DOT HS 812 069
`
`January 2015
`
`Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety
`Technologies and Associated
`Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
`Standards, 1960 to 2012
`Passenger Cars and LTVs
`
`With Reviews of 26 FMVSS and the Effectiveness
`Of Their Associated Safety Technologies in
`Reducing Fatalities, Injuries, and Crashes
`
`IPR 2016-01790
`American Vehicular Sciences
`Exhibit 2037
`
`

`

`DISCLAIMER
`
`This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National
`Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange.
`The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of
`the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the
`National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government
`assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers’ names
`or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object
`of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United
`States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.
`
`Suggested APA Format Citation:
`
`Kahane, C. J. (2015, January). Lives saved by vehicle safety technologies and
`associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012 – Passenger
`cars and LTVs – With reviews of 26 FMVSS and the effectiveness of their
`associated safety technologies in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes.
`(Report No. DOT HS 812 069). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
`Safety Administration.
`
`

`

`5. Report Date
`January 2015 
`6. Performing Organization Code
`
`8. Performing Organization Report No.
`
`10.
`Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
`
`11. Contract or Grant No.
`
`Technical Report Documentation Page
`2. Government Accession No.
`3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
`
`1. Report No.
`DOT HS 812 069 
`4. Title and Subtitle
`Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated Federal
`Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012 – Passenger Cars and
`LTVs – With Reviews of 26 FMVSS and the Effectiveness of Their
`Associated Safety Technologies in Reducing Fatalities, Injuries, and
`Crashes
`7. Author(s)
`Charles J. Kahane, Ph.D.
`9. Performing Organization Name and Address
`Office of Vehicle Safety
`National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`Washington, DC 20590 
`12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
`National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
`Washington, DC 20590 
`15. Supplementary
`Notes
`
`16. Abstract
`NHTSA began in 1975 to evaluate the effectiveness of vehicle safety technologies associated with the Feder-
`al Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. By June 2014, NHTSA had evaluated the effectiveness of virtually all the
`life-saving technologies introduced in passenger cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans from about 1960 up
`through about 2010. A statistical model estimates the number of lives saved from 1960 to 2012 by the com-
`bination of these life-saving technologies. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data for 1975 to 2012
`documents the actual crash fatalities in vehicles that, especially in recent years, include many safety technol-
`ogies. Using NHTSA’s published effectiveness estimates, the model estimates how many people would have
`died if the vehicles had not been equipped with any of the safety technologies. In addition to equipment com-
`pliant with specific FMVSS in effect at that time, the model tallies lives saved by installations in advance of
`the FMVSS, back to 1960, and by non-compulsory improvements, such as pretensioners and load limiters for
`seat belts. FARS data has been available since 1975, but an extension of the model allows estimates of lives
`saved in 1960 to 1974.
`A previous NHTSA study using the same methods estimated that vehicle safety technologies had saved
`328,551 lives from 1960 through 2002. The agency now estimates 613,501 lives saved from 1960 through
`2012. The annual number of lives saved grew from 115 in 1960, when a small number of people used lap
`belts, to 27,621 in 2012, when most cars and LTVs were equipped with numerous modern safety technolo-
`gies and belt use on the road achieved 86 percent.
`
`13. Type of Report and Period Covered
`NHTSA Technical Report 
`14. Sponsoring Agency Code
`
`17. Key Words
`FARS; statistical analysis; evaluation; benefits; effec-
`tiveness; fatality reduction; injury reduction; crashwor-
`thiness; crash avoidance 
`19. Security Classif. (Of this report)
`Unclassified
`Form DOT F 1700.7
`(8-72)
`
`
`20. Security Classif. (Of this page)
`Unclassified
`
`18. Distribution Statement
`Document is available to the public from the National
`Technical Information Service www.ntis.gov.
