle LATCH systems. One is Toyota, which implemented a running change on the Sienna to move this minivan’s rating to marginal from poor. We plan to release more ratings in summer 2016.

Boosters

4�23 boosters rated

4�8 paid evaluations for manufacturers

LATCH

4�131 LATCH ratings, including multiple trim levels and/or running changes for given make/model

4�115 vehicle models rated (not counting multiple trim levels within a model)

20 | 2015 in review

Beha

vior

al r

esea

rch Research matrix

IIHS research is guided by the Had-don Matrix, pioneered by William Haddon Jr., M.D., the nation’s first federal highway safety chief and IIHS president from 1969 until his death in 1985. The matrix recogniz-es a range of possible motor vehicle crash interventions. The rows of

the matrix – people, vehicles and environment – contribute to the likelihood that a crash will occur or the consequences of the crashes that do occur. The columns are the before, during and after phases of every crash or potential crash. Each cell in the matrix represents an opportunity to prevent a crash or change its outcome for the better.

Research on people addresses driver attitudes, behaviors and mistakes that often lead to crashes. Vehicle and equipment research fo-cuses on both crash avoidance and crashworthiness. Physical environ-ment research includes assessment of roadway designs to reduce run-

Haddon matrix

crash phase

changes in... before during after

people

vehicles

environment

2015 in review | 21

1. It is well-established that speed cameras can get drivers to slow down, but do the effects hold up over time? IIHS researchers returned to the site of an earlier study and found that yes, the safety gains are entrenched. More than seven years after it began, the speed camera program in Montgomery County, Md., has led to long-term changes in driver behavior and substantial reductions in deaths and injuries. Cameras have reduced by 59 percent the likelihood of a driver exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph, compared with similar roads in two nearby Virginia counties that don’t have speed cameras. Cameras resulted in a 19 percent reduction in the likelihood that a crash would involve a fatality or incapacitating injury, relative to comparison roads in Virginia.

2. We continue to study the problem of driver distraction. Figuring out the role that cellphone use and other distracting behaviors plays in crashes is a challenge for researchers. In most cases, there is no reliable record of what a driver was doing in the moments leading up to a crash. A 2015 IIHS analysis of data from a recent large naturalistic study provides new evidence that using cellphones, eating or drinking, and interacting with an in-vehi-cle system all increase the odds of a crash.

3. Well-publicized sobriety checkpoints are a proven way to reduce alcohol-impaired driving and crashes, yet results of a study we published in May indicate that many agencies don’t conduct them often enough. What’s more, many agencies aren’t using passive alcohol sensors to help officers identify alcohol-impaired drivers once stopped. Passive sensors unobtrusively identify alcohol in the exhaled breath near a driver’s mouth and give officers an objective basis for further evaluation.

off-the-road crashes and eliminate roadside hazards, for example.

During 2015, the bulk of our nonvehicle research focused on behavioral research. We published studies on bicycle crashes, driver assistance systems, driver distrac-tion, driver’s education training for teenag-ers, older drivers, sobriety checkpoints and speed cameras.

1.

2.

3.

22 | 2015 in review

HLDI Data analyses help

uncover loss patterns

HLDI collects data from companies representing about 85 percent of the market for private passenger auto insurance. HLDI’s database of loss information for nearly 430 million automobiles – the largest repository of its kind – enables an-alysts to identify patterns of losses by vehicle make and model. HLDI also analyzes motorcycle losses and has information on more than 9 million bikes.

Analyzing this wealth of claims data helps HLDI determine if crash avoidance and other safety features are making a difference. Consumers consult HLDI’s findings to help guide their purchasing decisions.

HLDI published a number of reports in 2015 on the loss experience of crash avoidance features from Honda, Mazda, Subaru and Volvo. During late 2015, for instance, HLDI reported that the combination of forward collision warning and lane depar-ture warning is preventing crashes among Honda Accord drivers of all ages. Drivers younger than age 25 benefit the most.

