While some automakers are already half or nearly all of the way towards making autobraking with forward collision warning standard, others continue to treat it predominantly as an option.
Toyota, Subaru, Volkswagen and Honda lead among the more mainstream OEMs in terms of the proportion of vehicles autobraking and collision alerts standard, according to a summary of results released Thursday. Among luxury OEMs, Tesla, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo and BMW posted the largest proportions of their fleets with those features standard.
Technically, given its volume, GM’s 20 percent of vehicles with autobraking makes it No. 2 in terms of vehicles on the road, with 551,777 bearing the technology standard. Toyota is still No. 1 with 1.4 million, and Honda becomes No. 3 with 492,330 vehicles.
“The growing number of vehicles offering automated emergency braking is good news for America’s motorists and passengers,” Treasury Secretary Elaine Chao said in a statement. “With each model year, manufacturers will increasingly utilize technology to allow vehicles to ‘see’ the world around them and navigate it more safely.”
Vehicles with AEB standard
Porsche0%A 2016 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study estimated that auto-braking paired with crash warnings can cut 39 percent of all rear-end crashes, which works out to about 13 percent of all the crashes in America.
Twenty automakers making up virtually all U.S. vehicle sales have voluntarily committed to delivering both technologies standard as of Sept. 1, 2022, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which along with IIHS announced the OEMs’ annual progress reports on Thursday.
IIHS estimated Thursday that the 2022 commitment will mean 28,000 fewer crashes by 2025.
While the technology is likely to eliminate a noticeable chunk of collision repairers’ business, CCC has observed that a slow penetration of those features in the overall fleet might be delaying that pain. In its 2017 Crash Course, the information provider cited IIHS estimates that front crash prevention wouldn’t reach 50 percent of the American fleet until 2027, rising to 80 percent by 2034.
About a third of all 2015-16 cars, trucks, and SUVs recorded in CCC data had crash-prevention systems aboard (standard or optional), CCC observed in January 2016. Consumer Reports affiliate Consumers Union reported Thursday that 19 percent of the fleet had the technology standard for the production year ending Aug. 31, 2017.
“Despite a somewhat slower start, the rate at which systems such as lane-departure warning, adaptive cruise control,
automatic emergency braking, autonomous parking, and adaptive headlights are making their way into the mainstream vehicle population is now ramping up,” CCC wrote in its 2017 Crash Course.
The uneven rates of adoption between OEMs seen Thursday might also put off the loss in business for shops specializing in or serving markets favoring certain makes.
For example, based upon Thursday’s data, only 2 percent of Ford and 6 percent of FCA vehicles built between Sept. 1, 2016, and Aug. 31, 2017, offered autobraking and collision warnings standard. If those customers aren’t springing for the options package, that’s arguably more crashes for Ford- and FCA-certified shops to repair.
“This progress is great news for luxury car buyers and many others, but many automakers still need to do more, as Consumer Reports analysis indicates that only 19 percent of 2017 models included these lifesaving technologies as standard features,” Consumer Reports affiliate Consumers Union cars and product policy and analysis director David Friedman said in a statement. “Automakers, safety groups, and the government should also work together to make highway operation and pedestrian detection standard features on all AEB systems.”
Finally, the results could give shops a sense of how quickly they might want to consider handling certain calibrations in-house. If one’s vehicle mix is light on standard ADAS features, it might make sense to delay the investment in training and equipment and just sublet the few outliers with ADAS to a dealership. Of course, just because the OEM doesn’t offer the technology standard doesn’t mean one’s customers aren’t snapping it up as an option — something to keep in mind between now and 2022. Nor does the NHTSA-IIHS data take into account any cars retrofitted with milder forms of ADAS (i.e., alerts but no AI takeover of the vehicle to avoid the damage) — something SEMA and Ducker Worldwide think could be a factor going forward. This article is care of http://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2017/12/22/oems-report-progress-towards-2022-autobraking-goal-19-of-fleet-has-tech-standard/
Tip 1: Try all cover types (Comprehensive can often be the cheapest)
The first tip here is to throw away the thought of Comprehensive being the most expensive.
You need to try all options; comprehensive, third party fire and theft and third party only.
Its been said by insurance companies that they assume if you go for third party only, then you don’t care about your car and will charge more.
But these days even third party fire and theft can be the more expensive option over comprehensive.
You can see for this company that the third party fire and theft quote suddenly adds on £572. It’s also worth noting that some companies disappear from the TPF&T listings.
However for me, my cheapest was actually Third Party Fire & Theft and this is where we come into our next top tip.
Tip 2: Black box quotes without the Black BoxA ‘black box’ is a small computer fitted to your car that measures how you drive, and relays the information back to your insurance provider.
A typical black box is a similar size to a smartphone, needs to be installed, usually under the dashboard, and contains three main components:
So at this point, the best on the list is this quote.
As you can see it’s a black box quote (stated in the yellow bar across the bottom). This has been the cheapest so far. But if you’re like me and against the idea of a black box then don’t worry. It’s still worth looking into this quote. If you click on the ‘more info’ button and then go to the insurer’s website, you can remove the option of the black box and it re-calculates the quote.
This re-calculated quote was still cheaper than my original quote by £40 and didn’t come up on the comparison site. Obviously, if you do go for the black box insurance you’re saving nearly £200 but it shows that if you omitted black box quotes from the beginning, you’d be missing out on these cheaper options.
But wait…for the moment keep following these tips with the black box quotes included. We’re not finished with our savings and if at the end of this process your cheapest is a black box quote, you can remove it then.
Tip 3: Clear your Cache or Use Incognito ModePut very simply, your cache is information your browser stores so that it can load websites you use frequently quicker. If you clear your cache or use Google’s incognito mode it essentially gives you a clean sheet to browse from.
Whеn уоu lооk online аt inѕurаnсе ԛuоtеѕ, ѕоmе ѕmаll filеѕ get ѕаvеd on уоur соmрutеr’ѕ browser whiсh will allow thе inѕurеr’ѕ wеbѕitе tо idеntifу you аѕ a return visitor if you соmе bасk lаtеr.
With this information, the insurer knows that you’ve expressed an interest in their insurance in the past, and they might use this knowledge to offer a higher quote.
It’s a good idea to use your browser’s incognito or private browsing mode, or clear the cache between visits to the insurance site. This way, you can browse the web without cookies being stored on your computer so the websites you visit won’t identify you as a frequent visitor.
I used the incognito mode, made a new account on confused.com and spookily my exact same quote was now £27 cheaper!
Saving on something as small and simple as this is really a big win. I didn’t have to lie, be inconvenienced or even barter. I simply spent 2 extra minutes and saved nearly £30.
Tip 4: Plan your insurance in advance
This is a big one and really caught me off guard. Simply by moving the start date of the insurance to 2 weeks in advance (instead of today), it took off ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY POUNDS! And it was only £6 more if it I did it only one week in advance.
Essentially if you do the quote to start the same day, the insurance companies know you’re desperate and will take advantage. Get your quote a little further into the future and you’ll potentially save a fortune.
Tip 5: Don’t set your mileage too low
Another way to get cheaper car insurance is to double check your mileage. This surprised me when I first tried this, but it works.
If most of your driving is to work and back, you can work out how many miles it is, double it for the return journey, then multiply by the number of days you do in a year.
Limiting milеаgе саn bе an effective way tо reduce your insurance premiums. Agаin, it’ѕ nоt worth lying about аѕ it’ѕ rеlаtivеlу easy tо vеrifу.
If you set your mileage at 1000 or 2000 miles a year you’re actually going to be paying more. The Insurance companies see you as higher risk because you aren’t getting the experience on the road.
Obviously don’t set it lower than the number of miles than you actually do, but over 12000 miles will tend to be quite expensive, whereas around 5000 miles seems to be the happy point. This means you won’t have to worry about the number of miles you’re putting on your car. A win-win!
With this quote below we saved another £40 by increasing the mileage to 5000.
Tip 6: Additional Drivers
It mау seem odd, but аn additional drivеr on уоur policy can reduce your car insurance quote considerably.
Especially if thеу аrе аn оldеr, mоrе еxреriеnсеd motorist.
A nаmеd drivеr iѕ a реrѕоn whо is insured tо drive your car, even though you do most of the driving. Whеn driving your car, the nаmеd drivеr will have the same lеvеl of соvеr аѕ you do.
Dоn’t mаkе thеm the mаin drivеr if it isn’t truе, but add thеm аѕ a nаmеd drivеr аnd see if you’re offered cheaper соvеr. Thе insurer will nоrmаllу wаnt tо know thе nаmе, аgе, mаritаl ѕtаtuѕ, аddrеѕѕ and оссuраtiоn of аnу additional drivеrѕ. Also, уоu will hаvе tо give information about аnу ассidеntѕ or mоtоring convictions. You саn аdd оnе or mоrе drivers tо your existing car inѕurаnсе or provide thе dеtаilѕ whеn you tаkе оut new cover.
By adding additional drivers the insurance company essentially sees the risk shared. So depending on the driver you’re adding, it can lower the price. Luckily for me, my father is quite elderly and has been driving longer than most people have been alive. Adding him to my policy reduced the premium by another £65.
To test the theory further I decided to add another driver onto the policy to see how it affected it. I decided to add my dads’ partner who is a 57 year old female, again with a driving license older than I.
I’ve done this trick of adding a third driver before but it’s not worked, this time however, it was successful. It knocked another £40 off the price.
Tip 7: Use all the comparison sitesShоррing аrоund iѕ a simple but effective way tо get cheaper car insurance because insurers rаrеlу оffеr their bеѕt deals tо еxiѕting сuѕtоmеrѕ.
In fact, mаnу reserve thеir сhеареѕt possible рriсеѕ fоr new сuѕtоmеrѕ.
Cоmраrе car inѕurаnсе quоtеѕ using price comparison websites to ѕее if you can save money by switching insurers.
Just rеmеmbеr tо make ѕurе you’re comparing likе fоr like соvеr, with voluntary еxсеѕѕеѕ set at the ѕаmе level and including any extras that уоu would uѕuаllу аdd оn.
You might have noticed that throughout this I have been quoting confused.com. Despite this, it’s worth using every comparison site and not just your preferred one. Although they use the same insurers, they ask different questions with different parameters and sometimes have exclusive deals. This can result in a different price. As you can see here:
Go Compare and Compare the Market were £2.24 cheaper. MoneySupermarket saved me £11.20. Not a huge amount but still worth it in my eyes for another 5 minutes of time.
Tip 8: Use a Credit Card to pay or the whole yearPaying for the entire year in advance will almost always get you the cheapest car insurance quote. Most insurers will give you a discount because it helps them keep their costs down as they don’t have to process a payment each month, and it also makes it unlikely that you will change your policy or switch to a new insurer.
Also, if you pay your annual insurance premium in advance, you have the luxury of getting that big bill out of the way for the entire year. This can be extremely useful if your income fluctuates or is seasonal, or if you get an annual bonus or tax refund. It will also protect you against having your cover cancelled if you can’t pay it one month.
