LBNL



## An Analysis of the Relationship between Casualty Risk Per Crash and

Vehicle Mass and Footprint for Model Year 2000

- 2007 Light

- Duty

Vehicles

F inal report prepared for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Departmen t of Energy

Prepared by

Tom Wenzel Building Technology and Urban Systems Department Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720

August 2012

This work was supported by the Vehicle Tech nologies Program

, Office of Energy Efficienc y and Renewable Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy

under Contract No. DE

- AC02

- 05CH11231.DISCLAIMER

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal res ponsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or s ervice by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. Th e views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California.

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is an e qual opportunity employer.i Acknowledgements

We would like to thank those who reviewed earlier drafts of this report, and provided helpful comments and insights: Tom White and Peter Whitman, Office of Policy, U.S. Department of Energy; Chi Li, Office of T ransportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Chuck Kahane, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; and Phil Price, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. We also

would like to thank the formal peer reviewers of the Final Draft: Charles Farmer, Insuran ce Institute for Highway Safety ; David Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Kara Kockelman

and Donna Chen , University of Texas; and Michael Van Auken, Dynamic Research, Inc.

The repor t was funded by Carol Schutte of the Vehicle Technologies Program in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy. We are grateful for her support of this research.

This work was supported by the Assistant Secreta ry for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE

- AC02

- 05CH11231.iiiii Executive Summary

NHTSA recently completed a logistic regression analysis ( Kahane 2012 ) updating its 2003 and

2010 studies of th e relationship between vehicle mass and US fatality risk per vehicle mile traveled (VMT). The new study updates the previous analyses in several ways: updated FARS data for 2002 to 2008 involving MY00 to MY07 vehicles are used; induced exposure data from police reported crashes in several additional states are added; a new vehicle category for car

based crossover utility vehicles (CUVs) and minivans is created; crashes with other light

- duty vehicles are divided into two groups based on the crash partner ve hicle’s weight, and a category for all other fatal crashes is added; and new control variables for new safety technologies and designs, such as electronic stability controls (ESC), side airbags, and methods to meet voluntary agreement to improve light truc k compatibility with cars, are included.

In a companion report ( Wenzel 2012b ), we use the updated databases NHTSA has created to replicate their findings on the relationship between vehicle weight, size (actually footprint, or

vehicle wheelbase time s track width), and US fatality risk per vehicle miles traveled (VMT), for model year 2000 to 2007 light

- duty vehicles involved in fatal crashes between 2002 and 2008. The data are examined in slightly different ways, to get a deeper understanding of the relationship between reductions in vehicle mass and footprint, and overall safety.

This report compares the logistic regression results of the NHTSA analysis of US fatality risk per VMT with an analysis of 13

- state fatality risk and casualty risk per cr ash. This final report incorporates revisions from the preliminary report released in November 2011, including revised estimates of national weights for vehicle miles traveled, inclusion of 2008 police

- reported crash data from eight additional states, and responses to reviewers’ comments.

Our analysis differs from the NHTSA analysis in two respects: first, it analyzes risk per crash, using data on all police

- reported crashes from thirteen states, rather than risk per estimated VMT; and second, it a nalyzes casualty (fatality plus serious injury) risk, as opposed to just fatality risk. There are several good reasons to investigate the effect of mass and footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash. First, risk per VMT, includes two ef fects that influence whether a person is killed or seriously injured in a crash: how well a vehicle can be , or actually is, driven (based on its handling, acceleration, and braking capabilities) to avoid being involved in a serious crash (crash avoidance), and, once a serious crash has occurred, how well a vehicle protects its occupants from fatality or serious injury (crashworthiness ) as well as the occupants of any crash partner ( compatibilit y ). By encompassing both of these aspects of vehicle design, ri sk per VMT gives a complete picture of how vehicle design can promote, or reduce, road user safety. On the other hand, risk per crash isolates the second of these two safety effects,

crashworthiness /compatibility, by examining the effect of mass and foot print reduction on how well a vehicle protects its occupants once a crash occurs.

Second, estimating risk on a per crash basis only requires using data on police

- reported crashes

from states , and does not require combining them with data from other sourc es, such as vehicle registration data and VMT information, as in NHTSA 2011 . Because only sixteen states currently record the vehicle identification number of vehicles involved in police

- reported crashes, which is necessary to determine vehicle characteris tics, and only thirteen states alsoiv report the posted speed limit of the roadway on which the crash occurred, extending the analysis to casualties (fatalities plus serious/incapacitating injuries ; i.e. level “K” and “A” injuries in police reports ) reduces the statistical uncertainty of analyzing just fatalities per crash. Finally, a serious incapacitating injury can be just as traumatic to the victim and her family, and costly from an economic perspective, as a fatality. Limiting the analysis to the risk of fatality, which is an extremely rare event, ignores the effect vehicle design may have on reducing the large number of incapacitating injuries that occur each year on the nation’s roadways. All risks in this report are societal risk, including fataliti es and serious injuries in the case vehicle and any crash partners, and include not only driver casualties but passenger and non

- occupant casualties as

well.

However, the frequency of police

- reported crashes per V MT and of casualties per police

reported c rash can both be influenced, in opposite directions, by the probability that a collision

event b ecomes a police

- reported crash. If collisions of certain vehicles are slightly less likely to

be report ed , because these vehicles are either somewhat less dama ge

- prone or are uninsured , this would tend to increase the observed detrimental effect of mass reduction on reported crashes per VMT and conversely decrease its detrimental effect on casualties per reported crash. By contrast, fatalities or casualties per VMT would be not be affected by crash

- reporting rates,

because the crash

- reporting rate is not part of the formula for calculating ri sk. The extent to which any reporting bias of non

- injury crashes exists, t he observed effects for police

- reported

crashes per VMT might not correspond exactly to the “effect of mass reduction on crash avoidance” and the observed effects for casualties per police

- reported crash might not correspond exactly to the “effect of mass reduction on crashworthiness/com patibility .” We suspect that large pickups are less likely to suffer damage in non

- injury crashes than other vehicle types; and that older, less expensive, or uninsured vehicles are less likely to report crash damage to police. In addition, one vehicle c rashes are more likely to suffer from this reporting bias, as there is no crash partner who may file an insurance claim.

Table ES.1 summarizes the results of our analysis of the effect of vehicle mass or footprint reduction on the two components of risk per VMT, crash frequency (number of crashes per VMT) and crashworthiness/compatibility (risk per crash), for both fatality and casualty risk, using data from 13 states. We convert the percent change in the log

- odds of casualty or fatality

p er crash output from the SAS LOGIST procedure to the percent change in the probability of casualty or fatality per crash. This conversion has no effect on the output regression coefficients when the change in the log

- odds of casualty is small , but substan tially increases the percent change for explanatory variables that have a large effect on the log

- odds of casualty

. Effects that are statistically significant are shown in red in the table; significance is based on the 95%

confidence interval derived from the standard error of the output of the SAS LOGIST procedure, converted to a percent probability interval.

Table ES.1 indicates that f or cars and light trucks, the effects from the two components , crash frequency and crashworthiness/compat ibility

, roughly add together to result in the overall effect on fatality risk per VMT. For example, the models estimate that 100

- lb lower mass in lighter

than

- average cars is associated with a 2.00 % increase in crash frequency (column B) , while

lower mass is associated with a 0. 54 % decrease in the number of fatalities per crash (column C) ; the net effect is only a 1. 42 % increase in the risk of fatality per VMT (column D) , which isv roughly the sum of the crash frequency and crashworthiness/compatibility effects (2.00%

- 0.54% = 1.45%) . For CUVs/minivans, the relationship is different; lower mass is associated

with a 0. 95 % increase in crash frequency, as well as a 0. 98 % increase in the number of fatalities per crash; however, the net result, a n estimated 1.60 % increase in the number of fatalities per VMT, is less than the sum of the two components (0.95% + 0.98% = 1.92%)

. Solving the three equations ( crashes per VM T, risk per crash, and risk per VMT ) simultaneously, as DRI has done,

forces the estimates for the first two

- stages of the regression (crashes per VMT and risk per crash) to equal that of the third state of the regression (risk per VMT)

.

The regression re sults in Table ES.1 estimate that mass reduction increases crash frequency (columns B and E) in all five vehicle types, with larger estimated increases in lighter

- than

average cars and light

- duty trucks. As a result, mass reduction is estima ted to have a more beneficial effect on crashworthiness /compatibility , or casualty risk per crash (column F), than on casualty risk per VMT (column G), and on fatality risk per crash (column C) than on fatality risk per VMT (column D). Mass reduction is associated with decreases in casualty risk per crash (column F) in all vehicles except light er cars ; in two of the four cases these estimated reductions are statistically significant, albeit small. Footprint reduction is associated with increases in crash frequency (columns B and E) in cars and light trucks, but with a small decrease in crash frequency in CUVs/minivans; footprint reduction does not have a statistically

- significant effect

on fatality risk per cras h (column C ), and only for casualty risk per crash (column F ) for light

trucks. For cars and light trucks, lower mass is associated with a more beneficial effect on fatality risk per crash (column C ) than on casualty risk per crash (column F ) , while lower footprint is associated with slightly more detrimental effects

. For CUVs/minivans Table ES.1 shows the opposite: lower mass is associated with a more beneficial e ffect, while lower footprint

is associated with a more detrimental effect

, on casualty than fatality risk per crash.

It is unclear why lower vehicle mass is associated with higher crash frequency, but lower risk per crash, in the regression models. It is possible that including variables that more accurately account for important differences among vehicles and driver behavior would reverse this relationship. For example, a dding vehicle purchase price substantially reduces the estimated

increase in crash frequency as vehicle mass decreases, for all vehicle types; in the case of

heavier

- than

- average cars, mass reduction is estimated to slightly decrease crash frequency. On the other hand, it is also possible that over thirty years of improvements in vehicl e design to achieve high crash test ratings have enabled manufacturers to use clever vehicle design to mitigate the hypothetical safety penalty of low mass vehicles.

The association of mass reduction with 13

- state casualty risk per VMT (column G) is quite consistent with that NHTSA estimated for US fatality risk per VMT (column A), although we estimate the effects on casualty risk to be more detrimental than the effects on fatality risk, for all vehicle types. The association of footprint reduction also i s similar, with 13

- state casualty risk per VMT slightly more beneficial than US fatality risk per VMT for cars and CUVs/minivans,

while 13

- state casualty risk is substantially more detrimental than US casualty risk for light

- duty

trucks.vi Table ES.1. E st imated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on two components of 13

- state fatality and casualty risk per VMT: crash frequency (crashes per VMT) and crashworthiness/compatibility (risk per crash)

Variable Case vehicle

typeA. NHTSA USfatalities per VMTB. 13-state crashesper VMTC. 13-state fatalitiesper crashD. 13-state fatalitiesper VMTE. 13-state crashesper VMTF. 13-state casualtiesper crashG. 13-state casualtiesper VMT

Mass

reduction Cars < 3106 lbs 1.55% * 2.00%

- 0.54% 1. 42% 2.00% 0.09% 1.86%

Cars > 3106 lbs 0.51% 1.50%

- 2.39%

- 1.07% 1.50%

- 0.77% 0.73%

LTs < 4594 lbs 0.52% 1.44%

- 1.61%

- 0.13% 1.44%

- 0.11% 1.55%

LTs > 4594 lbs

- 0.34% 0.94%

- 1.25%

- 0.34% 0.94%

- 0.62%

- 0.04%

CUV/ minivan

- 0.38% 0.95% 0.98% 1.60% 0.95%

- 0.16% 0.10% Footprint

reduction Cars 1.87% 0.64% 0.92% 2.11% 0.64% 0.23% 1.54%

LTs

- 0.07% 1.04% 0.48% 1.64% 1.04%

- 0.25% 0.94%

CUV/ minivan 1.72%

- 0.55%

- 1.67%

- 1.24%

- 0.55% 0.56% 1.54% * Based on NHTSA’s estimation of uncertainty using a jack

- knif e method, only mass reduction in cars less than 3,106 lbs has a statistically significant effect on US fatality risk.

Estimates that are statistically significant at the 95% level are shown in red.

In contrast with NHTSA’s estimates on US fatality risk per VMT (column A), mass reduction is

estimated to reduce casualty risk per crash (column F) for four of the five vehicle types, with two
of these four reductions estimated to be statistically significant. Mass reduction is associated

with a small but insignificant increase in casualty risk per crash for lighter cars. And footprint

reduction is associated with much smaller , and not statistically significant, estimated increases i n casualty risk per crash (column F) than i n US fatality risk per VMT (column A)

.

Many of the control variables included in the logistic regressions are statistically significant, and

have a la rge effect on fatality or casualty risk per crash, in some cases one to two orders of magnitude larger. However, the estimated association of these variables with risks per crash are not as large as their estimated association with fatality risk per VMT. While the estimated effect of mass reduction may result in a statistically

- significant increase in risk in ce rtain cases, the increase is small and is overwhelmed by other known vehicle, driver, and crash factors.

ABS and ESC in cars are estimated to reduce crash frequency more than risk per crash, as expected, while AWD in light trucks and CUVs/minivans is estimated to increase crash frequency more than risk per crash. Tw o

- door cars and the side airbag variables in cars have a larger effect on risk given a crash than on crash frequency ; two

- door cars increase risk s per crash , while side airbags decrease risk s per crash

. The driver age variables estimate that crash frequen cy consistently increases for the youngest and oldest drivers, and that risk per crash consistently increases for the two oldest groups of drivers (over 50 years old). All of these results are expected.

On the other hand, there are several unexpected r esults: side airbags in light trucks and CUVs/minivans are estimated to reduce crash frequency; ESC and ABS are estimated to reduce risk once a crash has occurred; and AWD and brand new vehicles are estimated to increase riskvii once a crash has occurred. In addition, m ale drivers are estimated to have essentially no effect on crash frequency, but are associated with a statistically significant increase in fatality risk once a

crash occurs. And d riving at night, on high

- speed or rural roads

, are associated wi th higher increases in risk per crash than on crash frequency. These unexpected results suggest that important control variables are not being included in the regression models. For example, crashes involving male drivers

, in vehicles equipped with AWD, or that occur at night on rural or high

- speed roads, may not be more frequent but rather more severe than other crashes, and thus lead to greater fatality or casualty risk. And drivers who select vehicles with certain safety features may tend to drive mor e carefully, resulting in vehicle safety features designed to improve crashworthiness or compatibility , such as side airbags, being also associated with lower crash frequency.

In contrast with NHTSA’s results for US fatalities per VMT, allowing footprint to vary along with weight results in little change in the estimated effect of mass reduction on casualty risk per crash than when footprint is held constant ; however, the estimated detrimental effect of mass reduction on casualty risk per crash in lighter cars is increased just enough to make it statistically significant . When mass is allowed to vary along with footprint, footprint reduction is estimated

to be slightly more beneficial for cars and light trucks (Alternative 3 in Table ES.2; further addressed in Section 3 of this report). As with NHTSA’s analysis of fatality risk per VMT,

lower mass is not consistently associated with increased casualty risk per crash across all footprint deciles for any combination of vehicle type and crash type. Lower m ass is associated

with increase d casualty risk per crash in a majority of footprint deciles for 9 of the 27 crash and

vehicle combination s, but few of these increases are statistically significant. On the other hand,

lower mass is associated with decrease d risk in a majority of footprint deciles for 12 of the 27

crash and vehicle combinations.

Similar to our findin gs on US fatality risk per VMT, after accounting for all of the control variables in the logistic regression model, except for vehicle mass and footprint, we find that the correlation between mass and the casualty risk per crash by vehicle model is very lo w. There also is no significant correlation between the residual, unexplained risk and vehicle weight. These results corroborate our earlier finding that, even after accounting for many vehicle, driver, and crash factors, the variation in risk by vehicle model is quite large and unrelated to vehicle weight (addressed in more detail in Section 4). The large remaining unexplained variation in risk by vehicle model could be attributable to other differences in vehicle design, or how drivers who

sele ct certain vehicles drive them. It is possible that including variables that account for these factors in the regression models would change the estimated relationship between mass or footprint and risk.

Other changes in the data and variables used in th e regression models result in changes in the

estimated effect of mass or footprint reductions on casualty risk per crash, as summarized in

Table s ES.2 and ES.3 . For example:

• Regression analyses using police

- reported crash data from states m ust use control variables

to account for differences in definitions of “serious” or “incapacitating” injuries, and reporting requirements, across states. Removing the 12 state control variables results in a large reduction in estimated casualty risk per c rash from mass reduction in all five vehicleviii types, a large increase in estimated risk from footprint reduction in cars and CUVs/minivans, and a small reduction in estimated risk from footprint reduction in light trucks (Alternative 4 in Table ES.2). In cluding only two variables to control for states with high and low casualty risk per crash substantially reduces the estimated effect of mass and footprint reduction on casualty risk (Alternative 5 in Table ES.2), while including the 12

control variables for individual states reduces the estimated effect a little bit more. These results indicate that excluding control variables for the state in which a crash occurred from a regression model using state police

- reported crash data can give inaccurate estim ates of the effect of mass or footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash (addressed in Section 5.1).

• Calculating risk as casualty crashes, rather than total casualties, per crash results in little

change in the association between mass or footprint and risk, but does increase the small

estimated detrimental effect of footprint reduction in cars on risk , and makes it statistically significant (Alternative 6 in Table ES.2; addressed in Section 5.2).

• Adding control varia bles for vehicle manufact urer estimates that lower mass is associated

with higher casualty risk per crash for cars , with little ef fect on the estimates for light trucks and CUVs/minivans. Accounting for vehicle manufacturer turns the small estimated

increase in casualty risk per crash from footprint reduction in cars to a small decrease in risk, and slightly increases the estimated casualty risk per crash in light trucks and CUVs/minivans (Alternative 7 in Table ES. 3 ). Also including control variables for five luxury v ehicle makes has little effect on the estimated relationships between mass or footprint and casualty risk per crash (Alternative 8 in Table ES.3; addressed in Section 5.3)

.

Table ES. 2 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per
crash , under alternative regression model specifications

Variable Case vehicle

typeLBNL 13-statecasualties per policereported crash1.Single regressionmodel for all crashtypes2.Weighted bycurrent distributionof fatalities3.Excludingfootprintor weight4. Excluding statecontrol variables5. Including onlytwo state controlvariables6. Casualty crashesper crash

Mass

reduction Cars < 3106 lbs 0.09% 0.07% 0.08% 0.25%

- 0.64%

- 0.13% 0.30%

Cars > 3106 lbs

- 0.77%

- 0.87%

- 0.86%

- 0.61%

- 1.68%

- 1.19%

- 0.63%

LTs < 4594 lbs

- 0.11%

- 0.11%

- 0.09%

- 0.38%

- 0.21%

- 0.15%

- 0.04%

LTs > 4594 lbs

- 0.62%

- 0.74%

- 0.67%

- 0.78%

- 1.84%

- 0.75%

- 0.61%

CUV/ minivan

- 0.16%

- 0.31%

- 0.26% 0.13%

- 2.09%

- 0.47%

- 0.21% Footprint

reduction Cars 0.23% 0.50% 0 .41%

- 0.10% 1.52% 0.45% 0.34%

LTs

- 0.25% 0.05%

- 0.13%

- 0.49%

- 1.05%

- 0.30%

- 0.05%

CUV/ minivan 0.56% 0.68% 0.75% 0.56% 3.79% 0.69% 0.80%

Estimates that are statistically significant at the 95% level are shown in red.