Another HLDI analysis looked at the relationship between insurance injury claim rates and IIHS head restraint ratings. HLDI found that seat/head restraint combinations that earn the top rating of good in IIHS tests reduce injury claim

2015 in review | 23

rates by 11 percent compared with vehicles with poor-rated seats/head restraints.

HLDI in 2015 updated its estimates of the prevalence of such vehicle features as electronic stability control, front crash prevention and adaptive headlights in the registered vehicle fleet and predicted future uptake.

Analysts also looked for patterns in claims data to help explain trends in vehicle thefts, vehicle mileage by vehicle and rated-driver characteristics, teenage driver exposure, hail-related claims, animal-strike losses and non-crash fire-related recalls, among others.

One popular narrative in the media has focused on teenagers’ seeming reluctance to become licensed drivers. Speculation has swirled that the

proliferation of cellphones and social media has made driving less attrac-tive to teens. In 2013, HLDI showed that there was a strong relationship between the decline in teen driving and rising teen unemployment. A follow-up study in 2015 found that teenage drivers returned to the roads as the economy improved.

VIN decodes

4�4.7 million passenger vehicles

4�541,790 motorcycles

iihs-hldi.org website

4�2.2 million views

Published reports

454

24 | 2015 in review

Com

mun

icat

ions IIHS and HLDI in the news

A multifaceted communications program puts IIHS and HLDI in a strong position to secure media cover-age of our research and reports. This approach was incorporated in the Institute’s founding principles. Our newsletter, Status Report, marked its 50th anniversary in 2015. We also share our findings with the public via print and video news releases, brochures, advisories, iihs.org, Twitter and YouTube.

IIHS scientists and communicators are favorite con-tacts for journalists covering transportation and con-sumer issues. Reporters rely on us to provide objective insights. In 2015, we faced strong headwinds gaining media coverage. Several releases coincided with major breaking news events, including two mass shootings and the Volkswagen emissions scandal. Still, we significantly increased our social media and YouTube presence, along with our website traffic compared with 2014.

Media highlights

1. Automotive News features the Institute in its March 2, 2015, issue with an article about our leading role in testing crash prevention technology.

2. Motor Trend magazine names Adrian Lund, IIHS and HLDI president, to its Power List for the third time.

3. Popular Mechanics features the Institute in its November 2015 issue with a story head-lined: "Welcome to the smash lab: where cars die so you can live."

4. Jessica Jermakian, senior research scientist, is interviewed by David Kerley of ABC News on booster seat ratings.

5. Adrian Lund is interviewed by CBS News about TOP SAFETY PICK winners.

6. Adrian Lund appears on CBS This Morning to discuss speed cameras.

7. David Zuby, executive vice president, is interviewed by CNBC on small overlap ratings for midsize SUVs.

6. 7.

1. 3.2.

5.4.

2015 in review | 25

Broadcast and print media

4�508 print or online media interviews

456 radio interviews

4�30 on-air television interviews

Publications and video

4�31 news releases

4�10 Status Reports

4�6 video news releases

4�4 brochures

4�3 videos

4�1 annual report

Audience per video news release and overall total for year:

4 384 million viewers of 8,865 broadcasts in 2015 vs. 771.2 million viewers of 14,793 broadcasts in 2014

Average per release:

4 64 million viewers of 1,478 broadcasts vs.110 million viewers of 2,113 broadcasts in 2014

Video news release audience (in millions)

Midsize SUV small overlap results (May 5) 159.6

LATCH ratings (June 18) 73.5

Ford F-150 ratings (July 30) 58.9

TOP SAFETY PICK awards (Dec. 10) 37.7

Booster ratings (Nov. 10) 33.1

Teen vehicle recommendations (Oct. 1) 20.8

Neal Menefee, 2015 chair-man of the IIHS Board of Directors, is interviewed at the September celebration of the VRC expansion.

