1Copyright 2020 CCC Information Services Inc.

ADAS: A PROGRESS REPORT

The data is in. Nearly three-fourths of all vehicles of curb weight 8500 pounds or less produced and sold in the U.S. between September 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020 included automatic emergency braking (AEB) and frontal crash warning (FCW).1 This was the fourth progress report from the twenty automakers that originally signed up for the Commitment to Advancing Automatic Emergency Braking, and shows the automakers are close to reaching the 100 percent goal well before the target date of September 1, 2022.

DECEMBER 2020

Figure 1 illustrates the gains made by automakers towards the commitment, where the total share with AEB has grown from 25 percent for vehicles produced and sold in the U.S. from September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2017 to 45 percent to 63 percent to 74 percent over the next three years.

2Copyright 2020 CCC Information Services Inc.

Percent of MY17-MY20 Vehicles Conforming to AEB Voluntary CommitmentSource: https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=0&D=NHTSA-2015-0101

This may be one of the few really positive developments in a year where a pandemic, election, raging wildfires, record number of tropical storms and hurricanes making U.S. landfall, and more challenged us all.

Research from CCC, IIHS/HLDI, Thatcham, AAA Foundation for Tra�c Safety, automakers, and others has shown AEB is one of the most e�ective advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) to date. IIHS/HLDI analysis of police-reported crashes and insurance claims identified a 50 percent reduction in front-to-rear crashes for vehicles equipped with forward collision warning plus autobrake.2

Specifics on the test guidelines or protocols used by the automakers to demonstrate they are meeting the commitment are in the addendum to this article. However, there remains within the tests a fair amount of variability resulting in potentially varying levels of capability and performance. The work required to repair ADAS-equipped vehicles varies substantially among vehicle manufacturers as well.

In previous analyses CCC has provided a projected impact of ADAS on the number of vehicles in accidents over time. The impact is ultimately a by-product of how well the systems work, which ADAS

system is triggered, road and tra�c conditions, and how many vehicles on the road are equipped with ADAS. With the number of vehicles minimally equipped with AEB now nearly three quarters of all vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. market between September 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020, the share of overall U.S. registered light vehicles equipped with ADAS likely exceeds 15 percent.

Thirty-one percent of all CCC’s national industry claim count (repairable appraisal count plus total loss valuation count) for CY 2020 through mid-November were vehicles of zero to three years of age. Figure 2 illustrates the share of claim count per individual age, which in CY 2020 essentially represents vehicles of model years 2017 through 2020.

An estimated 50 percent of the number of vehicles of 8500 GVW produced for sale in the U.S. market between September 1, 2016 and August 31, 2020 are minimally equipped with automatic emergency braking (AEB). Assuming the claims mix shared a similar share of vehicles with AEB (i.e. 25 percent of the MY 2017 vehicle claims included AEB, etc.), then MY2017 to MY2020 vehicles minimally equipped with AEB likely accounted for at least 15 percent of all claims for CY 2020 through mid-November (17 percent of repairable vehicles and 7 percent of total loss vehicles).

While new vehicle sales in CY 2020 are expected to reach only about 14 million, the growth of ADAS equipped vehicles have been slowed. However, with hopes that a vaccine for the COVID-19 virus could be available in the early part of 2021, analysts are predicting light vehicle sales globally may see a bigger boost. Subsequently, we anticipate further growth of ADAS-equipped vehicles underwritten, and potentially claimed and repaired by our industry.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Tesla

Mercedes-Benz

Volvo

Toyota

Honda

Hyundai

Kia

Audi

BMW

Subaru

Volkswagen

Maserati/Alfa Romeo

Mazda

General Motors

Nissan

Fiat Chrysler

Mitsubishi

Ford

Jaguar/Land Rover

Porsche

Total

MY20 (1Sep19-31Aug20) MY19 (1Sep18-31Aug19) MY18 (1Sep17-31Aug18) MY17 vehicles (1Sep16-31Aug17)

Addendum

NHTSA and IIHS have produced confirmation test guidelines or protocols that these same 20 automakers have indicated they will use to validate the basic functions of the automatic emergency braking (AEB) and forward collision warning (FCW) features. These include NHTSA’s “Forward Collision Warning System Confirmation Test”, February 2013, and IIHS’ “Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version 1)”, October 2013.