• An alternative to control varia bles for vehicle manufacturers is a single continuous variable

for the vehicle’s initial purchase price; purchase price may better account for other differences in vehicle design that may influence traffic safety. Adding this single variable

turns the est imated small increase in casualty risk per crash from mass reduction into anix estimated small decrease in risk for lighter

- than

- average cars, and increases the estimated

beneficial effect from mass reduction for other vehicles, particularly heavier

- than

- ave rage

cars and CUVs/minivans ; the price variable makes the estimated effect of footprint

reduction slightly more detrimental in cars, more beneficial in light

- duty trucks, and less

detrimental in CUVs/minivans (Alternative 9 in Table ES. 3 ; also addressed in Section 5. 3 ).

• As we found in our assessment of NHTSA’s analysis of US fatality risk per VMT,

including calendar year variables in the regression models appears to weaken the benefit of side air bags in cars and CUVs/minivans, and compatibility measures and ESC in light trucks. These variables also appear to minimize the increased risk of SUVs and heavy

- duty pickup trucks. Excluding the calendar year variables from the regression models slightly

reduces the beneficial effect of mass reduction on casual ty risk per crash in light trucks and CUVs/minivans, and slightly increases the detrimental effect of footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash in cars (Alternative 10 in Table ES. 3 ; addressed in Section 5.4).

• Because details on the driver’s con dition or behavior are not consistently reported in the

state crash data, we cannot account for the behavior of individual drivers in our estimates. One possible surrogate for the behavior of drivers who tend to select certain vehicle models

is driver hous ehold income. Including a measure of household income by vehicle model makes the estimated effect of mass reduction on casualty risk per crash more beneficial, and the estimated effect of footprint reduction more detrimental, for cars and CUVs/minivans, b ut has little effect on the estimates for light trucks (Alternative 11 in Table ES.3).

• Including all

- wheel

- drive, sports, and police cars, and fullsize vans results in virtually no

change in the estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on casua lty risk per crash for cars or light trucks (Alternative 12 in Table ES. 3 ; addressed in Section 5.5).

Table ES. 3 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per
crash

, excluding certain data or using differen t control variables

Variable Case vehicle

typeLBNL 13-statecasualties per policereported crash7. Accounting forvehicle manufacturer8.Accounting forvehicle manufacturerplus five luxurybrands9. Accounting forinitial vehiclepurchase price10. Excluding CYvariables11. Accounting formedian householdincome12. Including sports,squad, AWD cars andfullsize vans13. Including alladditional data

Mass

reduction Cars < 3106 lbs 0.09% 0.85% 0.96%

- 0.35% 0.00%

- 0.04% 0.10% 0.19%

Cars > 3106 lbs

- 0 .77% 0.78% 0.76%

- 1.72%

- 0.99%

- 1.12%

- 0.76%

- 0.54%

LTs < 4594 lbs

- 0.11%

- 0.24%

- 0.24%

- 0.14% 0.43%

- 0.05%

- 0.09%

- 0.02%

LTs > 4594 lbs

- 0.62%

- 0.65%

- 0.60%

- 0.71%

- 0.20%

- 0.68%

- 0.64%

- 0.64%

CUV/ minivan

- 0.16%

- 0.05%

- 0.40%

- 0.64% 0.28%

- 0.65%

- 0. 16%

- 0.34% Footprint

reduction Cars 0.23%

- 0.52%

- 0.60% 0.29% 0.69% 0.69% 0.25% 0.02%

LTs

- 0.25%

- 0.09%

- 0.11%

- 0.40%

- 0.49%

- 0.26%

- 0.27%

- 0.30%

CUV/ minivan 0.56% 0.88% 1.16% 0.41% 0.47% 1.01% 0.56% 0.44%

Estimates that are statistically significan t at the 95% level are shown in red.x • Adding data from three additional states, including vehicles with unreported model year,

correcting VIN transcription errors, and expanding the analysis to calendar years 2000, 2001, and 2008, increases the number of state crash records by about 40 percent. Including these data in the regression analyses makes the estimated effect of mass reduction in cars and lighter light trucks more detrimental, and in CUVs/minivans more beneficial. Including these data slightly reduces the estimated detrimental effect of footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash in cars and CUVs/minivans . However, increasing the sample size included in the regression analysis by 40% does not noticeably reduce the confidence intervals around the point estimates ( Alternative 13 in Table ES. 3 ; addressed in Section 5.6).

Table ES. 4 shows the results of additional sensitivity tests NHTSA conducted in response to comments from peer reviewers of its preliminary 2011 report. Replacing vehicle footprint with

its two components, track width and wheelbase, increases the estimated beneficial effect of mass

reduction on casualty risk per crash, mak ing it statistically significant for four of the five vehicle

types , as shown in Alternative 1 4 . Decreasing track width is as sociated with a significan t
increase in casualty risk per crash , while decreasing wheelbase is associated with a small

decrease in risk. Weighting the distribution of fatalities in CUVs and minivans by their respective shares of sales in 2010 (which reflec ts more CUVs and fewer minivans) has little

effect on the estimated effects (Alternative 1 5 ). Alternative 1 6 removes non

- significant control variables from each of the regression models, which results in only small changes in the

estimated effects.

Table ES. 4 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per
crash , alternative regression model specifications suggested by NHTSA peer reviewers

Variable Case vehicle

typeLBNL 13-state casualtiesper police-reported crash14. Including trackwidth and wheelbaseinstead of footprint15. Reweighting CUVsand minivans by 2010sales16. Excluding nonsignificant controlvariables

Mass

reduction Cars < 3106 lbs 0.09%

- 0.37% 0.09% 0.17%

Cars > 3106 lbs

- 0.77%

- 1.05%

- 0.77%

- 0.58%

LTs < 4594 lbs

- 0.11%

- 0.40%

- 0.11%

- 0.24%

LTs > 4594 lbs

- 0.62%

- 0.75%

- 0.62%

- 0.68%

CUV/ minivan

- 0.16%

- 0.34%

- 0.24%

- 0.03% Footprint

reduction Cars 0.23%

— 0.23% 0.11%

LTs

- 0.25%

— - 0.25%

- 0.15%

CUV/ minivan 0.56%

— 0.53% 0.64%

Track

width

r eduction Cars

— 2.58%

— — LTs

— 0.40%

— — CUV/ minivan

— 2.10%

— —

Wheel

base

reduction Cars

— - 0.59%

— — LTs

— - 0.15%

— — CUV/ minivan

— - 0.33%

— — Estimates that are statistically significant at the 95% level are shown in red.xi In conclusion, casualty risk per crash is not necessarily a better metric than fatality risk per VMT for evaluating the effect of mass or footprint reduction on risk; rather, it provides a different perspective in assessing the benefits or drawbacks of mass and footprint reduction on safety in vehicles. However, it does allow the risk per VMT to be separated into its two components, crash frequency and risk per crash. Our analysis indicates that much of the estimated detrimental effect of mass or footprint reduction on risk can be attributed to the tendency for crash frequency , rather than crashworthiness/compatibility (risk once a crash has occurred), to increase as vehicle mass or footprint decreases

.

As with our analysis of US fatalities per VMT, this report concludes that the estimated effect of mass reduction on casualty risk per crash is small, and is overwhelmed by other control

variab les, such as vehicle type, specific safety technologies, and crash conditions such as whether the crash occurred at night, in a rural county, or on a high

- speed road. This report

indicates that the effects are sensitive to what variables and data are included in the regression analysis. Finally, as in our analysis of US fatality risk per VMT, this report shows that after accounting for many vehicle, driver, and crash variables there remains a wide variation in casualty risk per crash by ve hicle make and model, and this variation is unrelated to vehicle

mass.

Although the purpose of the NHTSA and LBNL reports is to estimate the effect of vehicle mass

reduction on societal risk, this is not exactly what the regression models are estimating

. Rather, they are estimating the recent historical relationship between mass and risk, after accounting for

most measurable differences between vehicles, drivers, and crash times and locations. In essence, the regression models are comparing the risk of a 2600

- lb Dodge Neon with that of a 2500

- lb Honda Civic, after attempting to account for all other differences between the two vehicles. The

models are not estimating the effect of literally removing 100 lbs from the Neon, leaving everything else unchanged.

In addition, the analyses are based on the relationship of vehicle mass and footprint on risk for recent vehicle designs (model year 2000 to 2007). These relationships may or may not cont inue into the future as manufacturers utilize new vehicle designs and incorporate new technologies, such as more extensive use of strong lightweight materials and specific safety technologies. Therefore, throughout this report we use the phrase “the estim ated effect of mass (or footprint) reduction on risk” as shorthand for “the estimated change in risk as a function of its relationship to mass (or footprint) for vehicle models of recent design. ”xiixiii Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... i Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... iii

Table of Contents

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ xiii List of Tables and Figures

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... xiii

1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 1 1.1. Expected relationships between vehicle mass, size and fatality risk

................................ .... 3

2. 13

- state fatality and casualty risk per crash

................................ ................................ ................. 4

2.1. Data and methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5 2.2. Accounting for the state in which the crash occurred

................................ ........................ 11

2.3. Effect of mass and fo otprint reduction on fatality and casualty risk per crash

.................. 13

3. Multi

- collinearity between vehicle mass and footprint

................................ ............................. 33 4. Casualty risk by vehicle model

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 40

5. Sensi tivity of 13

- state casualty risk per crash results to data used and model specification

..... 52

5.1. State control variables

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 52

5.2. Alternative measure of risk

................................ ................................ ................................ 53

5.3. Ve hicle manufacturer

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 53 5.4. Calendar year variables

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 56

5.5. Effect of household income

................................ ................................ ................................ 60 5.6. Effect of including sports, police, and all

- wheel drive cars, and fullsi ze vans

.................. 61 5.7. Effect of adding additional data

................................ ................................ ......................... 62 5.8. Effect of changes suggested by NHTSA peer reviewers

................................ .................... 64

6. Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 66

7. Ref erences

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 75

List of Tables and Figures

Table ES.1. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on two components of 13

- state fatality and casualty risk per VMT: crash frequency (crashes per VMT) and crashworthiness/compatibility (risk per crash)

................................ ................................ ............... vi

Table ES.2. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, under alternative regression model specifications

................................ ............................... viii Table ES.3. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, excluding certa in data or using different control variables

................................ .................... ix Table ES.4. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, alternative regression model specifications suggested by NHTSA peer reviewers

................ x Table 2.1. Control variables used in regression models, by subject vehicle type

........................... 7 Table 2.2. Fatal and casualty crash involvements for model year 2000 to 2007 passenger cars in

2002 to 2008

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 8 Figure 2.1. Distribution of crash

- involved vehicles, by vehicle and crash type

.............................. 9 Figure 2.2. Driver fatality risk per 100,000 crashes in 16 states

................................ ................... 12 Figure 2.3. Driver c asualty risk per 10,000 crashes in 16 states

................................ ................... 12 Figure 2.4. Percent of police

- reported crashes that are non

- injury crashes, in 16 states

............... 13xiv Figure 2.5. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduct ion on three types of risk, by vehicle type

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 15 Figure 2.6. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on three types of risk per VMT, by vehicle type

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 17 Figure 2.7. Estimated effect of mass o r footprint reduction on crashes per VMT (vehicle crash frequency), fatalities per crash (vehicle crashworthiness/compatibility), and fatalities per VMT, by vehicle type

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 18 Figure 2.8. Estimated effect of mass or footprint red uction on crashes per VMT (vehicle crash frequency), casualties per crash (vehicle crashworthiness/compatibility), and casualties per VMT, by vehicle type

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 19 Figure 2.9. One

- vehicle, non

- injury crashes and all crashes per VMT, by vehicle type

............... 20 Figure 2.10. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on fatalities per crash and per serious crash, by vehicle type

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 21 Figure 2.11. Estimated effect of mass or footprin t reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, across all crash types and weighted average effect in each type of crash

........ 22 Figure 2.12. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty ris k per crash in cars, by type of crash

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 23 Figure 2.13. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash in light trucks, by type of crash

................................ ................................ ................................ . 24 Figure 2.14. Estimate d effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash in CUVs/minivans, by type of crash

................................ ................................ .......................... 25 Table 2.3. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, by type of cras h

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 Table 2.4. Estimated effect of variables on US fatality risk, 13

- state fatality risk, and 13

- state casualty risk per VMT

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 27 Table 2.5. Estimated effect of variables on US fatality risk per VM T, and 13

- state fatality risk

and 13

- state casualty risk per crash

................................ ................................ ....................... 28 Table 2.6. Estimated effect of variables on crashes per VMT, fatalities per crash, and casualties per crash, using data from 13 states

................................ ................................ ....................... 31 Figure 3.1. Correlation between vehicle curb weight and footprint, by vehicle model and three vehicle types

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 34 Figure 3.2. Correlation between vehicle curb weight and footprint, by vehicle model and seven

vehicle t ypes

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 34 Table 3.1. Correlation coefficients and variance inflation factors of curb weight with footprint, by vehicle type

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 Figure 3.3. Estimated effect of reduction in mass or footprint on 13

- st ate casualty risk per crash, by vehicle type: holding footprint constant, allowing footprint to vary with mass, and allowing mass to vary with footprint

................................ ................................ ..................... 36 Figure 3.4. Range in curb weight for the footprint deciles, by vehicle type

................................ . 37 Table 3.2. Number of footprint deciles in which lower mass is associated with increasing or decreasing 13

- state casualty risk per crash, by vehicle and crash type

................................ . 38 Figure 3.5. Estimated effect of car mass reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, by footprint decile and crash type

................................ ................................ .............................. 39 Figure 3.6. Estimated effect of light truck mass reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, by footprint decile and c rash type

................................ ................................ .............................. 39xv Figure 3.7. Estimated effect of CUV/minivan mass reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, by footprint decile and crash type

................................ ................................ ......................... 40 Figure 4.1. Relationship between 13

- state casualt y risk per crash and curb weight, with vehicles grouped into 100

- lb increments of curb weight, by vehicle type

................................ .......... 41 Figure 4.2. Relationship between 13

- state casualty risk per crash and curb weight, with vehicles grouped into 10 0

- lb increments of curb weight, passenger cars

................................ ........... 41 Figure 4.3. Relationship between 13

- state casualty risk per crash and curb weight, with vehicles grouped into 100

- lb increments of curb weight, light trucks

................................ ................ 42 Figure 4.4. Relationship between 13

- state casualty risk per crash and curb weight, with vehicles grouped into 100

- lb increments of curb weight, CUVs and minivans

................................ .. 42 Figure 4.5. Relationship between 13

- state casua lty risk per crash and curb weight for minivans, by average risk for 100

- lb increments of curb weight and individual models

...................... 43 Figure 4.6. Relationship between 13

- state casualty risk per crash in crashes with stationary object s and curb weight, by vehicle type

................................ ................................ ............... 44 Table 4.1. Correlation between risk and a decrease in curb weight, for vehicles grouped in 100

- lb curb weight bins

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 44 Figure 4.7. 13

- state casualty risk per c rash and curb weight, by vehicle model

........................... 45 Figure 4.8. Predicted 13

- state casualty risk per crash after accounting for all driver, crash, and vehicle variables except mass and footprint, vs. curb weight

................................ ............... 46 Figure 4.9. Residual 13

- state casualty risk per crash after accounting for all driver, crash, and vehicle variables except mass and footprint, vs. curb weight

................................ ............... 47 Table 4.2. Relationship between actual, predicted, and residual 13

- state casualty risk per crash,

and vehicle mass reduction, after accounting for all driver, crash, and vehicle variables except mass and footprint, by vehicle type and model

................................ .......................... 48 Table 4.3. Relationship between actua l, predicted, and residual 13

- state casualty risk per crash,

and vehicle footprint reduction, after accounting for all driver, crash, and vehicle variables except mass and footprint, by vehicle type and model

................................ .......................... 48

Table 4.4. Rel ationship between frequency of one

- vehicle non

- rollover crashes and household income, vehicle mass, and initial vehicle purchase price, by vehicle type and model

.......... 50 Figure 4.10. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state crashes per VMT, after accounting for vehicle purchase price or median household income, by vehicle type

......... 51 Figure 5.1. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash by

vehicl e type, under two methods of controlling for the state in which the crash occurred

... 52 Figure 5.2. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualties and casualty crashes per crash, by vehicle type

................................ ................................ ......................... 53 Figure 5.3. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, after controlling for vehicle manufacturer

................................ ....................... 54 Figure 5.4. Estimated effect of mass or foo tprint reduction on US fatalities per VMT, after controlling for vehicle manufacturer or for initial vehicle purchase price, by vehicle type

.. 55 Figure 5.5. Estimated effect of calendar year variables on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, by vehicle type

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 57 Figure 5.6. Estimated effect of calendar year variables on light truck risk, by crash type

............ 57 Figure 5.7. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, including and excluding calendar year variables

................................ ............. 58 Figure 5.8. Estimated effect of selected control variables on car risk, including and excluding calendar year variables

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 59xvi Figure 5.9. Estimated effect of selected control variables on light truck risk, including and excluding calendar year variables

................................ ................................ .......................... 59 Figure 5.10. Estimated effect of selected control variables on CUV/minivan r isk, including and excluding calendar year variables

................................ ................................ .......................... 60 Figure 5.11. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualties per crash, after controlling for median household income, by vehicle type

................................ .................. 61 Figure 5.12. Estimated effect of mass and footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, after including sports, police, and all

- wheel drive cars, and fullsize passenger and cargo vans

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 62 Figure 5.13. Number of vehicles involved in casualty crashes by vehicle type, using additional

state crash data

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 63 Figure 5.14. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash by vehicle

typ e, using additional state crash data

................................ ................................ ................... 64 Figure 5.15. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, replacing footprint with track width and wheelbase

................................ ..................... 65 Figure 5.16. Estimated effect of mass and footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash, after reweighting CUV/minivan fatalities to 2010 sales and excluding non

- significant control variables, by vehicle type

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 65

Table 6.1. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on two components of 13

- state fatality and casualty risk per VMT: crash frequency (crashes per VMT) and crashworthiness/compatibility (risk per crash)

................................ ................................ ...... 68

Table 6.2. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, under alternative regression model specifications

................................ ................................ . 71 Table 6.3. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, excluding certain data or using different control variables

................................ ................... 72 Table 6.4. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, alternative regression model specifications suggested by NHTSA pee r reviewers

.............. 731 1. Introduction

NHTSA recently completed a logistic regression analysis updating its 2003 and 2010 studies of the relationship between vehicle mass and US fatality risk per vehicle mile traveled (VMT ;
Ka hane, 2012 ). The new study updates the previous analyses in several ways: updated FARS data for 2002 to 2008 involving MY00 to MY07 vehicles are used; induced exposure data from police reported crashes in several additional states are added; a new veh icle category for car

based crossover utility vehicles (CUVs) and minivans is created; crashes with other light

- duty vehicles are divided into two groups based on the crash partner vehicle’s weight, and a category for all other fatal crashes is added; and new control variables for new safety technologies and designs, such as electronic stability controls (ESC), side airbags, and methods to meet voluntary agreement to improve light truck compatibility with cars, are included.