If you don’t have the spare cash right now, uѕing сrеdit саrdѕ to рау уоur саr inѕurаnсе саn hаvе several bеnеfitѕ.
Since you’ll be paying up front, you’ll tend to save a hefty amount anyway. In addition to this, it’s likely you can collect reward points for further savings.
As you can see from my final quote on confused.com, paying monthly works out £40 more expensive over the year. On some policies, this can be as much as £100 extra. If you can’t afford to pay it all at once then try to find a 0% interest credit card and buy it that way. As long as you don’t make any late payments; you’re instantly saving £40 compared to the monthly premium option!
Back to the black box! At this point if you do not want the black box, click on the more info button and remove the option on the insurers website. When I do this, it only increases the insurance to £464.80. This is still a massive saving off my starting point!
Extra Bonus Tips and Common myths.Bonus No1 –
Changing your Job title: This is a common tip but it worked the opposite way around for me. Changing my occupation from “Marketing co-ordinator” to “Marketing Director” added money on. However, in reverse, it would work and would save me money. By playing around you may save something.As a general rule the less specific the occupation the cheaper it’ll be.
Bonus No2 – Increasing voluntary excess: This is a commonly recommended tip that in my experience doesn’t do much. Adding an extra £500 of excess gave me a discount of £4. This is something that is not worth it in my opinion. But you never know, it’s still worth a try, especially if your car is more valuable.
Myth – Telling them that I use a dashcam:
I do use a dashcam on my car and this option is a recent addition to the car comparison sites. But it didn’t seem to make any difference to the quotes I got. It’s worth watching this in the future as I believe it will have a bigger effect in time. Dash Cams are a worthy investment and will cover you in an accident that’s not your fault. We’ve also heard of people ringing the insurance companies and using their dashcam as a bargaining chip so this is worth exploring if you have one.
Myth – Parking your car in a garage: All the quotes I’ve done give me the same price if the car is parked in a garage or on a driveway. Insurance companies have become wise to the fact that very few people park in a garage and yet a lot claim they do. Therefore this offers little discount and in my experience, none at all. Parking on the street can also, confusingly, be cheaper. This wasn’t the case for me but if you’ve had car key burglaries in your area, and your car is an expensive one, then this will likely be the case.
The insurers say that if your car is out on the street then the burglars have less chance of figuring out which car belongs to which house.
Cheaper Car insurance Case StudySince we’ve been so successful with this technique we decided to try it with someone else. Someone that didn’t have quite such an expensive quote to begin with. We checked a 33 year old female that had been driving for 8 years with 5 years no claims on a 2012 BMW 1 series. Her last renewal 6 months ago was £550. This was the first quick quote we got.
After we applied all the things we learned here (2 weeks in advance, additional driver, incognito mode). We got these quotes (comprehensive in this case was the cheapest):
All of this saved £79.15!
On a quote that was cheap to begin with, this is a very impressive 20% saving. Now we’re fluent with it, it only took us 10 minutes to do. If anyone offered me £80 to click some buttons for 10 minutes I’d jump at the chance.
Other factors that affect your car insurance quoteAs we’ve seen, the price of car insurance varies not only from company to company, but also from driver to driver. We’ve already looked at the factors you have control over that can cause your premiums to increase, but let’s see what else the insurance companies care about and why.
Despite оссuраtiоn hаving nо dirесt bearing оn a drivеr’s еxреriеnсе оr ѕkill, it can still саn саuѕе рrеmiumѕ tо vаrу.
Yоur occupation iѕ one оf thе fасtоrѕ tаkеn intо consideration bу inѕurаnсе firmѕ when ѕеtting уоur рrеmium. Insurers rate your risk factor with уоur jоb, based on claim statistics.
Fоr inѕtаnсе, a ѕаlеѕреrѕоn who drives on the motorway еvеrу dау iѕ most likеlу a highеr riѕk thаn a bаnk clerk who ѕitѕ аt a dеѕk all dау.
Thе nature оf a реrѕоn’ѕ jоb could lead tо substantially highеr оr lower insurance premiums, with certain jobs being statistically more likely to be involved in an accident.
Thе premium you рау could bе higher or lower depending on whether or not you trаvеl regularly аѕ part оf уоur jоb, or if уоu carry еxреnѕivе equipment оr ѕtосk in your car. Even if уоu dоn’t actually use your car for buѕinеѕѕ purposes and simply commute to and from work, what you do for a living саn still make a big difference to your premium.
If you have been involved in an accident in the past, or even had your car stolen or broken into, you’re unlikely to be offered the cheapest insurance.
Lengthy periods without making a claim help you accumulate a no-claims-bonus which can drastically lower the cost.
Claiming for minor damage can quickly add up and build a perceived risk that the insurance company will take into account when giving a quote. Many insurers now offer protection to your no-claims-bonus for minor damage, which is worth looking into in case you need it.
Most car insurance companies will use your credit rating as a factor when determining your quote.
This is because having a great credit rating shows an overall level of responsibility and therefore less risk to insurers. You will usually be asked to consent to a credit check when applying for car insurance.
Don’t worry though, a credit check from an insurance company won’t affect your future score. However, if you have CCJs or you haven’t kept up with credit card payments in the past, you’re unlikely to get the cheapest insurance quote.
Sоmе providers use аn inѕurаnсе сrеdit ѕсоrе. Thеу use a numbеr of fасtоrѕ tо create this ѕсоrе ѕuсh аѕ the type оf сrеdit уоu have with rеtаil ѕtоrеѕ, finаnсе companies, bаnkѕ, credit cards, etc.
Other factors include thе numbеr оf сrеdit inquiries showing оn уоur hiѕtоrу, open lines оf credit, unuѕеd сrеdit and the lеngth оf your hiѕtоrу.
With thе inѕurаnсе сrеdit ѕсоrе, thе provider саn рrеdiсt whеthеr оr nоt you are a high-riѕk соnѕumеr.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, many lists detailing the ways to reduce your insurance costs include changing your car. Whilst not a very useful suggestion, it is worth knowing how your car affects the price you pay.
Have a fancy car that is more likely to get stolen, or a sports car that you might drive too fast and lose control of? Get ready to open your wallet.
If you’re considering buying a new car, talk to your insurer to see what additional costs the car may bring.
Certain makes and models of car are more expensive to repair if you have an accident, whereas if your car has extra safety measures or an alarm etc. then you can save money by pointing this out when you take out your cover.
Where you live
Again, there’s no point moving to a new town just to save a few quid on your car insurance, but one of the first questions any car insurance company will ask is your postcode.
People living in a highly populated area will tend to have higher insurance premiums than those living in rural areas, and different cities will be priced differently too according to statistics on vehicle theft and damage, traffic accidents, number of claims, and even extreme weather.
Age and experience
The age of the driver is one of the biggest factors that determines your car insurance quote.
Statistically, young drivers are far more likely to drive irresponsibly and have more accidents. Those under 25 are in the riskiest group from the insurance point of view, and therefore usually have the highest premiums.
The number of years you’ve been driving will also play a role in determining your quote. Older people who’ve just passed their test will likely pay more than someone in their 20s who has been driving for several years without a claim.
As you can see it’s very easy to get an okay quote with a comparison site, but with just a little effort you can make that a great quote! Due to writing this post and the tips I’ve learned along the way, I can now insure both of my cars for less than I was paying for one. A massive bonus for me! It’s all been well worth the time and effort.
This article is care of
The biggest bane of my life at this very moment? Car insurance!
Well, finding a cheap car insurance quote to be exact.
If you’re like me, getting cheap insurance can be a real pain. Endless quotes and negotiating hard with different providers just for small reductions.
Well if you want a quick and easy way to reduce car insurance by 20-50%, you’re in the right place! Even better, these steps take only 10-20 minutes to do and you don’t have to negotiate with anyone!
I haven’t used my car in over a month. In the last 28 days the car has moved roughly 20 meters, and yet those 20 meters have cost me £110 for the pleasure. It’s one of my biggest monthly bills (after rent) and I’m not alone. MoneySuperMarket reported that the average price of car insurance from March to May 2016 was £470, but Confused.com says in the last quarter of 2017, it had risen to £827.
So how can we lower the price of your car insurance premiums?
There are a lot of insurance comparison sites out there that essentially recommend you either move house or change your car if you want to get cheaper car insurance.
Great, thanks guys! I’m not going to move house or change my car, but if you’re interested in knowing which factors affect your quote the most, check here.
There is a better way and I’ll show you exactly how below.
Don’t bend your life around your car insurance, bend your car insurance around you.
The starting point
I’m going to use a live case study to show you how this works. The case study is me! This is my starting point on the price comparison site Confused.com. This is a comprehensive quote on my 2002 BMW 330ci. I’m 22 and have 2 years no claims bonus. Some of you may be wincing at this price but for me, it’s actually not too bad (my last renewal was over £1100…eek!).
Tip 1: Try all cover types (Comprehensive can often be the cheapest)
To continue reading, for all the tips Click HERE!!!
Utah Service King litigation carries lessons for #collision repair industry,what would the risk be of incorrectly calibrating ADAS systems?
By John Huetter on September 17, 2018 care of repairer driven news
Shops across the country might want to take a vehicle owner’s lawsuit against Service King over her Tesla Model S’s crash as an opportunity to re-evaluate their own operations and exposure.
Lommatzsch v. Tesla et al states that Service King had worked on the Model S before the car crashed into a stopped Unified Fire Authority mechanic’s truck on May 11. The lawsuit doesn’t state how the work improperly affected the vehicle, which was in Autopilot during the crash. Plaintiff Heather Lommatzsch sued Tesla as well.
“During the year leading up to the subject accident, Defendant Service King provided service to the Tesla Model S and had replaced a sensor on the Tesla Model S,” the lawsuit states.
“… Service King owed a duty of care to Plaintiff while testing, maintaining, servicing, and/or repairing the Tesla Model S.
“Defendant Service King breached the duty of care by negligently testing, maintaining, servicing, and/or repairing the Tesla Model S.”
The South Jordan Police Department, however, cited Lommatzch for failing to keep a proper lookout while driving.
“The driver of the Tesla Model S … was subsequently interviewed by the South Jordan Police and said that she had been using the ‘Autopilot’ feature in the Tesla,” South Jordan police wrote in a news release. “While Tesla’s Autopilot feature indicates that a driver must be attentive at all times, the driver admitted that she was looking at her phone prior to the collision. Based upon witness information, the driver of the Tesla did not brake or take any action to avoid the collision.”
Service King had not responded to an email request Friday for comment by its personnel or counsel. Companies typically refrain from discussing pending litigation themselves.
But in Service King’s defense, we note again that the lawsuit lacks specifics on what error Service King is alleged to have made during the repair. The complaint just says Service King fixed the car, declares the shop to have been negligent, and calls it a day without connecting the dots to the crash.
Federal regulators also have launched their own independent inquiry into the incident, though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hasn’t yet responded to a Monday inquiry into its status or if Service King was examined. The body shop wasn’t mentioned in the police news release regarding the collision; a spokesman did not reply to a Friday email inquiry asking if local authorities investigated the repairer’s work.