`
`22. Price
`
`21. No. of Pages
` 525
`Reproduction of completed page authorized      
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` A
`
` REVOLUTION IN SAFETY AND HEALTH ........................................................................x
`
`
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... xvii
`
`
`
`FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS .....................................................................................1
`
`Basic analysis method ..........................................................................................................2
` What is included and what is excluded? ..............................................................................3
`
`List of FMVSS, safety technologies, and effectiveness evaluations ...................................4
` What has changed from NHTSA’s 2004 report? ...............................................................12
`
`Estimating lives saved by safety technologies, 1960 to 2012 ............................................13
`
`
`Part 1: Review of 26 FMVSS and their effectiveness in reducing fatalities, injuries,
`
`and crashes for passenger cars and LTVs ..........................................................................14
`
`103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems ..........................................................15
`
`
`Rear window defrosting and defogging systems .......................................................15
`
`105 Hydraulic and electric brake systems ........................................................................18
`
`135 Light vehicle brake systems
`
`
`Dual master cylinders ................................................................................................18
`
`
`Front disc brakes ........................................................................................................21
`
`
`Rear-wheel antilock brake systems for LTVs ............................................................22
`
`
`Four-wheel antilock brake systems for passenger cars and LTVs .............................25
`
`108 Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment ...............................................30
`
`
`Side marker lamps......................................................................................................30
`
`
`Center high mounted stop lamps................................................................................34
`
`
`Retroreflective tape on heavy trailers ........................................................................38
`
`
`Daytime running lights ..............................................................................................42
`
`
`Amber turn signals .....................................................................................................43
`
`
`LED stop lamps..........................................................................................................44
`
`121 Air brake systems .......................................................................................................46
`
`
`ABS for heavy trucks and trailers ..............................................................................46
`
`126 Electronic stability control systems ...........................................................................48
`
`138 Tire pressure monitoring systems ..............................................................................52
`
`201 Occupant protection in interior impact ......................................................................55
`
`
`Redesign of middle/lower instrument panels with improved occupant protection ....55
`
`
`1999-2003 head injury protection upgrade ................................................................60
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`2 H ead restraints ...........................................................................................................65
`20
`ead restraints for outboard front seats/original version of FMVSS No. 202 ..........65
`
`
`
`010-2012 head restraint upgrade (not yet evaluated) ...............................................70
`
`3 Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system ............................71
`20
`
`20
`4 Steering control rearward displacement
`
`Energy-absorbing and telescoping steering assembly ...............................................71
`
`
`5 Glazing materials .......................................................................................................77
`20
`
`
`High-penetration resistant windshields ......................................................................77
`Gl
`ass-plastic windshields ...........................................................................................80
`
`6 D
`oor locks and door retention components ...............................................................82
`20
`
`Stronger locks, latches and hinges for side doors ......................................................82
`
`
`7 Seating systems ..........................................................................................................85
`20
`
`Seat back locks for 2-door cars with folding front seat backs ...................................85
`
`
`8 Occupant crash protection ..........................................................................................89
`20
`9 Se
`at belt assemblies ...................................................................................................89
`20
`0 Se
`at belt assembly anchorages ...................................................................................89
`21
`
`Lap belts for front seat occupants ..............................................................................92
`
`La
`p belts for rear seat occupants ................................................................................97
`
`anual 3-point lap-shoulder belts for outboard front seat occupants .......................99
`
`point lap-shoulder belts for rear seat occupants ...................................................111
`
`utomatic seat belts .................................................................................................113