In a companion report ( Wenzel

, 2012 b )

, we use the updated databases NHTSA has created to replicate their findings on the relationship between vehicle weight, size (actually footprint, or vehicle wheelbase times track width), and US fatality risk per vehicle miles traveled (VMT), fo r model year 2000 to 2007 light

- duty vehicles involved in fatal crashes between 2002 and 2008. The data are examined in slightly different ways, to get a deeper understanding of the relationship between reductions in vehicle mass and footprint, and overal l safety.

This report compares the logistic regression results of the NHTSA analysis of US fatality risk per VMT with an analysis of 13

- state casualty risk per crash. This analysis differs from the NHTSA analysis in two respects: first, it analyzes ris k per crash, using data on all police

- reported crashes from thirteen states, rather than risk per estimated VMT; and second, it analyzes casualty (fatality plus serious injury) risk, as opposed to fatality risk. There are several good reasons to investiga te the effect of mass and footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash.

First, risk per VMT , which NHTSA has studied extensively, includes two effects that influence whether a person is killed or seriously injured in a crash: how well a v ehicle can be driven ( based

on its handling, acceleration, and braking capabilities) to avoid being involved in a serious crash (crash avoidance), and, once a serious crash has occurred, how well a vehicle protects its occupants from fatality or serious in jury (crashworthiness) as well as the occupants of any crash partner (compatibility)

. By encompassing both of these aspects of vehicle design, r isk per VMT gives a complete picture of how vehicle design can promote, or reduce, road user s afety. On the other hand, risk per crash isolates the second of these two safety effects, crashworthiness/compatibility , by examining the effect of mass and footprint reduction on how well a vehicle protects its occupants once a crash occur s. In general, NHTSA safety regulations focus on crashworthiness (e.g. crash test requirements and NCAP star ratings, seatbelt and airbag requirements, and roof crush standards), although some standards require the installation of technologies, such as au tomated braking systems (ABS) and electronic stability control (ESC), that improve a vehicle’s crash avoidance.

Second, e stimating risk on a per crash basis requires using data on police

- reported crashes from

states . Although NHTSA generates a national s ample of police

- reported crashes, the N ational Automotive Sampling System, General Estimates System (NAS S GES ) , that can be used to estimate per crash risks on a national basis, the database is relatively small and may be biased2 towards crashes that occur in relatively urban areas . Only sixteen states currently record the vehicle identification number of all vehicles involved in police

- reported crashes, which is necessary to determine the model year, make

, and model of e ach vehicle, in order to assign its correct curb weight, footprint, type, and installed safety features (such as side airbags, ABS, ESC, and all

- wheel drive). The sixteen states that report VIN information represent about one

third of the country, so estimating fatality risk per crash from these sixteen states increases the statistical uncertainty of the analysis, relative to that from estimating fatality risk per VMT using

all US fatalities. 1 Extending the analysis to casualties (fatalities plus serious/incapacitating injuries) reduces the statistical uncertainty of analyzing just fatalities per crash. In addition, a serious incapacitating injury can be just as traumatic to the victim and her family, and costly from an economic perspective, as a fatality. Limiting the analysis to the risk of fatality, which is an extremely rare event, ignores the effect vehicle design may have on reducing the large number of incapacitating injuries that occur each year on the nation’s roadways

.

In an earlier report LBNL compared fatality risk per vehicle registration

- year and casualty risk per crash, using the same database of all police

- reported crashes in five states ( Wenzel , 201 2 a). For the most part, the trend in casualty risk by vehicle type is quite similar to that of fatality risk,

when vehicle re gistration

- years are used as the measure of exposure, although casualty risks are substantially lower than fatality risks for sports cars and for pickups. The trend in casualty risk by vehicle type is similar regardless of whether vehicle registration yea rs or police

- reported crashes are used as the measure of exposure. Casualty risks for subcompact and compact cars are relatively lower per crash than per vehicle, while casualty risks for large and import luxury cars, minivans, large SUVs, and pickups are relatively higher per crash than per vehicle. We accounted for miles driven by vehicle make and model using odometer readings from vehicle emission inspection and maintenance programs in four of the five states. For most vehicle types, adjusting casualt y risk per vehicle registration

- year for miles driven has little to no effect (although the adjustment does substantially increase casualty risk for sports cars, which are driven many fewer miles than other vehicles, by 30%, and slightly reduces casualty r isk for

fullsize vans and 3⁄4

- ton pickups, which are driven more miles than the average vehicle).

In summary, casualty risk per crash is not necessarily a better metric than fatality risk per VMT; rather, it provides a different perspective in assessing the benefits or drawbacks of mass and footprint reduction on safety in vehicles. Unless noted otherwise, all casualty risks in this report are societal risk, including fatalities and serious injuries in the case vehicle and any crash partners, and include no t only driver casualties but passenger casualties as well.

The section below summarizes the expected relationships between vehicle mass, size and fatality

risk. In Section 2 we reproduce the logistic regression models NHTSA used in its analysis of US fatality risk per VMT, and compare the estimated effect of mass and footprint reduction on US fatality risk per VMT, 13

- state fatality risk per crash, and 13

- state casualty risk per crash

. Section 3 examines in more detail the mult i

- collinearity between vehicle mass and footprint, and

1 This report further limits the analysis to the thirteen states that provide the posted speed limit of the roadway on which the crash occurred, an important variable NHTSA uses in its regression model s that approximates the travel speed of the vehicles involved in the crash. In Section 5 we run a sensitivity analysis using data from the three additional states that report VIN but not posted speed limit, using a technique developed by NHTSA to impute t he posted speed limit based on the type of roadway on which the crash occurred (NHTSA, 2003).3 methods to address that multi

- collinearity when assessing their effect on casualty risk per crash

. In Section 4 we examine the relationship between vehicle mass and casualty risk per crash by

vehicle model, before and after accounting for the differences in driver characteristics, crash locations, and other vehicle attributes included in the NHTSA regression models . In Section 5 we test alternative specifications of the regression models, in order to examine the sensitivity of

our results to different model specifications , and using additional data

.

1.1. Expected r elationships between vehicle mass, size and fatality risk

In Section 1.5 of its 2011 report, NHTSA describes the hypothetical physical fac tors of vehicle design that could explain the historical relationship between vehicle mass and societal fatality risk. One would expect lighter vehicles to have higher fatality rates for their own occupants, all else being equal, for several reasons:

• in frontal or rear crashes, light vehicles tend to be smaller than heavy vehicles, and therefore

do not have the crush space which protects occupants;

• in two

- vehicle crashes, as the mass differential between the two vehicles increases, the delta

V (chan ge in velocity) for the lighter vehicle, and therefore the risk to its occupants,

increases relative to that of the heavier vehicle. • in crashes with a stationary object additional mass may be sufficient to knock the object,

such as a tree or pole, down , allowing the vehicle to continue moving and reducing its delta V than if it was completely stopped by the object. In a previous study NHTSA estimated that the object is knocked down in about 25% of frontal collisions with stationary objects (Partyka, 199 5).

• in crashes with a medium

- or heavy

- duty truck, additional mass in the light

- duty vehicle

would transfer more of its momentum to the truck, reducing the delta V of, and fatality risk in, the light vehicle without increasing the risk in the heavier ve hicle.

NHTSA notes that accounting for vehicle size in the regression analysis may reduce or eliminate the estimated benefit of additional vehicle mass correlated with additional crush space. And that accounting for societal risks, that is risk of fatalit y both to the occupants of the subject vehicle and its crash partner, may reduce or eliminate the effect of mass differential in two

- vehicle crashes, as increased fatalities in the lighter vehicle may be offset by reduced fatalities in the

heavier vehicle.

On the other hand, there are situations where lower mass is expected to reduce fatality risk:

• in crashes with an immovable stationary object, reducing the mass of a vehicle while

maintaining its crush space and structural strength would lower the kine tic energy of the crash, reducing the amount of energy for the vehicle’s structure to absorb, and likely reducing occupant fatality risk; • in rollovers, reducing mass without changing the vehicle’s roof structure would reduce the

force applied on the roo f once a vehicle turns over.

• lower

- mass vehicles should respond more quickly to steering, braking, or acceleration,

thereby reducing their crash frequency.4 Changing the size of a vehicle is expected to reduce risk in several ways. Increasing wheelbase or track width, or better yet frontal or side overhang, can increase crush space and reduce risk in all types of crashes. Adding to a vehicle’s track width also increases a vehicle’s static stability, and reduces its propensity to rollover.

Changing othe r vehicle dimensions also can reduce risk. Lowering bumpers or the “average height of force” in larger, heavier vehicles such as pickups and SUVs can make them more compatible with cars, and reduce risk to occupants in crash partner vehicles. Similarly, raising the door sill of a car provides more structure to engage with a bumper of a taller vehicle, such as a pickup or SUV, striking the car in the side. And lowering the center of gravity also is important in increasing stability and preventing rollover s. Finally, strengthening a vehicle’s frontal or side structure can increase the amount of energy it can absorb in all types of crashes; however, increasing frontal stiffness will likely have negative impacts on the occupants of a crash partner in a front al collision.

All of these hypothetical effects of the changes in vehicle mass, footprint, or other dimensions assume no other changes to the vehicle. However, this is rarely the case, as often the source of the additional mass is the installation of a p articular safety feature (such as 4

- wheel drive or ESC), and manufacturers often make other changes to a vehicle design at the same time they change its mass or footprint. In short, it is possible that other changes in vehicle design, as well

as introduct ion of safety technologies, can mitigate the hypothetical increase in risk from reducing vehicle mass or footprint.

In Section 1.6 NHTSA discusses the issue that, despite their theoretical advantage in terms of handling, braking, and accelerating, small a nd light vehicles historically have had higher crash and insurance claim frequency per vehicle mile traveled. This discrepancy suggests that small and light vehicles have not been driven as well as larger, heavier ones. NHTSA provides two hypotheses for w hy this would be the case: that less capable drivers tend to chose smaller and lighter vehicles; and that drivers of more maneuverable smaller and lighter vehicles tend to drive them more recklessly. As an example of the latter, NHTSA cites the high crash rates in vehicles with large engines, which in theory should reduce crash frequency because they allow a vehicle to accelerate out of dangerous situations.

In summary, the complexity of the factors in vehicle design and operation makes it extremely

diffi cult to isolate their effect on occupant and societal risk. As NHTSA concludes, “although [the 2010 NHTSA] report and this one both concentrate on the effects of mass and footprint, because that is their purpose, these effects are indeed small relative to design and engineering, which shape a vehicle’s intrinsic safety and also bear indirectly on its fatality rates by influencing what types of drivers choose the vehicle.”

2. 13

- state fatality and casualty risk per crash

For its analysis of the effect of changes in vehicle mass on US fatality risk per VMT, NHTSA used information on all US traffic fatalities, from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). For the measure of exposure, NHTSA used a subset of non

- culpable vehicles involved

in two

- vehicle crashes from police

- reported crash data from thirteen states; NHTSA refers to this5 subset of vehicles as “induced exposure” cases. The induced exposure cases provide information

on driver and crash characteristics for vehicles that are not involved in fa tal crashes, as in the FARS data. NHTSA developed weighting factors to scale the induced exposure vehicles up to national level vehicle registrations. NHTSA then multiplied the vehicle registration

- years by annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) factors it developed by vehicle type and age, from odometer data provided by RL Polk. For more details on NHTSA’s data and methodology, refer

to Kahane, 2011.

In this section we use basically the same logistic regression models NHTSA developed for their analysis of US fatality risk per VMT to assess the effect of mass and footprint reduction on 13

- state fatality and casualty risk per crash, using data from all police

- reported crashes in thirteen

states. We also examine in detail the effect mass and footprint reduct ion have on 13

- state casualty risk per crash in each type of crash, as well as the effects the various other vehicle, driver, and crash condition variables have on casualty risk per crash.

2.1. Data and methods

For its analysis NHTSA used FARS data on f atal crashes, and police

- reported crash data from 13 states, for MY00 to MY07 light

- duty vehicles between calendar years 2002 and 2008. NHTSA

used a subset of non

- culpable vehicles in two

- vehicle crashes as a measure of what it calls

“ induced exposure ” ; t hese records provide distributions of on

- road vehicles by vehicle year, make, and model, driver age and gender, and crash time and location (day vs. night, rural vs. urban counties, and high

- speed roads). Each induced exposure record is then given a regis tered vehicle weighting factor, so that each induced exposure record represents a number of national vehicle registrations; the sum of the weighting factors equals the number of vehicles registered in the country. Each record is also given a VMT weighting factor, based on vehicle year, make/model, and age, using odometer data provided by R.L. Polk. The data can be used to estimate US fatality risk per registered vehicle or VMT

. Please refer to Sections 2.3 through 2.6

of NHTSA 20 12 for a more thorough discussion of how the vehicle and VMT weighting factors

were derived.

NHTSA compiled a database of the following vehicle attributes, by model year, make and model: curb weight and footprint (wheelbase times track width), as well as the presence of all

wheel drive and automated braking systems. NHTSA added several new variables for new safety technologies and designs: electronic stability controls (ESC), four types of side airbags, and two methods to comply with the voluntary manufac turer agreement to better align light truck bumpers to make them more compatible with other types of vehicles.

To reflect changes in the vehicle mix since the 2003 study, NHTSA added a third vehicle

category, car

- based crossover utility vehicles (CUVs) an d minivans. It also added two new crash types, for a total of nine: crashes with other light

- duty vehicles are divided into two groups based on the crash partner vehicle’s weight, and all other fatal crashes (involving more than two vehicles, etc.). The analysis involves running a logistic regression model with total crash fatalities as the dependent variable for each of the nine crash types and the three vehicle types, for a total of 27 regressions. Because all fatalities in the crash are used, the risk s reflect societal risk, rather than just the risk to the occupants of the case vehicle. The induced exposure cases6 are weighted by the number of vehicle registrations and the annual mileage, so that the models are estimating the effect of changes in the control variables on US fatalities per vehicle mile traveled (VMT).

Table 2.1 shows the control variables NHTSA used in its regression models, for each of the case vehicle types. For cars and trucks, NHTSA uses two variables (UNDRWT00, OVERWT00) for

veh icle weight, allowing the effect of weight on risk to vary for lighter and heavier cars and trucks. The determination of the two weight classes is based on the average weight for each vehicle type: 3,106 lbs for cars and 4,594 lbs for light

- duty trucks. Because there are fewer CUVs and minivans in the database, NHTSA uses a single variable, LBS100, for CUV/minivan weight. As in the 2003 and 2010 analyses, eight variables for driver age and gender are used. In the 2003 analysis, NHTSA excluded the driver airbag control variables in the regressions for rollovers and crashes with pedestrians. In the 2011 analysis, NHTSA includes the control variable ROLLCURT airbags only in the regression models for rollover crashes involving cars or CUVs/minivans; regress ion models of pedestrian crashes do not include any control variables for airbags; and the control variables for CURTAIN, COMBO, and TORSO airbags are included in regression models for all other crashes involving cars or CUVs/minivans. No airbag variables were included in the regression models for light trucks.

Rather than reporting coefficients for the variables of interest (curb weight and footprint) from a single regression model across all crash types, NHTSA reports a weighted average of the

coeffic ients from the nine regression models run for each of the nine crash types. NHTSA uses a “baseline” distribution of fatalities across the crash types, to represent the expected distribution

of fatalities in the 2017 to 2025 timeframe of the new CAFE and G HG emission standards. Similar to the 2003 study, NHTSA derives the baseline fatalities from MY04

- 09 vehicles in crashes between 2004 and 2008. NHTSA then adjusts this baseline distribution downward to account for the assumption that all vehicles in the 2017

- 2025 timeframe will have ESC installed. The assumptions used for this adjustment are taken from a NHTSA analysis that found that ESC reduces fatal rollovers by 56% in cars and 74% in light trucks; fixed

- object impacts by 47% in cars and 45% in light trucks; and other non

- pedestrian crashes by 8% in both cars and light

trucks. 2 These assumptions treat crossover SUVs and minivans as light trucks rather than cars. This “post

- ESC” distribution of fatalities by crash type is then multiplied by the regres sion coefficients for each crash type to create the weighted average effect of each control variable on risk. Table 2.2 shows the baseline distribution of fatalities, by case vehicle type and crash type,

which are used to create the overall coefficient est imates weighted by the results from the regressions for each crash type.

For our analysis of fatality and casualty risk per crash, we divided all crashes in the 13

- state databases into the nine crash categories, and three vehicle types, used by NHTSA in i ts 2011 study, for the most part using the same criteria. One important difference is that NHTSA considered only “first

- events” in classifying one

- vehicle crashes as rollovers; vehicles that struck an object (or another vehicle) prior to rolling over are not included in NHTSA’s “rollover” category. However, since all thirteen states do not consistently code “first” vs. “most harmful”

2 Sivinski R. (2011). Update of NHTSA’s 2007 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Light Vehicle Electronic Stability Control (ESC) in Crash Prevention

, NHTSA Techn ical Report No. DOT HS 811 486. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. http://www

- nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811486.pdf

.7 events in the same manner, as is done in FARS, we included all vehicles involved in single

vehicle rollover crashes in our “rollover” category, regardless of whether they struck an object prior to rolling over.

Table 2.1 . Control variables used in regression models, by subject vehicle type

Control variable Cars LTVs CUVs/minivans

UND RWT 00 C C

OVERWT 00 C C

LBS100 C

F OOTPRINT C C C

TWODOOR D

SUV D HD_PKP D

BLOCKER1 D

BLOCKER2 D

MINIVAN D

ROLLCURT * C # C #

CURTAIN * C # C #

COMBO * C # C #

TORSO * C # C #

ABS C # C #

ESC C # C # C #

AWD C # C #

DRVMALE D D D M14_30 C C C M30_50 C C C M50_70 C C C M70_96 C C C F14_30 C C C F30_50 C C C F50_70 C C C F70_96 C C C

NITE D D D

RURAL D D D

SPDLIM55 D D D HIFAT_ST D D D

VEHAGE C C C

BRANDNEW D D D

CY2002 D D D

CY2003 D D D

CY2004 D D D

CY2005 D D D

CY2007 D D D

CY2008 D D D

C: continuous variable

C #: for some models the VIN does not indicate whether a particular vehicle is equipped with that option or not. In

these cases the fraction of that model that is equipped with the particular feature is used.

D: dummy variable, coded as either 1 or 0 * The control variable for ROLLCURT airbags is only used in regression models of rollover crashes involving cars

or CUVs/minivans; regression models of pedestrian crashes do not include any control variables for airb ags; the control variables for CURTAIN, COMBO, and TORSO airbags are included in regression models for all other crashes involving cars or CUVs/minivans.8 Table 2.2 and Figure 2 .1 compare the distribution of light

- duty vehicle crashes in the U.S. from

the NHTSA 2011 report with those from the 13 states. Note that there are higher fractions of

“other” crashes (that is, crashes involving more than two vehicles, or for which not all information was available) in the 13

- state data; for example, 22% of U.S. fatal car crash

involvement s in FARS are in the “ other ” category, while 29% of fatality crash involvement s, and

32 % of casualty crash involvements, in the thirteen states are in the “other” category. The

distributions of vehicles involved in crashes in Figure 2 .1 exclude the “other” crash category , s o that the fractions of all other types of crashes equal 100% for each vehicle type

.

