Rear automatic-brake systems can reduce fender bender claims

Vehicles equipped with rear automatic-emergency braking (AEB) had 28% fewer property damage liability claims and 10% fewer collision claims, according to research from the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI).

The impact of rear AEB on injury claims was small, HLDI reported, noting this is in line with the types of crashes this technology was developed to avoid.

“Backing crashes generally happen at lower speeds than front-to-rear crashes,” Matt Moore, HLDI senior vice president, said in a release. “That means they’re less dangerous, but the cost from vehicle damage can add up.”

He added the HLDI has never seen any other advanced driver assistance system reduce claims for vehicles and other property damage as much as rear AEB has.

AEB technology uses sensors such as cameras and radar to detect when a vehicle is getting too close to an obstacle and automatically applies to the brakes to avoid or mitigate an accident. The finds were derived by compiling updated rear AEB data from 2016–2018 Subaru vehicles equipped with and without the technology with earlier analysis of 2014–2015 GM vehicles, HLDI reports.

Front AEB has greater impact on injury claims

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reported low-speed backing crashes make up a sizeable portion of insurance claims, with separate HLDI analysis finding car accidents with rear damage of less than $2,000 accounted for 17% of all collision claims and more than $8 billion in estimated damage from 2010–2017.

In comparison, HLDI reported front AEB systems have less effect on collision claims and property damage liability than rear-facing technology. However, front AEB technology does excel at its designed purpose: It reduces the frequency of bodily injury liability claims by nearly a quarter. Further, one IIHS study found front-facing AEB technology can reduce front-to-rear crashes by 50%.

Rear AEB more effective than parking sensors, cameras

Rear AEB, which was a standout feature on HLDI’s report on crash-avoidance technologies, is also more effective at preventing backing crashes than parking sensors and rear cameras.

Data derived from seven automakers showed rear cameras reduced the frequency of property damage liability claims by 5% while increasing the frequency of collision claims slightly (but statistically insignificantly). Parking sensors resulted in a 5% drop in property damage liability and a 1% reduction in the frequency of collision claims, HLDI reported.

“Claims data show that collision avoidance technologies that automatically intervene to prevent or mitigate crashes are more effective than warning-based systems,” Moore said, adding that forward collision warning is also associated with smaller claims reductions than front AEB.

Related:

• What do drivers really think about insurance telematics?
• When OEM insurance hits the market, auto insurers are left to pick up the tab
• 10 most reliable cars of 2021