Litigation or regulatory scrutiny related to such crashes might be unavoidable even if shops do everything right — and right now, there’s no evidence that Service King delivered anything but the correct repair.
Therefore, it will be critical that repairers dot their Is and cross their Ts when repairing any vehicle with advanced driver assistance systems — particularly ones drawing the kind of attention as Tesla’s Autopilot. Deviate from OEM repair procedures at your own peril. After all, your inevitable OEM co-defendant has an incentive to clear its own name by checking whether your shop’s failure to follow repair procedures compromised vehicle systems.
These aren’t just concerns for Tesla-certified shops. For example, Nissan sells ProPILOT Assist, which is its version of Autopilot. Cadillac’s CT6 offers the truly hands-off “Super Cruise” technology.
The stakes for shops could grow even higher if the NHTSA, the National Transportation Safety Board or trial attorneys ever take a look at crashes involving less sexy ADAS technology.
Article is care of http://www.repairerdrivennews.com
This article can be found here.
Stealing a Tesla with Raspberry Pi 3 B+ connected to a transceiver. @samykamkar #KeylessCarTheft #DriveItLikeYouHackedIt
September 7, 2018
Author: Wayne Krause
4 min read
Today more than ever, the importance of creating an outstanding blueprint for automotive repair is an integral part of Proper and Safe repairs. Creating a roadmap of how the vehicle is going to be repaired provides the most accurate and efficient methods of repair and ensures that every standard operating procedure (SOP) is being met. In I-CAR’s Cycle Time class, they identify that “Doing a complete repair blueprint has been identified as a key to improving efficiency in a repair facility.”
Here Is A List of What We Recommend As The 10 Keys to Complete Estimating:
#Insurance Giant #AXA accused of underpaying policyholder's vehicle damage #claims, is your Insurer conning you?
Insurance Giant AXA accused of underpaying policyholder's vehicle damage claims
Northern Ireland’s largest motor insurer has been accused by the independent car repair industry of using bullying methods to control where and how much is paid for car repairs here, leading to consumer’s losing out on what they are entitled to under their policy.
A survey of over 25 repairers carried out on behalf of trade organisation, the Northern Ireland Bodyshop Alliance has resulted in the first locally available evidence of what is seen as AXA’s attempts to pay less to a policyholder who chooses to use their own case repairer instead of the repairer chosen by AXA.
Richard Hastings, NIBA Chairman; explained the background to the survey and the findings.
“Over the years we have been regularly contacted by members of the public and car repairers concerned about the actions of AXA Insurance when it comes to making a claim after an accident.
The result of these actions is that consumers are left bamboozled by the claims process and making decisions under the stress of an accident that they later regret.
NIBA and a similar trade body in the UK, the Auto Body Professionals publish suggested retail price guides for the car repair industry. Both guides indicate that it costs between £40 - £50 per hour to ensure that a bodyshop can repair a car correctly with access to the latest equipment, training and methods.
However AXA claim that they have entered into a volume discount arrangement with several repairers who agree to charge labour rates starting at £22.95 per hour as well as discounts of up to 10% on parts and 40% on paint. As a result, AXA say that some of their policies do not allow coverage for car repairs to be more expensive than this.
It’s our belief that AXA do not do this in the rest of the UK and that what they are doing is uniquely affecting Northern Ireland consumers.
Faced with having to ask their customer to pay the difference themselves to use an independent garage of their own choice, the experience of the 26 garages we surveyed is that almost half of them have had to cease doing repair work when their customer is insured with AXA.
The remainder indicated that they have felt under unfair pressure to accept the below cost rates charged by AXA in order to keep staff occupied, as otherwise they would probably have to consider letting staff go we believe. This will result in the loss of many jobs in the local economy.
Another tactic AXA use is to reduce a customer’s policy excess by £100 if they agree to move to a garage appointed by AXA, 80% of garages said this resulted in the car being moved away from the customer’s choice of garage to the one appointed by AXA.
Nearly all of the garages surveyed reported that should a customer insist on using a garage of their own choice that representatives from AXA make a number of disparaging remarks about the independent garage which often has the effect of pressurising a customer to move their vehicle.
The customer might be told that the independent garage would be unable to carry out repairs to a high standard and repairs would not be guaranteed. Although on many occasions the customer appears to be being told that they just have to use the garage appointed by AXA.
“When AXA choose the garage, the garage is working for AXA and therefore presumably in AXA’s best interests, not the policyholder’s. An independent garage will put the customer first.”
The reality is that the customer who buys a policy of insurance is entitled to take their car to a garage of their own choice and for their insurance policy to cover the reasonable costs of those repairs. Where an insurer, such as AXA refuses to cover these costs it is the consumer who is losing out on what could be hundreds of pounds worth of work.
Richard concluded “We would urge AXA to reconsider their approach to the independent repair trade. All we want is to repair our customer’s vehicles and be paid the reasonable costs”.
For more information about NIBA, please visit niba.biz.
Article is care of the Northern Ireland Bodyshop Alliance who Motorclaimguru works with.
This article can be found here.
An estimated 25,000 learner drivers are using the roads without valid car insurance, according to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB).
The MIB, which tackles the scourge of uninsured driving, said data from its police helpline suggests that across the UK around 25,000 unqualified drivers are on the roads in their own car or that of a family member without the proper cover.
It said in the past 12 months it has received thousands of inquiries from police officers at the roadside where a provisional licence holder was suspected to be driving without insurance.
We’re urging learners to do the right thing and drive insured or the police will seize their car
In most cases, when a learner was found to be uninsured the car was immediately seized by police – and one in every two uninsured learners faced further penalties as they had also been driving without the legally required supervision.
Some learners had a policy in place, but it turned out to be invalid as they were driving outside of the terms and conditions of their policy.
Examples of this ranged from daily commutes to using a car for business purposes.
Many more were also found to be breaking the law by failing to display “L” plates on their car.
The MIB is a not-for-profit body which acts as an insurance safety net. It picks up the compensation tab when innocent motorists are hit by uninsured drivers or when drivers cannot be traced following a hit-and-run collision.
This bill is paid for through the insurance premiums of all law-abiding motorists – meaning uninsured drivers push up the costs for everyone.
Neil Drane, MIB’s head of enforcement, said: “We understand car insurance can be expensive but it’s there to protect all road users in the event of an accident. We’re urging learners to do the right thing and drive insured or the police will seize their car, which in turn could prevent them from obtaining a full driving licence and could impact their independence.”
Motor insurance is a legal requirement, and like other road users, learner drivers must ensure they have a valid policy in place and meet all licence requirements.
Those found to be driving without insurance can have their car seized by police, receive six points on their licence, a £300 fine and face further penalties.
The MIB said learners should be supervised by someone who is aged 21 or over and who has had a full driving licence for at least three years.
It said there are a range of insurance options for learner drivers:
– A learner who wants to use their own car can take out an insurance policy with the person who will be supervising them listed as a named driver. This also gives the learner a chance to build up their no claims bonus.
– Learners can take out learner driver insurance on a friend or family member’s car.
– It is also possible to be a named driver on the insurance policy belonging to the family member or friend who is going to be supervising in their own car.
The MIB recommends learners speak directly to an insurer or a broker as they will be able to help them find suitable insurance for learning to drive.
State Farm and a class of plaintiffs agreed to settle protracted RICO litigation for $250 million on the opening day of what was expected to be a long-running trial at federal court in East St. Louis.
Settlement was announced by U.S. District Judge David Herndon after 2:30 p.m. Tuesday.
Claims against co-defendants William Shepherd, counsel for State Farm, and Ed Murnane, former president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, also have been dismissed. They will not bear any settlement costs, according to the proposed agreement.
The vehicle for settlement came by plaintiffs' filing of a second amended complaint that added a count of unjust enrichment "to end the entire litigation with the class," wrote State Farm attorney Ronald Safer of Chicago in support of the settlement.
"State Farm firmly believes that all claims that have been or are asserted against it and the other defendants...to be factually and legally without merit," Safer wrote.
"That is why it has defended so vigorously against this litigation. State Farm likewise believes that, in view of its strong factual and legal defenses in this case, it would prevail at trial, upon appeal... or at both stages.
"But this case has already gone on for over six years... There are uncertainties in any litigation, especially class litigation."
Plaintiffs' counsel Robert Nelson of Lieff Cabraser in San Francisco wrote in support of the agreement that aside from attorney fees and costs, and costs of notice and settlement administration, all of the monies would go to class members.
"This settlement represents a substantial achievement for Class Members, all of whom are eligible for monetary payments, and many of whom will receive those payments automatically, meaning without having to submit a claim form.
"As the Court knows, Plaintiffs were prepared and ready and willing and able to try this case to verdict. But this proposed settlement provides significant relief to class members now, and avoids the risk of any further delay associated with the inevitable appeals of any successful verdict, the loss of a successful verdict on appeal or an unsuccessful trial verdict."
The proposal doesn't define how much class counsel will receive in fees, rather it states that defendants are leaving the award amount to the discretion of the court. If plaintiff attorneys were to receive 30 percent of the settlement value, $82.5 million would be divided among roughly 15 plaintiff law firms.
The Hale litigation arose from the earlier class action Avery v State Farm, which involved a challenge to the quoting or specification of aftermarket non-original equipment manufacturer vehicle repair parts in the 1980s and 1990s.
In Avery, a Williamson County jury arrived at a $1.05 billion verdict in 1999. That judgment was reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court in August 2005 after Lloyd Karmeier was elected to the high court.
Filed in 2012, Hale plaintiffs claimed that State Farm fraudulently secured Karmeier’s election in 2004, in order to overturn the Williamson County judgment. Hale contended that Karmeier should have recused himself from review of the judgment.
The class had sought to recover the judgment with 19 years of interest and triple damages under civil provisions of federal racketeering law, an amount approaching $10 billion leading up to the trial.
After the approximate 15 minute proceeding in Herndon's court ended Tuesday afternoon, lead plaintiff attorney Robert Clifford of Chicago told reporters that Karmeier had been set to testify at trial as early as Wednesday. He said that he could not disclose in advance when he would have testified due to a confidentiality agreement.
According to a joint press release, the settlement was reached because both sides “believe it is in the best interest of all the parties and to avoid protracted litigation and appeals that could continue for several more years.”
It goes on to state that the settlement provides benefits to more than 4 million current and former State Farm policy holders who were members of the Avery class. It states that plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss RICO and unjust enrichment claims. The agreement will further stipulate that State Farm denies liability, that it consider claims to be without merit and it is settling under the unjust enrichment claims.
Herndon has set a final fairness hearing for Dec. 13.
Tuesday's trial had been set to begin at 8:30 a.m. At 9 a.m., a clerk told those assembled in a courtroom lacking sufficient air conditioning that proceedings would be recessed until 1 p.m.
At approximately 1 p.m., a clerk announced a new 1:30 p.m. start to the gallery, which waited another hour for the announcement.
Before Herndon entered the courtroom, attorneys Sheila Birnbaum of New York - for State Farm - and Elizabeth Cabraser of San Francisco - for plaintiffs - preceded him from chambers. They had apparently been engaged during the day with mediator Randi Ellis of Baton Rouge, La, according to trial minutes posted this afternoon.
