Back

Vehicle safety tests, rankings, curb weight, and fatal crash rates: automatic emergency brakes associated with increased death rates

Robertson, L. S.

2022-12-12 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.12.08.22283253 medRxiv
Show abstract

The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) each publish safety ratings of new passenger vehicles based on crash test results and crash avoidance technology soon after they are introduced into the market. IIHS alone singles out vehicles for "Top Safety Pick". The Institute also periodically lists driver death rates of vehicles during their first few years of use, accompanied by assertions that larger, heavier passenger vehicles are safer. Median death rates by vehicle size in the Institutes data do not support the assertion. This study examines the association of vehicle weight to the risk of all deaths in fatal crashes where specific makes and models were involved, controlling statistically for the Institutes vehicle safety ratings as well as NHTSA ratings of full-frontal crash tests and rollover propensity, lane retention warnings, adaptive cruise control, and automatic braking. Increased weight is slightly related to a lower fatal risk in the 2014-2017 models but not the 2018-2019 models. Lane retention warnings and IIHSs higher ratings of crashworthiness are related to reduced death risk. Adaptive cruise control is not associated with fatal crash risk. Automatic emergency braking (AEB) technology rated "superior" is a criterion for an IIHS "Top Safety Pick" but it is correlated to higher fatal crash involvement of vehicles that have the technology as optional or standard equipment. IIHS tests of AEB systems are conducted only at low speeds. The statistical results are not definitive but suggest that a rating system based on modeling death risk prediction from more detailed data from various tests such as Euro NCAP tests of AEB systems could better inform consumer choice of vehicles.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
27.4%
2
Annals of Epidemiology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
3
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.7%
4
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.5%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 31%
3.3%
6
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
8
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
9
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
10
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.0%
11
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.0%
12
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
13
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
17
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
18
Cognition
47 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
19
Journal of Travel Medicine
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
20
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.9%
22
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
23
Journal of Public Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
24
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%