Search Results

Automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning (FCW) reduce the incidence of police-reported rear-end crashes by 27% to 50%, but these systems may not be effective for preventing rear-end crashes with nonpassenger vehicles. IIHS and Transport Canada evaluated FCW performance with 12 nonpassenger and 7 passenger vehicle or surrogate vehicle targets in five 2021-2022 model year vehicles. The presence and timing of an FCW was measured as a test vehicle traveling 50, 60, or 70 km/h approached a stationary target ahead in the lane center. Equivalence testing was used to evaluate whether the proportion of trials with an FCW (within ± 0.20) and the average time-to-collision of the warning (within ± 0.23 sec) for each target was meaningfully different from a global vehicle car target (GVT).

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) introduced its updated side-impact ratings test in 2020 to address the nearly 5,000 fatalities occurring annually on U.S. roads in side crashes. Research for the updated test indicated the most promising avenue to address the remaining real-world injuries was a higher severity vehicle-to-vehicle test using a striking barrier that represents a sport utility vehicle. A multi-stiffness aluminum honeycomb barrier was developed to match these conditions. The complexity of a multi-stiffness barrier design warranted research into developing a new dynamic certification procedure. A dynamic test procedure was created to ensure product consistency. The current study outlines the process to develop a dynamic barrier certification protocol. The final configuration includes a rigid inverted T-shaped fixture mounted to a load cell wall. This fixture is impacted by the updated IIHS moving deformable barrier at 30 km/h.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) evaluates autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems as part of its front crash prevention (FCP) ratings. To prepare the test vehicles' brakes, each vehicle must have 200 miles on the odometer and be subjected to the abbreviated brake burnish procedure of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 126. Other organizations conducting AEB testing follow the more extensive burnishing procedure described in FMVSS 135; Light Vehicle Brake Systems. This study compares the effects on AEB performance of the two burnishing procedures using seven 2014 model year vehicles. Six of the vehicles achieved maximum AEB speed reductions after 60 or fewer FMVSS 135 stops. After braking performance stabilized, the Mercedes ML350, BMW 328i, and Volvo S80 showed increased speed reductions compared with stops using brand new brake components.

In 2012, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) began a 64 km/h small overlap frontal crash test consumer information test program. Thirteen automakers already have redesigned models to improve test performance. One or more distinct strategies are evident in these redesigns: reinforcement of the occupant compartment, use of energy-absorbing fender structures, and the addition of engagement structures to induce vehicle lateral translation. Each strategy influences vehicle kinematics, posing additional challenges for the restraint systems. The objective of this two-part study was to examine how vehicles were modified to improve small overlap test performance and then to examine how these modifications affect dummy response and restraint system performance. Among eight models tested before and after design changes, occupant compartment intrusion reductions ranged from 6 cm to 45 cm, with the highest reductions observed in models with the largest number of modifications.

Pedestrian protection evaluations have been developed to encourage vehicle front-end designs that mitigate the consequences of vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes. The European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP) evaluates pedestrian head protection with impacts against vehicle hood, windshield, and A-pillars. The Global Technical Regulation No. 9 (GTR 9), being evaluated for U.S. regulation, limits head protection evaluations to impacts against vehicle hoods. The objective of this study was to compare results from pedestrian head impact testing to the real-world rates of fatal and incapacitating injuries in U.S. pedestrian crashes. Data from police reported pedestrian crashes in 14 states were used to calculate real-world fatal and incapacitating injury rates for seven 2002-07 small cars. Rates were 2.17-4.04 per 100 pedestrians struck for fatal injuries and 10.45-15.35 for incapacitating injuries.