Herndon thanked Cabraser and Birnbaum for their efforts in reaching settlement.
He said the case was complex, and that lawyers on both sides were as knowledgeable and prepared as they could be, "short of knowing what a jury would do."
Belleville attorney Russell Scott, who represented Shepherd, said it was a good day for his client.
"I'm happy for him," he said. "Mr. Shepherd can now enjoy the next month."
West Midlands Police (WMP) recently posted on their website that they are to lobby government and the insurance industry amid concerns the practice of selling written-off cars for repair is fuelling a surge in vehicle theft.
Investigations run by the force suggest criminal gangs are snapping up damaged cars rated insurance write-offs from salvage auctions – and then stealing cars to order for the parts they need to fix them and sell for a hefty profit.
Around five times more vehicles – mainly luxury marques like Audi, BMW and Range Rover or other high-spec cars – are sold at auction as repairable write-offs compared to write-offs to be scrapped for spare parts.
And it’s suspected the imbalance is leading criminal gangs to steal cars – some during violent car-jackings – for matching spares rather than buy expensive factory-made parts from manufacturers.
WMP Deputy Chief Constable Louisa Rolfe, said: “We’ve witnessed a near 100 per cent increase in vehicle thefts across the West Midlands in the last four years – up from 5,215 in 2014-15 to more than 10,000 in 2017-18.
“And there’s a correlation between the types of cars being stolen and those available as repairable write-offs; it is our firm belief, supported by police intelligence, that this increase is being driven by the criminal demand for car parts.
“We will be raising our concerns with government, the Association of British Insurers and online auction and sales sites.
“A review and improved regulation on the re-sale of insurance write-offs is needed. We’ll be asking if so many badly damaged cars should be offered as repairable write-offs and, where they are, salvage auctions should stipulate that buyers have the correct breaker’s licences needed to dismantle vehicles.
“We also want salvage auctions to introduce a ‘know your customer’ framework and have clear structures in place to report suspicious buyer activity.
“In addition, we’re also meeting with online sales sites to encourage them to better protect customers who could unwittingly end up buying a car that’s been repaired using parts from a stolen vehicle.”
Stolen cars are broken down at so called ‘chop-shops’ – back street garages or industrial estate units – sometimes in a matter of hours before repaired cars are sold on through online auction or sales sites.
This week West Midlands Police launched its Shop a Chop Shop campaign urging people to report any premises they suspect is dismantling stolen vehicles.
DCC Rolfe also fears there is a serious public safety concern around the re-sale of repaired write-offs with some vehicles being passed on without features such as airbags.
She explained: “There is no requirement for repaired write-offs to be checked before being sold…they can be returned to the road without an inspection until it reaches MOT age.
“Many of the vehicles sold at salvage auctions having been written-off by insurers will have been involved in serious collisions where airbags have been deployed.
“Under the Pyrotechnic Articles Regulations Act, they should be replaced by an authorised economic operator or professional user – but no procedures appear to be in place to ensure such replacement of airbags meet regulatory requirements.
“In one example I’m aware of a repaired vehicle was sold without any side impact air bags being fitted – and clearly that’s a very serious road safety concern.”
The West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner, David Jamieson, who is currently leading a national campaign to reduce car crime, said: “I’m very pleased to see West Midlands Police taking this issue so seriously.
“Not only are they tackling the problem head on with a robust police response they are also talking with the insurance industry and government to fix a broken system.
“Motorists across the West Midlands have seen the chance of their vehicle being stolen more than double in just a few years.
“I’ve been leading a national campaign to reduce the number of vehicle thefts. The police play a crucial role and it is good to see them taking the issue so seriously.
“That said, I also want to see manufacturers to do much more to tighten vehicle security and make thieves’ lives more difficult.”
See the video link to this article by clicking on the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fyt6GtqQ2k&feature=youtu.be
If anyone suspects a location is being used as a chop-shop for stolen vehicles they are urged to call the independent charity Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555111 or West Midlands Police on 101.
If this is just the West Midlands, how does the rest of the country compare? Let us know your thoughts on this subject by contacting us at email@example.com We’d love to hear your views.
In response to the ‘West Midlands police claim that the way the code operates means there are more repairable write-offs available than there are parts to fix them’, we came across an article on the Association of British Insurers (ABI) website by Rob Clark, Niche Motor Underwriting Manager at Ageas (who represented the ABI at the recent National Stolen Vehicle Workshop), stating the following:
‘As an industry, we share the concerns of the police that criminals are abusing the system to make money. The fact that the rate of vehicle theft is increasing is concerning, let alone any increase of unsafe vehicles on the road. We are working alongside the police to help find a solution to this issue. I attended a workshop last month where the current evidence was considered and ways forward are now being worked on.
It is in no one’s interests that insurers start ignoring salvage guidelines and scrapping a higher number of fixable cars, purely to try to make life harder for some unscrupulous lawbreakers. I applaud West Midlands Police for having recently launched a crackdown on the garages where stolen cars are being processed. The other key step should be increased scrutiny of the motor vehicle market and tighter rules for vehicle repairs.
There is currently no requirement for written off cars to undergo an individual vehicle approval (IVA) test before being put back on the road. Shockingly, this allows criminals to buy a written-off shell, “repair” it with stolen parts and put it back on the roads without any scrutiny. Addressing this situation with the DVSA seems an obvious place to start to make it harder for these criminals to exploit the system, and to increase protection for car buyers.’
To read the full article click on the following link: https://www.abi.org.uk/news/blog-articles/2018/08/dont-write-off-the-salvage-code/
John Radford’s £468,600 fine also confirmed.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued final notices for One Call Insurance Services and for chief executive and majority shareholder John Radford.
In January this year the regulator published its decision notices (dated 13 June 2016) fining Radford £468,600 and One Call £648,000 for client money handling failings.
The Doncaster-headquartered firm which specialises in car, van and home insurance also faced a £4.62m hit from being banned from charging customers renewal fees for 121 days.
Radford was set to be banned from having any responsibility for client money and/or insurer money.
The watchdog noted in January that a connected company – One Insurance Limited – had referred the cases to the Upper Tribunal.
The final notices were issued on 30 August.
The document for One Call noted that “reference to the tribunal was withdrawn by the third party on 7 July 2018”. It also revealed that the restriction on charging renewal fees would start on 1 October and last for 90 days rather than 121.
However the watchdog stated that due to the growth of the business since 2016 this would now cost the company £4.7m.
Meanwhile Radford’s ban has kicked in with the publication of his final notice.
Both documents set a deadline of 13 September for the fines to be paid.
Article is care of www.insuranceage.co.uk
This article can be found here
Getting the right data can be paramount to proper and safe vehicle repair. Just look at last year’s court case in Texas and subsequent verdict that found that previous vehicle repairs had deviated from OEM recommended repair procedures and thereby contributed to occupant injuries. – bad data led to a very bad outcome. This ruling may well have represented a watershed moment for our industry and presented an opportunity for every party in the collision repair ecosystem—OEM, insurance company, collision repairer and suppliers—to reevaluate what’s necessary to deliver proper and safe repair. Ultimately, we all have a stake in ensuring a vehicle has been properly repaired, that it is once again roadworthy, and that the vehicle owner can feel confident that it is safe for them and their passengers to occupy.
“While it may seem obvious, accessing the appropriate repair data, when and where it is needed, is not always straightforward.”
Based on conversations with our customers and Mitchell Advisory Council members, I know proper and safe repairs are top of mind. And as a general manager of an organization that serves as an active participant in this ecosystem, the role we all play weighs heavily on my mind. It is my belief that one of the important things we can do as an industry to support collision repairers in delivering proper and safe repairs is to encourage open access to the most current data required to repair a vehicle to OEM standards. While it may seem obvious, accessing the appropriate repair data, when and where it is needed, is not always straightforward.
Following OEM Repair Procedures
As technology advances and onboard computers, sensors linked to vehicle safety systems, special materials, etc., are becoming more prevalent, repair procedures are becoming increasingly specialized and complex. There are more that 263 million vehicles on the road in the U.S. as of 2015, the last year for which numbers are available, and the definition of what constitutes proper and safe repair varies widely between every make, model and year. Current estimates indicate that a collision technician needs to reference more than 500,000 pages of repair information to correctly execute repairs today, up from just 5,000 pages a decade previous. It would be a tall order for even the most experienced repair technician to keep up with all of that information—and each new model year brings more.
The good news is that almost every automotive manufacturer currently provides repair procedures for their vehicles, and those that don’t are well down the path of developing them. OEM repair procedures detail what is required to repair a damaged vehicle based on original manufacturer repair standards. They cover everything from critical safety issues like when and where a vehicle should be welded, as in the Texas case, to cosmetic issues such as painting instructions. By following repair procedures, collision repairers are better able to deliver proper and safe repairs, return the vehicle to pre-accident function and appearance while ensuring its roadworthiness.
Accessing OEM Repair Procedures — Easier Said than Done
Having access to repair procedures is only the first step. In order for a repair shop to be able to incorporate them into their workflow, they need to be able to access them when and where they need them—essentially in context, while creating the estimate and doing the repair. Again, this is more complex than it seems.
Often, when a collision repairer creates an estimate, they have to look up each repair procedure one-by-one outside of the estimating system and then modify the estimate based on what they find. That may mean going back-and-forth between multiple software systems and sorting through massive amounts of information that is not relevant to the current repair. This is time consuming, complex and potentially error prone.
Here’s what’s needed: an open, secure, and cloud-based system that allows the most up-to-date repair procedures to be accessed by collision repairers so that they can quickly and accurately access just the information they need from within the estimating system. That information could then become an artifact within the system that then becomes a part of the vehicle’s repair record, encouraging transparency and accountability across the ecosystem.
Putting Vehicle Sensor Calibration to the Test
At Mitchell, we believe OEM repair procedures aren’t the only sticking point when it comes to proper and safe repairs. The average late model vehicle has 60 to 100 computer control modules and sensors, with that number growing to over 200 as cars become increasingly more complex. Many of these sensors directly link to safety systems—think backup cameras, blind spot detectors and occupant classification systems that use sensors to identify passengers who do not meet minimum weight requirements and prevent airbags from deploying.
While sensors and control modules were not a part of the Texas lawsuit, ensuring they are properly calibrated is essential to proper and safe repair. The impact of a collision, even one that does not directly strike a sensor, could be enough to push the margin of error on a sensor calibration out of the tolerance zone. How serious is this? Think of it this way: an improperly calibrated backup camera or sensor could mean the difference between backing out of your driveway safely or backing into a pole, or worse yet, a person you didn’t see.
Just recently I had my car in for routine maintenance. I thought it was running fine: it looked great, ran great and no dashboard lights indicated there was any cause for concern. Imagine my surprise when we plugged my car into Mitchell’s Diagnostics system and more than 30 diagnostic trouble codes fired. In my case, it was a low-voltage condition that activated the trouble codes. But consider this—a mere visual inspection of a vehicle is no longer enough. Whether post-accident or routine repair, when working on vehicles with advanced driver assistance systems and other electronic safety systems, the use of pre- and post-repair vehicle scans is an important part of ensuring a vehicle is safe to put back on the road.
