Some Crash-Avoidance Systems May Work Better Than Others

July 3rd, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

TUESDAY, July 3 (HealthDay News) — Certain new crash-avoidance
systems are effective in preventing car accidents, while others may do
more harm than good, researchers say.

The analysis, conducted by the nonprofit research organization Highway
Loss Data Institute, found two crash-avoidance features provide the
biggest benefits: autonomous breaking (the car will brake on its own if
the driver doesn’t) and adaptive headlights (headlights that shift
directions as a driver steers).

The researchers pointed out, however, that lane-departure warnings
actually cause more accidents. Other crash-avoidance features, such as
blind-spot detection and park assist, have yet to show an effect on the
number of crashes, they noted.

“As more automakers offer advanced technologies on their vehicles,
insurance data provides an early glimpse of how these features perform in
the real world,” Matt Moore, vice president of the Highway Loss Data
Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
said in an insurance institute news release. “Forward collision technology
is reducing claims, particularly for damage to other vehicles, and
adaptive headlights are having an even bigger impact than we had
anticipated.”

In conducting the study, the researchers examined how individual
features of crash-avoidance systems that are offered as options on Acura,
Mercedes-Benz and Volvo models affected the number of claims under various
forms of insurance coverage.

After taking into account other factors that could influence claim
rates, such as drivers’ age, gender and deductible, the researchers found
clear patterns in claims under property damage liability insurance (damage
caused by the insured vehicle) and collision insurance (damage to the
insured vehicle).

One of the crash-avoidance systems the study examined was forward
collision warning, which alerts a driver if the car is approaching traffic
ahead too quickly. The researchers noted that some of these systems
include autonomous braking.

The study revealed that the technology reduced the frequency of
property damage liability claims by 14 percent on Acura and Mercedes
models equipped with both forward collision warning and autonomous
braking. Volvo’s autonomous-braking system reduced crashes 10 percent, a
statistically insignificant decline, the investigators noted in the news
release.

These systems were not meant to address claim frequency under collision
coverage, yet they reduced these claims slightly, the researchers found.
Some reductions in injury claims also were seen.

Mercedes and Volvo also offer versions of forward collision warning
that exclude autonomous braking. These systems lowered crash rates, the
study revealed, but not as much as those with both features.

The researchers suggested that the systems without autonomous braking
weren’t as effective at preventing crashes because they rely on drivers to
react and can’t directly avoid accidents.

Another feature the study examined was adaptive headlights, which
ensure lights are directed where the vehicle is going. The researchers
found that property damage liability claims fell as much as 10 percent on
Acura, Mazda, Mercedes and Volvo models equipped with this feature. The
study also found injury claims fell substantially for all but one of the
brands examined.

“All four adaptive-headlight systems we looked at show benefits for
most insurance coverages, and many of these estimated reductions are
statistically significant,” Moore said. “These lights appear to help in
more situations than we anticipated, though we don’t yet know why.”

In contrast, lane-departure warning systems from Buick and Mercedes
increased claim rates under collision and property damage liability
coverages. The increases, however, were not statistically significant, the
researchers pointed out.

The researchers noted that the benefit of this feature may not have
been realized yet because drifting off the road is not common. The study
authors also suggested that because the technology relies on cameras to
track lane markings it may not be effective unless markings are clearly
visible.

“Lane-departure warning may end up saving lives down the road, but so
far these particular versions aren’t preventing insurance claims,” Moore
said. “It may be that drivers are getting too many false alarms, which
could make them tune out the warnings or turn them off completely.”

Lane-departure systems that would force a vehicle to stay in its lane
have not yet been examined, the researchers noted. This crash-avoidance
feature, they said, could have a different impact on claims than
lane-departure warnings.

“Just as forward collision warning systems that include autonomous
braking cut crashes more sharply than those that don’t, lane-departure
prevention systems that don’t rely on a driver’s response may hold more
promise than the systems [Highway Loss Data Institute] has looked at so
far,” David Zuby, chief research officer at the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, said in the news release.

More information

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has more about
driving
safety.