This project assessed current or proposed protocols for improving the usability of LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children). LATCH hardware in the left second-row position of 98 2011 or 2010 model-year vehicles was evaluated using ISO and SAE LATCH usability rating guidelines. Child restraint/vehicle interaction was assessed using ISO and NHTSA proposed procedures. ISO ratings of vehicle LATCH usability ranged from 41% to 78%, while vehicles assessed using the SAE draft recommended practice met between 2 and all 10 of the recommendations that apply to all vehicles. There was a weak relationship between vehicle ISO usability ratings and the number of SAE recommended practices met by a vehicle. Twenty vehicles with a range of vehicle features were assessed using the ISO vehicle-child restraint form and 7 child restraints; ISO vehicle-child restraint interaction scores ranged from 14% to 86%.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is investigating small overlap crash test procedures for a possible consumer information program. Analysis of real-world small overlap crashes found a strong relationship between serious head and chest injuries and occupant compartment intrusion. The main sources of serious head injuries were from the A-pillar, dash panel, or door structure, suggesting head trajectories forward and outboard possibly bypassing the airbag. Chest injuries mainly were from steering wheel intrusion and seat belt loading. In developing this program, two test dummies were evaluated for predicting occupant injury risk: midsize male Hybrid III and THOR. In the collinear small overlap crash tests conducted here, results from the two dummies were similar. Both predicted a low risk of injury to the head and chest and sometimes a high risk of injury to the lower extremities. Head and torso kinematics also were similar between dummies.

Current requirements for rear underride guards on large trucks are set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 223 and 224. The standards have been in place since 1998, but their adequacy has not been evaluated apart from two series of controlled crash tests. The current study used detailed reviews of real-world crashes from the Large Truck Crash Causation Study to assess the ability of guards that comply with certain aspects of the regulation to mitigate passenger vehicle underride. It also evaluated the dangers posed by underride of large trucks that are exempt from guard requirements. For the 115 cases meeting the inclusion criteria, coded data, case narratives, photographs, and measurements were used to examine the interaction between study vehicles. The presence and type of underride guard was determined, and its performance in mitigating underride was categorized.

The SAE J826 H-point machine was designed to measure occupant accommodation dimensions relative to a loaded seat. It has become an intrinsic part of various crash dummy set up processes, but it has never had a formal calibration procedure. Whilst H-point location appears to be consistent from one device to another, the weight hanger locations show greater variability, and this can consequently affect the height and backset measurements of head restraints taken with a head restraint measuring device mounted upon the weight hangers. This paper describes the development of a calibration procedure and jig to measure the location of the weight hangers so that adjustments can be made if necessary. This procedure and calibration tool will enable more consistent seat evaluations, dummy set up, and consistently effective anti-whiplash seat designs.

Anthropometric test devices (ATDs) instrumented with potentiometers and accelerometers are used regularly to assess thoracic injury risk in side impact crash tests. Measurements from these sensors are compared with injury assessment reference values (IARVs) for lateral loading to establish the risk of injury for humans subjected to similar impacts. In crash tests, the deflections and deflection rates derived from these two types of sensors (potentiometers vs. accelerometers) have varying degrees of agreement. In some cases, differences can be relatively large. In the past, it was unclear whether the reason for the differences was off-axis loading that misaligned the accelerometers used in the calculation, an inherent inability of the potentiometer to capture high deflection rates under certain conditions, or some other phenomenon.

Automobile safety has improved since the 1960s, mostly because of improved vehicle structures and restraint systems. Another round of revolutionary change is promised by advanced information technologies, but it's unlikely that all of these will improve safety. In particular, many of these technologies change the driving task, and it's critical to understand how drivers respond to the changes because the responses may enhance or counteract any potential safety benefits. This paper will discuss what is necessary to predict driver response.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has been conducting frontal offset crash tests of new passenger vehicles and providing comparative crashworthiness information to the public since 1995. This program has resulted in large improvements in frontal crashworthiness largely because vehicle structures have been redesigned to prevent significant collapse of the occupant compartment. In late 2002, IIHS began a side impact crash test program in which the side-impacting barrier has been designed to simulate the geometry of the front ends of SUVs and pickups, which pose a much larger threat in side impacts than the lower front ends of cars. It is anticipated that this program, too, will result in changes in vehicle structure, in this case the structure of the vehicle side pillars and door hardware. Good performance in the side impact test also is likely to require installation of side airbags (or comparable system) to protect the head and/or chest.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has recently developed and evaluated a new side impact barrier to represent the front profile of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles for a new consumer information program. In the development of this program, two dummies were considered for assessing driver injury risk in side-struck vehicles: EuroSID-2 (50th percentile male dummy) and SID-IIs (5th percentile female dummy). The purpose of this study was to compare injury responses and kinematics for these two dummies in side impact crash tests. The findings suggest that SID-IIs will be more effective in driving relevant improvements in side impact crash protection.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety installed a variety of infant, toddler, and booster restraints in vehicles subjected to high-speed frontal offset crash tests to assess the effects of severe crashes on the structural integrity of the restraints and their associated hardware (harnesses, buckles, clips, etc.). The child restraints were inspected before and after each test, and all damage was recorded. In some of the tests, forces and accelerations were recorded on the appropriate size child dummy properly secured in the child restraint. After a single severe crash, most restraints had sustained some damage, albeit minimal. Repeated tests indicated that these child restraints could withstand the forces of an additional crash with only minor additional damage. Dummy injury results suggest that current injury risk curves overstate the risk of neck injury to most properly restrained children.