`
`r
`etensioners and load limiters for seat belts ...........................................................116
`
`Fr
`ontal air bags ........................................................................................................119
`
`anual on-off switches for passenger air bags in pickup trucks
`
`nd other vehicles with small or no rear seats ........................................................130
`
`9
`98-99 redesign of frontal air bag (sled-certification) ...........................................133
`
`A
`dvanced frontal air bags (automatic suppression or low-risk deployment) ..........136
`
`
`2 Windshield mounting ...............................................................................................139
`21
`A
`dhesive windshield bonding ..................................................................................139
`
`3 C
`hild restraint systems .............................................................................................144
`21
`5 C
`hild restraint anchorage systems ...........................................................................144
`22
`ear-facing and forward-facing child safety seats ...................................................145
`
`pper tethers and anchorages (not yet fully evaluated) ...........................................152
`
`ATCH (lower anchors and tethers for children – not yet fully evaluated) ............152
`
`ooster seats (not yet fully evaluated) .....................................................................154
`
`a
`fety benefits of riding in the rear seat ..................................................................155
`
`4 Si
`de impact protection .............................................................................................160
`21
`Si
`de door beams .......................................................................................................160
`
`TI(d) improvement in passenger cars by structure and padding ...........................164
`
`urtain and side air bags ..........................................................................................170
`
`oof crush resistance ...............................................................................................175
`21
`edesign of true hardtops with B-pillars/original version of FMVSS No. 216.......175
`
`0
`13-2016 roof crush resistance upgrade (not yet evaluated) .................................178
`
`
`iii
`
`6 R
`
`R2
`
`H2
`
`M3
`
`-AP
`
`M
`
`a1
`
`RULBS
`
`TC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`223 Rear impact guards for heavy trailers ......................................................................179
` 224 Rear impact protection for heavy trailers.................................................................179
`226 Ejection mitigation ...................................................................................................182
`
`Rollover curtains ......................................................................................................182
`301 Fuel system integrity ................................................................................................185
`
`1976-1978 upgrade: rollover, rear-impact and lateral-impact tests .........................185
`
`2005-2009 upgrade: rear-impact and lateral-impact tests ........................................187
`NCAP: New Car Assessment Program ............................................................................190
`
`Frontal NCAP-related improvements in cars without air bags ................................191
`
`Frontal NCAP in vehicles with air bags (not evaluated) .........................................194
`
`Offset-frontal IIHS tests (partially evaluated) .........................................................195
`
`Side NCAP and IIHS side impact testing (not evaluated) .......................................196
`
`Rollover-resistance NCAP (partially evaluated) .....................................................197
`
`SUMMARY TABLES FOR PART 1 ..............................................................................198
`Table 1-2: Estimates of Fatality Reduction in NHTSA Evaluations of
`Safety Technologies ............................................................................................199
`Table 1-3: Estimates of Injury Reduction in NHTSA Evaluations of Safety
`Technologies .........................................................................................................206
`Table 1-4: Estimates of Crash Avoidance in NHTSA Evaluations of Safety
` Evaluations...........................................................................................................212
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PART 2: Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated Federal Motor
`Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012 ..................................................................214
`Summary of the Estimation Method ................................................................................214
`FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................227
`
`Estimates of lives saved ...........................................................................................227
`
`Net effectiveness for car/LTV occupants ................................................................233
`
`Car/LTV occupant fatalities per 100,000,000 VMT ................................................239
`
`Estimates of lives saved by each technology (grouped by associated FMVSS)......244
`
`Benefits for occupants of passenger cars .................................................................252
`
`Benefits for occupants of LTVs ...............................................................................285
`
`Benefits for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-occupants .................................307
`
`Benefits for motorcyclists ........................................................................................311
`
`Effect of frontal air bags by seating position, occupant age, and type of air bag ....311
