Risk & Business Magazine JGS Insurance Risk & Business Magazine Spring 2018 | Page 8

DISTRACTED DRIVING
Distracted Driving And
Crash Avoidance Systems
O
ne solution to the problem
of distracted driving is an
array of new technologies
that assist the driver with
warnings or automatic
braking to avoid or mitigate a crash. These
advanced technologies vary in their function
and how they operate. In general, they
monitor driver input and the environment
around the vehicle and warn the driver when
they detect the possibility of a collision. In
some cases, they may automatically brake or
steer the vehicle if the driver does not act to
avoid a collision.
The simplest and least costly technologies
are collision warning systems (CWS). These
systems assist a driver in preventing or
mitigating collisions by presenting some
combination of auditory, visual and tactile
warnings. These various warning alerts aid
drivers in a variety of potentially dangerous
situations, including frontal collision, blind
spot detection and lane departure. An
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) study found that forward collision
warning alone reduces rear-end crashes by
23 percent, while forward collision warning
with autobrake reduces them by 39 percent.
The autobrake systems also greatly reduce
rear-end crashes involving injury.
The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI)
conducted similar studies comparing
insurance claim rates for vehicles equipped
with front crash prevention systems with
claim rates for the same models without
such systems. Vehicles equipped with these
systems consistently show lower claim rates
for damage to other vehicles and for injuries
to people in other vehicles.
Blind spot detection has shown to reduce
lane-change crashes by 14 percent. HLDI
research has also found that blind spot
detection lowers rates of insurance claims
covering damage to other vehicles. Another
warning system, lane departure warning,
has not brought down insurance claim rates,
but it has reduced rates of single-vehicle,
8
BY: ERIC P. WOKAS, CSP ARM,
RISK CONTROL CONSULTANT,
JGS INSURANCE
sideswipe and head-on crashes reported to
the police. confusing or even distracting for some
drivers.
Rearview cameras are effective in preventing
backing crashes reported to the police,
which most often are crashes in which a
vehicle backs into another vehicle. The effect
of rearview cameras on insurance claims
has been less clear. Vehicles with rearview
cameras tend to show lower rates of claims
for damage caused to other vehicles, but
some systems also have higher rates of
claims covering damage to their own vehicle.
Rear parking sensors have reduced insurance
claims, but have had inconsistent effects on
backing crashes reported to the police. In addition to driver challenges, the
technology itself can have limitations. For
example, lane departure warning systems
use sensors to register lane markings or
the road edge, which may be problematic
on roads that aren’t well-marked or are
covered with snow. Sensors such as cameras,
radar, and LIDAR (a technology that uses
laser light to measure distances) also may
not function well in low light or inclement
weather. Some systems only work at certain
speeds.
Appropriate driver responses and acceptance
of crash avoidance technologies are critical
to the success of these technologies. If
drivers don't trust the systems or find them
annoying or not useful, they may disable
them. Similarly, if drivers experience
warnings but do not understand them, are
overwhelmed by them, or do not take an
appropriate corrective action, then the
systems will be ineffective. Institute surveys
of owners of vehicles with crash avoidance
technologies found that, despite some
annoyances such as false alerts, most drivers
left the systems turned on most of the time
and felt the systems made them safer drivers.
Another concern is that drivers might rely
on crash avoidance systems too much and
feel freer to look away from the road or take
other risks.