Table 2.2 . Fatal and casualty crash involvements for model year 2000 to 2007 passenger

cars in 2002 to 2008

Crash type Fatal crash involvements (FARS) Fatal crash invol vements (13 states) Casualty crash involvements (13 states)

Cars LTVs CUVs/

minivans Cars LTVs CUVs/

minivans Cars LTVs CUVs/

minivans

1: Rollovers 2,709 6,269 660 592 1,271 150 4,106 6,813 832 2: w/object 9,373 7,272 1,319 1,862 1,343 248 13,525 9,69 9 1,934

3: Ped etc. 6,514 6,493 1,904 2,114 1,751 601 11,430 7,501 3,150

4: w/HDT 3,346 2,371 680 1,005 606 235 4,976 2,973 1,106 5: w/lgt car 4,258 5,667 1,245 1,229 1,328 375 17,064 11,906 4,211 6: w/hvy car 4,746 4,928 1,211 1,063 1,041 324 14,159 9 ,433 3,380 7: w/lgt LT 3,149 2,670 622 1,153 868 267 13,565 8,667 3,095 8: w/hvy LT 3,622 2,196 685 1,047 526 202 9,025 5,221 2,149

9: Other 10,487 9,407 2,810 4,177 3,364 1,068 41,791 28,304 10,568

Total 48,204 47,273 11,136 14,242 12,098 3,470 129,64 1 90,517 30,425

1: Rollovers 5.6% 13.3% 5.9% 4.2% 10.5% 4.3% 3.2% 7.5% 2.7% 2: w/object 19.4% 15.4% 11.8% 13.1% 11.1% 7.1% 10.4% 10.7% 6.4%

3: Ped etc. 13.5% 13.7% 17.1% 14.8% 14.5% 17.3% 8.8% 8.3% 10.4%

4: w/HDT 6.9% 5.0% 6.1% 7.1% 5.0% 6.8 % 3.8% 3.3% 3.6% 5: w/lgt car 8.8% 12.0% 11.2% 8.6% 11.0% 10.8% 13.2% 13.2% 13.8% 6: w/hvy car 9.8% 10.4% 10.9% 7.5% 8.6% 9.3% 10.9% 10.4% 11.1% 7: w/lgt LT 6.5% 5.6% 5.6% 8.1% 7.2% 7.7% 10.5% 9.6% 10.2% 8: w/hvy LT 7.5% 4.6% 6.2% 7.4% 4.3% 5.8% 7.0% 5 .8% 7.1%

9: Other 21.8% 19.9% 25.2% 29.3% 27.8% 30.8% 32.2% 31.3% 34.7%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Figure 2 .1 indicates that t here is a smaller portion of fatal car crashes with stationary objects, heavy cars, and rollover crash es in the thirteen states (18.5%, 10.6%, and 5.9%, respectively) than in the entire US (24.9%, 12.6%, and 7.2%, respectively). On the other hand, there are more fatal car crashes in crashes with pedestrians/pedalcycles, light cars, light and heavy light

- du ty trucks, and heavy

- duty trucks in the thirteen states (2 1.0 %, 12. 2 %, 11. 5 %, 10. 4 %, and 10.0 %, respectively) than in the US (17.3%, 11.3%, 8.3%, 9.6%, and 8.9%, respectively). These trends hold for light trucks and CUVs/minivans as well.

In the thirteen states, there are higher fractions of crashes involving rollovers, stationary objects, pedestrians/pedalcycles, and heavy trucks, and fewer crashes with other light

- duty vehicles, when the crashes result in a fatality rather than a casualty. Thi s suggests that rollovers and crashes with stationary objects, pedestrians/pedalcycles, and heavy

- duty trucks are more likely to result in fatalities, as opposed to incapacitating injuries, than crashes with another light

- duty

vehicle.9 The distributions of fatal and casualty crashes involving cars in the thirteen states are quite similar to those involving CUVs and minivans; however, CUVs and minivans tend to be involved in fewer crashes with stationary objects ( 10.3 % of all fatal crashes) than cars ( 1 8.5 % of

all fatal crashes ). Light trucks tend to have more fatal/casualty crashes in rollovers and crashes with lighter cars (1 4.6 % and 15. 2 % of all fatal crashes, respectively ) than cars do ( 5.9 %, and

12. 2 % of all fatal crashes, respectively ) , but r elatively fewer crashes with stationary objects (1 5. 4 %, vs. 1 8.5 % for cars) and heavier light trucks (6.9%, vs. 10.0 % for cars)

.

Figure 2 .1 . D istribution of crash

- involved vehicles , by vehicle and crash type

Note in Table 2.2 that there are many f ewer fatal crash involvements in the thirteen states (e.g.,

1 4,242 cars) than in the US FARS (48,204 cars). Extending the analysis to include incapacitating injuries substantially increases the number of casualty crash involvements in the

thirteen st ates (to 1 29,641 cars). The focus of this report is on the estimated effect of mass and footprint reduction on casualty risk using data from the thirteen states

, although we do compare the effect on fatality risk in the next section. And in Sectio n 5 w e analyze the effect of extending the analysis to sixteen states, and adding other crashes to the analysis.

To the extent possible, we used the same assumptions as in the NHTSA analysis, in many cases using the same SAS programs. For example, we use d the VIN decoder programs developed by NHTSA to determine model year, make, and model of each vehicle in the state crash data, and added detailed vehicle characteristics such as body style, curb weight, footprint, ABS, AWD, passive restraint systems, etc. And we used the NHTSA definitions to classify vehicles into five types (light cars, heavy cars, light light

- duty trucks, heavy light

- duty trucks, and CUVs/minivans), as well as the nine types of crashes described above. This was done in order to 7.2% 5.9% 4.7% 16.6% 14.6% 11.0% 7.9% 6.2% 4.2% 24.9%

18.5% 15.4% 19.2%

15.4%

15.6% 15.8%

10.3% 9.7% 17.3%

21.0%

13.0% 17.1%

20.0%

12.1% 22.9%

25.0%

15.9% 8.9%
10.0%

5.7% 6.3% 6.9%

4.8% 8.2%

9.8%

5.6% 11.3% 12.2%

19.4% 15.0% 15.2%

19.1% 15.0% 15.6%

21.2% 12.6% 10.6%

16.1% 13.0% 11.9%

15.2% 14.5%
13.5%

17.0% 8.3% 11.5% 15.4% 7.1% 9.9%

13.9% 7.5% 11.1%

15.6% 9.6% 10.4% 10.3% 5.8% 6.0% 8.4% 8.2% 8.4% 10.8%

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

Fatality (FARS) Fatality (13 states) Casualty (13 states) Fatality (FARS) Fatality (13 states) Casualty (13 states) Fatality (FARS) Fatality (13 states) Casualty (13 states)Distribution of crash-involved vehicles Distribution of crash-involved vehicles, by crash type

9: Other

8: w/hvy LT

7: w/lgt LT

6: w/hvy car

5: w/lgt car

4: w/HDT

3: Ped etc.
2: w/object

1: Rollovers

Cars Light Trucks CUVs/Minivans10 allow f or a more direct comparison of the results from the two studies, as well as with other studies using very similar databases and approaches.

However, it was necessary to diverge from the NHTSA analysis in several respects. First, as discussed above, in analyzing the relationship between vehicle mass and US fatalit y risk per
VMT , NHTSA used all US fatalities from FARS, and a subset of non

- culpable vehicles in two

vehicle crashes from police

- reported crash data from t he t hirteen states to assign driver and environment control variables to national vehicle registration years (from Polk). NHTSA

selected non

- culpable vehicles in two

- vehicle crashes to determine induced exposure crash

involvements. Each of these vehicles w as assigned a weight repre senting the national registration

- years for each particular year, make and model. NHTSA developed other weights for total VMT based on a database of vehicle odometer readings by vehicle year, make and model, also obtained from Polk. For a more thorough d iscussion of how NHTSA derived the vehicle and VMT weighting factors

, refer to Sections 2.3 through 2.6 of NHTSA 2012.

For our analysis of risk per crash, we use all vehicles in the state databases, including those

involved in one

- vehicle crashes and the vehicle NHTSA determined to be responsible for the

crash in two

- vehicle crashes. Therefore both the number of fatalities or casualties, and the number of crashes, come from the same datasets. For our analysis of risk per VMT, we again

use the number of f atalities or crashes from the thirteen state databases, coupled with the VMT weights that NHTSA derived from the induced exposure crash involvements, national vehicle registrations, and average vehicle odometer readings. Because NHTSA apparently included all induced exposure involvements in creating their VMT weights , and did not exclude those that resulted in a fatality, we are able to use NHTSA’s VMT weights in our regression models of 13

- state risk per VMT . However, NHTSA used national Polk registration data to scale the induced exposure crashes from the thirteen states to the national level. Since we only include casualties occurring in the thirteen state s , this scaling is not necessary for our analysis . In the future we hope to obtain VMT weights adj ust ed to total registration

- years in the thirteen states

, rather than in the entire US, for our analyses of risk per VMT

.

Second, a s noted above, NHTSA included fatal crash involvements from FARS for 2008, even though 2008 data were available from only six of the thirteen states NHTSA used to develop the induced exposure records. For the remaining seven states, NHTSA assumed the distribution of induced exposure crashes in 2008 were identical to those in 2007. 4 2008 crash data for 12 of the 13 states have subsequently become available, so NHTSA has revised its vehicle registration

ye ar and miles traveled weights based on actual induced exposure crashes in 12 of the 13 states; however, NHTSA continues to use replicated data for Wyoming crashes in 2008, Pennsylvania crashes in 2002, and Michigan crashes in 2002 and 2003

. In our analyse s we exclude the vehicle registration

- year and miles traveled for these five years with missing data.

4 NHTSA made similar assumptions for years of state cr ash data that were not available, such as 2002 data from Pennsylvania and 2002 and 2003 data from Michigan.11 To make our results most comparable to NHTSA’s results for US fatalities per VMT, we also excluded the following records from our initial analysis:

• sport s cars , police cars, and all

- wheel drive cars ; all Ford Crown Victorias 5 ; and

fullsize passenger and cargo vans ; • vehicles whose reported model year did not match the model year decoded from the

VIN; • vehicles whose model year was not reported in th e state crash data (with the exception

of all crash records from Washington, which NHTSA included in their analysis of induced exposure crashes ); • vehicles involved in police

- reported crashes in 2008 ( in six states ) ; • vehicles that had apparent VIN tran scription errors that we corrected so that the

reported model year matched the VIN model year. 6

I ncluding these records , as well as police

- reported crash data from three states that NHTSA did not include in its analysis of induced exposure crashes, increa ses the number of vehicles analyzed by about 40% . We test how including all of these records in the regression analyses would change the effect of mass and footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash in Section 5

.

2.2. Accounting for the state in which the crash occurred

In its regression models of US fatality risk per VMT , NHTSA included the control variable HIFAT_ST, which identifies states with high fatality rates per million vehi cle

- years. We investigated the effect of replacing this single control variable with two variables, for states with high and with low fatality risks per crash, as well as with 12 control variables for each state used in the analysis except Florida.

Figures 2.2 and 2.3 show the una djusted fatality and casualty risk per crash in 16 states. Figure

2.2 indicates that fatality risk per crash is the highest in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming, and the lowest in Michigan, Illinois, and New Jersey. Figure 2.3 suggests that casualty ris k per crash is the highest in Alabama, Florida, Maryland, and Wyoming, and the lowest in Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington. Note that driver casualty risks per crash have been fairly constant over time in most states, with the exception of Mar yland and New Mexico, which exhibit fairly large, consistent reductions in casualty risk each year. We have no explanations for

this trend in these two states.

5 NHTSA excluded all Crown Victorias, which tend to be high

- mileage vehicles, on the basis that the sparse odometer data available for this large ca r model are not representative.

6 The apparent transcription errors are based on comparing the reported model year with the characters in the 9 th and

10 th VIN position. If the reported model year matched a common transcription error (such as a “5” enter ed as an “S”) then we translated the character in the 10 th VIN position to match the reported model year. If the reported model year matched the character entered in position 9, we shifted the character in position 9, and all subsequent characters, to the right one position. These VIN adjustments are described in more detail in Wenzel 2012 a.12 Figure 2.2 . Driver fatality risk per 100,000 crashes in 16 states

Figure 2.3 . Driver casual ty risk per 10,000 crashes in 16 states 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008Driver fatality risk per 100,000 crashes

Year Driver fatality risk per 100,000 crashes

FL

IL

MD

MI

MO

NE

NJ

NM

PA

WA

WI

WY

AL

GA

KS

KY

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008Driver casualty risk per 10,000 crashes

Year Driver casualty risk per 10,000 crashes

FL

IL

MD

MI

MO

NE

NM

PA

WA

WI

WY

NJ

AL

GA

KS

KY13 The relatively high or low risks shown for some states in Figures 2.2 and 2.3 do not necessarily reflect more dangerous driving conditions in those states; rather, they reflect either different

definitions of “inca pacitating”, “serious”, or “major” injuries, or different reporting requirements or reporting bias in those states. For example, Pennsylvania is unique in that it reports “moderate” injuries in addition to “major” and “minor” injury; as a result, there ar e relatively few “major” injuries reported in Pennsylvania, which increases its casualty risk per crash relative to other states. In Florida, there is no property damage threshold over which a crash is required to be included in the state crash database; in most other states crashes resulting in property damage in excess of $500 must be reported. In Figure 2.4 , only about 60% of all crashes in the

Florida database are non

- injury crashes, whereas 80% to 90% of the crashes in most other states

are non

- injur y crashes. As a result, risks per crash are higher in Florida than in almost any other

state.

Figure 2.4 . Percent of police

- reported crashes that are non

- injury crashes, in 16 states

Based on Figures 2.2 through 2.4 , we replaced the HIFAT_ST variabl e NHTSA used for analysis

of US fatalities per VMT with 12 variables identifying each state except Florida for our analysis of fatality and casualty risks per crash

. We examine how replacing the 12 state control variables with only two variables for high

- and low

- injury states would change the effect of mass and footprint reduction on risk in Sectio n 5

.

2.3. Effect of mass and footprint reduction on fatality and casualty risk per crash

All of the regression coefficients presented in the NHTSA 2011 report are the direct output from the SAS LOGIST procedure ( with the exception of those for the mass and footprint variables UNDRWT00, OVERWT 00, LBS100, and FOOTPRNT , which NHTSA often multiplies by

- 1 so 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008Percent of all police-reported crashes with no injuries

Year Percent of police-reported crashes that are non-injury crashes

FL

IL

MD

MI

MO

NE

NM

PA

WA

WI

WY

NJ

AL

GA

KS

KY14 that they reflect the effect of a reduction in vehicle ma ss or footprint ; we use the same convention throughout this report)

. The output from the SAS LOGIST procedure reflect s the percent change in the log

- odds of casualty (or fatality) per crash for a one

- unit increase in the explanatory variable. In order to obtain the percent change in the probability of casualty (or fatality) per crash , the SAS outputs need to be converted from log

- space to linear space , and from odds to probabilities. We use the conversion factor e x

– 1, where x is the logist ic regression coefficient from the SAS output, to make this conversion. This conversion has no effect on the output regression coefficients when the change in the log

- odds of casualty is small ; however it substantially increases the percent change for exp lanatory variables that have a large effect on the log

- odds of casualty (such as the crash location variables). For example, the casualty risk per crash from a lighter

- than

- average car involved in a rollover crash has a 1.64 times higher log

odds of casualty if it occurs in a rural county; after conversion, this crash has a 416 percent higher probability of casualty if it occurs in a rural county (EXP( 1.64 )

- 1 = 4.16 ). Unless noted otherwise, the confidence intervals shown in this report are calculated the same way ; that is, using the standard error of the log

- odds output of the SAS LOGIST procedure to derive the 95% confidence interval of the log

- odds coefficient, and to display it as a percent probability interval

.

Figure 2.5 presents the regression coefficients of the effect of reductions in mass and footprint on US fatality risk per ten billion VMT, from the NHTSA 2011 analysis (in light blue) . T he

coefficients for each of the nine crash types are weighted by the distribution of NHTSA’s

estimated 2016 baseline fatal crash involvements, after adju stment for full ESC penetration . The figure indicates that mass reduction is estimated to increase societal 7 fatality risk by about one percent for cars and lighter

- than

- average light trucks, whi le mass reduction leads to a slight reduction in fatality risk for the heavier light trucks and CUV/minivans. The 95% confidence intervals in the figure indicate that the changes in risk for lighter cars, and both categories of light

- duty trucks, are stat istically significant. The confidence intervals shown in the figure, and all figures in this report, represent the weighted average standard error from the SAS output, times 1.96. NHTSA does not report these confidence intervals in its 2011 report; rathe r it uses a jack

- knife technique to estimate the range in uncertainty around the point estimates. The resulting confidence intervals are larger than those shown in this report.

F igure 2.5 compares the estimated effect of mass and footprint reduction on US fatalit ies per billion VMT (from NHTSA 2011, in blue) with that on 13

- state f atality risk (in red)

, and 13

- state casualty risk (in green) , per police

- reported crash

. The effect for each of the nine crash types is weighted by the expected distribution of fatal or casualty crashes in 2016, after full adoption of ESC, just as in the NHTSA 2011 report. Lower m ass in cars and light trucks , while holding footprint constant, is associated with a consistent reduction in state fatality r isk per crash; the

estimated reductions are statistically significant for all but the lighter cars. Lower mass in CUVs

and minivans is associated with a statistically non

- significant increase in state fatality risk per

crash. Smaller f ootprint in cars and light trucks is associated with increases in state fatality risk

7 All of the fatality risks reported in the 2011 NHTSA report are societal risk, that is fatalities to all vehicle occupants and non

- occupants involved in the crash are included. Unless specified otherwise (i.e. in Section 6, when we examine the effect of side impact airbags on risk to car occupants, and steps manufacturers have taken to improve light truck compatibility o n the risk light trucks impose on other vehicle occupants, in two

- vehicle crashes), all risks in this report also are societal risk.15 per crash, while smaller footprint in CUVs and minivans is associated with a decrease in fatality risk per crash; however, all three estimated effects are not statistically signif i cant

.

The estimated effects for 13

- state fatality risk per crash (shown in red) in Figure 2.5 are quite

different from the effects NHTSA estimated for US fatality risk per VMT (shown in blue), which

found that lower mass , while holding footprint constant, is associated with increased risk for cars and lighter light trucks, a nd slightly reduced risks for the heavier light trucks and

CUVs/minivans. The different results for fatality risk per VMT versus per crash could be

attributed to at least three factors

.

• First, as discussed above, the estimated effect of mass reductio n on fatality risk per VMT

is the combined effect of a vehicle’s crash avoidance and its crashworthiness/compatibility ; the ability of a vehicle to avoid a crash altogether, and the extent to which a vehicle protects its occupants , as well a s the occupants of any crash

partners, once a serious crash occurs. The net detrimental effect of mass reduction on fatality risk per VMT for cars and lighter light

- duty trucks may be the result of a large

detrimental effect of mass reduction on these veh icles’ crash avoidance, combined with a smaller, beneficial effect of mass reduction on crashworthiness/compatibility

. We address this possibility below.