`
`
`
`REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................324
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`APPENDIX A: SAS Programs Used to Estimate Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety
`
`Technologies and Associated FMVSS, 1960 to 2012 .....................................................350
`
`Overview ..........................................................................................................................350
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN ANALYSIS PROGRAM LS2014 ..............................355
`
`APPENDIX B: SUMMARIES OF PUBLISHED EVALUATION REPORTS .....................449
`APPENDIX C: Year-by-Year Percentages of Cars and LTVs Equipped With Safety
`
`Technologies: New Vehicles (by MY) and All Vehicles on the Road (by CY) ..............467
`
`APPENDIX D: Computation of Fatality Risk Indices for Diseases, 1960 to 2010 .................488
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ABS
`
`ACIR
`
`ACTS
`
`AIS
`
`antilock brake system
`
`Automotive Crash Injury Research, a crash data file of the 1950s and 1960s
`
`Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (before 1999, American Coalition for
`Traffic Safety)
`
`abbreviated injury scale; the levels of this scale are: 0 = uninjured, 1 = minor,
`2 = moderate, 3 = serious, 4 = severe, 5 = critical, and 6 = maximum
`
`AMC
`
`American Motors Corporation
`
`ANPRM
`
`advance notice of proposed rulemaking
`
`ANSI
`
`ATD
`
`BMW
`
`American National Standards Institute
`
`anthropomorphic test device (dummy)
`
`Bayerische Motoren Werke
`
`CATMOD
`
`categorical models procedure in SAS
`
`CDS
`
`CFR
`
`Crashworthiness Data System of NASS
`
`Code of Federal Regulations; up-to-date text of NHTSA regulations may be
`downloaded from the electronic CFR, Title 49, www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
`idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49tab_02.tpl. Regulations other than
`FMVSS are referenced as Part numbers (e.g., Part 563, “Event data record-
`ers”). FMVSS are referenced as Part 571 followed by the FMVSS number
`(e.g., Part 571.103 = FMVSS No. 103, “Windshield defrosting and defogging
`systems”)
`
`CHMSL
`
`center high-mounted stop lamp
`
`CMVSS
`
`Canadian motor vehicle safety standard
`
`CPU
`
`central processing unit
`
`CRASH
`
`Calspan reconstruction of accident speeds on the highway
`
`CUV
`
`CY
`
`DMV
`
`crossover utility vehicle
`
`calendar year
`
`department of motor vehicles
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`DOF
`
`DRL
`
`ECE
`
`EMS
`
`ESC
`
`FARS
`
`direction of force (a variable in CDS and other crash databases)
`
`daytime running lights
`
`Economic Commission for Europe
`
`emergency medical services
`
`electronic stability control
`
`Fatality Analysis Reporting System (a census of fatal crashes in the United
`States since 1975)
`
`FHWA
`
`Federal Highway Administration
`
`FMCSA
`
`Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
`
`FMCSR
`
`Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation
`
`FMH
`
`free-motion headform for testing upper interior components
`
`FMVSS
`
`Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
`
`GAD
`
`GES
`
`GM
`
`GSA
`
`GTR
`
`general area of damage (a variable in CDS and other crash databases)
`
`General Estimates System of NASS
`
`General Motors
`
`General Services Administration of the Federal government
`
`global technical regulation
`
`GVWR
`
`gross vehicle weight rating (specified by the manufacturer, equals the vehi-
`cle’s curb weight plus maximum recommended loading)
`
`HIC
`
`HPR
`
`HSL
`
`head injury criterion
`
`high penetration resistant windshield
`
`Highway Safety Literature, an on-line literature database that is a subfile of
`the automated Transportation Research Information Service (TRIS) file, ac-
`cessible at trid.trb.org.
`
`ICC
`
`Interstate Commerce Commission
`
`ICD-10
`
`International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision
`
`IIHS
`
`Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`LATCH
`
`lower anchors and tethers for children
`
`LED
`
`LTV
`
`MCOD
`
`MDAI
`
`light-emitting diode
`
`light trucks and vans (includes pickup trucks, SUVs, minivans and full-sized
`vans)
`
`multiple cause of death file, a supplement to FARS since 1987, listing causes
`of death from the occupant’s death certificate
`
`multidisciplinary accident investigations (a file of in-depth crash investiga-
`tions conducted by NHTSA and others, 1967-78)
`
`MDB
`
`moving deformable barrier
`
`MVMA2D Motor Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association’s 2-dimensional computer simula-
`tion of the occupant’s motion in a frontal crash
`
`MY
`
`NASS
`
`NCAP
`
`NCSA
`
`NCSS
`
`model year
`
`National Automotive Sampling System (a probability sample of police-
`reported crashes in the United States since 1979, investigated in detail)
`
`New Car Assessment Program (consumer information supplied by NHTSA on
`the safety of new cars and LTVs, based on test results, since 1979)
`
`National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA
`
`National Crash Severity Study (a probability sample of police-reported towa-
`way crashes in seven multicounty areas, 1977-79, investigated in detail)
`
`NHTSA
`
`National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`
`NMVCCS
`
`National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Study
`
`NOPUS
`
`NPRM
`
`NTSB
`
`RF
`
`RSEP
`
`National Occupant Protection Use Survey (statistics for the United States,
`since 1994, from a national observational survey based on a probability sam-
`ple)
`
`notice of proposed rulemaking
`
`National Transportation Safety Board
`
`right front
`
`Restraint Systems Evaluation Project (a probability sample of police-reported
`towaway crashes involvements of model year 1973-75 cars in five urban or
`multicounty areas, 1974-75, investigated in detail)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`RWAL
`
`rear-wheel antilock brake system
`
`SAE
`
`SAS
`
`SCI
`
`SID
`
`SSF
`
`SUV
`
`TPMS
`
`Society of Automotive Engineers
`
`statistical and database management software produced by SAS Institute, Inc.