The general requirements outlined by NHTSA to confirm the existence of FCW on a vehicle of gross vehicle weight rating of under 10K pounds states: “This test evaluates the ability of a forward collision warning system to detect and alert drivers of potential hazards in the path of the vehicle. Three driving scenarios are utilized to assess this technology. In the first test, a subject vehicle (SV) approaches a stopped principle other vehicle (POV) in the same lane of travel. The second test begins with the SV initially following the POV at the same constant speed. After a short while, the POV stops suddenly. The third test consists of the SV, traveling at a constant speed, approaching a slower moving POV, which is also being driven at a constant speed.”3 Specifically, in NHTSA’s “Docket Submission of Commitments to Advancing Automatic Emergency Braking Technology (Docket NHTSA 2015-0101)”, the twenty automakers would meet the alert criteria for Test 2 and Test 3, but not Test 1.4

IIHS’s “Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version 1)” is used to determine whether a vehicle has an AEB system “…with performance similar to those that have been documented as helping drivers avoid collisions with other vehicles… The test procedure is based on a potential front-to-rear collision in which the struck vehicle is not moving prior to impact. The stationary vehicle in the test is replaced with an impactable target representing a car. Performance requirements are based on the test vehicle’s ability to avoid or mitigate crashes at 20 and 40 km/h.”5 In the IIHS protocol there are two options for demonstrating speed reductions from AEB: 1) Option A includes average speed reduction across 5 repeated tests that is greater than 10 miles per hour (mph) in either the 12 or 24 mph tests involving a stationary lead vehicle; 2) Option B includes average speed reduction across 5 repeated tests that is greater than 5 mph in both the 12 and 24 mph tests involving a stationary lead vehicle. The twenty automakers committing to delivery of FCW and AEB as standard vehicle options by 2022 signed up to meet Option A or Option B test guidelines.6

Figure 1 illustrates the gains made by automakers towards the commitment, where the total share with AEB has grown from 25 percent for vehicles produced and sold in the U.S. from September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2017 to 45 percent to 63 percent to 74 percent over the next three years.

3Copyright 2020 CCC Information Services Inc.

Share of Overall CCC National Industry Claim Volume for Vehicles Ages 0-3 Years(CY 2020 ytd to November)Source: CCC Information Services Inc.

This may be one of the few really positive developments in a year where a pandemic, election, raging wildfires, record number of tropical storms and hurricanes making U.S. landfall, and more challenged us all.

Research from CCC, IIHS/HLDI, Thatcham, AAA Foundation for Tra�c Safety, automakers, and others has shown AEB is one of the most e�ective advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) to date. IIHS/HLDI analysis of police-reported crashes and insurance claims identified a 50 percent reduction in front-to-rear crashes for vehicles equipped with forward collision warning plus autobrake.2

Specifics on the test guidelines or protocols used by the automakers to demonstrate they are meeting the commitment are in the addendum to this article. However, there remains within the tests a fair amount of variability resulting in potentially varying levels of capability and performance. The work required to repair ADAS-equipped vehicles varies substantially among vehicle manufacturers as well.

In previous analyses CCC has provided a projected impact of ADAS on the number of vehicles in accidents over time. The impact is ultimately a by-product of how well the systems work, which ADAS

system is triggered, road and tra�c conditions, and how many vehicles on the road are equipped with ADAS. With the number of vehicles minimally equipped with AEB now nearly three quarters of all vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. market between September 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020, the share of overall U.S. registered light vehicles equipped with ADAS likely exceeds 15 percent.

Thirty-one percent of all CCC’s national industry claim count (repairable appraisal count plus total loss valuation count) for CY 2020 through mid-November were vehicles of zero to three years of age. Figure 2 illustrates the share of claim count per individual age, which in CY 2020 essentially represents vehicles of model years 2017 through 2020.

An estimated 50 percent of the number of vehicles of 8500 GVW produced for sale in the U.S. market between September 1, 2016 and August 31, 2020 are minimally equipped with automatic emergency braking (AEB). Assuming the claims mix shared a similar share of vehicles with AEB (i.e. 25 percent of the MY 2017 vehicle claims included AEB, etc.), then MY2017 to MY2020 vehicles minimally equipped with AEB likely accounted for at least 15 percent of all claims for CY 2020 through mid-November (17 percent of repairable vehicles and 7 percent of total loss vehicles).