Figure 2.5

. E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on three types of risk , by vehicle
type

• Second, the differences between the estimated effect of mass reduction on US fatality risk

per VMT versus 13

- state fatality risk per crash could be the result of differences in the mass/footprint relationship with risk in the thirtee n states vs. in the country as a whole.1.55%0.51%0.52%-0.34%-0.38%1.87%-0.07%1.72%-0.54%-2.39%-1.61%-1.25%0.98%0.92%0.48%-1.67%0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%

-4.0% -3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (probability) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

US fatalities per VMT

13-state fatalities per crash

13-state casualties per crash

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint16 • Finally, the differences between fatality risk per VMT and casualty risk per crash could

indicate that casualties are much less sensitive to mass reductions than fatalities, and that

vehicle mass reduction some how reduces casualties but not fatalities.

Figure 2.5 indicates that lower vehicle mass is associated with in smaller effects on casualty risk per crash than on fatality risk per crash. Lower m ass is associated with small statistically significant reductions in casualty risk per crash for heavier cars and all light trucks, a small but not statistically significant reduction in risk for CUVs/minivans, and a small but not statistically significant increa se in risk for lighter cars. Lower footprint also is associated with a smaller

effect on casualty risk per crash than on fatality risk per crash, for all three types of vehicles

.

Figure 2. 6 shows the same data as Figure 2.5, but for 13

- state fatality and casualty risk per VMT

, not per crash, using the VMT weights developed by NHTSA using nati onal registration data and induced exposure crashes in the thirteen states. Comparing Figure 2. 6 with Figure 2.5, one sees

that the estimated effects of mass and footprint reduction on risk per VMT are quite a bit more detrimental than the estimate d effects on risk per crash. The difference is so large that a reduction in risk per crash becomes an increase in risk per VMT, for mass reduction in lighter cars in terms of fatality risk (shown in red

, - 0.54% in Figure 2.5 to 1.42% in Figure 2.6 ), and f or mass reduction in heavier cars and lighter light

- duty trucks in terms of casualty risk (shown in

green , - 0.77% in Figure 2.5 to 0.73% in Figure 2.6 for heavier cars, and

- 0.11% in Figure 25 to 1.55% in Figure 2.6 for lighter light

- duty trucks ).

Figure 2. 6 also indicates that the estimated effect s of mass reduction on fatality risk per VMT

from the 13

- state data (shown in red) are comparable to NHTSA’s estimate d effect s on national fatality risk per VMT (shown in blue) for only li ghter

- than

- average cars and heavier

- than

average light

- duty trucks. For heavier

- than

- average cars and lighter

- than

- average light trucks

m ass reduction is associated with a reduction in fatality risk per VMT using the 13

- state data, but

with an inc rease in risk using the US data ; for CUVs/minivans mass reduction is associated with

an increase in risk using the 13

- state data but a decrease in risk using the US data.

The estimated effects on casualty risk per VMT from the thirteen state s (shown in green) are comparable to the estimated effects on US fatality risk per VMT (shown in blue) for mass reduction in lighter and heavier cars, and heavier light

- duty trucks, and for footprint reduction in

cars and CUVs/minivans. The estimated incr ease in fatality risk per VMT from mass reduction in the lighter light trucks is much larger using the 13

- state data (1.55%) than NHTSA’s estimate for the US (0.52%). Similarly, the estimated increase in fatality risk from footprint reduction is

similar f or cars and CUVs/minivans using the 13

- state or national data, while the estimate for light trucks is much higher using the 13

- state data (0.94%) than NHTSA’s national estimate (

- 0.07%).

The improved similarity in the US and 13

- state risks expressed in terms of VMT exposure in Figure 2. 6 suggests that the large differences between US fatality risk per VMT and 13

- state fatality risk per crash in Figure 2.5 are more the result of changing the measure of exposure from per VMT to per crash, and less beca use the relationships between mass and footprint reductions and risk in the thirteen states are different from those relationships in the entire US (the second17 possible explanation for the differences in fatality risk per VMT vs. per crash, summarized

abov e).

Figure 2.6

. E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on three types of risk per VMT, by vehicle type

Figure 2. 7 compares the estimated effect of mass and footprint reduction on the two components of risk, the number of crashes per VMT ( crash frequency, the inverse of crash avoidance, shown in orange) and the fatality risk per crash ( crashworthiness/compatibility , shown in light red), with

the estimated effect on fatality risk per VMT (shown in dark red), from the 13

- state crash data

. The estimates in Figure 2.7 for crash frequency and crashworthiness/compatibility were obtained using the same regression models, with the dependent variable changed from fatalities per VMT to crashes per VMT (for crash frequency) or fatalities per crash (for crashworthiness/compatibility ) . For cars and light trucks, mass reduction is estimated to increase crash frequency, but reduce fatality risk per crash; the effects from the two components r oughly add together to result in the overall estimated effect on fatality risk per VMT. For example, a

100

- lb reduction in the mass of lighter cars is correlated with a 2.00 % increase in crash frequency ( the number of crashes per VMT), while mass reduction is correlated with a 0. 54 % decrease in the number of fatalities per crash (or a 0. 54 % increase in crashworthiness/compatibility ); the net effect is a n estimated 1. 42 % increase in the risk of fatality per VMT. For CUVs/minivans, the relationship is different; mass reduction is correlated

with a n increase in both crash frequency ( 0. 95 % ) and fatality risk per crash ( 0. 98 % )

, and the net result, a n estimated 1. 60 % increase in the number of fatalities per VMT, is less than the sum of the two components. In its previous studies DRI solved the three equations , crashes per VMT,

f atalities per crash, and fatalities per VMT, simultaneously, which forces the estimated effect s on fatalities per VMT to equal the sum of the estimated effects on crashes per VMT and fatalities per crash.1.55%0.51%0.52%-0.34%-0.38%1.87%-0.07%1.72%1.42%-1.07%-0.13%-0.34%1.60%2.11%1.64%-1.24%1.86%0.73%1.55%-0.04%0.10%1.54%0.94%1.54%

-4.0% -3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (probability) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

US fatalities per VMT

13-state fatalities per VMT

13-state casualties per VMT

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint18 Figure 2.7

. E stimated e ffect of mass or footpr int reduction on crashes per VMT (vehicle

crash frequency ), fatalities per crash (vehicle crashworthiness/compatibility ), and fatalities per VMT, by vehicle type

Figure 2.7 indicates that a reduction in car and light truck footprint is es timated to increase both the number of crashes per VMT and the number of fatalities per crash , while lower f ootprint in

CUVs/minivans is associated with a decrease in both the number of crashes per VMT and the number of fatalities per crash

. Figure 2.8 shows similar estimates for the two components of casualty risk per VMT

.

It is unclear why lower vehi cle mass is associated with higher crash frequency, but lower risk per crash, in the regression models. It is possible that including variables that more accurately account for important differences among vehicles and driver behavior would reverse this

re lationship. We examine what effect adding a variable to account for driver behavior, a

measure of household income

, to the regression models has on the estimated relationship between increased crash frequency for lighter vehicles, in Section 4. On the ot her hand, it is also possible that over thirty years of improvements in vehicle design to achieve high crash test ratings have enabled manufacturers to use clever vehicle design to mitigate the hypothetical safety penalty of low mass vehicles.1.55%0.51%0.52%-0.34%-0.38%1.87%-0.07%1.72%2.00%1.50%1.44%0.94%0.95%0.64%1.04%-0.55%-0.54%-2.39%-1.61%-1.25%0.98%0.92%0.48%-1.67%1.42%-1.07%-0.13%-0.34%1.60%2.11%1.64%-1.24%

-4.0% -3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

US fatalities per VMT

13-state crashes per VMT
13-state fatalities per crash
13-state fatalities per VMT

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint19 Figure 2.8

. E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on crashes per VMT (vehicle

crash frequency ), casualties per crash (vehicle crashworthiness/compatibility ), and

casualties per VMT, by vehicle type

There is a poss ibility that reporting bias in the state police

- reported crash data may influence the

estimates of crash frequency and casualty risk per crash. Non

- injury crashes may be under

reported for certain vehicle and crash types, such as large pickups tha t are less likely to suffer damage, and that older, less expensive, uninsured vehicles that are less likely to report crash damage to police, or one vehicle crashes in which there is no crash partner that requires a police

report in order to file an insura nce claim. If collisions of certain vehicles or crashes are slightly less likely to be report ed , this would tend to increase the observed detrimental effect of mass reduction on reported crashes per VMT and conversely decrease its detrimental effect on

cas ualties per reported crash. ( By contrast, fatalities or casualties per VMT would be not be affected by crash

- reporting rates, because the crash

- reporting rate is not part of the formula for calculating ri sk.) The extent to which any reporting bias of non

- injury crashes exists, the observed effects for police

- reported crashes per VMT might not correspond exactly to the “effect of mass reduction on crash avoidance” and the observed effects for casualties per police

- reported crash might not correspond exactl y to the “effect of mass reduction on crashworthiness/compatibility .”

We suspect that one

- vehicle, non

- rollover, non

- injury crashes by pickup trucks are under

reported in the state crash data . Two

- vehicle crashes are more likely to be re ported, because two parties are involved , while r ollover and injury crashes are more likely to be reported because they tend to be more severe. If pickup truck owners were not reporting one

- vehicle non

- injury crashes, we would expect the crash rate per re gistered vehicle for pickup trucks in one

- vehicle

non

- injury crashes to be lower relative to that of other vehicles than in all crashes. Figure 2.91.55%0.51%0.52%-0.34%-0.38%1.87%-0.07%1.72%2.00%1.50%1.44%0.94%0.95%0.64%1.04%-0.55%0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%1.86%0.73%1.55%-0.04%0.10%1.54%0.94%1.54%

-4.0% -3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

US fatalities per VMT

13-state crashes per VMT
13-state casualties per crash
13-state casualties per VMT

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint20 compares the crash frequency per VMT of all crashes and non

- injury crashes, for one

- vehicle,

non

- rollover c rashes with a stationary object; crash rates for each type of crash are indexed to that for heavy four

- door cars. For the most part the relative crash frequencies are quite similar for all crashes (in blue) and for non

- injury crashes (in green), for all ty pes of vehicles. Lighter two

door cars, and to a lesser extent lighter four

- door cars, do have a slightly lower crash frequency

for non

- injury crashes than for all crashes, suggesting that there may be a small reporting bias for

these vehicles. On the ot her hand, heavier pickups have slightly higher crash frequency for non

injury crashes than for all crashes. This suggests that pickup truck owners are not under

reporting the type of crash least likely to be reported, one

- vehicle, non

- injury crashes

, in the state

crash databases.

Figure 2.9 . One

- vehicle, non

- injury crashes and all crashes per VMT , by vehicle type

Another type of bias in the state crash data is inaccurate reporting of injury outcomes by police

officers at the scene of a crash. Usi ng detailed NASS CDS records, in which a crash investigator tracks hospital records of victims in a small sample of police

- reported crashes, Farmer (2003) found that 41% of injuries that police responders coded as “serious” or “incapacitating” received

Mod ified Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) ratings of “minor injury” by health care professionals. An updated analysis using NASS CDS from 200 0 to 2008 finds that 59% of injuries police reported as “incapacitating” received eventual MAIS ratings of “minor” or “no injury”; 39% of injuries eventually receiving MAIS “serious” rating, and 27% that received a MAIS “severe” or “critical” rating, were initially coded as non

- incapacitating injuries by the initial police responder. 8 The possibility that these injury re porting errors are not consistent

8 The percentages are calculated using the national weights assigned to each crash in the NASS CDS sample. U sing unweighted data

, 41% of injuries reported a s “incapacitating” by initial police responders received an eventual 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.82-dr cars, light2-dr cars, heavy4-dr cars, light4-dr cars, heavyMinivansFull vansSUVs, lightSUVs, heavyCSUVsSmall PUs, lightSmall PUs, heavyLarge PUs, heavyCrashes per VMT, indexed to heavy 4-door cars Crash frequency per vehicle miles traveled, non-injury crashes

All 1-veh w/obj crashes

Non-injury 1-veh w/obj crashes21 across states is another reason to include a control variable for the state in which the crash

occurred.

Recall that the risks and crashes per VMT in Figures 2. 6 through 2. 8 use the VMT weights developed by NHTSA using na tional registration data and induced exposure crashes in the thirteen states. To more accurately calculate fatality risk per VMT for the thirteen states, we need to obtain vehicle registration data, by calendar year, and vehicle model year and model, for the thirteen states, and develop new VMT weights to represent total VMT in the thirteen states, as opposed to the national VMT weights NHTSA used in their analysis and here.

Figure 2.5 shows the estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on ris k per police

- reported crash; Figure 2. 10 shows the estimated effect on fatality risk per serious crash (shown in brown),

with “ serious crashes” defined as a ny police

- reported crash that resulted in a casualty to a vehicle

occupant or non

- occupant. T he figure suggests that using serious, or casualty

, crashes, rather than all police

- reported crashes, as the measure of exposure has only a slight change in the

estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on risk.

Figure 2. 10

. E stimated e ffect o f mass or footprint reduction on fatalities per crash and per

serious crash , by vehicle type

Figure 2. 1 1 compares the estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, after accounting for fu ll adoption of ESC by 2017 ( in green, from Figure 2.5) with the results from the nine regression models by crash type weighted by the current distribution of

MAIS rating of “minor” or “no injury”, and 16% of injuries eventually receiving MAIS “serious” rating, and 10% receiving a MAIS “severe” or “critical” rating, were initially coded as non

- incapacitating by the initial police responder.1.55%0.51%0.52%-0.34%-0.38%1.87%-0.07%1.72%-0.54%-2.39%-1.61%-1.25%0.98%0.92%0.48%-1.67%-1.05%-1.74%-1.60%-0.62%1.20%0.47%0.31%-2.92%

-4.0% -3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (probability) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

US fatalities per VMT
13-state fatalities per crash
13-state fatalities per serious crash

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint22 crashes (light orange). Full penetration of ESC in the on

- road fleet (going from the light orange to green columns in the figure) results in little change in the estimated effect of mass reduction on casualty risk per crash for cars and light trucks, but reduces the estimated detrimental effect of

mass reduction on risk for CUVs and minivans (from a reduction in risk of 0.26% to a reduction

of 0. 16 %) . On the other hand, accounting for the change in the distribution of crashes after full ESC penetration slightly reduces the estimated penalty from a reduction in footprint for cars (from a n est imated 0. 41 % increase to a n estimated 0. 23 % increase in risk) and CUVs/minivans (from a n estimated 0. 75 % increase to a n estimated 0. 56 % increase in risk) , and increases the

estimated benefit from mass reduction in light trucks from 0.13% to a 0.25% decrease in risk

.

Estimates from a single re gression analysis across all nine crash types are also shown in Figure

2. 1 1 (in dark orange). The estimated effects of mass or footprint re duc tion on casualty risk per

crash using a single regression model are quite similar to those when the estimated effects by crash type are weighted by the current distribution of crashes (shown in light orange in the figure).

Figure 2

. 1 1 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per
crash by vehicle type, across all crash types and weighted average effect in each type of

crash

Figures 2

. 1 2 through 2. 1 4 and Table 2.3 show the estimated effect of changes in mass or footprint on casualty risk per crash , by type of crash. Figure 2. 1 2 indicates that the largest

estimated eff ects from m ass reduction in cars are in rollovers for lighter

- than

- average cars (an estimated 1.85% increase in risk) and in crashes with objects for heavier

- than

- average cars (an estimated 3.75% reduction in risk). As noted in Section 1.1, all els e being equal, lower vehicle

mass is expected to be associated with higher risk in crashes with small trees or poles that break away, but with lower risk in crashes with objects that are immovable

. L ower footprint in cars is0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%0.08%-0.86%-0.09%-0.67%-0.26%0.41%-0.13%0.75%0.07%-0.87%-0.11%-0.74%-0.31%0.50%0.05%0.68%

-2.0% -1.5% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (probability) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

Wtd by 13-state post-ESC crash distribution

Wtd by 13-state current crash distribution

Single regression across all crash types

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint23 associated w ith a large increase in casualty risk in rollovers ( 4.2 9%) and crashes with objects (3. 55 %). Because full ESC adoption is expected to substantially reduce the number of rollover s and crashes with objects , and footprint reduction is estimated to subst antially increase casualty

risk in these types of crashes, removing many of these types of crashes by 2017 wil l reduce the

estimated overall detrimental effect of footprint reduction in cars ( from 0. 41 % to 0. 23 % as shown in Figure 2. 1 1 ).

Figure 2.1 2 shows the estimated effect of mass and footprint reductions on risk in light trucks, by type of crash. In general, although relatively small, more of the estimated effects of mass or footprint reduction on risk tend to be statistically significant for lig ht trucks than for cars. Mass

reduction is associated with a relatively large (2. 79 %) reduction in casualty risk per crash in

rollovers for the heavier light

- duty trucks. A s discussed in Section 1.1, once it has roll ed over, a lighter vehicle applies less force on its roof than a heavier vehicle. We see the same estimated beneficial effect of mass reduction in casualty rollover risk in CUVs/minivans, in Figure 2.13 ( 3.91 %). As with cars, footprint reduction is associated with increased risk in rollovers and crashes with objects (by 2.04 % and 0.99 %, respectively) in light

- duty trucks, and to an even greater extent (by 6.23 % and 5

. 56 %, respectively) in CUVs/minivans. The large estimated detrimental effects of footprint reduction on casualty risk in rollovers and crashes with objects account for the decrease in the effect of footprint reduction on risk after removing many of the se types of crashes in Figure 2.11

.

Figure 2. 1 2 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash in cars, by type of crash1.85%-0.80%0.32%1.30%0.18%-0.89%-0.03%-0.05%0.32%-0.60%-3.75%-0.82%-1.29%-0.62%-1.15%-0.64%0.56%-0.57%4.29%3.55%-1.21%-0.14%0.30%0.56%0.38%0.16%-0.27%

-6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8%1: Rollovers2: w/object3: Ped etc.4: w/HDT5: w/lgt car6: w/hvy car7: w/lgt LT8: w/hvy LT9: Other1: Rollovers2: w/object3: Ped etc.4: w/HDT5: w/lgt car6: w/hvy car7: w/lgt LT8: w/hvy LT9: Other1: Rollovers2: w/object3: Ped etc.4: w/HDT5: w/lgt car6: w/hvy car7: w/lgt LT8: w/hvy LT9: OtherPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk in cars, by crash type

100-lb reduction in weight, 100-lb reduction in weight, 1-sq ft reduction in footprint Cars < 3,106 Cars > 3,106 All cars24 L ower mass in l ight truck s is also associated with statistically significant reductions in casualty risks in crashes with pedestrians/cyclists, lighter light

- duty trucks, and, f or the heavier

- than

average light

- duty trucks, in crashes with heavier cars and lighter trucks. For light trucks, as well as CUVs/minivans, lower mass is associated with statistically significant increases, while

lower footprint is associated with decreases, in casualty risk in crashes with heavy

- duty trucks.

Lower m ass in CUVs/minivans is associated with a n increase in casualty risk ( 1.19 %) in crashes with lighter light

- duty trucks, but a large decrease in risk ( 2.73 %) in crashes with heavier light

duty trucks, as shown in Figure 2.14. Footprint reduction in CUVs/minivans leads to a large increase in casualty risk ( 3.90 %) in crashes with heavier light

- duty trucks.

