head Status Report Watch your Michigan s weakened helmet use law leads to costlier injury claims 4Motorcycle ABS is 4Older motorcyclists

Transcription

1 Status Report Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute Watch your head ichigan s weakened helmet use law leads to costlier injury claims 4otorcycle ABS is reducing crashes Also In this issue Vol. 48, No. 4 ay 30, Older motorcyclists have higher injury risk 4 Small SUVs put through new test

2 The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim rose substantially in ichigan after the state weakened its helmet use law to exempt most riders last year, a new HLDI analysis finds. The result is consistent with previous studies that show that rescinding helmet requirements results in more fatalities and hospital admissions. For more than 40 years, ichigan required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. However, as of April 12, 2012, the requirement applies only to riders younger than 21. All others may opt to ride without a helmet if they have either passed a motorcycle safety course or have held the motorcycle endorsement on their driver s license for at least two years. Unhelmeted riders also must carry at least $20,000 in medical coverage (see Status Report, ay 31, 2012, at iihs.org). How ichigan medical payment losses changed after the state weakened its helmet law versus control states 60% 40% 20% 0% significant claim frequency claim severity overall losses claim severity after controlling for policy limits The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that helmets cut the risk of a motorcycle fatality by 37 percent, and IIHS and other safety groups predicted that deaths would increase in ichigan as a result of the change. Researchers at the University of ichigan s Transportation Research Institute (UTRI) recently analyzed ichigan crash data and estimated there would have been 26 fewer motorcycle crash deaths a 21 percent reduction last year had the helmet mandate remained in place. The loss trends suggest that motorcyclists injuries in the state have indeed become more serious. To see how the law change affected injuries, HLDI analysts compared medical payment (eday) losses from the riding seasons with the 2012 season. eday coverage insures against injuries sustained by motorcycle operators. Since many motorcyclists put their bikes away for the winter in northern states, only data from ay through September were included in the study. HLDI measures insurance losses three ways: by claim frequency, or rate; claim severity, or the average amount paid on each claim; and overall losses, which is the product of frequency and severity. Comparing losses in ichigan with those in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin where helmet laws did not change and controlling for motorcycle age and class; rider age, gender and marital status; weather; and other factors, HLDI found that eday claim frequency was 10 percent higher than would have been expected without the law change, claim severity was 36 percent higher, and overall losses were 51 percent higher. The increases in claim severity and overall losses were statistically significant, but the change in claim frequency was not. Further calculations were done to account for changes in policy limits that resulted from the law change. The HLDI analysts knew that the new requirement that helmetless riders carry at least $20,000 of eday coverage would affect claim severity and overall losses if riders who previously had less coverage increased their insurance limits. That s because policies with higher limits will pay more for serious injuries than those with lower limits. To see how much of the change in severity was a result of riders going without helmets as opposed to such coverage changes, HLDI controlled for policy limits, finding that claim severity still increased 22 percent after the new law went into effect. Weakening the helmet law seems to have made it somewhat more likely that riders will sustain injuries, but the big impact has been on the seriousness of the injuries, says David Zuby, chief research officer of HLDI and IIHS. Helmets can t protect against all injuries, but they do help prevent debilitating and often fatal head trauma. Opponents of helmets sometimes argue they make crashes more likely by increasing fatigue and impeding visibility and hearing. By that logic, the crash rate should drop when a helmet law is repealed. However, HLDI found that claim frequency under collision insurance, which covers crash damage to a motorcycle and is the coverage most likely to come into play after any crash, rose 12 percent. (Collision claim severity remained unchanged.) The fact that the claim rate didn t fall once helmets were no longer mandatory undercuts this particular argument. It s not clear what would cause collision frequency to increase. It s possible that riders who prefer not to wear a helmet rode more miles after the law change. That also could explain the 10 percent increase in eday claim frequency. ore riding might account for more frequent crashes, but it doesn t explain the increase in severity, says HLDI Vice resident att oore. otorcyclists are sustaining more injuries per crash or more serious ones after the law change than before. HLDI data don t include information on where a crash occurred, so in this analysis, ichigan crashes are only the crashes of motorcycles insured and garaged in the state. Likewise, the controlstate crashes are only crashes of motorcycles insured and garaged in those states. The measured change in crash and injury risk for ichigan counts only the risk for ichigan-based motorcycles. There s no way to know how many of the claims involved unhelmeted motorcyclists, but the UTRI study indicates helmet use has 2 Status Report Vol. 48, No. 4

