Automakers are rapidly improving crash avoidance technology in new models, according to a recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
The news comes after some disappointing results last year, when fewer than one third of SUVs tested were able to reduce the severity of front-to-rear crashes. The results were partly due to the IIHS introducing a more rigorous front-to-rear crash test evaluation process in April 2024, which included testing at higher speeds and with various targets — such as motorcycles or tractor-trailers.
Now, less than one year later, the number of vehicles that performed well in tests more than doubled, with 22 out of 30 earning a “good” or “acceptable” rating for forward collision warnings and automatic braking systems, per IIHS results released in February.
“The rapid progress manufacturers have made to improve these vital crash avoidance systems is impressive,” IIHS president David Harkey said in a statement.
The new IIHS crash avoidance system metrics test vehicles at 31, 37, and 43 miles per hour, whereas the original test ran at 12 and 25 mph. The revised tests also evaluate crash avoidance of obstacles off-center in the travel lane, whereas the original tests only assessed crash avoidance for obstacles in the center of the lane.
According to IIHS, these new metrics more accurately represent serious crashes that result in injury or fatalities on the road. The institute noted that more than 400 people die each year in rear-end crashes with tractor-trailers, while rear-end crashes kill more than 200 motorcyclists annually.
According to the National Safety Council, rear-end collisions make up more than 40% of all multi-vehicle crashes.
Out of all the vehicles tested, over 15 received a “good” rating, while seven achevied “acceptable” ratings and seven others received a “poor” score. Just one vehicle — the 2023-2024 Ford Expedition — earned a “marginal” score, which is in between “acceptable” and “poor.”
A vehicle with a crash avoidance system rated “good” issued an appropriate collision warning and came to a complete stop at all speeds before it crashed into another vehicle. Vehicles rated “good” also issued warnings and stopped or at least significantly slowed their speeds during tests with the motorcycle. They also issued timely collision warnings when faced with the tractor-trailer (only the warning system was tested during trials with the tractor-trailer).
By contrast, the vehicles that earned a “poor” crash rating hit the motorcycle at even the slowest speeds. A majority of the time, these vehicles issued timely collision warnings during the passenger vehicle and tractor-trailer tests, but still struggled to slow down enough when facing an impending crash.
“These results indicate that preventing crashes at higher speeds, especially collisions with motorcycles, remains a challenge for some systems,” Harkey said, noting that motorcycles are “a special area of concern” because motorcyclists usually have little to no crash protection.