Fi gure 2. 1 3 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash in light trucks, by type of crash0.65%-0.78%-1.26%1.86%-0.17%-0.14%-1.17%0.66%0.18%-2.79%0.04%-1.16%1.16%-0.81%-1.07%-1.32%0.77%-0.48%2.04%0.99%-0.03%-1.33%-0.17%-0.25%0.67%-1.00%-0.66%

-6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8%1: Rollovers2: w/object3: Ped etc.4: w/HDT5: w/lgt car6: w/hvy car7: w/lgt LT8: w/hvy LT9: Other1: Rollovers2: w/object3: Ped etc.4: w/HDT5: w/lgt car6: w/hvy car7: w/lgt LT8: w/hvy LT9: Other1: Rollovers2: w/object3: Ped etc.4: w/HDT5: w/lgt car6: w/hvy car7: w/lgt LT8: w/hvy LT9: OtherPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk in LTs, by crash type

100-lb reduction in weight, 100-lb reduction in weight, 1-sq ft reduction in footprint LTs < 4,594 LTs > 4,594 All LTs25 Figure 2. 1 4 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash in CUVs/minivans, b y type of crash

Table 2.3. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per

crash , by type of crash

Type of crash Mass reduction Footprint reduction

Cars <

3106 lbs Cars >

3106 lbs LTs <

4594 lbs LTs >

4594 lbs CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivans

1: Rollovers 1.85%

- 0.60% 0.65%

- 2.79%

- 3.91% 4.29% 2.04% 6.23%
2: w/object

- 0.80%

- 3.75%

- 0.78% 0.04%

- 2.60% 3.55% 0.99 % 5.56%

3: Ped etc. 0.32%

- 0.82%

- 1.26%

- 1.16%

- 0.48%

- 1.21%

- 0.03% 0.06%

4: w/HDT 1.30%

- 1.29% 1.86% 1.16% 4.14%

- 0.14%

- 1.33%

- 2.44%
5: w/lgt car 0.18%

- 0.62%

- 0.17%

- 0.81%

- 0.66% 0.30%

- 0.17% 0.94%
6: w/hvy car

- 0.89%

- 1.15%

- 0.14%

- 1.07%

- 0.06% 0.5 6%

- 0.25% 0.11%
7: w/lgt LT

- 0.03%

- 0.64%

- 1.17%

- 1.32% 1.19% 0.38% 0.67%

- 0.07%
8: w/hvy LT

- 0.05% 0.56% 0.66% 0.77%

- 2.73% 0.16%

- 1.00% 3.90%

9: Other 0.32%

- 0.57% 0.18%

- 0.48% 0.14%

- 0.27%

- 0.66%

- 0.26%

All 1.55% 0.51% 0.52%

- 0.34%

- 0.38% 1.87%

- 0.0 7% 1.72%

Estimates that are statistically significant at the 95% level are shown in red.

Table 2.4 compares the estimated effect of changes in the other vehicle, driver, and crash control variables on US fatality risk, 13

- state fatality risk, and 13

- stat e casualty risk, per VMT, by vehicle type. In general, the estimates for the control variables on the three types of risk per VMT are quite similar. T wo

- door cars are estimated to have higher risk than four

- door sedans for each type of risk , while SUVs a re estimated to have higher risk per VMT using US fatalities

and 13

- state casualties, but lower risk using 13

- state fatalities . Torso side airbags consistently-3.91%-2.60%-0.48%4.14%-0.66%-0.06%1.19%-2.73%0.14%6.23%5.56%0.06%-2.44%0.94%0.11%-0.07%3.90%-0.26%

-6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8%1: Rollovers2: w/object3: Ped etc.4: w/HDT5: w/lgt car6: w/hvy car7: w/lgt LT8: w/hvy LT9: Other1: Rollovers2: w/object3: Ped etc.4: w/HDT5: w/lgt car6: w/hvy car7: w/lgt LT8: w/hvy LT9: OtherPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk in CUVs, by crash type

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint26 reduce risk for cars but not always for CUVs/minivans; ABS is estimated to consistently reduce

risk for cars

, and to a greater degree for CUVs/minivans

. Similarly, ESC is estimated to consistently reduce risk in cars , and even more so in light trucks ; the models estimated smaller

and non

- significant reductions in risk from ESC in CUVs/minivans. Ea ch additional year of

vehicle age is estimated to increa s e risk about 2% to 5% , while a brand new vehicle is estimated to increase risk by up to 10% , presumably because the driver is unfamiliar with it s controls, handling, and/or braking capabilities

. The estimated effect of a male driver on risk generally is highest for US fatality risk, followed by 13

- state fatality risk and 13

- state casualty risk , and generally is higher in cars and CUVs/minivans than in light trucks. For each type of risk, the

younges t and oldest drivers have higher risk (around 5% and 8% respectively) than other drivers

, for all three vehicle types . The estimated effects of driving at night, on high

- speed or rural roads are higher for US fatality risk, followed by 13

- state fatality a nd 13

- state casualty risk for all three types of vehicles

. In general the calendar year variables are estimated to have a decreasing effect on risk over time, and tend to be highest for US fatality risk per VMT in light trucks

.

Note that the four vehic le variables of interest, UNDRWT, OVERWT, LBS100 and FOOTPRINT, all have a much lower effect on risk than almost all of the control variables in

Table 2.4

. The estimated effect s of vehicle type, other vehicle attributes ( such as side airbags,
ABS, ESC, or AWD )

, or male drivers on risk per VMT are nearly an order of magnitude larger than those estimated for lower mass or footprint, while driving at night, on rural or high

- speed roads, are estimated to have an effect several hundred times that of vehicle mas s or footprint

reduction. The estimated effects of the crash time and location variables are much higher on US

or 13

- state fatality risk per VMT than on 13

- state casualty risk per VMT.

Table 2.5 compare s the estimated effect of changes in the other vehicle, driver, and crash control

variables on 13

- state fatality or casualty risk per crash

. W hile 2

- door cars continue to have a much higher estimated fatality risk per crash than 4

- door sedans (11.2%) , this effect essentially disappears in terms of casualty risk per crash (1.14%) . Curtai n side airbags are associated with a larger safety benefit in terms of casualties per crash than in terms of fatalities per crash or US fatalities per VMT, while combo side airbags are associated with a larger safety benefit for cars

but not for CUVs/minivans. T he estimated beneficial effects of torso side airbags, ABS, and ESC are similar among the three types of risk, with the exception of ABS in fatality risk per

crash. The estimated effects of vehicle age and brand new vehicles on the risks per crash are

much smaller than on US fatality risk per VMT. The driver age and gender variables have a

smaller estimated effect on fatality risk per crash, and a much smaller estimated effect on casualty risk per crash, than on US fatality risk per VMT; this suggest that much of the driver effect on risk contributes to the occurrence of a serious crash, and not the crashworthiness/compatibilit y of the vehicle once a crash has occurred. Nevertheless, risk increases for the oldest drivers, even in terms of casualty risk per crash. Likewise , driving at night, on rural or high

- speed roads, has a bigger effect on US fatality risk per VMT than on 1 3

- state fatality or casualty risk per crash . Even so, these three variables do substantially increase

the likelihood of fatality or casualty once a crash occurs. T he estimated effect s of the calendar year variables also tend to be smaller on risks per crash, and27 Table 2.4 . Estimated effect of variables on US fatality risk, 13

- state fatality risk , and 13

- state casualty r isk per VMT

V ariable US fatality risk per VMT 13

- state fatality risk per VMT 13

- state casualty risk per VMT

Cars LTs CUVs Cars LTs CUVs Cars LTs CUVs

UNDERWT 1.55% 0.52%

—— 1.42%

- 0.13%

— 1.86% 1.55%

— OVERWT 0.51%

- 0.34%

- 1.07%

- 0.34%

— 0.73%

- 0.04%

— LBS100

— — - 0.38%

— — 1.60%

— — 0.10%

FOOTPRINT 1.87%

- 0.07% 1.72% 2.11% 1.64%

- 1.24% 1.54%

— 1.54%

TWODOOR 8.45%

— — 19.7%

— 8.13%

— — SUV

— 8.94%

— — - 8.50%

— — 3.35%

— HD

— 1.73%

— — 4.73%

— — - 6.06%

— BLOCKER1

— - 1.41%

— — - 0.35%

— — 2.42%

— BLOCKER2

— - 2.32%

— — - 3.70%

— — - 1.75%

— MINIVAN

— — - 0.94%

— — 12.0%

— — 19.2%

ROLLCURT

- 0.73%

— - 1.67%

- 19.3%

— - 0.61%

- 2.33%

— - 0.92%

CURTAIN 1.00%

— - 2.85% 5.52%

— - 2.20%

- 1.37%

— - 5.69%

COMBO

- 1.10%

— - 6.43%

- 4.21%

— 1.36% 1.82%

— 1.67%

TORSO

- 8.77%

— 0.86%

- 16.3%

— - 2.33%

- 14.8%

— - 6.70%

ABS

- 7.87%

— - 16.5%

- 7.18%

— - 34.8%

- 12.7%

— - 26.9%

ESC

- 11.9%

- 18.8%

- 3.89%

- 19.5%

- 26.7%

- 9.51%

- 14.5%

- 23.4%

- 1.32%

AWD

— - 14.5%

- 14.0%

— 33.9% 9.01%

— 25.2%

- 4.86%

VEHAGE 2.54% 3.57% 5.50% 1.74% 3.39% 2 .01% 2.28% 3.44% 3.82%

BRANDNEW 10.2% 3.62% 8.76% 12.4% 5.36%

- 7.50% 10.4% 2.87% 2.07%

DRVMALE 39.2% 19.3% 37.1% 20.5% 16.0% 46.9% 3.10%

- 2.97% 9.61% M14_30 4.63% 3.54% 3.92% 5.22% 3.77% 5.62% 4.67% 4.05% 4.91% M30_50 1.40% 1.25% 0.84% 1.13% 0.46%

- 0.6 6% 0.23% 0.37%

- 0.01% M50_70 2.20% 1.24% 1.82% 2.90% 1.42% 2.20% 1.11% 0.99% 1.21% M70_96 8.08% 7.65% 7.10% 8.74% 8.13% 6.36% 5.87% 5.71% 4.99% F14_30 2.81% 3.64% 4.77% 3.38% 2.51% 3.23% 3.28% 3.66% 4.04% F30_50 0.09% 0.22%

- 0.47%

- 0.79%

- 0.55% 0.10%

- 0.46%

- 0.06%

- 0.20% F50_70 3.21% 3.10% 3.22% 3.14% 2.55% 4.33% 1.42% 1.67% 2.34% F70_96 8.00% 6.36% 7.69% 8.82% 0.39% 6.61% 5.76% 3.41% 3.99%

NITE 194% 192% 160% 155% 179.8% 126% 45.5% 64.2% 38.3%

RURAL 223% 207% 215% 117% 98.7% 113% 50.4% 50.6% 49.8%

SPDLIM55 414% 409% 405% 387% 379% 381% 158% 164% 152%

CY2002 5.56% 22.4% 7.59% 1.52% 10.4% 11.3% 10.4% 11.7% 15.4%

CY2003 3.60% 18.2% 4.97% 2.80% 10.3% 18.7% 10.7% 9.67% 16.9%

CY2004 1.69% 14.1%

- 3.28%

- 6.50% 5.80%

- 8.19% 7.20% 7.73% 3.16%

CY2005

- 0.6 0% 7.86% 0.02%

- 1.44% 10.7% 4.05% 5.56% 7.19% 5.45%

CY2007

- 1.42%

- 1.19%

- 4.99%

- 4.50%

- 3.94%

- 7.58%

- 5.59%

- 6.40%

- 3.73%

CY200 8

- 13.3%

- 15.0%

- 19.7%

- 8.43%

- 10.8%

- 10.8%

- 10.1%

- 13.9%

- 10.8% HIFAT_ST 29.5% 24.6% 33.8%

— — — — — — AL

— — — - 6.69%

- 28.3 %

- 22.0% 158% 97.5% 143%

KS

— — — - 36.5%

- 38.1%

- 27.1%

- 68.8%

- 67.4%

- 65.7%

KY

— — — - 12.6%

- 23.8%

- 19.4%

- 28.4%

- 32.7%

- 17.1%

MD

— — — - 45.3%

- 44.5%

- 61.1%

- 28.4%

- 33.3%

- 29.2%

MI

— — — - 51.7%

- 52.8%

- 47.8%

- 59.0%

- 61.1%

- 60.5%

MO

— — — - 12.9%

- 28.5%

- 16.0%

- 31.4%

- 33.3%

- 27.2%

NE

— — — - 36.6%

- 34.5%

- 44.2%

- 41.2%

- 34.6%

- 40.4%

NJ

— — — - 44.7%

- 68.8%

- 50.7%

- 84.5%

- 85.2%

- 85.0%

PA

— — — - 36.5%

- 33.6%

- 31.8%

- 82.9%

- 76.5%

- 79.5%

WA

— — — - 50.9%

- 46.4%

- 46.7%

- 77.6%

- 72.2%

- 74.3%

WI

— — — - 35.8%

- 3 9.3%

- 45.4%

- 54.5%

- 49.0%

- 54.1%

WY

— — — - 1.73%

- 30.4%

- 56.1%

- 23.4%

- 40.6%

- 13.2% * Values in red are statistically significant at the 95% level.28 Table 2. 5 . Estimated effect of variables on US fatality risk per VMT

, and 13

- state fatality

risk and 13

- st ate casualty risk per crash

V ariable US fatality risk per VMT 13

- state fatality risk per crash 13

- state casualty risk per crash

Cars LTs CUVs Cars LTs CUVs Cars LTs CUVs

UNDERWT 1.55% 0.52%

— - 0.54%

- 1.61%

— 0.09%

- 0.11%

— OVERWT 0.51%

- 0.34%

— - 2.39%

- 1.25%

— - 0.77%

- 0.62%

— LBS100

— — - 0.38%

— — 0.98%

— — - 0.16%

FOOTPRINT 1.87%

- 0.07% 1.72% 0.92% 0.48%

- 1.67% 0.23%

- 0.25% 0.56%

TWODOOR 8.45%

— — 11.2%

— — 1.14%

— — SUV

— 8.94%

— — - 6.44%

— — 2.84%

— HD

— 1.73%

— — 11.7%

— — 0.17%

— BLOCKER1

— - 1 .41%

— — 0.21%

— — 1.29%

— BLOCKER2

— - 2.32%

— — - 3.02%

— — - 3.32%

— MINIVAN

— — - 0.94%

— — 9.06%

— — 15.9%

ROLLCURT

- 0.73%

— - 1.67%

- 21.3%

— - 0.58%

- 1.98%

— - 0.91%

CURTAIN 1.00%

— - 2.85% 4.48%

— - 1.39%

- 2.79%

— - 4.84%

COMBO

- 1.10%

— - 6.43%

- 6.33%

— 1 .61%

- 1.79%

— 4.97%

TORSO

- 8.77%

— 0.86%

- 10.2%

— 1.52%

- 9.69%

— - 3.00%

ABS

- 7.87%

— - 16.5%

- 0.20%

— - 18.1%

- 3.26%

— - 9.16%

ESC

- 11.9%

- 18.8%

- 3.89%

- 8.75%

- 12.0%

- 11.4%

- 8.78%

- 13.8%

- 7.08%

AWD

— - 14.5%

- 14.0%

— 6.05% 5.63%

— 2.56%

- 3.28%

VEHAGE 2.54 % 3.57% 5.50% 0.99% 2.54%

- 0.68% 1.53% 2.19% 0.64%

BRANDNEW 10.2% 3.62% 8.76% 5.35% 6.42%

- 5.74% 2.99% 3.20% 1.08%

DRVMALE 39.2% 19.3% 37.1% 14.4% 21.6% 42.5%

- 2.40%

- 1.43% 6.96% M14_30 4.63% 3.54% 3.92% 1.02% 0.20% 0.79% 0.53% 0.45% 0.18% M30_50 1.40% 1.25% 0.84% 0.50%

- 0.24%

- 0.92%

- 0.22%

- 0.19%

- 0.23% M50_70 2.20% 1.24% 1.82% 3.04% 1.52% 2.04% 1.14% 1.05% 1.06% M70_96 8.08% 7.65% 7.10% 4.85% 4.28% 3.05% 2.11% 1.62% 1.57% F14_30 2.81% 3.64% 4.77% 0.16%

- 0.70% 0.03% 0.17% 0.32% 0.82% F30_50 0.09% 0 .22%

- 0.47%

- 0.93%

- 0.61%

- 0.04%

- 0.56%

- 0.16%

- 0.30% F50_70 3.21% 3.10% 3.22% 2.66% 2.27% 3.64% 0.86% 1.13% 1.67% F70_96 8.00% 6.36% 7.69% 4.49%

- 3.54% 2.86% 1.57% 0.15% 0.42%

NITE 194% 192% 160% 96.4% 88.7% 70.2% 22.7% 23.6% 15.8%

RURAL 223% 207% 215 % 78.7% 59.3% 76.1% 37.3% 34.6% 36.7%

SPDLIM55 414% 409% 405% 214% 216% 235% 79.9% 93.5% 90.7%

CY2002 5.56% 22.4% 7.59% 4.72% 15.5% 17.1% 11.8% 16.7% 19.5%

CY2003 3.60% 18.2% 4.97% 5.88% 9.83% 21.5% 11.5% 9.74% 15.6%

CY2004 1.69% 14.1%

- 3.28%

- 5.56% 5. 28%

- 7.72% 6.31% 5.78% 0.36%

CY2005

- 0.60% 7.86% 0.02% 0.08% 10.2% 4.54% 3.84% 4.56% 1.67%

CY2007

- 1.42%

- 1.19%

- 4.99%

- 6.94%

- 6.20%

- 9.23%

- 8.22%

- 7.59%

- 5.29%

CY200 8

- 13.3%

- 15.0%

- 19.7%

- 10.1%

- 12.5%

- 11.4%

- 10.5%

- 12.2%

- 9.88% HIFAT_ST 29.5% 24.6% 33.8%

— — — — — — AL

— — — - 69.1%

- 71.5%

- 75.3%

- 11.8%

- 21.6%

- 22.1%

KS

— — — - 76.7%

- 80.2%

- 79.2%

- 87.2%

- 88.6%

- 88.8%

KY

— — — - 74.4%

- 77.5%

- 81.6%

- 79.8%

- 82.3%

- 82.4%

MD

— — — - 60.8%

- 55.5%

- 71.8%

- 47.0%

- 46.0%

- 43.6%

MI

— — — - 86.9%

- 88.4%

- 86.7%

- 87.4%

- 89.3%

- 88.6%

MO

— — — - 67.0%

- 71.2%

- 69.9%

- 74.1%

- 74.1%

- 74.6%

NE

— — — - 76.7%

- 77.1%

- 81.6%

- 76.6%

- 75.8%

- 78.1%

NJ

— — — - 78.6%

- 88.8%

- 81.6%

- 94.0%

- 94.6%

- 94.5%

PA

— — — - 24.1%

- 36.0%

- 27.8%

- 79.7%

- 78.5%

- 79.2%

WA

— — — - 71.5%

- 73.9%

- 7 4.8%

- 87.1%

- 86.5%

- 87.9%

WI

— — — - 69.9%

- 75.2%

- 74.7%

- 77.2%

- 78.5%

- 78.2%

WY

— — — - 77.2%

- 78.7%

- 91.6%

- 78.6%

- 80.1%

- 77.7% * Values in red are statistically significant at the 95% level.29 the consistent reduction in risk over time observed in fatali ty risk per VMT is not as strong in terms of fatality risk per crash. The calendar year variables are examined in more detail in

Section 5.3.