3 State helmet laws ALL 19 states & D.C. 28 states 3 states Helmet use is significantly higher in states that require to wear them. In 2012, 97 percent of motorcyclists used helmets in states with universal laws, compared with just 58 percent in states without universal helmet laws, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports. riders must wear helmet SOE riders must wear helmet NO helmet law Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana aine aryland assachusetts ichigan innesota ississippi, passengers of any age and operators with instructional permits 20 and younger and passengers 18 and younger; should carry helmets 20 and younger; riders 21 and older need proof of medical insurance to ride without a helmet no law no law 20 and younger and operators with instructional permits; riders 21 and older need proof of medical insurance to ride without helmet, passengers, operators with instructional permits and in 1st year of licensure and passengers 20 and younger; riders 21 and older in 1st 2 years of licensure unless they have extra insurance and pass a safety course and operators with instructional permits issouri ontana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New exico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon ennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming no law and their passengers and their passengers; all operators in 1st year of licensure and their passengers 20 and younger; all operators in 1st 2 years of licensure unless they have completed safety course 20 and younger; passengers of any age and operators in 1st year of licensure 20 and younger 20 and younger; older riders need proof of training or proof of medical insurance policy to ride without helmet and operators with instructional permits indeed fallen in ichigan. Only 74 percent of motorcyclists involved in crashes were helmeted from April 13, 2012, the first full day after the law change took effect, through the end of the year. That compares with 98 percent in the same period of the previous four years. ichigan is one of 28 states with helmet laws covering only some riders, usually those younger than 18. Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire have no helmet requirements. Only 19 states and the District of Columbia require helmets for all motorcyclists. In the past, many more states had universal helmet laws, thanks to pressure from the federal government. Beginning in 1967, states were required to enact helmet laws in order to qualify for certain highway construction and safety funds. By 1975, there were only three states left that didn t require to wear helmets. However, before the U.S. Department of Transportation could assess penalties for noncompliance, Congress revoked its authority to do so, and most states responded by loosening their laws. In 1991, Congress created new incentives for states to enact helmet and safety belt laws, but reversed itself again four years later. This changing landscape has given researchers ample opportunity to study the effectiveness of universal helmet laws. In an IIHS survey, 94 percent of motorcyclists in states that require helmets said they always wore one, while in states that (continues on p. 5) ay 30,

4 New research adds to the evidence that motorcycle ABS prevents crashes As antilock brakes become available on more and more bikes, the technology continues to prove its worth in preventing motorcycle crashes and fatalities. otorcycles with antilock braking systems (ABS) are 31 percent less likely to be involved in fatal crashes than those same motorcycles without ABS, a recent IIHS analysis shows. eanwhile, a new HLDI study shows a 20 percent reduction in the rate of collision claims with ABS and a 28 percent reduction in the frequency of claims for rider injuries. HLDI analysts also found that ABS had an engine displacement of more than 125 cc will be required to have ABS beginning in The data continue to accumulate in support of motorcycle ABS five years after we first reported on its effectiveness, says Adrian Lund, president of both IIHS and HLDI. We hope NHTSA will agree that it s time to take action to ensure get the benefit of this lifesaving technology. reventing wheels from locking up is crucial on a motorcycle. With a car, a lockup 0% -10% -20% -30% Changes in claim frequency for motorcycles with... ABS ABS/CBS -40% collision eday collision Fatal crashes per 10,000 motorcycle registrations with and without ABS, with ABS without ABS even bigger effect in conjunction with combined braking systems (CBS), which integrate a motorcycle s front and rear brake controls. The two technologies together reduced collision claim frequency by about a third. IIHS and HLDI first reported significant reductions in crashes and fatalities with motorcycle ABS in 2008 and again in 2010 (see Status Report, Oct. 22, 2008, and arch 31, 2010, at iihs.org). The findings prompted IIHS to urge the government to make ABS mandatory on all motorcycles. Now that several more years worth of data are confirming the benefits, IIHS and HLDI are formally petitioning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for an ABS requirement. If NHTSA does adopt such a rule, it won t be alone. In the European Union, motorcycles with an might result in a skid, but on two wheels, it often means a loss of balance and a potentially deadly fall. ABS prevents lockup by automatically reducing brake pressure if it detects that a wheel is about to stop rotating, then increasing it again after traction is restored. In an emergency, a rider can brake fully without fear of lockup. For the analysis of fatal crashes, Institute researchers looked at fatal crash involvements per 10,000 registered vehicle years during A registered vehicle year is one motorcycle registered for one year. The researchers found that motorcycles with optional ABS had a 31 percent lower rate of fatal crashes than the same models without the technology. odels with standard ABS were excluded. 4 Status Report Vol. 48, No. 4