The knee and ankle joint pivots of the Hybrid III dummy's leg are positioned in approximately the same orientation as the knee and ankle joint rotation centers of a human in a normal driving posture. However, the dummy's leg assembly is not simply a straight member between these two pivots. It is a zigzag-shaped solid link composed of one long straight section in the middle and short angled sections at either end, which form the pivots. The upper and lower tibia load cells are mounted on the straight middle section, making the upper tibia load cell location anterior to the line between the ankle and knee pivots and the lower tibia load cell location slightly posterior to the line between the pivots. Hence, an approximately vertical force on the foot can act along the line behind the upper tibia load cell and in front of the lower tibia load cell, creating bending moments.

This study, which is an extension of an earlier study, examined an additional 64 frontal crashes of airbag-equipped vehicles in the 1997-98 National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS/CDS) in which the driver died. The principal cause of death in each case was determined based on an examination of the publicly available case materials, which primarily consisted of the crash narrative, the injury/source summary, and photographs of the crashed vehicle. Results were consistent with the earlier analyses of the 1990-96 NASS/CDS files. In the combined data set (1990-98), gross deformation of the occupant compartment was the leading cause (42 percent) of driver deaths in these 116 frontal crashes. The force of the deploying airbag (16 percent) and ejection from the vehicle (13 percent) also accounted for significant portions of the driver deaths in these frontal crashes. There continues to be little or no evidence that airbags deploy with too little energy.

Using data from the National Automotive Sampling System/Crashworthiness Data System (NASS/CDS) for1995-96, this study updates previous analyses of driver fatalities in airbag-equipped vehicles in the NASS/CDS database for 1989-93 and 1989-94. A total of 59 cases of frontal crashes of airbag-equipped vehicles with driver fatalities were identified in these 8 years of NASS/CDS data, but in 9 cases the fatalities were not related to the impacts (e.g., fire, medical condition). Vehicle intrusion was the cause of the fatal injuries in 27 cases, and 7drivers died from injuries sustained when they were either partially or totally ejected from their vehicles. There was one case in which the airbag did not deploy, although the crash conditions indicated it should have. One driver died from contact with a nonintruding vehicle surface, and the causes of the fatal injuries in 5 cases were unknown.

Despite extensive media coverage to the contrary, mismatches among cars, utility vehicles, and pickups in crashes is not a big problem from a societal perspective. On the other hand, if you are riding in a small car that is about to be hit by a big utility vehicle, then the problem looms large. Crash compatibility has attracted a lot of attention lately because utility vehicles have become so popular. The concern is that their designs pose a threat to people riding in smaller cars. But the fact is, two-vehicle collisions between cars (including passenger vans) and utility vehicles or pickups account for only about 15 percent of all car occupant deaths. As a result, countermeasures that focus on making utility vehicles and pickups more crash compatible, however appropriate, can have only small effects on crash injuries and fatalities. On the other hand, improvements in crashworthiness not only reduce crash incompatibilities but also protect across a wider spectrum of crashes.