Note that the four vehicle variables of interest, UNDRWT, OVERWT, LBS100, and FOOTPRINT, all have a much l ower estimated effect on risk than almost all of the control

variables . For instance, a 100

- lb reduction in curb weight for an underweight car is expected to increase casualty risk per crash by only 0. 09 %, while installing ABS would reduc e risk by 3. 3 %. Therefore, the regression estimates suggest that, in theory, the mass of a lighter car could be reduced by as much as 3 ,300 lbs while adding ABS, without increasing casualty risk per crash.

Regarding the estimated effect of th e control variables on the three types of risk in crashes involving light trucks

, SUVs are associated with a much lower, and heavy

- duty pickups with a much higher, fatality risk per crash than regular pickups, which is opposite of the effects

estimated for fatalities per VMT and casualties per crash. And while AWD is associated with a large safety benefit in terms of fatalities per VMT, it is associated with increased risk in terms of fatalities or casualties per crash. The other estimates for light truck s in Table 2.5 have similar effects for the three types of risk, with the exception of three of the four female driver age variables, that show lower fatality risk per crash than for a 50

- year old female.

M inivans are asso ciated with a slightly lower fatality risk per VMT, a slightly higher fatality risk per crash, and a substantially higher casualty risk per crash, than CUVs. The three side airbag

variables show inconsistent estimated effects across the three types of ris k for CUVs and minivans. ABS and ESC tend to provide a higher safety benefit in terms of fatality risk per crash, and a lower benefit in terms of casualty risk per crash. AWD provides a large safety benefit in terms of fatality risk per VMT, and a smalle r benefit in terms of casualty risk per crash, but increases fatality risk per crash. As with cars and light trucks, the estimated increased risk for elderly drivers in CUVs/minivans is smaller in terms of casualty risk per crash than in terms of fatality risk per VMT or per crash, while the estimated effects of vehicle age and brand new vehicles on casualty risk per crash are negligible.

As discussed above, the NHTSA regression of US fatality risk per VMT included a variable for high

- fatality states; our regression models for fatality and casualty risk per crash include twelve

variables for each state in the database. The bottom of Table 2.5 shows the estimated effect of each of the state control variables on casualty risk per crash, relative to the risks in Florida, by vehicle type. Note that the model predicts a 12 % to 22 % lower casualty risk in Alabama than in Florida, while Figure 2.3 above indicates that Alabama has a roughly 25% higher actual casualty risk per crash than Florida. This discrepancy may be explained by the regression model also accounting for where crashes occurred in each state: over half of all police

- reported crashes in Alabama occurred on roads in rural areas, which tend to have higher risks than crashes in urban areas, whereas only 15% of all crashes in Florida were in rural areas. After accounting for the greater amount of driving in dangerous rural areas in Alabama, the regression model indicates that driving in Alabama is actually 12 % to 22 % safer in terms of casualties per crash , depending

on th e type of vehicle, than driving in Florida. Similarly, the regression model predicts that a

vehicle has a nearly 80 % lower casualty risk per crash in Wyoming than in Florida, while Figure30 2.3 above indicates that the actual casualty risk per crash in Wy oming is only about 40% lower than that in Florida. All driving in Wyoming is in rural areas.

Table 2.6 show s the es timated effect of the vehicle, driver, and calendar year control variables on the two components of fatality risk per VMT: crashes per VMT (or crash frequency) and fatality or casualty risk per crash . ABS and ESC in car s are estimated to reduce crash frequency more than risk per crash, as expected, while AWD in light trucks and CUVs/minivans is estimated to

increase crash frequency more than risk per crash

. T wo

- door cars, SUVs, heavy

- duty pickups,

and the side airbag variables in cars have a smaller effect on crash frequency than risk given a crash. Surprisingly, for CUVs/minivans, the side airbag variables are estimated to red uce crash frequency but have little effect on fatality risk per crash, ABS has the same benefit in reducing crash frequency as fatality risk, and ESC has essentially no effect on crash frequency but a large

estimated benefit in reducing fatality risk per c rash . For light trucks, ESC has about the same

estimated benefit in reducing crash frequency as in reducing fatality risk given a crash.

Male drivers are estimated to have essentially no effect on crash frequency, but are associated

with a statistically significant increase in fatali ty risk once a crash occurs ; a possible explanation

is that male drivers are not involved in more crashes than female dri v ers, but the crashes they are

involved in are more severe. The driver age variables estimate that crash frequ ency consistently increases for the youngest and oldest drivers, and that risk consistently increases for the two oldest groups of drivers (over 50 years old). The crash circumstance variables estimate that driving on high

- speed roads increases crash freq uency the most, followed by night driving, followed by driving in rural counties. Of the three variables for crash circumstances, driving on high

- speed roads also has the highest estimated increase in risk per crash. Driving on high

- speed

or rural roads are associated with much higher increases in risk per crash than on crash frequency, while driving at night is associated with only a slightly higher increase in risk per crash than on crash frequency. Again, the crashes that occur under these conditions may be more severe than other crashes, and thus lead to greater fatality or casualty risk. All three crash variables are associated with a much higher increase in fatality risk per crash than in casualty risk per crash. The control variables for CY2002 a nd CY2003 show a large reduction in crash frequency, but a large increase in risk given a crash, for all three types of vehicles.

As summarized above, Florida and Pennsylvania substantially under

- report non

- injury crashes; after accounting for other con trol variables, all of the states have a higher crash frequency than Florida, except Pennsylvania (and Maryland, for light trucks and CUVs/minivans). Kentucky and Alabama have the highest crash frequencies for all three types of vehicles; Pennsylvania,

Ma ryland, Wisconsin, and Washington have the lowest crash frequency. Wyoming has a low crash frequency for light trucks, but relatively high crash frequencies for cars and CUVs/minivans. All states have a lower fatality or casualty risk per crash than Flor ida, for each type of vehicle. Pennsylvania has a much higher fatality risk relative to its casualty risk per crash (the estimate for fatality risk is much higher than the estimate for casualty risk), while Alabama has a much lower fatality risk relative to its casualty risk per crash (the fatalit y risk estimate is much lower).31 Table 2. 6 . Estimated effect of variables on crashes per VMT

, fatalities per crash , and casualties per crash

, using data from 13 states

V ariable Cars Light trucks CUVs/minivans

Crash/

VMT Fatality/

crash Casualty/

crash Crash/

VMT Fatality/

cr ash Casualty/

crash Crash/

VMT Fatality/

crash Casualty/

crash

UNDERWT 2.00%

- 0.54% 0.09% 1.44%

- 1.61%

- 0.11%

— — — OVERWT 1.50%

- 2.39%

- 0.77% 0.94%

- 1.25%

- 0.62%

— — — LBS100

— — — — — — 0.95% 0.98%

- 0.16%

FOOTPRINT 0.64% 0.92% 0.23% 1.04% 0.48%

- 0.25 %

- 0.55%

- 1.67% 0.56%

TWODOOR 4.19% 11.2% 1.14%

— — — SUV

— — — - 0.59%

- 6.44% 2.84%

— — — HD

— — — - 3.86% 11.7% 0.17%

— — — BLOCKER1

— — — 0.52% 0.21% 1.29%

— — — BLOCKER2

— — — - 0.05%

- 3.02%

- 3.32%

— — — MINIVAN

— — — 3.81% 9.06% 15.9%

ROLLCURT

- 0.98%

- 21.3%

- 1.98%

— — — - 0.69%

- 0.58%

- 0.91%

CURTAIN

- 0.05% 4.48%

- 2.79%

— — — - 3.51%

- 1.39%

- 4.84%

COMBO 2.84%

- 6.33%

- 1.79%

— — — - 0.49% 1.61% 4.97%

TORSO

- 5.14%

- 10.2%

- 9.69%

— — — - 5.18% 1.52%

- 3.00%

ABS

- 7.21%

- 0.20%

- 3.26%

— — — - 20.0 %

- 18.1%

- 9.16%

ESC

- 15.1%

- 8.75%

- 8.78%

- 13.8%

- 12.0%

- 13.8% 0.15%

- 11.4%

- 7.08%

AWD

— — — 46.1% 6.05% 2.56% 11.3 % 5.63%

- 3.28%

VEHAGE 0.44% 0.99% 1.53%

- 0.01% 2.54% 2.19% 1.38%

- 0.68% 0.64%

BRANDNEW 6.04% 5.35% 2.99% 0.88% 6.42% 3.20% 0.51%

- 5.74% 1. 08%

DRVMALE 6.53% 14.4%

- 2.40%

- 0.46% 21.6%

- 1.43% 2.03% 42.5% 6.96% M14_30 4.23% 1.02% 0.53% 3.81% 0.20% 0.45% 5.01% 0.79% 0.18% M30_50 0.31% 0.50%

- 0.22% 0.36%

- 0.24%

- 0.19% 0.18%

- 0.92%

- 0.23% M50_70 0.21% 3.04% 1.14% 0.33% 1.52% 1.05% 0.62% 2.04% 1 .06% M70_96 3.98% 4.85% 2.11% 4.42% 4.28% 1.62% 3.39% 3.05% 1.57% F14_30 3.35% 0.16% 0.17% 3.53%

- 0.70% 0.32% 3.58% 0.03% 0.82% F30_50

- 0.03%

- 0.93%

- 0.56% 0.02%

- 0.61%

- 0.16% 0.00%

- 0.04%

- 0.30% F50_70 0.76% 2.66% 0.86% 0.93% 2.27% 1.13% 1.10% 3.64% 1 .67% F70_96 4.27% 4.49% 1.57% 3.36%

- 3.54% 0.15% 3.50% 2.86% 0.42%

NITE 22.5% 96.4% 22.7% 32.8% 88.7% 23.6% 17.8% 70.2% 15.8%

RURAL 11.4% 78.7% 37.3% 14.7% 59.3% 34.6% 10.5% 76.1% 36.7%

SPDLIM55 51.1% 214% 79.9% 36.8% 216% 93.5% 29.4% 235% 90.7%

CY200 2

- 5.40% 4.72% 11.8%

- 7.63% 15.5% 16.7%

- 9.09% 17.1% 19.5%

CY2003

- 4.05% 5.88% 11.5%

- 1.43% 9.83% 9.74%

- 3.48% 21.5% 15.6%

CY2004

- 2.39%

- 5.56% 6.31%

- 0.72% 5.28% 5.78%

- 2.05%

- 7.72% 0.36%

CY2005

- 0.26% 0.08% 3.84% 0.90% 10.2% 4.56% 0.83% 4.54% 1.67%

C Y2007 3.17%

- 6.94%

- 8.22% 2.34%

- 6.20%

- 7.59% 3.15%

- 9.23%

- 5.29%

CY2008 3.70%

- 10.1%

- 10.5% 1.82%

- 12.5%

- 12.2% 4.61%

- 11.4%

- 9.88%

AL 120%

- 69.1%

- 11.8% 79.7%

- 71.5%

- 21.6% 123%

- 75.3%

- 22.1%

KS 37.0%

- 76.7%

- 87.2% 21.4%

- 80.2%

- 88.6% 46.6%

- 79.2%

- 88 .8%

KY 131%

- 74.4%

- 79.8% 118 %

- 77.5%

- 82.3% 187%

- 81.6%

- 82.4%

MD 2.32%

- 60.8%

- 47.0%

- 12.9%

- 55.5%

- 46.0%

- 3.90%

- 71.8%

- 43.6%

MI 83.8%

- 86.9%

- 87.4% 60.3%

- 88.4%

- 89.3% 68.4%

- 86.7%

- 88.6%

MO 76.3%

- 67.0%

- 74.1% 46.8%

- 71.2%

- 74.1% 80.9%

- 69.9%

- 74. 6%

NE 59.3%

- 76.7%

- 76.6% 38.7%

- 77.1%

- 75.8% 52.6%

- 81.6%

- 78.1%

NJ 78.1%

- 78.6%

- 94.0% 64.3%

- 88.8%

- 94.6% 77.2%

- 81.6%

- 94.5%

PA

- 38.1%

- 24.1%

- 79.7%

- 31.9%

- 36.0%

- 78.5%

- 30.4%

- 27.8%

- 79.2%

WA 22.5%

- 71.5%

- 87.1% 29.9%

- 73.9%

- 86.5% 44.9%

- 74.8%

- 87.9%

WI 27.1%

- 69.9%

- 77.2% 18.8%

- 75.2%

- 78.5% 26.8%

- 74.7%

- 78.2%

WY 100%

- 77.2%

- 78.6% 15.2%

- 78.7%

- 80.1% 79.9%

- 91.6%

- 77.7% * Values in red are statistically significant at the 95% level.32 In summary, t he strong and consistent relationship in Tabl es 2.4 through 2.6 between the control

variables for vehicle attributes, driver gender and age , crash circumstances

, and crash frequency

and risk

, is encouraging. However, the tables show several unexpected results:

• side airbags are estimated to reduce crash frequency;

• AWD is estimated to increase crash frequency;

• ES C and ABS are estimated to reduce risk once a crash has occurred ; and • AWD, brand new vehicles, and male drivers are estimated to increase risk once a crash has

occurred

.

In so me cases these unexpected results apply to all three vehicle types, in other cases only one or two of the three vehicle types. These unexpected results suggest that the regression models may not fully account for all the variables that influence crash fre quency or risk per crash. In particular, they may not account for why risky or unskilled drivers select certain vehicle types, or

even particular makes and models. Not accounting for these associations may be biasing the relationships the models estimate between vehicle mass or footprint and crash frequency and risk per crash.33 3. Multi

- collinearity between vehicle mass and footprint

In its 2003 analysis NHTSA resisted including vehicle mass and size (in that case, wheelbase and track width) in the same regression model, because the two variables were strongly correlated with each other. Including two or more highly

- correlated variables in the same regression model

can lead to biased or incorrect results. DRI showed that regression analyses tha t included both mass and size (i.e. wheelbase and track width) in the same regression model (i.e. that estimated the effect of mass while holding size constant, and vice versa) estimated smaller effects for changes in mass or size on US fatality risk per V MT (Van Auken and Zellner, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b). In its 2010 and 2011 analyses, NHTSA included both mass and size (i.e. footprint, or wheelbase times track width) in the same regression model, in part because the model year 2012 to 2016 light t ruck standards adopted in 2010, and the proposed 2017 to 2025 standards for all light

- duty vehicles, assign a target fuel economy/greenhouse gas emission level based on a vehicle’s footprint ( Kahane 2010 and 2011).

Using two or more variables that are s trongly correlated in the same regression model (referred

to as multi

- collinearity) can lead to biased results. Allison 9 “begins to get concerned” with VIF values greater than 2.5, while Menard 10 suggests that a VIF greater than 5 is a “cause for concern”, while a VIF greater than 10 “almost certainly indicates a serious collinearity problem”; however, O’Brien 11 suggests that “values of VIF of 10, 20, 40 or even higher do not, by themselves, discount the results of regression analyses.” .

Figure 3.1 shows the correlation between curb weight and footprint by vehicle model in the NHTSA database; only the most popular 275 models, with at least 10 billion VMT or 1 00 fatalities, are included in the figure (106 car models, 131 light truck models, and 38 CUV/minivan models). The figure indicates that curb weight and footprint are more highly correlated for cars ( Pearson correlation coefficient, or r, of 0.90 ) than for light trucks ( r of 0.75) or CUVs/minivans (r of 0.78 ). Figure 3.2 shows the same data as Figure 3.1, but uses seven vehicle types. Here the cor relation ranges from over 0. 80 for 4

- door cars, SUVs, small pickups,

and CUVs to less than 0. 80 for large pickups and 2

- door cars, to only 0. 49 for minivans. The

correlation of 0. 75 for all light trucks (pickups and SUVs) co mbined in Figure 3.1 is improved

when the types of trucks are analyzed separately in Figure 3.2: 0.90 for SUVs and 0.86 for small pickups, but only 0.67 for large pickups . On the other hand, separating CUVs from miniv ans improves the correlation between curb weight and footprint for CUVs (0. 86) but not for minivans (0. 49). The correlation is so poor for minivans in part because of the Kia Sedona, which has a much higher weight (4,730 lbs) for its footprint (51.3 s q ft) than other minivans; removing this model improves the correlation for minivans to 0. 63.

9 Allison, P.D.. Logistic Regression Using SAS, Theory and Application . SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC, 1999.

10 Menard, S. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis, Second Edition . Sage Publications, Thousand Oa ks CA, 2002.

11 O’Brien, R.M. “A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors,” Quality and Quantitiy, (41) 673

- 690, 2007.34 Figure 3.1

. Correlation between vehicle curb weight and footprint, by vehicle model and three vehicle types

Figure 3.2

. Correlation between vehicle curb weig ht and footprint, by vehicle model and seven vehicle types R ! = 0.87

R ! = 0.65

R ! = 0.60

34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 66 70 74 78

2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 6800 7200 7600Footprint (wheelbase x track width, sq ft)

Curb weight (lbs) Average footprint and curb weight, by vehicle type and model

Cars

Light trucks

CUVs and Minivans r = 0.90

r = 0.75

r = 0.78

R ! = 0.65

R ! = 0.89

R ! = 0.81

R ! = 0.43
R ! = 0.81
R ! = 0.66

R ! = 0.26

34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 66 70 74 78

2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 6800 7200 7600Footprint (wheelbase x track width, sq ft)

Curb weight (lbs) Average footprint and curb weight, by vehicle type and model

2-dr cars

4-dr cars Small pickups Large pickups

SUVs

CUVs

Minivans r = 0.76

r = 0.91

r = 0.86

r = 0.67

r = 0.90

r = 0.86

r = 0.4935 Table 3.1 shows the correlation coefficients of curb weight with footprint, and variance inflation factors, by vehicle type. The values in the table are weighted by the VMT weights for individu al makes and models. The table indicates that curb weight is most highly correlated with footprint

for 4

- door cars and SUVs (r over 0.90), followed by small pickups and CUVs (r of 0.80) and 2

- door cars (0.76). The correlation between weight and footprint is lowest for large pickups (0.67) and minivans (0.49); the low correlation between weight and footprint for minivans is strongly influenced by one model, the Kia Sedona, which is unusually heavy for its size. Removing this model from the analysis incre a ses the correlation to 0.63. Table 3.1 also indicates that six of the seven vehicle types (all except minivans) have a VIF associated with curb weight greater than 2.5, the point at which multi

- collinearity becomes a concern.