David Zuby, executive vice president, talks to a docu-mentary film crew from HBO’s VICE at the VRC.

26 | 2015 in review

New media

8,264 followers up 28% from 2014

36.3 million views up 27% from 2014

4 37% originate outside U.S.4 260,000 audience impressions on

average per month, up 34% from 20144 December 2015 was biggest month ever,

with 444,700 audience impressions

4 155,665 total suscribers, up 60% from 20144 61 uploads; 15 uploads with

more than 1 million views each4 29.5 million minutes total

watch time, up 27% from 2014

2015 in review | 27

Website

Top 10 news releasesResults are for 1-day periods; however, web traffic typically remained higher than normal for several days following each major release.

sessions

1. babycenter.com 61,865

2. facebook.com (desktop and mobile)

53,264

3. autoblog.com 50,951

4. mobile01.com 47,684

5. audiusa.com 24,804

6. forbes.com 24,726

7. parents.com 21,805

8. reddit.com 20,982

sessions

9. carcomplaints.com 17,807

10. dmv.org 14,947

11. consumerreports.org 14,935

12. theblaze.com 12,838

13. msn.com 12,595

14. edmunds.com 12,441

15. ghsa.org 11,452

sessions

85,022 Dec. 10 2016 TOP SAFETY PICK awards

49,660 May 12 Midsize SUV small overlap results

37,824 Jan. 29 Driver death rates

35,427 Nov. 10 Booster ratings

33,285 Oct. 1 Teen vehicle recommendations

25,071 June 18 LATCH ratings

24,637 Feb. 19 2016 Kia Sorento is TOP SAFETY PICK winner

23,005 Feb. 10 2 SUVs from GM earn TOP SAFETY PICK

22,105 July 30 Ford F-150 crew cab earns TOP SAFETY PICK

21,699 Feb. 26 Nissan Sentra earns TOP SAFETY PICK

7 million sessions for year, up 14% from 2014

24 million unique page views;

73% of pages viewed were vehicle safety ratings

Traffic by device57% desktop30% mobile13% tablet

Traffic by country

474% U.S.

47% Canada

419% Rest of world combined

Top 10 countries after U.S. and Canada, in order:

4 Taiwan

4 South Korea

4 China

4 Japan

4 United Kingdom

4 Germany

4 Turkey

4 Mexico

4 Russia

4 Australia

Top 15 referring sites

28 | 2015 in review

IIHS research papers, 2015-16

AlcoholImpaired driving enforcement practices among state and local law enforcement agencies. Eichelberger, Angela H.; McCartt, Anne T. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | May 2015

Automated enforcementEffects of automated speed enforcement in Montgomery County, Mary-land, on vehicle speeds, public opinion, and crashes. Hu, Wen; McCartt, Anne T. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | August 2015

BicyclistsCyclist crash scenarios and factors relevant to the design of cyclist detection systems. MacAlister, Anna; Zuby, David S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | March 2015

Child safetyRear seat safety: variation in protection by occupant, crash and vehicle characteristics. Durbin, Dennis R.; Jermakian, Jessica S.; Kallan, Michael J.; McCartt, Anne T.; Arbogast, Kristy B.; Zonfrillo, Mark R.; Myers, Rachel K. Accident Analysis and Prevention | July 2015

Vehicle characteristics associated with LATCH use and correct use in real-world child restraint installations. Cicchino, Jessica B.; Jermakian, Jessica S. Journal of Safety Research | June 2015

Consumer vehicle choiceVehicle choices for teenage drivers: A national survey of U.S. parents. Eichelberger, Angela H.; Teoh, Eric R.; McCartt, Anne T. Journal of Safety Research | December 2015

Consumer response to vehicle safety ratings. Cicchino, Jessica B. Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (CD-ROM) | June 2015

Consumer safety information programs at IIHS. Zuby, David S. Proceed-ings of the 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (CD-ROM) | June 2015