5 The study used data from the federal government s Fatality Analysis Reporting System and motorcycle registration information from R.L. olk and Co. HLDI provided information from its proprietary database about which motorcycles were equipped with ABS. For the analysis of insurance claims, HLDI compared the rate at which claims were filed for motorcycles with and without ABS per insured vehicle year. The analysts controlled for such factors as motorcycle make, model and age, rider age and gender, and policy deductible. As with the IIHS study, only models with optional ABS were studied in order to compare otherwise-identical motorcycles. Collision claim frequency for crash damage to the motorcycle was 20 percent lower for bikes with ABS than for those without the feature. Claims under medical payment (eday) insurance, which covers injuries to the motorcyclist, were 28 percent lower, while claims under bodily injury insurance, which covers injuries that at-fault riders cause to other people, including their passengers, were 22 percent lower. For the first time, HLDI also looked at the effect of ABS and CBS together. This combination was associated with a 31 percent reduction in collision claim frequency relative to the same motorcycles without either system. There wasn t enough exposure to study the effect on eday and bodily injury claims. As good as ABS is on its own, this analysis suggests it can be even more effective when offered in conjunction with other technology, Lund says. It will be interesting to see whether further research confirms the added benefit of combined brake controls. Despite the lack of a federal requirement, the availability of ABS has grown rapidly in recent years. The feature is standard on 22 percent of 2013 models and optional on 54 percent. That compares with less than 1 percent of 2007 motorcycles that had it standard and 5 percent on which it was an option. For a copy of Effects of antilock braking systems on motorcycle fatal crash rates: an update by E.R. Teoh and the HLDI report Evaluation of motorcycle braking systems, alone and in conjunction with combined control braking systems, publications@iihs.org. n Older riders more likely to land in hospital after crashes When older motorcyclists crash, they are nearly 3 times as likely as younger riders to be seriously injured, a new study published in Injury revention indicates. Researchers at Brown University examined patterns of injuries among motorcycle riders ages 20 and older involved in crashes during and treated in hospital emergency rooms. Data were from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury rogram, a joint venture of the U.S. Consumer roduct Safety Commission and the National Center for Injury revention and Control. There were an estimated 1.5 million injuries to adults in motorcycle crashes during the study period. en sustained 85 percent of the injuries. Information on helmet use, motorcycle size, and crash type and severity was unavailable. The authors grouped injured motorcyclists by age: 20-39, and 60 and older. The number of injuries for all three age groups rose during the study period, but the oldest riders had the sharpest increase, jumping from 4,352 injuries in 2001 to 15,107 in Bikers in this group also were 3 times as likely to be admitted to a hospital after a crash as riders in their 20s and 30s. Bikers in their 40s and 50s were nearly twice as likely as younger riders to require hospitalization. Fractures and dislocations were the most common types of injury across all age groups. Older and middle age riders had a higher proportion of upper trunk injuries and fractures than younger riders, particularly chest and rib cage injuries. Older and middle age riders were more likely to have internal organ injuries than younger riders, who were more likely to sustain less serious contusions/ abrasions and strains/sprains. Brain injuries were the most common internal organ injury for every age. The greater severity of injuries among older adults may be due to the physiological changes that occur as the body ages, the authors note. Increased A man and woman were fatally injured when an SUV collided with their motorcycle in this 2012 crash near Laorte, Indiana. incidence of heart disease, diabetes and other health conditions also may lead to worse outcomes. The findings come as the average age of a motorcycle rider in the U.S. has climbed. In 2009, the typical rider was 41 years old, up from 38 in 1998, according to the otorcycle Industry Council. While the Brown study didn t focus on fatalities, the number of motorcyclists killed in crashes is increasing. Deaths among motorcycle riders and passengers in 2011 were more than double those in Older riders make up an increasing proportion of crash deaths. In the early 1980s the proportion of fatally injured motorcyclists 50 and older started to increase, rising from 3 percent of all rider deaths in 1982 to 13 percent in 1997 and to 35 percent in Injury patterns and severity among motorcyclists treated in U.S. emergency departments, : a comparison of younger and older riders by T.L. Jackson and.j. ello was published in the Feb. 6, 2013, online edition of Injury revention. n (continued from p. 3) require only some riders to wear them, just 57 percent said they did (see Status Report, arch 31, 2010). In a 2012 NHTSA observational survey, 97 percent of motorcyclists in states with universal helmet laws were wearing helmets, compared with 58 percent in states without such laws. An IIHS study of motorcycle fatalities in Florida, which modified its helmet law in 2000 to exempt riders 21 and older with at least $10,000 of medical coverage, found that the motorcyclist death rate rose 25 percent after the change, leading to an estimated 117 additional deaths in the first two years (see Status Report, Sept. 28, 2005). NHTSA also studied the change in Florida, and found that hospital admissions of motorcyclists with head injuries increased 82 percent in the 30 months afterward. For a copy of The effects of ichigan s weakened motorcycle helmet use law on insurance losses, publications@iihs.org. n ay 30,