Mitchell Is Committed to Doing Our Part
As I said at the beginning of this article, we all have a stake in ensuring a vehicle has been safely and properly repaired.
Article is care of
BY PAUL on AUGUST 22, 2018
A freedom of information (FOI) request on the excellent “What do they know” website points out that FOS FAQs say that an ombudsman’s decision is final, whereas in a recent court case the Judge said:
“But I consider that Mr Strachan QC, on behalf of FOS, was right in his submission that the power to reconsider a complaint is part and parcel of FOS’s duty to consider a complaint that has been properly brought before it.” (my italics).
So there is an obvious difference between the FAQs and the FOS’s own QC !
The FOI questioner ask for “all relevant documents which address the issue of the finality of the FOS final decision” but he/she clearly has little hope that FOS will give a proper answer. I tend to agree.
Follow the FOI request and answer (if any) here
This article is care of the Fabuous https://ombudsman-problems.com
Millions of drivers may not have the insurance cover they expected after a consumer watchdog found that six out of ten policies advertised on price comparison sites did not accurately reflect what was in policy documents.
An investigation of 21 brands advertising on GoCompare, Compare the Market, Confused.com and Money Supermarket discovered the discrepancies when deals were compared with policy documents, which appear when a customer clicks through to an insurer’s website.
The investigation also uncovered near-identical policies being advertised at different prices across sites, making it more likely that people were being ripped off.
Price comparison sites have revolutionised the British insurance market. About 66 per cent of car insurance is now taken out through them, forcing providers such as Legal & General, Aviva and Prudential to be more transparent and competitive on pricing.
However, campaigners from Which? said that customers were now in danger of relying too heavily on these sites and may not be studying their policy documentation carefully enough. They also called for comparison sites to display policies more accurately.
The investigation by Which? found:
• That at least one detail published on a price comparison site was different from that posted on policy documents in 48 out of 79 policies.
• Of these, there were ten cases where comparison sites wrongly claimed that customers would be given a courtesy car while their vehicle was being repaired, on policies advertised on Go Compare, Compare the Market and Confused.com.
• Discrepancies in the level of personal accident cover provided on policies. Go Compare said one policy offered £5,000 for disability but in the policy document the limit was £2,500.
• Incorrect information about cover for loss and theft of keys.
“We were staggered to see such a high amount of errors across the policies listed on price comparison sites,” Harry Rose, the editor of Which? Money, said. Comparison sites said that they would work to ensure that the information was more up to date.
Compare the Market said: “We work with our providers and check that the information provided is accurate.”
Go Compare said that staff carried out a series of checks on policy information. Confused.com said it was “constantly reviewing how policy information is displayed to our customers” and Moneysupermarket said that if it picked up any inaccuracies it liaised with the insurer.
The investigation was carried out in May and June.
Article is care of Times Newspaper,the original article can be found here .
When it’s time to buy motor insurance, consumers are shopping around more than ever before. Based on the results of LexisNexis Risk Solutions’ research, this infographic provides a snapshot of the key findings and the opportunities available for motor insurance providers to stand out from the pack
Article is care of lexisnexis .
Road transport is an essential service in society, but the burden of traffic crashes and Pollution is immense. European data show that road accidents in the EU countries cause about 250,000 seriously injured people every year, with 28,000 fatalities in 2012 (Kearns & Kidd, 2013). US data in addition, illustrate that automobile crashes led to 34,080 fatalities in 2012 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 2013), where about 90% of the cases were attributed at least partially to driver error (Smith, 2013).
Therefore, car manufacturers have introduced a range of vehicle systems to assist drivers in their driving task, and subsequently enhance driving safety, comfort and traffic efficiency (Golias et al., 2002). Such systems are broadly known as Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS) and can be described as “systems developed to automate/adapt/enhance vehicle systems for safety and better driving” (Himabindu & Yasmeen, 2014). The ADAS, depending on their functions and design, are either primarily addressed to support the driver, and thuscalled driver support systems, e.g. navigation systems, vision enhancement, automated transactions and driver vigilance monitoring, or the vehicle and subsequently referred to as vehicle support systems, e.g. speed control, lane departure collision avoidance, obstacle detection (Golias et al., 2002). Building upon this generic classification more detailed ADAS categorisations can be found in the literature, e.g. (Golias et al., 2002; Shladover, 1995; Vahidi & Eskandarian, 2003).
Many studies have shown the positive impact of ADAS on traffic accidents, e.g. (Golias et al.,2002; Jermakian, 2011; Kahane & Dang, 2009; Kuehn et al., 2009; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 2000, 2005). Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and Antilock Brake Systems (ABS), which prevent a large proportion of both fatal and nonfatal crashes (Kahane & Dang, 2009), are now mandatory in new vehicles (iMobility Forum, 2013). This paper focuses on further ADAS, which are optional in a wide range of vehicles. Among them, the Implementation Road Map Working Group of the European eSafety Forum has selected those expected to reduce road fatalities and emissions in the short- and medium-termin Europe (eSafety Forum, 2008; van Calker & Flemming, 2012). These systems are known as Priority Systems, and are classified into:
Blind Spot Monitoring systems, which use camera techniques with image processing or radar sensors to provide better vision into the blind spot area of a vehicle or supplemental information regarding an obstacle being in that area.
Adaptive Headlights systems, which comprise electromechanically controlled headlights to ensure optimum illumination of the lane in bends.
Obstacle and Collision Warning systems, which detect obstacles and warn the Drivers about an imminent collision.
Lane Keeping Support systems, which indicate or warn the drivers when leaving the lane unintentionally.
Emergency Braking systems, which detect obstacles and notify the drivers about animminent collision; in addition, in the case of a unavoidable collision the system then brakes automatically and forcefully.
Eco Driving Support systems, which assist and encourage drivers to keep driving in amore environmentally friendly manner by providing them with information about the fuel consumption, energy-use efficiency and appropriate gear selection.
A large number of field operational tests, driving simulator studies and accident analysesstatistics worldwide, have shown and quantified the safety, economic and societal benefits derived from the implementation of the priority systems. Jermakian (2011), for example, has analysed US passenger cars crash records for the period 2004-2008 derived from the US National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS GES) and Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Results showed that forward collision warning/mitigation system could prevent up to 20% of the total 5.8 million reported crashes in the US per year, including 66,000 serious and moderate injury crashes and 879 fatal crashes.
In addition, adaptive headlights were found to have the potential to prevent or mitigate 2.45% of all crashes, including about 2,480 fatal accidents and 29,000 injury accidents per annum, while the blind spot monitoring systems could prevent 6.8%, of all crashes, and 393 fatal accidents and 20,000 injury accidents respectively. Finally, it was shown that the lane departure warning system could prevent or mitigate up to 3% of allcrashes, including 7,529 fatal and 37,000 injury accidents per year. In addition, data collected from insurance companies showed that the US fleet of two passenger car manufacturers equipped with different types of ADAS have reduced the overall number of insurance claims (Highway Loss Data Institute, 2012a, 2012b). In particular, for the first manufacturer it was found that the frequency of bodily injury liability, medical payments and personal injury protection dropped by 3.6%, 26.5%, and 7.2% respectively, when vehicles were equipped with blind spot monitoring systems compared to identical vehicles not equipped with the system (Highway Loss Data Institute, 2012a). For the second manufacturer, the frequency of property damage liability claims was reduced by 2.4%. On the other hand, it also indicated an increase by 1.3% concerning the frequency of collision insurance claims, but also an average reduction of 159$ (or 11.4% in medical payments) in the average severity of the claimed costs (Highway Loss Data Institute, 2012b). The same data also showed the positive impact of adaptive headlights on property damage liability claims, the bodily injury liability claims and the medical payments claims (Highway LossData Institute, 2012a, 2012b).
Accident analysis in Europe for the period 2005-2006 (Wilmink et al., 2008) showed that the safety benefits of lane keeping support, if fully deployed in the vehicle fleet, would reduce thenumber of fatalities by 15.2% and injuries by 8.9% in EU25. The authors also found thatemergency braking has the potential to reduce both fatalities and injuries due torear-end-collisions and collisions against fixed obstacles by 7%.
The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) in collaboration with the Australasian New Car Assessment Programme (ANCAP) have also recently released a studyon the impact of low speed Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) on rear-end collisions (Fildes et al., 2015). For this study the authors used data collected from Australia, and five European countries. Results revealed a 38% overall reduction in rear-end crashes for vehicles fitted with low speed AEB compared to those without. Furthermore, results demonstrated nostatistical difference on the AEB effect between urban (above 60 km/h) and rural (below 60km/h) speed zones.
Anderson et al., (2011) analysed crash data derived from police reports in New South Wales, Australia between 1999-2008. Findings showed that adaptive cruise control in conjunctionwith automatic braking could reduce the number of vehicle fatal accidents by 7% and the number of injury accidents by 4%, at speeds larger than 60 km/h. Moreover, the authors found that lane departure warning would reduce the number of fatalities in all crashes by 7% and the number of injuries by approximately 9% in a year. In addition, a UK study by Robinson et al., (2011) showed that lane departure warning, when penetration rate reaches 100%, would reduce the number of fatalities in a year by 15-60, while the number of prevented serious injuries was estimated to be between 578 and 1,581. Moreover, the authors found that automatic emergency braking would reduce the number of fatalities of accidents involving thefront of a car impacting another vehicle by 30%.
A field operational study by Najm et al., (2006) showed that automatic collision avoidance systems, integrating forward collision warning and adaptive cruise control, have the potential to avoid about 6 to 15% of all rear-end crashes or between 133,000 and 687,000 rear-endcrashes in the US per year. Furthermore, Benmimoun et al., (2013) found among 100 passenger vehicles that a combined system of adaptive cruise control and forward collision warning increased the average time-headways between vehicles on motorways by 16%. In addition, the number of critical time-headways (less than 0.5 s) is reduced by 73%, while the study also showed that when adaptive cruise control is active, fuel consumption on motorways is reduced by 2.77%. Finally, Vagg et al., (2013), and Strömberg & Karlsson, (2013) investigated the impact of eco-driving features in two different cases. The former, based on a field test of 15 light commercial vehicles in the UK, showed that an eco-driving assistance system reduced fuel consumption by 7.61% on average with a reduction forindividual drivers between 0.43-12.03%. Results were obtained by advising drivers toaccelerate more smoothly and enforcing the gear shift indicator advice. The latter, based on astudy carried out by a Swedish public transport operator on a bus line, involving 54 busdrivers, found that a combination of eco-driving training and eco-driving advice system could reduce fuel consumption by 6.8%.