Crash avoidance technologiesToyota drivers’ experiences with Dynamic Radar Cruise Control, Pre-Collision System, and Lane-Keeping Assist. Eichelberger, Angela H.; McCartt, Anne T. Journal of Safety Research | February 2016

Differences in glance behavior between drivers using a rearview camera, parking sensor system, both technologies, or no technology during low-speed parking maneuvers. Kidd, David G.; McCartt, Anne T. Accident Analysis and Prevention | February 2016

Observed activation status of lane departure warning and forward collision warning of Honda vehicles at dealership service centers. Reagan, Ian J.; McCartt, Anne T. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | January 2016

Effectiveness of forward collision warning systems with and without autonomous emergency braking in reducing police-reported crash rates. Cicchino, Jessica B. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | January 2016

Effectiveness of Volvo’s City Safety low-speed autonomous emergency braking system in reducing police-reported crash rates. Cicchino, Jessica B. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | January 2016

Effects of an integrated collision warning system on teenage driver behavior. Jermakian, Jessica S.; Bao, Shan; Buonarosa, Mary Lynn; Sayer, James. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | December 2015

The effectiveness of a rearview camera and parking sensor system alone and combined for preventing a collision with an unexpected stationary or moving object. Kidd, David G.; Hagoski, Bradly K.; Tucker, Tia G.; Chiang, Dean P. Human Factors | June 2015

Experiences of model year 2011 Dodge and Jeep owners with collision avoidance and related technologies. Cicchino, Jessica B.; McCartt, Anne T. Traffic Injury Prevention | April 2015

Buick Lucerne drivers’ experiences with rear parking sensors. Cicchino, Jessica B.; Eichelberger, Angela H.; McCartt, Anne T. Traffic Injury Prevention | February 2015

Brake burnishing effect on AEB performance. Wilson, Myles; Aylor, David A.; Zuby, David S.; Nolan, Joseph M. SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1481 | 2015

Bibl

iogr

aphy

Crash testing and crashworthinessIIHS head restraint ratings and insurance injury claim rates. Trempel, Rebecca E.; Zuby, David S.; Edwards, Marcy A. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | November 2015

The effects of vehicle redesign on the risk of driver death. Farmer, Charles M.; Lund, Adrian K. Traffic Injury Prevention | October 2015

Crashworthiness testing of electric and hybrid vehicles. O’Malley, Sean; Zuby, David S.; Moore, Matthew J.; Paine, Michael; Paine, David. Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (CD-ROM) | June 2015

Occurrence of serious injury in real-world side impacts of vehicles with good side-impact protection ratings. Brumbelow, Matthew L.; Mueller, Becky C.; Arbelaez, Raul A. Traffic Injury Prevention | June 2015

Comparison of HIC and BrIC head injury risk in IIHS frontal crash tests to real-world head injuries. Mueller, Becky C.; MacAlister, Anna;

2015 in review | 29

Nolan, Joseph M.; Zuby, David S. Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (CD-ROM) | June 2015

Distracted drivingConsidering visual-manual tasks performed during highway driving in the context of two different sets of guidelines for embedded in-vehicle electronic systems. Kidd, David G.; Dobres, Jonathan; Reagan, Ian J.; Mehler, Bruce; Reimer, Bryan. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | December 2015

Relationship of near-crash/crash risk to time spent on a cellphone while driving. Farmer, Charles M.; Klauer, Sheila G.; McClafferty, Julie A.; Guo, Feng. Traffic Injury Prevention | November 2015

Secondary behavior of drivers on cellphones. Farmer, Charles M.; Klauer, Sheila G.; McClafferty, Julie A.; Guo, Feng. Traffic Injury Prevention | November 2015

The relevance of crash type and severity when estimating crash risk using the SHRP2 naturalistic driving data. Kidd, David G.; McCartt, Anne T. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | November 2015