6 Redesigned Subaru Forester aces tough new crash test Only 2 of 13 small SUVs earn TO SAFETY ICK+ Subaru Forester The 2014 Subaru Forester is the first vehicle to ace every aspect of the Institute s challenging small overlap front crash test. The Forester, the only one of 13 small SUVs to earn an overall rating of good in the test, and the 2013 itsubishi Outlander Sport, which earns acceptable, are the latest vehicles to qualify for the Institute s recently inaugurated top honor, TO SAFETY ICK+. Each of the other 11 SUVs earns either a poor or marginal rating. With the redesigned Forester, Subaru s engineers set out to do well in our new test, and they succeeded, says Joe Nolan, the Institute s vice president for vehicle research. This is exactly how we hoped manufacturers would respond to improve protection for people in these kinds of serious frontal crashes. This isn t the first time that the Forester has stood out in a new IIHS crash test. When the Institute first rated small SUVs for side protection in 2003, the Subaru model performed the best and was one of only two to earn a good rating (see Status Report, June 28, 2003, at iihs.org). IIHS added the small overlap test to its lineup of vehicle evaluations last year. It replicates what happens when the front corner of a vehicle strikes another vehicle or an object like a tree or a utility pole. In the test, 25 percent of a vehicle s front end on the driver side strikes a 5-foot-tall rigid barrier at 40 mph. A 50th percentile male Hybrid III dummy is belted in the driver seat (see Status Report, Aug. 14, 2012). ost vehicles today are designed to do well in the government s full-width front crash test and in the IIHS moderate overlap front test, but that is no guarantee of good performance in a small overlap crash. In a 2009 IIHS study of vehicles with good ratings for frontal crash protection, small overlap crashes accounted for nearly a quarter of the frontal crashes involving serious or fatal injury to front seat occupants. In many vehicles the impact at a 25 percent overlap misses the primary structures designed to manage crash energy. That increases the risk of severe damage to or collapse of the occupant compartment structure. Also, vehicles tend to rotate and slide sideways during this type of collision, and that can move the driver s head outboard, away from the protection of the frontal airbag. Those difficulties were apparent in the small SUV group. Twothirds had poor ratings for structure, and about half were poor or marginal for restraints and kinematics, meaning the dummy s movements weren t well-controlled to prevent contact with hard surfaces. In one example of poor structure, the front pillar of the Nissan Rogue s door frame was pushed far inside the occupant compartment and after the crash was almost touching the driver seat. The Jeep atriot was among the worst for restraints and kinematics. The dummy s head slid off the frontal airbag as the steering wheel moved 8 inches up and nearly 6 inches to the right. The side curtain airbag didn t deploy, and the belt allowed the dummy s head and torso to move too far forward. In contrast, the Forester earned good ratings for structure, restraints and kinematics, plus all four injury measures on the dummy. The airbags worked as intended, and the space around the dummy was 6 Status Report Vol. 48, No. 4

7 Small SUV ratings in small overlap front crash test itsubishi Outlander Sport 2014 Subaru Forester itsubishi Outlander Sport BW X1 Nissan Rogue azda CX-5 Honda CR-V Jeep Wrangler Volkswagen Tiguan Hyundai Tucson Kia Sportage Buick Encore Jeep atriot Ford Escape G A Good G Acceptable A arginal oor Nissan Rogue Subaru Forester Jeep atriot Top: The itsubishi Outlander Sport earns an acceptable rating in the small overlap front test. With good ratings in all other tests, the 2013 model qualifies for TO SAFETY ICK+. iddle: The Jeep atriot earns a poor rating. The steering wheel moved way up and to the right, allowing the dummy s head to slip off the frontal airbag, and the side airbag didn t deploy. Bottom: The Nissan Rogue (left) and the Subaru Forester illustrate the difference between poor and good structure. Go to iihs.org/ratings for detailed results well-maintained. The Outlander Sport was acceptable for structure and restraints and kinematics and also had good injury measures. The Forester and the Outlander Sport bring the number of TO SAFETY ICK+ winners to 20. The award is based on performance in the small overlap front test, as well as in the moderate overlap front, side, rollover and rear tests. To qualify, a vehicle must earn good ratings in 4 of the 5 tests and no less than acceptable in the fifth. IIHS continues to award TO SAFETY ICK to vehicles with good ratings in the moderate overlap front, side, rollover and rear tests. Nine small SUVs earn TO SAFETY ICK, including the BW X1 and Buick Encore, which are new to the U.S. market for The others are the Ford Escape; Honda CR-V; Hyundai Tucson and its twin, the Kia Sportage; azda CX-5; Volkswagen Tiguan and 2014 atriot. The 2013 atriot also qualifies when equipped with optional side torso airbags. The 2013 Toyota RAV4 earns TO SAFETY ICK but won t be put through the small overlap test until later this year. Toyota plans to make changes to improve the RAV4 s performance in the test. n ay 30,