Positive results were also derived by several driving simulator studies. In this respect it shall be mentioned that driving simulator studies, due to their controlled conditions, provide more specific information on human behaviour, but behaviour and accident risks in Simulators deviate substantially from real world conditions. Bueno et al. (2013), confirmed that the forward collision warning system in passenger vehicles can reduce the reaction time of the driver when braking, due to reduction of the time that the drivers need to process the visual target at higher cognitive level. Moreover, Muhrer et al., (2012), found that forward collision warning in combination with emergency braking system resulted in significantly fewer accidents in critical situations. However, they also found that test drivers maintained higher mean speeds with the forward collision warning (with emergency braking) when noun expected events (such as the lead car braking hard) occurred. Finally, Dogan et al., (2011) showed that drivers would be less able to use eco-driving when the traffic environment is highly demanding, e.g. residential areas, and during critical situations. Results also suggest that performance on the fuel saving decreases under time pressure. On the other hand,concerns have been raised by simulator studies, regarding the impact of ADAS on drivingperformance. Jamson et al., (2008) for instance, found that the type of a system may have an impact on its adaptation from drivers. In particular, they found that the benefits of adaptiveforward collision warning systems were demonstrated only for aggressive drivers, wherea smarginal effects were found for non-aggressive drivers.Thus, field operational tests, driving simulator studies and accident statistics indicate substantial benefits of the priority systems, which are commercially available already sincethe early/mid 2000s. Table 1 illustrates the ADAS benefits based on the literature.
The potential of increasing safety by ADAS is so significant, that it is remarkable that theactual market uptake of the majority of the systems 10 years later is still limited. Specifically,within the EU 28 countries none of the systems was installed in more than 1/3 of thepassenger vehicles first registered in 2012, with most of the systems to be installed in lessthan 5% of the vehicles, as shown in Table 2.
Therefore this paper aims to analyse the deployment of the ADAS on the European roads and to investigate the reasons of the limited deployment rates. Subsequently, the main objective ofthis study is to quantify and compare ADAS deployment among European countries. Due to the limited availability of worldwide vehicle-specific data, we focus on recent sales (2012-2014) obtained from the European iCar database and two leasing companies in the Netherlands. In the discussion we interpret the findings and explore whether deployment rates could be affected by any governmental initiatives, e.g. incentives to consumers. In addition, we account for underlying causes responsible for the limited deployment rates of the ADAS. Inturn, we provide directions for future research, which should be focusing on relating deployment rates with overall road safety, i.e. the number of accidents, injuries and fatalities,and exploring any associations between the number of sales and the EuroNCAP results. Finally, we discuss the potential impact of the ADAS low deployment rates on the deployment of the forthcoming automated and connected vehicles technology.
MethodologyData GatheringTwo sets of data were used to study the ADAS deployment in European countries. The first was extracted from the 2013 iCar implementation status survey (van Calker & Flemming, 2013). The second set of data was obtained from of a Dutch leasing company. The 2013 iCar implementation status survey includes the deployment rates of ADAS forpassenger cars first registered in 2012 in EU28. This data was derived from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and contains details for both the priority systems and their assigned relevant systems, as listed in Table 3.
Data represents passenger vehicles first registered in EU 28 in 2012. Data coverage varies per country and priority system due to various reporting methods and indicates the number of vehicles with available information, referred to all vehicles first registered within the regardedyear. Data coverage for 2012 is estimated to be about 76.6% for blind spot Monitoring systems, 53.4% for adaptive headlights, 66.3% for obstacle and collision warning, 66.5% forlane keeping support, 75.8% for emergency braking and 50.4% for eco driving support.
Based on this data, van Calker & Flemming (2013) calculated the direct deployment rates. The direct deployment rates are estimated by using only the vehicles of OEMs with available information and represent the amount of vehicles equipped with a regarded system, referred to all vehicles first registered within the regarded year. However, most of the OEMs nowadays provide only German-wide information about the number of vehicles equipped with a specific safety system (van Calker & Flemming, 2012). According to German regulations the OEMs must provide information about the safety systems equipped in their vehicles for use in the periodical technical inspections in Germany. In addition, the almost complete available European database on ADAS deployment rates, covers the built-in safety systems of passenger vehicles that first registered post April 2006 in Germany (van Calker & Flemming,2012).
Subsequently, among European countries, only the German direct deployment rates can be considered reliable. Hence, an alternative to direct deployment rates was adopted, referred to as corrected estimation deployment rates. These rates are calculated based on the reliably known German deployment rates and a system- and country specific correction factor, which represents the deviation between German and European direct deployment rates for each country and system. The deployment rates are then estimated by diving the sum number of vehicles equipped with the regarded system by the sum number of vehicles with available information (van Calker & Flemming, 2012).
The relatively small second dataset provides additional information on brand, type, price, and mass and was used in particular to investigate the relation between vehicle price & mass and ADAS deployment. This dataset comprises information on the Dutch and German market of a leasing company for the period 2013-2014 (until 31.08.2014). On the one hand, for the Dutch market, data provide details on (i) the amount of new vehicle orders per month, (ii) the amount of cars equipped with at least one type of ADAS, (iii) the orders per type of vehicle and OEM, and finally (iv) the type of the installed ADAS per vehicle. For the German market, on the other hand, data describes (i) the orders per OEM and year for those vehicles equipped with at least one ADAS, and (ii) the exact type of the installed ADAS per vehicle. For this data set, no information was available regarding the total amount of orders.
Analyses at international levelThe deployment of the priority systems and assigned relevant systems among the EU28 countries were compared, based on the findings of the first dataset (van Calker & Flemming,2013). This dataset presents only the ADAS deployment, but provides no further analyses. Therefore, based on this data we firstly explored differences or similarities on the rates among the systems.
In turn, we further analysed the data conducting correlation analyses. Specifically, Spearman correlation coefficients (criterion for statistical significance at p < 0.05) were calculated between the nationwide ADAS deployments rates (corrected estimations) and (i) countries GDP per capita, (ii) countries’ GDP/capita in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) to account for differences in the cost of living between countries, with GDP taken from (Eurostat, 2014a,2014b), and (iii) countries’ number of fatal road traffic accidents per 100,000 vehicles per year, with the number of fatalities derived from (UNECE, 2014), with all variables to be referring to 2012 data.
Analyses at national levelTo consolidate and further understand and interpret the results at international level, the datasets from the Dutch leasing companies were analysed. First, the types of vehicles ordered by the two leasing companies were classified according to their mass and price. Then, for every vehicle, the installed ADAS were documented, and compared to the findings of the international study. This step aimed at identifying any differences or similarities significant changes in the rates between 2012-2014. Finally, the following hypotheses were tested:
ResultsResults at international levelFigures 1 and 2 illustrate the deployment rates per priority system and EU country, with the countries sorted by GDP per capita in PPS. Figure 1 shows the rates for the safety related ADAS, while Figure 2 presents the rates for the Eco Driving systems. Three main observations can be made from the Figures 1 and 2. At first, in the Figure 1 it can be observed that overall the aggregated deployment rates for the safety related ADAS across Europe is relatively low. Only Luxemburg and Germany demonstrate fairly higher rates compared to the other countries. Further to that, it can also be seen that not only the countries with low number of registrations (Tables A.6, in Appendix) and/or GDPs but also the countries with higher number of registrations and/or reasonably high GDPs, indicate low deployment rates for the safety related ADAS compared to the average 2 EU 28 rates. Secondly, Figure 2 Shows that the eco driving support systems are overall the most commonly installed ADAS in mostof the EU countries. Thirdly, data indicate that only Portugal deviates strongly from the overall picture that countries with GDPs per capita in PPS higher than the EU 28 average (EU28avrg = 100) tend to demonstrate higher ADAS deployment.
Table 4 summarises the correlation matrix of the priority and relevant systems in relation to the testing variables. All the required for the calculations data are given in the Appendix.
Firstly, with respect to the priority systems (bold font), it can be seen that in general most of the correlations are moderate or strong, except those referring to Adaptive Headlights. Clear correlations of the blind spot monitoring systems were identified in relation to number of fatalities, and GDP per capita in PPS.
In particular, results show that higher market deployment of blind spot monitoring systems are found in countries with higher GDPs per capita in PPS. Data also show that in countries with lower numbers of fatalities the deployment of blind spot monitoring systems is higher. On the other hand, although nominal GDPs are also positively related to the deployment of the system, these correlations are not significant.
Weak and non-significant correlations were found between the adaptive headlights and testing variables. Nonetheless, data again show that higher number of new registrations and GDPs, imply higher deployment of the system. On the contrary, it is also shown that higher deployment rates are correlated with lower number of fatalities.
For the remaining priority systems data indicate significant correlations for most of the testing variables. For instance, for all the systems significantly higher deployment rates were found in countries with higher GDPs. Furthermore for all, but the emergency braking system, it was found that higher deployment is significantly correlated to lower number of fatalities. Nonetheless, results for the emergency braking systems, even non-statistically significant, show that higher deployment is associated to lower number of fatalities.
Consistent with the results about the priority systems, findings for the relevant systems provide evidence of significant correlations between ADAS deployment rates and testing variables. Specifically, data show that the great majority of the relevant systems are positively correlated with the GDPs per capita and negatively correlated with the number of road fatalities. Amongst them, the strongest correlations can be seen for the adaptive cruise control and start-stop ADAS systems. Lane departure warning and emergency braking systems indicate also significant positive correlations with the GDPs. Yet, the negative correlations between those systems with the number of fatalities are not significant.
In addition, results reveal very strong negative correlations between GDPs and the number of road fatalities per 100,000 passenger cars. In particular, the correlation between nominal GDP per capita and number of road fatalities was ρ = -.836 (p < .001, N = 25), and the correlation between GDP per capita in PPS and number of road fatalities was ρ = -.832 (p < .001, N = 25). Both findings highlight that in higher income countries the number of road fatalities is lower.
Analyses at national levelThe first set of data at international level did not contain any information on the type of passenger cars equipped with ADAS systems for 2012. This information is presented in this section, using the second set of data. Vehicles were first grouped according to Euro NCAP (2014) classification, into: superminis, small family, large family, and executive cars , small MPVs, large MPVs, small off-road 4x4, and large off-road 4x4, roadster sports cars and finally business and family vans . Then, the installed ADAS for each vehicle were allotted. Figure 3 presents the overall information on the Dutch orders. In total 30,813 new vehicles were ordered, with only 3,061 (about 10%) of them equipped with at least one of the relevant safety priority systems (PS1-PS5). Out of those vehicles approximately 60% were equipped with multiple ADAS.
In addition, data for the German market indicate 10,188 new orders. 23% of the orders referred to vehicles with one ADAS on board, while the remaining 77% to vehicles with multiple ADAS. However, the total number of the German orders was not disclosed.
Figure 4 illustrates the ADAS deployment per type of vehicle, out of all vehicles equipped with at least one ADAS, for the German and Dutch market (the sum of ADAS deployment rates for all type of vehicles per country equals 100%). Data clearly show that most of the vehicles, regardless their type, are equipped with more than one ADAS. The different ADAS packages are given in Table A.5 in the Appendix, with 40% of them including ACC. Subsequently, data show that ACC is installed in about 50% of the vehicles equipped with at least one ADAS.
Figure 4 does not include information on superminis and roadster vehicles due to their small sample. Yet, for the former, data showed that Collision Warning Systems were the mostly installed ADAS, while for the latter, the majority was equipped with ACC.