Multi-modal demands of a smartphone used to place calls and enter addresses during highway driving relative to two embedded systems. Reimer, Bryan; Mehler, Bruce; Reagan, Ian J.; Kidd, David G.; Dobres, Jonathan. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | March 2015

The influence of roadway situation, other contextual factors, and driver characteristics on the prevalence of driver secondary behaviors. Kidd, David G.; Tison, Julie; Chaudhary, Neil K.; McCartt, Anne T.; Casano-va-Powell, Tara D. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | March 2015

The reliability of two roadside observers coding secondary tasks among passenger vehicle drivers in different roadway situations, during the day, and at night: a pilot study. Kidd, David G.; Chaudhary, Neil K.; Casanova-Powell, Tara D.; McCartt, Anne T.; Tison, Julie. TRB 94th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers | January 2015

Multi-modal assessment of on-road demand of voice and manual phone calling and voice navigation entry across two embedded vehicle systems. Mehler, Bruce; Kidd, David G.; Reimer, Bryan; Reagan, Ian J.; Dobres, Jonathan; McCartt, Anne T. Ergonomics | 2015

MotorcyclesEvaluation of motorcycle antilock braking systems. Basch, Nicho-las; Moore, Matthew J.; Hellinga, Laurie A. Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (CD-ROM) | June 2015

Older driversWhy have fatality rates among older drivers declined? The relative con-tributions of changes in survivability and crash involvement. Cicchino, Jessica B. Accident Analysis and Prevention | October 2015

Critical older driver errors in a national sample of serious U.S. crashes. Cicchino, Jessica B.; McCartt, Anne T. Accident Analysis and Preven-tion | July 2015

TeenagersHistory and current status of state graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws in the United States. Williams, Allan F.; McCartt, Anne T.; Sims, Laurel B. Journal of Safety Research | February 2016

Effects of an integrated collision warning system on teenage driver behavior. Jermakian, Jessica S.; Bao, Shan; Buonarosa, Mary Lynn; Sayer, James. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | December 2015

Vehicle choices for teenage drivers: A national survey of U.S. parents. Eichelberger, Angela H.; Teoh, Eric R.; McCartt, Anne T. Journal of Safety Research | December 2015

Crash and citation records of young drivers with skid avoidance training. Farmer, Charles M.; Wells, JoAnn K. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | September 2015

Tracking progress in teenage driver crash risk in the United States since the advent of graduated driver licensing programs. McCartt, Anne T.; Teoh, Eric R. Journal of Safety Research | June 2015

Type, size, and age of vehicles driven by teenage drivers killed in crashes during 2008-2012. McCartt, Anne T.; Teoh, Eric R. Injury Prevention | April 2015

Vehicle lightsA survey of horizontal road curvature for fatal nighttime crashes. Brum-below, Matthew L. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Automotive Lighting | September 2015

Perceived discomfort glare from an adaptive driving beam headlight system compared with three low beam lighting configurations. Reagan, Ian J.; Brumbelow, Matthew L. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety | April 2015

On-road experiment to assess drivers’ detection of roadside targets as a function of headlight system, target placement, and target reflec-tance. Reagan, Ian J.; Brumbelow, Matthew L.; Frischmann, Tim. Accident Analysis and Prevention | March 2015

Vehicle size and weightThe effects of vehicle redesign on the risk of driver death. Farmer, Charles M.; Lund, Adrian K. Traffic Injury Prevention | October 2015

30 | 2015 in review

HLDI reports, 2015

Advisories Insurer advisory: Marijuana and crash risk: an update, April

Insurer advisory: Turbocharged engines and the hidden cost of power, January

Claim advisory: 2014-15 noncrash fire-related recalls, April

Claim advisory: 2014-15 noncrash fire-related recalls, September

Claim advisory: 2014-15 noncrash fire-related recalls, December

Special topics

2013–15 Honda Accord collision avoidance features; 32(33), December

Automobile and motorcycle introduction of 2005–13 models; 32(23), September

Collision and property damage liability losses for Ford F-150 Raptor vs. other F-150 models; 32(10), April