8 Status Report ichigan claims rise under weak motorcycle helmet law 42 ore proof that motorcycle ABS continues to reduce crashes44 Older riders more likely to be seriously injured in motorcycle crashes45 Subaru Forester aces small overlap test 46 Vol. 48, No. 4 ay 30, N. Glebe Road Arlington, VA USA t 703/ f 703/ Inquiries/print subscriptions: StatusReport@iihs.org Copy may be republished with attribution. Images require permission to use. Editor: Kim Stewart Writer: Sarah Karush Art Director: Steve Ewens iihs.org/rss m.iihs.org This publication is printed on recycled paper. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses deaths, injuries and property damage from crashes on the nation s roads. The Highway Loss Data Institute shares and supports this mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and model. Both organizations are wholly supported by the following auto insurers and funding associations: ember groups Acceptance Insurance ACE rivate Risk Services Affirmative Insurance Agency Insurance Company of aryland Alfa Alliance Insurance Corporation Alfa Insurance Allstate Insurance Group American Family utual Insurance American National Family of Companies Ameriprise Auto & Home Amica utual Insurance Company ARI Insurance Companies Auto Club Enterprises Auto Club Group Auto-Owners Insurance Aviva Insurance Bankers Insurance Group Bituminous Insurance Companies California Casualty Group California State Auto Group Capital Insurance Group Chubb & Son Colorado Farm Bureau utual Insurance Company Commonwealth utual Insurance Company of America Concord Group Insurance Companies Cotton States Insurance COUNTRY Financial CSE Insurance Group Dallas National Insurance Company Direct General Corporation Driver s Insurance Group Erie Insurance Group Esurance Farm Bureau Financial Services Farm Bureau Insurance of ichigan Farm Bureau utual Insurance Company of Idaho Farmers Insurance Group of Companies Farmers utual Hail Insurance Company of Iowa Farmers utual of Nebraska Fireman s Fund Insurance Company Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Frankenmuth Insurance Gainsco Insurance GEICO Group Georgia Farm Bureau utual Insurance Company Goodville utual Casualty Company Grange Insurance Hallmark Insurance Company Hanover Insurance Group The Hartford Haulers Insurance Company, Inc. Horace ann Insurance Companies ICW Group Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company Indiana Farmers utual Insurance Company Infinity roperty & Casualty Kemper referred Kentucky Farm Bureau Insurance Liberty utual Insurance Company Louisiana Farm Bureau utual Insurance Company aryland Automobile Insurance Fund ercury Insurance Group etlife Auto & Home ichigan illers utual Insurance Company iddleoak ississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company G Insurance utual of Enumclaw Insurance Company Nationwide New Jersey anufacturers Insurance Group Nodak utual Insurance Company Norfolk & Dedham Group North Carolina Farm Bureau utual Insurance Company Northern Neck Insurance Company Ohio utual Insurance Group Old American County utual Fire Insurance Old American Indemnity Company Oregon utual Insurance ekin Insurance ECO Insurance lymouth Rock Assurance rogressive Corporation The Responsive Auto Insurance Company Rockingham Group Safeco Insurance Safe Auto Insurance Company Samsung Fire & arine Insurance Company SECURA Insurance Sentry Insurance Shelter Insurance Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America South Carolina Farm Bureau utual Insurance Company Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company State Auto Insurance Companies State Farm Tennessee Farmers utual Insurance Company Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Tower Group Companies The Travelers Companies United Educators USAA Utica National Insurance Group Virginia Farm Bureau utual Insurance West Bend utual Insurance Company Westfield Insurance Young America Insurance Company Zurich North America Funding associations American Insurance Association National Association of utual Insurance Companies roperty Casualty Insurers Association of America