While new vehicle sales in CY 2020 are expected to reach only about 14 million, the growth of ADAS equipped vehicles have been slowed. However, with hopes that a vaccine for the COVID-19 virus could be available in the early part of 2021, analysts are predicting light vehicle sales globally may see a bigger boost. Subsequently, we anticipate further growth of ADAS-equipped vehicles underwritten, and potentially claimed and repaired by our industry.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

Current Model Yr 1 Yr Old 2 Yrs Old 3 Yrs Old

Repairable Appraisal Cnt Valuation Cnt Overall Claim Cnt

Addendum

NHTSA and IIHS have produced confirmation test guidelines or protocols that these same 20 automakers have indicated they will use to validate the basic functions of the automatic emergency braking (AEB) and forward collision warning (FCW) features. These include NHTSA’s “Forward Collision Warning System Confirmation Test”, February 2013, and IIHS’ “Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version 1)”, October 2013.

The general requirements outlined by NHTSA to confirm the existence of FCW on a vehicle of gross vehicle weight rating of under 10K pounds states: “This test evaluates the ability of a forward collision warning system to detect and alert drivers of potential hazards in the path of the vehicle. Three driving scenarios are utilized to assess this technology. In the first test, a subject vehicle (SV) approaches a stopped principle other vehicle (POV) in the same lane of travel. The second test begins with the SV initially following the POV at the same constant speed. After a short while, the POV stops suddenly. The third test consists of the SV, traveling at a constant speed, approaching a slower moving POV, which is also being driven at a constant speed.”3 Specifically, in NHTSA’s “Docket Submission of Commitments to Advancing Automatic Emergency Braking Technology (Docket NHTSA 2015-0101)”, the twenty automakers would meet the alert criteria for Test 2 and Test 3, but not Test 1.4

IIHS’s “Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version 1)” is used to determine whether a vehicle has an AEB system “…with performance similar to those that have been documented as helping drivers avoid collisions with other vehicles… The test procedure is based on a potential front-to-rear collision in which the struck vehicle is not moving prior to impact. The stationary vehicle in the test is replaced with an impactable target representing a car. Performance requirements are based on the test vehicle’s ability to avoid or mitigate crashes at 20 and 40 km/h.”5 In the IIHS protocol there are two options for demonstrating speed reductions from AEB: 1) Option A includes average speed reduction across 5 repeated tests that is greater than 10 miles per hour (mph) in either the 12 or 24 mph tests involving a stationary lead vehicle; 2) Option B includes average speed reduction across 5 repeated tests that is greater than 5 mph in both the 12 and 24 mph tests involving a stationary lead vehicle. The twenty automakers committing to delivery of FCW and AEB as standard vehicle options by 2022 signed up to meet Option A or Option B test guidelines.6

Figure 1 illustrates the gains made by automakers towards the commitment, where the total share with AEB has grown from 25 percent for vehicles produced and sold in the U.S. from September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2017 to 45 percent to 63 percent to 74 percent over the next three years.

4Copyright 2020 CCC Information Services Inc.

This may be one of the few really positive developments in a year where a pandemic, election, raging wildfires, record number of tropical storms and hurricanes making U.S. landfall, and more challenged us all.

Research from CCC, IIHS/HLDI, Thatcham, AAA Foundation for Tra�c Safety, automakers, and others has shown AEB is one of the most e�ective advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) to date. IIHS/HLDI analysis of police-reported crashes and insurance claims identified a 50 percent reduction in front-to-rear crashes for vehicles equipped with forward collision warning plus autobrake.2

Specifics on the test guidelines or protocols used by the automakers to demonstrate they are meeting the commitment are in the addendum to this article. However, there remains within the tests a fair amount of variability resulting in potentially varying levels of capability and performance. The work required to repair ADAS-equipped vehicles varies substantially among vehicle manufacturers as well.

In previous analyses CCC has provided a projected impact of ADAS on the number of vehicles in accidents over time. The impact is ultimately a by-product of how well the systems work, which ADAS

system is triggered, road and tra�c conditions, and how many vehicles on the road are equipped with ADAS. With the number of vehicles minimally equipped with AEB now nearly three quarters of all vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. market between September 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020, the share of overall U.S. registered light vehicles equipped with ADAS likely exceeds 15 percent.

Thirty-one percent of all CCC’s national industry claim count (repairable appraisal count plus total loss valuation count) for CY 2020 through mid-November were vehicles of zero to three years of age. Figure 2 illustrates the share of claim count per individual age, which in CY 2020 essentially represents vehicles of model years 2017 through 2020.