Collision and property damage liability losses for GM pickups by model; 32(11), April

Collision claim frequencies and violent crime rates – an update; 32(34), December

Collision insurance losses — 2015 models; 32(18), September

Comprehensive loss type distribution by state; 32(3), April

Distribution of collision claims by point of impact for the Honda Accord and Honda Odyssey; 32(14), April

Estimated PDL and BI claim frequency trends due to fitment of forward collision warning systems; 32(24), September

Evaluation of changes in teenage driver exposure — an update; 32(30), December

Gender distribution – an update; 32(21), September

Geographic and exposure distribution of counties with 1,000 or more vehicles per square mile; 32(27), December

Geographic distribution of Subaru exposure; 32(29), December

Geographic distribution of Tesla exposure; 32(25), September

Hail-related claims under comprehensive coverage — an update; 32(17), September

Honda Accord collision avoidance features; 32( 7), April

Honda Pilot rear view camera: initial results; 32(9), April

Impact of Honda Accord collision avoidance features on claim frequency by rated driver age; 32(35), December

Injury rates in multiple-vehicle crashes; 32(20), September

Insurance losses – comparison of electric vehicles and their conventional counterparts; 32(19), September

Losses due to animal strikes; 32(6), April

Mazda collision avoidance features; 32(22), September

Motorcycle collision losses for off-road classes, 2010-14 models; 32(5), April

Motorcycle losses under collision coverage; 32(2), April

New Jersey graduated driver licensing decal program; 32(4), April

Noncrash fire safety recall losses - for automobiles and motorcycles; 32(12), April

Predicted availability of safety features on registered vehicles — a 2015 update; 32(16), September

Subaru collision avoidance features: an update; 32(8), April

Theft losses for Honda Fit vehicles; 32(32), December

Vehicle mileage by county; 32(28), December

Vehicle mileage by vehicle and rated driver characteris-tics; 32(31), December

Volvo City Safety loss experience - a long-term update; 32(1), April

Volvo City Safety loss experience by vehicle age; 32(13), April

Vehicle descriptions

2016 Motorcycle Models Preview; (MD-15P), December

Collision avoidance - 2016 models; (VIC-15), December

HLDI Facts and Figures, 1981-2016 vehicle fleet; (VIF-15), December

Specifications and basic features - 2016 models; (VIS-15), December

Standard reports

Bodily injury liability losses: 2012-14 passenger cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans; (B-14), September

Collision losses: 2011-15 motorcycles; (MR-15), December

Collision losses: 2013-15 passenger cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans; (R-15), December

Comprehensive losses: 2010-14 motorcycles; (MC-14), April

Comprehensive losses: 2012-14 passenger cars, pickups, SUVs and vans; (C-14), April

Hail-related claims by vehicle: 2012-14 passenger cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans; (A-91), September

Liability and first party medical losses: 2010-14 motorcycles; (ML-14), September

Medical payment losses: 2012-14 passenger cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans; (M-14), September

Personal injury protection losses: 2012-14 passenger vars, pickups, SUVs, and vans; (I-14), September

Property damage liability losses: 2013-15 passenger cars, pickups, SUVs and vans; (P-15), December

Theft losses: 2012-14 passenger cars, pickups, SUVs and vans; (T-14), April

Whole vehicle theft losses: 2012-14 passenger cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans; (WT-14), April

HLDI

rep

orts

2015 in review | 31

Executive leadership teamAdrian Lund

President

David Zuby Executive Vice President and Chief Research Officer

Joe Nolan Chief Administrative Officer and Senior Vice President, Vehicle Research

Michael Fagin General Counsel, Secretary/Treasurer and Vice President, Government Relations