Statistics for the Netherlands, specifically, showed that the more expensive brands, i.e. premium vehicles, are equipped with more than one ADAS, regardless the vehicle category as classified by Euro NCAP (ρ = -.179, p < .001). In addition, results confirmed our first hypothesis, i.e. “H1: The type of ADAS sold is correlated with the price of the vehicle”. In particular, results showed that premium vehicles are significantly more equipped with ACC or EB or ACC and EB, compared to the mass market vehicles, with Spearman correlations ρ = .585 (p < .001) and ρ = .558 (p < .001) respectively.
Among only the premium vehicles, no significant correlation was found between the mass of the vehicles and the installed ADAS. Spearman correlation for the vehicles equipped with ACC or EB compared to those with no ACC or EB was found ρ = -.013 (p < .693), and for the vehicles installed with ACC and EB compared to those with no ACC or EB ρ = -.031 (p < .351). Finally, among only the mass market vehicles findings indicate significant correlations between the mass of the vehicles and types of ADAS installed. Specifically it was found that bigger vehicles are equipped with less ACC, EB or ACC and EB systems compared to smaller vehicles, with Spearman correlations ρ = -.187 (p < .001) and ρ = -.072 (p < .001).
Subsequently, our second hypothesis, i.e. “H2: The type of ADAS sold is correlated with the mass of the vehicle”, is valid for the mass market vehicles but should be rejected for the premium vehicles.
DiscussionField operational tests, driving simulator studies and accident statistics indicate substantial benefits of ADAS in terms of safety and fuel consumption. In this study we explored the deployment of ADAS in EU 28, and their relation to the countries GDPs and fatalities. In addition, we investigated the relation between ADAS sold and the price and mass of vehicles. Overall, the ADAS deployment in the EU 28 is limited. Especially for the safety related ADAS, i.e. Blind Spot Monitoring, Adaptive Headlights, Obstacle and Collision Warning, Lane Keeping Support, and Emergency Braking, data showed they are typically installed in less than 5% of the vehicles registered for first time in 2012 (with the exception of adaptive headlights with 12.6% deployment). The Eco Driving systems, on the other hand, are installed in about . of the total vehicles first registered in 2012 in EU 28. This could be explained by national taxation policies, the relatively small cost of those systems and their availability in all passenger cars ranges. In particular national environmental policies may impact the deployment of Eco Driving systems. This, for instance, applies to the Netherlands tax policy, which effectively stimulates the purchase of smaller and eco-friendly cars.
Our findings show that ADAS deployment relates to the countries GDPs per capita, as well as the number of road fatalities. These findings are in agreement with the results by De Winter et al., (2015). Specifically, we found that significantly more ADAS were sold in richer countries and countries with lower numbers of road fatalities per 100,000 passenger cars. Subsequently, results suggest that safe countries become even safer.
Data from the leasing companies, confirm the limited deployment of the safety related ADAS. In particular, in 2013 – 2014, of 30,813 new vehicles ordered in the Netherlands, only 3,061 (about 10%) of them were equipped with at least one of the relevant safety ADAS. Although this data may not be fully representative of the fleet driven in the Netherlands, since people who lease may tend to lease more luxurious vehicles than those they would purchase privately, yet they display a clear correlation between the price of vehicles and types of ADAS bought. That is, the premium vehicles are significantly more equipped with Adaptive Cruise Control and Emergency Braking compared to the mass market vehicles. We also found that the availability of the different safety systems is significantly higher in more expensive cars. On the other hand, our results showed that the installation of ADAS depends also on the brand of the vehicle. There are specific brands that have already installed a large number of ADAS to a broad range of their fleet.
The limited ADAS deployment could be explained by the fact that a significant amount of people are afraid of technological interventions, or may not want to spend a lot of money to buy such features, as established in an on-line survey by Kyriakidis et al., (2015). In addition, deployment rates have been held back due to lack of legislative clarity within the European Commission on its plans on mandating car manufacturers to equip private cars with ADAS (SDB, 2011). Finally, deployment rates may have also been hindered as neither the Euro NCAP nor the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) till recently included the testing of ADAS as part of their five star rating. The Euro NCAP, in particular, for its five star rating accounts only for the testing of two priority systems, the Lane Support and Autonomous Emergency Braking, with the latter being introduced in 2014 (Euro NCAP, 2015).
However, it is now expected that in Europe over 70% of vehicle models sold by 2020 will be fitted with at least one type of ADAS (Rangarajan & Dunoyer). Subsequently, the penetration of radars and cameras is expected to rise by 2020 from 16% and 11% to 63% and 69% respectively (Rangarajan & Dunoyer). In addition, on March 31, 2014, NHTSA announced that it will require all new vehicles under 10,000 pounds to have rear view cameras by May 2018. Thus, OEMs should work towards the installation of the ADAS on all cars regardless of the size and price. In turn, EU administrations could build upon Euro NCAP’s decision and force OEM’s to install ADAS in all types of cars. Furthermore, governments could also provide (tax) incentives for the consumers to buy vehicles equipped with ADAS. Incentives for eco driving should be continued, and should, given the still excessive cost of road accidents, be extended with incentives for safety related ADAS.
The results provide a comprehensive overview of the current ADAS deployment in EU 28. However, generalization of the findings derived from the analysis of the leasing companies dataset at large, requires caution, statistical weighting and consistency in data collection. Thus, it is desired to establish a central data repository and standard collection process about the ADAS systems installed in all vehicles across Europe.
Our findings give important reference information on current ADAS deployment. Moreover, they could be used to explore whether the limited ADAS deployment rates may reflect the deployment rates of the forthcoming automated and connected vehicle technology. It could be argued, for instance, that similar to the ADAS, the public perception, acceptance and trust in technological interventions, as well as the concerns about automated systems reliability and safety, in addition to their price, will impact substantially the deployment rates of automated and connected vehicles (Kyriakidis et al., 2015). However, towards the deployment of automated and connected vehicles additional challenges should be resolved, including human factors questions and liability uncertainties.
Building upon this study, future studies should be focusing on comparing the frequency and severity of the accidents involve vehicles with ADASs, to the frequency and severity of the accidents involve the same type of vehicles equipped with no ADASs. Subsequently, we could in detail measure the safety benefits of the ADAS on public roads. Finally, future research should investigate and quantify the financial long-term benefits of ADAS extensive deployment, in addition to the deployment of highly automated vehicles on public roads.
AcknowledgementsThe authors are most grateful to Mr Risto Kulmala from the Implementation Road Map working group of the iMobility Forum and Mr. Hans Tonneijk from De Lage Landen International for providing the data used in this study.
References1. Anderson, R. W. G., Hutchinson, T. P., Linke, B., & Ponte, G. (2011). Analysis of crash data to estimate the benefits of emerging vehicle technology. Adelaida, Australia: The University of Adelaide. Retrieved from http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/casrpubfile/1081/CASR094.pdf
2. Benmimoun, M., Pütz, A., Zlocki, A., & Eckstein, L. (2013). euroFOT: Field Operational Test and Impact Assessment of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: Final Results Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 World Automotive Congress (Vol. 197, pp. 537-547): Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33805-2_43
3. Bueno, M., Fort, A., Francois, M., Ndiaye, D., Deleurence, P., & Fabrigoule, C. (2013). Effectiveness of a Forward Collision Warning System in simple and in dual task from an electrophysiological perspective. Neuroscience Letters, 541 (0), 219-223. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2013.02.030
4. De Winter, J. C. F., Kyriakidis, M., Dodou, D., & Happee, R. (2015). Using CrowdFlower for international survey research: A study on traffic violations. Paper accepted at the 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Las Vegas, NV.
5. Dogan, E., Steg, L., & Delhomme, P. (2011). The influence of multiple goals on driving behavior: The case of safety, time saving, and fuel saving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43 (5), 1635-1643. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.002
6. eSafety Forum. (2008). Final Report and Recommendations of the Implementation Road Map Working Group.
7. Euro NCAP. (2014). European car classification. Euro NCAP. Retrieved from http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx
8. Eurostat. (2014a). GDP per capita - annual Data. European Commission. Retrieved from http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_aux_gph&lang=en
9. Eurostat. (2014b). GDP per capita, consumption per capita and price level indices. European Commission. Retrieved from epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/GDP_per_capita,_consumption_per_capita_and_price_level_indices
10. Fildes, B., Keall, M., Bos, N., Lie, A., Page, Y., Pastor, C., Pennisi, L., Rizzi, M., Thomas, P., & Tingvall, C. (2015). Effectiveness of low speed autonomous emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 81 (0), 24-29. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.029
11. Golias, J., Yannis, G., & Antoniou, C. (2002). Classification of driver assistance systems according to their impact on road safety and traffic efficiency. Transport reviews., 22 (2), 179-196.
12. Highway Loss Data Institute. (2012a). Mercedes-Benz collision avoidance features: initial results. Arlington, VA: Highway Loss Data Institute.
13. Highway Loss Data Institute. (2012b). Volvo collision avoidance features: initial results. Arlington, VA: Highway Loss Data Institute.
14. Himabindu, S., & Yasmeen, N. (2014). Driver Assistance System - Shared Steering Between Human and Automation. International Journal of Advances in Applied Science and Engineering (IJAEAS), 1 (3), 199-202.
15. iMobility Forum. (2013). Monitoring Priority Systems. 05 November, 2014. Retrieved from http:// www.imobilitysupport.eu/imobility-support/work-packages/wp3-support-to-its-deplo yment/monitoring-priority-systems
16. Jamson, A. H., Lai, F. C. H., & Carsten, O. M. J. (2008). Potential benefits of an adaptive forward collision warning system. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 16 (4), 471-484. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2007.09.003
17. Jermakian, J. S. (2011). Crash avoidance potential of four passenger vehicle technologies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43 (3), 732-740. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.10.020
18. Kahane, C. J., & Dang, J. N. (2009). The Long-Term Effect of ABS in Passenger Cars and LTVs. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
19. Kearns, H., & Kidd, D. (2013). Road safety: EU reports lowest ever number of road deaths and takes first step towards an injuries strategy. Brussels, Belgium: E. Commission. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-236_en.htm
20. Kuehn, M., Hummel, T., & Bende, J. (2009). Benefit estimation of advanced driver assistance systems for cars derived from real-life accidents. Presented at the 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV), Stuttgart, Germany. Retrieved from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0317.pdf
21. Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & De Winter, J. C. F. (2014). Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5,000 respondents. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 32, 127-140. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014
22. Muhrer, E., Reinprecht, K., & Vollrath, M. (2012). Driving With a Partially Autonomous Forward Collision Warning System: How Do Drivers React? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54 (5), 698-708.