An estimated 50 percent of the number of vehicles of 8500 GVW produced for sale in the U.S. market between September 1, 2016 and August 31, 2020 are minimally equipped with automatic emergency braking (AEB). Assuming the claims mix shared a similar share of vehicles with AEB (i.e. 25 percent of the MY 2017 vehicle claims included AEB, etc.), then MY2017 to MY2020 vehicles minimally equipped with AEB likely accounted for at least 15 percent of all claims for CY 2020 through mid-November (17 percent of repairable vehicles and 7 percent of total loss vehicles).

While new vehicle sales in CY 2020 are expected to reach only about 14 million, the growth of ADAS equipped vehicles have been slowed. However, with hopes that a vaccine for the COVID-19 virus could be available in the early part of 2021, analysts are predicting light vehicle sales globally may see a bigger boost. Subsequently, we anticipate further growth of ADAS-equipped vehicles underwritten, and potentially claimed and repaired by our industry.

Addendum

NHTSA and IIHS have produced confirmation test guidelines or protocols that these same 20 automakers have indicated they will use to validate the basic functions of the automatic emergency braking (AEB) and forward collision warning (FCW) features. These include NHTSA’s “Forward Collision Warning System Confirmation Test”, February 2013, and IIHS’ “Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version 1)”, October 2013.

The general requirements outlined by NHTSA to confirm the existence of FCW on a vehicle of gross vehicle weight rating of under 10K pounds states: “This test evaluates the ability of a forward collision warning system to detect and alert drivers of potential hazards in the path of the vehicle. Three driving scenarios are utilized to assess this technology. In the first test, a subject vehicle (SV) approaches a stopped principle other vehicle (POV) in the same lane of travel. The second test begins with the SV initially following the POV at the same constant speed. After a short while, the POV stops suddenly. The third test consists of the SV, traveling at a constant speed, approaching a slower moving POV, which is also being driven at a constant speed.”3 Specifically, in NHTSA’s “Docket Submission of Commitments to Advancing Automatic Emergency Braking Technology (Docket NHTSA 2015-0101)”, the twenty automakers would meet the alert criteria for Test 2 and Test 3, but not Test 1.4

IIHS’s “Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version 1)” is used to determine whether a vehicle has an AEB system “…with performance similar to those that have been documented as helping drivers avoid collisions with other vehicles… The test procedure is based on a potential front-to-rear collision in which the struck vehicle is not moving prior to impact. The stationary vehicle in the test is replaced with an impactable target representing a car. Performance requirements are based on the test vehicle’s ability to avoid or mitigate crashes at 20 and 40 km/h.”5 In the IIHS protocol there are two options for demonstrating speed reductions from AEB: 1) Option A includes average speed reduction across 5 repeated tests that is greater than 10 miles per hour (mph) in either the 12 or 24 mph tests involving a stationary lead vehicle; 2) Option B includes average speed reduction across 5 repeated tests that is greater than 5 mph in both the 12 and 24 mph tests involving a stationary lead vehicle. The twenty automakers committing to delivery of FCW and AEB as standard vehicle options by 2022 signed up to meet Option A or Option B test guidelines.6

SOURCEThe information and opinions in this publication are for general information only, are subject to change and are not intended to

provide specific recommendations for any individual or entity. Although information contained herein has been obtained from

sources believed to be reliable, CCC does not guarantee its accuracy and it may be incomplete or condensed. CCC is not liable

for any typographical errors, incorrect data and/or any actions taken in reliance on the information and opinions contained in

this publication. Note: Where CCC Information Services Inc. is cited as source, the data provided is an aggregation of industry

data related to electronic appraisals communicated via CCC's electronic network or from total loss valuations processed by CCC.

[1] https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=0&D=NHTSA-2015-0101. [2] IIIHS/HLDI. “Real-world benefits of crash avoidance technologies.” www.iihs.org, June 2019. [3] Office of Vehicle Safety, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, USDOT. “Forward Collision Warning System Confirmation Test.” February 2013.

[4] US DOT NHTSA. “Docket Submission of Commitments to Advancing Automatic Emergency Braking Technology.” NHTSA Docket 2015-0101, March 25, 2016.

[5] Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. “Autonomous Emergency Braking Test Protocol (Version 1)”. October 2013. www.iihs.org.

[6] US DOT NHTSA. “Docket Submission of Commitments to Advancing Automatic Emergency Braking Technology.” NHTSA Docket 2015-0101, March 25, 2016.

SUSANNA GOTSCHDIRECTOR, INDUSTRY ANALYST, CCC

WRITTEN BY