Kim Hazelbaker Senior Vice President, HLDI and Insurer Relations

Anne McCartt Senior Vice President, Research

Russ Rader Senior Vice President, Communications

Raul Arbelaez Vice President, Operations

Jessica Cicchino Vice President, Research

Chuck Farmer Vice President, Research and Statistical Services

Pini Kalnite Vice President, Media Operations and Production

Matthew Moore Vice President, HLDI

Brenda O’Donnell Vice President, Insurer Relations

Vickie Hoover Assistant Vice President, Operations

Annual report team

EditorialKim Stewart

Sarah Karush

Art direction and designSteve Ewens

Logo design and brandingLeslie Oakey

PhotographyMatt DalyDan PurdyJason Shifflett

Insurance Institute for Highway SafetyHighway Loss Data Institute

MEMBER GROUPSAcceptance Insurance

AIG PC Global Services, Inc.Alfa Alliance Insurance Corporation

Alfa InsuranceAllstate Insurance Group

American Family Mutual Insurance CompanyAmerican National

Ameriprise Auto & HomeAmica Mutual Insurance Company

Auto Club EnterprisesAuto Club Group

Auto-Owners InsuranceBankers Insurance Group

Bitco Insurance CompaniesCalifornia Casualty Group

Censtat Casualty CompanyCHUBB

Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance CompanyConcord Group Insurance Companies

COUNTRY FinancialCSAA Insurance Group

CSE Insurance GroupDirect General Corporation

Elephant Insurance CompanyErie Insurance Group

EsuranceFarm Bureau Financial Services

Farm Bureau Insurance of MichiganFarm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho

Farmers Insurance GroupFarmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company of Iowa

Farmers Mutual of NebraskaFlorida Farm Bureau Insurance Companies

Frankenmuth InsuranceGainsco InsuranceGEICO Corporation

The General InsuranceGeorgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

Goodville Mutual Casualty CompanyGrange Insurance

Hallmark Financial ServicesHanover Insurance Group

The HartfordHaulers Insurance Company, Inc.

Horace Mann Insurance CompaniesICW Group

Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance CompanyIndiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Company

Infinity Property & CasualtyKemper Corporation

Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance CompaniesLiberty Mutual Insurance Company

Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance CompanyThe Main Street America Group

Mercury Insurance GroupMetLife Auto & HomeMississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance CompanyMMG InsuranceMunich Reinsurance America, Inc.Mutual Benefit GroupMutual of Enumclaw Insurance CompanyNationwideNew Jersey Manufacturers Insurance GroupNodak Mutual Insurance CompanyNorfolk & Dedham GroupNorth Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance CompanyNorthern Neck Insurance CompanyOhio Mutual Insurance GroupOld American County Mutual Fire Insurance CompanyOld American Indemnity CompanyOregon Mutual Insurance CompanyParamount Insurance CompanyPekin InsurancePEMCO InsurancePlymouth Rock AssuranceProgressive InsurancePURE InsuranceQualitas Insurance CompanyThe Responsive Auto Insurance CompanyRider InsuranceRockingham GroupSafe Auto Insurance CompanySafeco InsuranceSamsung Fire & Marine Insurance CompanySECURA InsuranceSentry InsuranceShelter Insurance CompaniesSompo AmericaSouth Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance CompanySouthern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance CompanyState Auto Insurance CompaniesState Farm Insurance CompaniesTennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance CompanyTexas Farm Bureau Insurance CompaniesThe Travelers CompaniesUnited EducatorsUSAAUtica National Insurance GroupVirginia Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceWest Bend Mutual Insurance CompanyWestern National Insurance GroupWestfield InsuranceXL Group plc

FUNDING ASSOCIATIONSAmerican Insurance AssociationNational Association of Mutual Insurance CompaniesProperty Casualty Insurers Association of America

youtube.com/IIHS

@IIHS_autosafetyiihs.org/rss

iihs.org

April 2016