`
`Special Crash Investigations, NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and
`Analysis
`
`side impact dummy
`
`static stability factor (half of the vehicle’s track width divided by the height of
`its center of gravity)
`
`sport utility vehicle
`
`tire pressure monitoring system
`
`TREAD Act Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act
`
`TTI
`
`TTI(d)
`
`TTMA
`
`thoracic trauma index
`
`thoracic trauma index for the dummy in a side-impact test
`
`Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
`
`UMTRI
`
`University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
`
`VIN
`
`VMT
`
`VW
`
`Vehicle Identification Number
`
`vehicle miles of travel
`
`Volkswagen
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`A REVOLUTION IN SAFETY AND HEALTH
`
`
`
`For occupants of cars and LTVs (pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans), the fatality rate per vehicle
`mile of travel dropped by an astounding 81 percent from 1960 to 2012. In CY 1960, 28,183 driv-
`ers and passengers died in 662 billion VMT. By 2012, only 21,696 occupants died in 2,653 bil-
`lion VMT. The green line and squares in Figure A track the VMT fatality rate for car/LTV occu-
`pants, indexed to 100 in 1960, as it descends to 19 by 2012.
`
`At least four developments in technology and social science can take credit for some of the re-
`duction:
`
`• Vehicle safety technologies such as seat belts, air bags, and electronic stability control
`(ESC), combined with programs to increase the use of belts and other safety equipment;
`• Safer roads, including major new infrastructure such as the Interstate Highway System
`and gradual improvements to existing roads, such as guardrails;
`• Behavioral programs to make people drive more safely; above all, laws and programs to
`abate drunk driving; and
`• Better medicine: quicker arrival of EMS, more effective treatment in transport and at the
`trauma center, and any developments in surgery and medicine that made injuries more
`survivable than they used to be.
`
`In addition, the past 53 years have witnessed important demographic and geographic trends that
`would likely have lowered the VMT fatality rate substantially even without advances in science:
`a shrinking population of young drivers (who have high fatality rates), a much larger share of
`VMT for female drivers (who have low fatality rates, specifically, a low incidence of drunk driv-
`ing), and population movement from rural to metropolitan areas (where fatality risk per mile is
`lower). At times however, demographic and geographic trends have worked in the opposite di-
`rection, such as a growing proportion of older drivers (who have high fatality rates) and move-
`ment within metropolitan areas from central cities to more sparsely populated outer suburbs.1
`
`This report focuses exclusively on the fatality reduction attributable to vehicle safety technolo-
`gies introduced since 1956 (when factory-installed lap belts first became optionally available on
`some cars) and, from 1968 onwards, largely associated with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
`Standards and/or related programs such as safety ratings. It develops a vehicular fatality-risk
`index by calendar year, tracked by the blue circles in Figure A, that measures how much safer
`the average car or LTV on the road has become relative to a car or LTV on the road in 1955.
`
`
`
`
`1 The chapter titled “Car/LTV occupant fatalities per 100,000,000 VMT” in Part 2 of this report presents additional
`discussion, including references, of factors (other than vehicle safety technologies) that influenced fatality rates be-
`tween 1960 and 2012.
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FIGURE A: FATALITY-RISK INDICES BY CALENDAR YEAR [1960 = 100]
`FOR CAR AND LW UCCUPANTS
`
`INDEX
`110
`
`‘1 0
`
`INDEX FOR
`
`i
`
`‘1‘
`
`.11- _
`
`. mi
`
`EVERYTHING ELSE
`
`‘100
`
`00
`
`00
`
`T0
`
`50
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`2D
`
`ACTUAL DARJLW DCCUF’ANT
`
`FATALITIES F'ER UNIT
`
`1050
`
`1005
`
`‘10?0
`
`10T5
`
`1080
`
`1085
`
`1090
`
`1905
`
`2000
`
`2005
`
`2010
`
`2015
`
`CV
`
`xi
`xi
`
`

`

`
`
`The index stayed essentially unchanged from 1955 (100) to 1960 (99.6), but it had dropped to 44
`by 2012. In other words, this report estimates that the fatality risk in the average car or LTV on
`the road in 2012 would be 56 percent lower than in the average vehicle on the road in 1960, even
`given the same exposure, drivers, roadways, and medicine. The reduction includes the effects of
`crash avoidance technologies such as ESC, occupant protection technologies such as seat belts
`and air bags, and programs to increase belt use. The report estimates that vehicle safety technol-
`ogies saved 613,501 lives from 1960 through 2012, including 27,621 in 2012.
`
`The estimate of lives saved by vehicle safety technologies is not based on some kind of multivar-
`iate or time-series analysis of the VMT fatality rates over the years, but on a review of the occu-
`pant fatality cases in NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Since 1975, the agency has
`issued 82 retrospective evaluations of individual FMVSS or related vehicle technologies, based
`on statistical analyses of the agency’s crash data files. The evaluations estimated the fatality-
`reducing effectiveness, if any, of each technology, relative to vehicles produced just before its
`introduction (i.e., incorporating every earlier technology, except the one being evaluated).