23. Najm, W. G., Stearns, M. D., Howarth, H., Koopmann, J., & Hitz, J. (2006). Evaluation of an Automotive Rear-End Collision Avoidance System. Cambridge, MA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved from http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14303_files/14303.pdf
24. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2000). Automotive Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) Program - Final Report. Washington, DC, US. Retrieved from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000044931445;view=1up;seq=3
25. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2005). Automotive Collision Avoidance System Field Operational Test. Washington, DC, US. Retrieved from http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14244/pages/14244.pdf
26. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2013). Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2012. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811741.pdf
27. Rangarajan, D., & Dunoyer, A. The global market for ADAS will grow to €7.2 billion by 2020: SBD. Retrieved from http://www.sbd.co.uk/files/sbd/pdfs/538IB.pdf
28. Robinson, B., Hulshof, W., Cookson, R., Cuerden, R., Hutchins, R., & Delmonte, E. (2011). Cost Benefit Evaluation of Advanced Primary Safety Systems - Final Report. Leeds, UK: Transport Research Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.trl.co.uk/reports-publications/trl-reports/road-safety/report/?reportid=6724
29. Shladover, S. E. (1995). Review of the State of Development of Advanced Vehicle Control Systems (AVCS). Vehicle System Dynamics, 24 (6-7), 551-595. doi: 10.1080/00423119508969108
30. Smith, B. W. (2013). Human Error as a Cause of Vehicle Crashes. Retrieved from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/12/human-error-cause-vehicle-crashes
31. Strömberg, H. K., & Karlsson, I. C. M. (2013). Comparative effects of eco-driving initiatives aimed at urban bus drivers – Results from a field trial. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 22 (0), 28-33. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.02.011
32. UNECE. (2014). Road Traffic Accidents - Number of fatalities per 100 000 passenger cars. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Retrieved from http:// w3.unece.org/pxweb/database/STAT/40-TRTRANS/01-TRACCIDENTS/?lang=1
33. Vagg, C., Brace, C. J., Hari, D., Akehurst, S., Poxon, J., & Ash, L. (2013). Development and Field Trial of a Driver Assistance System to Encourage Eco-Driving in Light Commercial Vehicle Fleets. Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 14 (2), 796-805. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2013.2239642
34. Vahidi, A., & Eskandarian, A. (2003). Research advances in intelligent collision avoidance and adaptive cruise control. Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 4 (3), 143-153. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2003.821292
35. van Calker, J. r., & Flemming, A. (2012). iCar - implementation status survey by use of OEM data 2012 - Deployment state in EU member states - Final report: iCar.
36. van Calker, J. r., & Flemming, A. (2013). iCar - implementation status survey by use of OEM data 2013 - Deployment state in EU member states - Final report: iCar.
37. Wilmink, I., Janssen, W., Jonkers, E., Malone, K., van Noort, M., Klunder, G., Rämä, P., Sihvola, N., Kulmala, R., Schirokoff, A., Lind, G., Benz, T., Peters, H., & Schönebeck, S. (2008). Impact Assessment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems: eIMPACT Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.eimpact.info/download/eIMPACT_D4_v2.0.pdf
AppendixVeranstaltungstippGemeinschaftstagung Fahrerassistenzsysteme und automatisiertes FahrenDie 32. VDI/VW-Gemeinschaftstagung „Fahrerassistenzsysteme“ bietet ein einzigartiges Diskussionsforum, das das Hype-Thema „vom assistierten zum automatischen Fahren“ realitätsnah und anwendungsorientiert behandelt. Alle zwei Jahre laden Volkswagen und der VDI gemeinsam nach Wolfsburg ein, um über aktuelle Projekte, nutzerorientierte Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen der integrierten Sicherheit zu diskutieren. Ein starkes Netzwerk aus Industrie und Wissenschaft unterstützt die Tagung.
Audi is ready to sell the world’s first Level 3 autonomous car, the A8 luxury saloon, but it cannot enable the self-driving features in the UK due to current legislation.
The system, named Traffic Jam Pilot, is part of the German manufacturer’s new range of artificial intelligence (AI) driving assistance systems.
When active, the AI Traffic Jam Pilot takes charge of driving in slow-moving traffic, controlling all necessary driving functions, up to a speed of 37mph.
It will be the first technology that could enable a driver to perform other tasks in the car and not pay attention to the road, as it can handle starting from standstill, accelerating, steering and braking in its lane.
When certain conditions are met, the driver is notified that they can take their hands off the steering wheel. As soon as the system reaches its limits, the driver will be alerted that they must resume manual control.
The use of this technology is currently prohibited by Regulation 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, which states: “No person shall drive or cause or permit any other person to drive, a motor vehicle on a road if he is in such a position that he cannot have proper control of the vehicle or have a full view of the road and traffic ahead.”
In its recent consultation, ‘the Pathway to Driverless Cars: Proposals to Support Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and Automated Vehicle Technologies’, the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles at the Department for Transport (DfT) sought to amend Regulation 104.
Yet in another consultation (Remote Control Parking and Motorway Assist: Proposals for Amending Regulations and the Highway Code), the DfT decided to only amend regulations to allow the use of remote control parking systems.
A spokesperson at the DfT told Fleet News: “A programme of regulatory reform will ensure the safe arrival of automated vehicles. In addition, as announced in last year’s Industrial Strategy, we are carrying out a three-year project with the Law Commission to set out proposals for a long-term regulatory framework for self-driving vehicles.”
The DfT also stated that Level 3 technology is not ‘explicitly prohibited’ but said drivers must obey all current laws when driving any car equipped with an advanced driver assistance system – which, in effect, confirms they can’t be used on public roads.
Chancellor Philip Hammond outlined the Government’s ambition to introduce self-driving cars on the UK roads by 2021 in his Budget speech, although this will initially only allow for testing of driverless cars.
The German Government has changed its regulations already, to allow the use of Level 3 systems, making it the first market to benefit from the A8’s self-driving ability.
Audi expects to roll out the Traffic Jam Pilot system in the UK from 2019.
“It sounds like the Government has only just started ramping up discussions about autonomous cars but it isn’t just about infrastructure and road conditions,” said Dan Marsh, product manager for the Audi A8.
“Liability has not been decided yet. If the car drives by itself then there are still a few things to overcome.
“The technology is there. It’s just waiting on legislation,” he added.
Audi’s system works by using a collection of sensors that scans the car’s surroundings. The central driver assistance controller is a high-speed computer which collates the data to continually produce an image of the surroundings with the help of data from radar sensors.
Later this year, Audi will introduce its smartphone remote parking feature in the UK which allows the driver to exit the vehicle and remotely activate the car’s self-parking system. The car will also be able to move itself in and out of a garage by remote command.
Marsh said: “It is really important for us. We are the first manufacturer with a production car to have these features and we want to capitalise on that.
“It would mean a lot for us to bring that to market first.
“AI and the Level 3 technology is the unique selling proposition of the car. We want to get that out to market as soon as possible.”
Currently, the new A8 features Level 2 autonomous features as standard. Its Adaptive Cruise Assist combines Lane Assist and Adaptive Cruise Control which can effectively drive the car in most conditions. However, the system will disengage if the driver lets go of the steering wheel.
Marsh confirmed that he is working to create an option package which will combine the autonomous features, once available, to make it easier for customers.
Stages of autonomy
Driver assistance: the system is able to take over either the steering or the speed of the vehicle. It supports the driver who remains responsible and must be ready to assume control immediately. Includes adaptive (radar guided) cruise control and lane-keep assist.
Partial automation: in certain situations the driver can delegate continuous steering and speed control of the vehicle to the system, but must monitor the system at all times and assume control as needed. An example is Tesla’s Autopilot system or Volvo’s Pilot Assist.
Conditional automation: the driver no longer has to continuously monitor and can carry out other activities, supported by on-board equipment. The system autonomously recognises when the ambient conditions no longer match the range of functions of the system. In these cases, the vehicle prompts the driver to take over the task of driving the vehicle, with several seconds’ advance warning. The traffic jam pilot in the new Audi A8 will satisfy these criteria.
High automation: systems with level 4 function do not require any assistance on the part of the driver, but their function is limited to a specific area – such as on highways or in a parking garage. In these places, the driver can completely transfer the task of driving to the system. The driver only needs to resume the task when the car leaves the area defined for highly automated driving. If the driver does not react, the system assumes a safe position, e.g. pulls onto the shoulder and stops there.
Full automation: the car assumes complete control. Level 5 systems do not need help from the driver in any situation. Control elements like the steering wheel or pedals are no longer necessary.
Author: Matt de Prez
Article is care of fleetnews, this article can be found here.
#Motor #insurance #claims are falling and #insurers are reporting record profits, so why is the cost of car cover still sky high?
Car insurance claims have started to fall as the Government steams ahead with its plans to reform compensation for road traffic accident victims, data shows.
A Freedom of Information request by campaign group Access to Justice has revealed the number of claims fell eight per cent in the first six months of 2018 compared to the same period last year, to 326,699.
It comes as insurers reported record half year profits hitting a two-decade high level.
Meanwhile, although car insurance premiums are dropping from their peak at the beginning of the year, the average amount paid by motorists is still higher than in most previous years on record.
Motor insurance claims have continued their general downward trend into the first half of 2018
Government is set to pass a bill that will reduce the compensation payouts for whiplash victims
Insurers claim the cost of motor insurance is greatly inflated by the number of fraudulent compensation claims, particularly whiplash claims, that they have to pay out on each year.
The Government is currently gearing up to pass a bill, called the Civil Liability Bill, to put an end to what it sees as a compensation culture currently gripping Britain's motorists.
One of the proposed changes is the introduction of a tariff system which would greatly reduce the damages paid out to people injured in car accidents, including whiplash victims.
Currently a claimant with whiplash lasting up to three months can expect damages of around £1,800 on average. If the tariff system were to be put in place, this would drop to around £225 – saving insurers around £1,600 a claim.
The Government says this will reduce car insurance premiums by around £35 a year.
The UK's biggest insurers - including Admiral, Direct Line and Aviva - have all signed a letter pledging to pass the savings onto customers.
The bill would also put an end to insurance companies settling claims directly with accident victims without medical evidence - known as pre-medical offers, and raise the small claims limit for minor road traffic accidents from £1,000 to £5,000.
The reforms are expected to come into force in April 2020.
Personal injury lawyer and spokesperson for Access to Justice, Andrew Twambley, said: 'Government ministers say there is no downwards trend in motor claims but they cannot ignore their own figures.
'The so-called whiplash epidemic is disappearing under their very eyes.
'Motor claims have fallen by 15 per cent overall since 2015, and the decline is accelerating.
'These figures prove that earlier law changes, tougher regulation and market forces are doing the government's job already.'
Insurers however say the fall in claims is due to more personal injury lawyers leaving the sector into more lucrative areas, such as holiday sickness claims, which have seen a rise in recent years.
The government says its reforms should reduce car insurance premiums by around £35 a year
A spokesman for insurer trade body the Association of British Insurers said: 'The fall in personal injury claims registered with the government's Compensation Recovery Unit reflects fewer claimant lawyers dealing with these claims.
'The overall number and cost of all motor insurance claims is rising. In the first half of this year insurers paid out £4.3billion on all motor claims, compared to £4billion in the same period in 2017.
'Lower insurance costs can only be sustained if Parliament follow through and implements in full the Civil Liability Bill to fix our broken compensation system.'
Source: This is Money
Pathway to Driverless Cars: Insurance for Automated Vehicles, an Impact assessment by the Government, #Autonomousvehicles
Here to help ensure consumers are treated fairly by insurance companies.