`
`Thus, if a vehicle is equipped with multiple safety technologies, their combined fatality-reducing
`effectiveness is the composite of the individual effectiveness estimates. The individual (and the
`combined) effectiveness, of course, may depend on the type of crash (e.g., frontal air bags are
`most effective in directly frontal impacts), the occupant’s seating position and age, and whether
`the occupant made correct use of the technology (e.g., buckled up). But the average composite
`effect of the safety technologies in cars and LTVs on the road in CY 2012 is a 56-percent reduc-
`tion of fatality risk relative to what it would have been if the same vehicles had not been
`equipped with any of those technologies – if the vehicles had incorporated only the 1955 level of
`safety. This report considers every FARS fatality case in 2012 (and also in earlier years), identi-
`fies what safety technologies were in the vehicle, and estimates the hypothetical additional risk if
`none of those technologies had been present in the vehicle.
`
`Figure A shows that the 56-percent reduction in the vehicular risk index from 1960 to 2012, alt-
`hough remarkable, does not fully explain the overall 81-percent reduction in the VMT fatality
`rate during those years. The red diamonds in Figure A index the effects of “everything else” –
`everything except the benefits of vehicle safety technologies. The “everything else” index is 43
`in 2012, almost the same as the vehicular risk index (44). In other words, the net effect from
`1960 to 2012 of “everything else,” a 57-percent reduction, is almost identical to the 56-percent
`reduction attributable to vehicle safety improvement.2 But Figure A shows the trend in the ve-
`hicular risk index differs from the trend in “everything else” in several important ways:
`
`• The vehicular risk index tells a story of uninterrupted improvement; each year is lower
`than the one before it. The red diamonds zigzag up and down in response to demographic
`trends and transient phenomena such as an energy crisis, fuel-price increases, or econom-
`ic slowdowns.
`
`
`2 The index of “everything else” is computed by dividing the VMT-rate index by the vehicular index and then multi-
`plying by 100. For example, in 2012, the VMT-rate index is 19, the vehicular index is 44, and the index of every-
`thing else is 100 x (19/44) = 43.
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`
`
`• The vehicular risk index changes gradually. Even a highly effective technology such as
`ESC needs some years to demonstrate its efficacy, some years of lead-time before it can
`be built into all new vehicles, and quite a few years before vehicles with ESC replace all
`the older vehicles on the road that do not have it. The only abrupt change (for the better)
`is from 1984 to 1988, when belt-use laws in the States suddenly prompted millions of
`people to start buckling up the belts that had already been in their vehicles for years.
`
`• The great reduction in the index of “everything else” is from 1965, when the large cohort
`of baby-boomers born just after World War II began to drive until 1975, when this cohort
`entered their late 20s, an age when fatal-crash involvement rates are substantially lower
`than in adolescence. The 1965-to-1975 decade also saw major new infrastructure such as
`completion of many Interstate highways, extensive urbanization, and increased numbers
`of women working outside the home (an influx of low-risk VMT); also, toward the end of
`the decade, an energy crisis and the national 55 mph speed limit. In 1975, the vehicular
`risk index was still above 90; even though the initial FMVSS arrived in the 1960s, there
`were still many pre-FMVSS vehicles on the road until the mid-1970s.
`
`• The large, steady reduction in the vehicular risk index begins after 1984 and does not
`stop. By contrast, the trend in the red diamonds fluctuates in response to a range of fac-
`tors affecting traffic volumes and risk. Factors reflected in the “everything else” index
`likely include the effects of economic slow-downs on the amount and type of highway
`travel as well as demographic trends such as an increase in the number of older drivers
`and the movement from central cities to outer suburbs where roadway travel is more fre-
`quent and speeds are higher.
`
`In summary, from 1983 through 2012, the vehicular risk index fell from 87 to 44, while the index
`of “everything else” changed from 51 to 43. The effects of significant improvements in behav-
`ioral safety during this period are not clearly reflected in this analysis for several reasons. First, it
`is important to note that the effects of the sharp increase in seat belt use during this period, from
`less than 60 percent in 1984 to 86 percent in 2012, are in