Table 3.1 . Correlation co e ff icients and variance inflation factors of curb weight with footprint, by vehicle type

Vehicle type Correlation

coefficient ( r ) Variance inflation factor ( VIF ) Accounting for vehicle and

type variables Accounting for all

variables

CURBWT FOOTPRNT CURB WT FOOTPRNT

Cars 0.896 6.2 5.6 7.3 6.0 Light trucks 0.748 6.5 8.6 8.1 9.8

CUVs/minivans 0.781 3.8 6.7 4.7 8.7

2

- dr cars 0.758 3.3 2.7 3.8 3.0

4

- dr cars 0.910 6.8 6.2 8.6 6.8 Sm pickups 0.862 4.1 4.0 6.5 4.8 Lg pickups 0.673 2.0 1.9 3.6 2.3

SUVs 0.9 04 6.0 5.8 7.8 1.0

CUVs 0.863 5.1 4.4 7.9 6.4

Minivans 0.488 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.8

Figure 3.3 compares the results from the reg ression models for 13

- state casualty risk per crash , in light green from Figure 2. 5 , with two alternative model specifications to t est the sensitivity of the results. The first sensitivity, in dark purple, includes the weight variables in the regression model but excludes the footprint variable; this model tests the estimated effect of mass reduction while allowing footprint to vary with vehicle mass. This sensitivity slightly increases the risk from a

100

- lb mass reduction in lighter cars (from an estimated 0. 09 % to 0. 25 % ) and CUVs/minivans (from a n estimated 0. 16 % decrease in risk to a n estimated 0. 13 % increase in risk )

, an d reduces the beneficial effect of mass reduction in heavier cars ( from a n estimated 0. 77 % to a 0. 61 %

reduction in risk ) . H owever, allowing light truck footprint to vary with mass is associated with a larger estimated reduction in casualty risk per crash in light trucks ; from an estimated 0.11%

reduction to an estimated 0.38% reduction in lighter

- than

- average light trucks, and from an

estimated 0.62% reduction to an estimated 0.78% reduction in heavier

- than

- average light trucks.

The estimated effects of mass reduction when footprint is allowed to vary with mass for casualty risk per crash are quite different from the effects for fatality risk per VMT. In an earlier anal ysis (Figure 3.3, LBNL, 2012 ) , we showed that lower mass is associated with much larger increases in fatality risk per VMT when footprint is allowed to vary with mass, than when footprint is held constant, at least for cars and CU Vs/minivans. Here, with risk measure d as casualty risk per36 crash, lower mass is associated with only slightly larger increases in risk when car or CUV/minivan footprint is allowed to vary with mass (shown in dark purple), than wh en footprint is held constant (shown in green).

Figure 3.3 . E stimated e ffect of reduction in mass or footprint on 13

- state casualty risk per
crash

, by vehicle type: holding footprint constant, allowing footprint to vary with mass, and allowing mass to var y with footprint

The second sensitivity keeps footprint in the regression model, but removes mass, and is shown in light purple in Figure 3.3. Allowing vehicle mass to be reduced with footprint reduces the

estimated effect of footprint reduction on cas ualty risk per crash in cars ( from a n estimated

0. 23 % increase to a n estimated 0. 10 % decrease ) and light trucks ( from a n estimated 0. 25 %

decrease to a n estimated 0. 49 % decrease ); allowing CUV/minivan mass to vary with footprint has no effect on casualty risk per crash for CUVs/minivans. Figure 3.3 suggests that including both mass and footprint in the same regression model results in onl y slight changes in the effect of mass and footprint reductions on casualty risk per crash.

In its 2012 analysis NHTSA examined the relationship between curb weight and fatality risk for deciles of vehicles with roughly the same footprint. Figure 3. 4 shows the range in curb weights for the footprint deciles NHTSA used for the three vehicle types. The figure shows that there is a large degree of overlap in the curb weights of vehicles with roughly the same footprint; this is

an indication that the co rrelation between curb weight and footprint may be strong but is not

absolute.

NHTSA ran a new regression model with all of the control variables except footprint, for each crash and vehicle type, and footprint decile, a total of 270 regression models; th e two mass variables, UNDERWT00 and OVERWT00, originally used for cars and light trucks were0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%0.25%-0.61%-0.38%-0.78%0.13%-0.10%-0.49%0.56%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-state casualties per crash
Effect of mass reduction, allowing footprint to vary with mass
Effect of footprint reduction, allowing mass to vary with footprint

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint37 replaced by a single mass variable LBS100. NHTSA listed the number of the regression models for the ten footprint deciles in which the regression coefficient on v ehicle mass was positive; that is, where lower mass is associated with an increase in fatality risk.

Figure 3. 4

. Range in curb weight for the footprint deciles, by vehicle type

We replicate this analysis for 13

- state casualty risk in Table 3. 2 , which includes the number of footprint deciles in which the coefficient on vehicle mass is statistically significant. There are four columns for each vehicle type in Table 3. 2 ; the first two indicate the number of footprint

d eciles in which lower vehicle mass is associated with higher casualty risk per crash , and the number that are statistically significant. Red print indicates cases in which three or more footprint deciles have significant coefficien ts. The second two columns for each vehicle type indicate the number of footprint deciles in which lower vehicle mass is associated with lower casualty risk per crash , and the number that are statistically significant. For example, in car rollover crashes, mass reduction is associated with higher casualty risk in five footprint deciles, but only two of those associations are statistically significant. On the other hand

, lower mass in light truck s is associated with higher casualty risk in rollover crashes in six footprint deciles, and

four of those six are statistically significant. Table 3. 2 indicates that lower mass is not consistently associat ed with increased casualty risk for vehicles with similar footprint. Lower mass is associated with higher casualty risk in a majority of footprint deciles for 9 of the 27 crash and vehicle combinations, but few of these incre ases are statistically significant. On the other hand, lower mass is associated with lower risk in a majority of footprint deciles for 12 of the 27 crash and vehicle combinations, although few of these reductions are statistically sign ificant. 1600 2600 3600 4600 5600 6600 7600Footprint decile

Curb weight (lbs) Range in curb weight for footprint deciles, by vehicle type

Cars

Light trucks

CUVs/minivans38 Table 3. 2 . Number of footprint deciles in which lower mass is associated with increas ing or
decreas ing 13

- state casualty risk per crash , by vehicle and crash type

Crash type Cars Light trucks CUVs/MinivansNumber of deciles withincreasingriskNumber of deciles withestimates that are statisticallysignificantNumber of deciles withdecreasingriskNumber of deciles withestimates that are statisticallysignificantNumber of deciles withincreasingriskNumberof deciles withestimates that are statisticallysignificantNumber of deciles withdecreasingriskNumber of deciles withestimates that are statisticallysignificantNumber of deciles withincreasingriskNumber of deciles withestimates that are statisticallysignificantNumber of deciles withdecreasingriskNumber of deciles withestimatesthat are statistically significant

1: Rollovers 5 2 5 2 6 4 4 2 5 0 5 2
2: w/object 2 1 8 2 6 2 4 0 5 0 5 0
3: w/ped etc. 4 0 6 1 3 0 7 1 4 1 6 2

4: w/HDT 2 2 8 1 6 2 4 0 6 1 4 0
5: w/lgt car 7 1 3 2 6 3 4 2 4 0 6 1
6: w/hvy car 4 0 6 3 3 1 7 3 7 1 3 0
7: w/lgt LT 5 1 5 2 1 0 9 3 8 0 2 1
8: w/hvy LT 5 1 5 2 8 3 2 2 3 2 7 2

9: Other 3 2 7 3 5 3 5 1 4 3 6 3

The data in Table 3. 2 give no information on the size of the effect of mass reduction on casualty

risk per crash in the footprint deciles. Figures 3. 5 through 3. 7 show the percent change in

estimated casualty risk from mass reduction for each footprint decile, by vehicle type, for six of

the nine crash types (rollovers, and crashes with stationary objects, cars, and light trucks). Figure 3. 5 indicates that lower mass is associated with a larger than 5% increase in casualty risk

in car rollover in deciles one, nine

, and te n, but is associated with a larger than 25% decrease in casualty risk in decile eight . Figure 3. 7 indicates that lower mass in CUVs/minivans is

associated with reduced casualty risk in rollovers in five of the footprint deciles, and that these

reductions are quite large (over 20 %) for footprint deciles four, nine and ten. Figures 3. 5 through

3. 7 suggest that there are no consistent trends in the e stimated e ffect of mass redu ction on risk

when vehicles ar e grouped by footprint decile.39 Figure 3. 5 . E stimated e ffect of car mass reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash , by footprint decile and crash type

Figure 3. 6 . E stimated e ffect of light truck mass reduction on 13

- sta te casualty risk per
crash , by footprint decile and crash type -35% -25% -15%

-5% 5% 15%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Percent change in casualty risk per crashfrom mass reduction

Footprint decile (lowest to highest) Effect of mass reduction on car risk, by footprint decile and crash type

Rollovers w/object

w/lgt car w/hvy car

w/lgt LT w/hvy LT

-10%

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Percent change in casualty risk per crashfrom mass reduction

Footprint decile (lowest to highest) Effect of mass reduction on LT risk, by footprint decile and crash type

Rollovers w/object

w/lgt car w/hvy car

w/lgt LT w/hvy LT40 Figure 3. 7 . E stimated e ffect of CUV/minivan mass reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per
crash , by footprint decile and crash type

4. Casualty risk by vehicle model

In this section we exa mine the variation in societal casualty risk by average vehicle mass and by vehicle model, both before and after accounting for the vehicle, driver and crash variables NHTSA includes in its regression models of US fatality risk per VMT . Figure 4.1 plots unadjusted 13

- state casualty risk per crash against average curb weight, with vehicles grouped

into 100

- lb increments of vehicle curb wei ght. Figure 4.1 indicates that casualty risk per crash

increases slightly for cars, and decreases for light trucks and CUVs/minivans, as curb weight

increases . T here also is a large d egree of variability for cars and light trucks

, as indicated by the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) values below 0. 2 0.

Figures 4.2 through 4.4 show the relationship between unadjusted casualty risk per crash and

mas s by more detailed vehicle type. Figure 4.2 indicates that the relationship between curb weight and casualty risk per crash is weaker for 4

- door cars than for 2

- door cars, with risk actually increasing with increasing mass for 4

- door cars between 3, 70 0 and 4, 100 lbs . Figure 4.3 suggests that , while casualty risk decreases as the curb weight of small pickups and truck

- based SUVs increases, for large pickups (3/4

- and 1

- ton pickups) casualty risk increases slightly as curb weight increases. And Fig ure 4.4 indicates that the relationship between casualty risk and curb weight is strong

, with a dramatic reduction in cas ualty risk as mass increases and a high degree of correlation , for CUVs, and especially minivans

. -65% -45% -25%

-5% 15% 35%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Percent change in casualty risk per crashfrom mass reduction

Footprint decile (lowest to highest) Effect of mass reduction on CUV risk, by footprint decile and crash type

Rollovers w/object

w/lgt car w/hvy car

w/lgt LT w/hvy LT41 Figure 4.1

. Relationship between 13

- state casualty risk per crash and curb weight, with vehicles grouped into 100

- lb increments of curb weight

, by vehicle type

Figure 4.2

. Relationship between 13

- state casualt y risk per crash and curb weight, with vehicles grouped into 100

- lb increments of curb weight

, passenger cars R ! = 0.03

R ! = 0.02

R ! = 0.14

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 7213-state casualty risk (casualties per 1,000 crashes)

Curb weight (lbs/100) Casualty risk per crash, by curb weight andvehicle type

Cars
Light trucks

CUVs and Minivans r = -0.17

r = 0.16

r = 0.38

R ! = 0.38

R ! = 0.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 7213-state casualty risk (casualties per 1,000 crashes)

Curb weight (lbs/100) Fatality risk per curb weight, passenger cars

2-dr cars

4-dr cars r = 0.61

r = -0.0442 Figure 4.3

. Relationship between 13

- state casualty risk per crash and curb weight, with vehicles grouped into 100

- lb increments of curb weight

, light trucks

Figure 4.4

. Relationship between 13

- state casualty risk per crash and curb weight, with vehicles grouped into 100

- lb increments of curb weight

, CUVs and minivans R ! = 0.06

R ! = 0.01
R ! = 0.13

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 7213-state casualty risk (casualties per 1,000 crashes)

Curb weight (lbs/100) Fatality risk per curb weight, light trucks

Small pickups Large pickups

Truck-based SUVs r = 0.24

r = -0.10

r = 0.36

R ! = 0.34

R ! = 0.96

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 7213-state casualty risk (casualties per 1,000 crashes)

Curb weight (lbs/100) Fatality risk per curb weight, CUVs and minivans

Crossover SUVs

Minivans r = 0.58

r = 0.9843 Figure 4.5 shows the danger of using the average risks of groups of individual models, such as by curb weight bins. The filled symbols in the figure represent the relationship between minivan casualty risk and curb weight when the data are grouped into bins of curb weight, from Figure 4.4; this analysis shows a high correlation bet ween risk and curb weight (R 2 of 0.96)

. However, if the relationship between risk and curb weight of the 13 most popular individual minivan models, which represent over 90% of the minivan casualties and crashes, are plotted, the correlation is much lower, with the R 2 dropping to 0. 39

. 12

Figure 4.5

. Relationship between 13

- state casualty risk per crash and curb weight for minivans, by average risk for 100

- lb increments of curb weight and individual models

It is possible that the relationship between veh icle mass and casualty risk is stronger in certain types of crashes. Figure 4. 6 presents the relationship between 100

- lb increments in curb weight and casualty risk in one

- vehicle crashes with a stationary object, the type of crash in which

vehicle mass i s thought to provide occupants the most protection. For all three types of vehicles, casualty risk per crash in crashes with stationary objects does decline as mass increases; the strength of this relationship is much greater in cr ashes with stationary objects than in al l types of crashes (Figure 4.1).

Note that, for a given vehicle weight, ligh t trucks have a higher casualty risk per crash in crashes with stationary objects than cars or CUVs/ minivans. Since there are no crash partner casualties in crashes with stationary objects, we suspect that light trucks have a higher risk than cars in Figur e

12 Figure 4.5 actually excludes one additional popular minivan model, which has the highest casualty risk (67 per

1 ,000 crashes) and weight (4, 7 28 lbs) of the minivan models shown; including this model would make the correlation between casualty risk and curb weight even lower. R ! = 0.96

R ! = 0.39

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 7213-state casualty risk (casualties per 1,000 crashes)

Curb weight (lbs) Casualty risk per crash, minivans

Curb weight bins

Individual models44 4. 6 because of their tendency to roll over, their increased use on more dangerous rural roads, and perhaps more passenger casualties in light trucks than in cars.

Figure 4. 6

. Relationship between 13

- state casualty risk per crash in crashes with stationa ry objects and curb weight

, by vehicle type

Table 4.1 summarizes the correlations between risk and a decrease in curb weight by 100

- lb weight bins, by vehicle type, presented in Figures 4.1 through 4.6.

Tabl e 4.1. Correlation between risk and a decreas e in curb weight, for vehicles grouped in

100

- lb curb weight bins

Vehicle type US fatality risk, all crashes US fatality risk, crashes with stationary objects

Estimate r R 2 Estimate r R 2

Cars

- 0.13%

- 0.17 0.03 0.09% * 0.70 0.49 Light trucks 0.23% 0 .16 0.02 0.09% * 0.53 0.28

CUVs/minivans 0.84% 0.38 0.14 0.13% * 0.63 0.40

2

- dr cars 0.59% * 0.61 0.38 0.12% 0.40 0.16

4

- dr cars

- 0.04%

- 0.04 0.00 0.04% * 0.49 0.24 Sm pickups 0.40% 0.24 0.06 0.14% * 0.63 0.39 Lg pickups

- 0.17%

- 0.10 0.01 0. 01% 0.04 0.00

SUVs 1.25% 0.36 0.13 0.23% * 0.59 0.35

CUVs 1.77% * 0.58 0.34 0.23% * 0.78 0.61

Minivans 2.75% * 0.98 0.96 0.18% * 0.90 0.80 R ! = 0.49
R ! = 0.28

R ! = 0.40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 7213-state casualty risk (casualties per 1,000 crashes)

Curb weight (lbs/100) Fatality risk in crashes with objects per curb weight, by vehicle type

Cars Light trucks

CUVs and Minivans r = 0.70

r = 0.53

r = 0.6345 Figures 4.1 through 4. 6 and Table 4.1 show that grouping vehicles into 100

- l b mass increments

indicates tha t, for some vehicle types, casualty risk per crash decreases as mass increases. Figure

4. 7 shows the relationship between vehicle mass and casualty risk by individual vehicle model. Only 275 models with at least 10 billion VMT, or at least 100 fatalities

, based on the NHTSA 2011 analysis, are included (106 car models, 131 light truck models, and 38 CUV/minivan models); these models represent over 90% of all casualties and crashes . Here we see that casualty risk declines slightly with increasing mass for cars, light trucks, and CUVs / minivans

.

A lthough casualty risk gradually declines with increasing mass , the extremely low R 2 values (all less than 0.10) indicate that there is essentially no relationship between mass and casualty risk per crash, for any o f the three types of vehicles, and that there is a very large range in casualty risk for individual vehicle models at a given weight. For example, the vehicle model labeled A in the figure , which weighs 2, 579 lbs, has a casualty risk of 86 per 1,000 crash es , while model B

, which weighs slightly less (2, 500 lbs)

, has a casualty risk of only 44

.

Figure 4. 7

. 13

- state c asualty risk per crash and curb weight, by vehicle model

Of course, differences in vehicles (footprint, two

- vs. four

- doors, and presence of side impact air bags, automated braking systems, or electronic stability controls), drivers (age and gender), an d crash characteristics (at night, on high

- speed roads, or in rural vs. urban areas or high

- casualty risk states) by vehicle model may explain some of the large range in casualty risk by vehicle weight. To account for these various variables, we reran the logistic regression models including all of the driver, crash, and vehicle control variables except vehicle mass and footprint, across all types of crashes for each of the three vehicle types. We then calculated the predicted casualty R ! = 0.02

R ! = 0.00

R ! = 0.08

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 6800 720013-state casualty risk (casualties per 1,000 crashes)

Curb weight (lbs) Unadjusted US fatality risk per VMT and curb weight, by vehicle type

Cars

Light trucks

CUVs and Minivans A

B46 risk per crash for each vehicle in the 13

- state crash database. We multiplied the logistic regression coefficients for all driver, crash, and vehicle variables except mass and footprint by the characteristics of each vehicle, to obtain the predicted number of casualt ies per vehicle, and

then summed across vehicle make and model. W e then divided the total number of predicted fatalities in each make and model by the number of crashes for that make and model , to obtain predicted risk, the number of predicted casualties per poli ce

- reported crash . We exclude footprint as well as mass in the predicted risks we calculate from the regression coefficient s, as the two vehicle attributes are moderately correlated.

While Figure 4. 7 shows the unadjusted casualty risks by vehicle mode s, Figure 4. 8 shows the risks predicted by the regression model coefficients for all control variables except vehicle mass and footprint. Figure 4. 8 indicates that, after controlling for the all of the driver, crash, and

vehicle variables used in the logisti c regressio n model except vehicle mass and footprint, there still is a large range in casualty risk per crash across vehicle models of similar weight, for all three vehicle types. Figure 4. 9 shows the remaining residual, or unexplaine d, casualty risks aft er accounting for all variables except vehicle mass and footprint. In essence Figure 4.9 shows that there is no relationship between vehicle mass and the remaining, unexplained casualty risk after accounting for driver, crash and all other vehicle attribu tes.

Figure 4. 8

. Predicted 13

- state casualty risk per crash after accounting for all driver, crash, and vehicle variables except mass and footprint, vs. curb weight

R ! = 0.02

R ! = 0.00

R ! = 0.11

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 6800 7200Predicted 13-state risk (casualties per 1,000 crashes)

Curb weight (lbs) Predicted risk, accntg for all variables except weight and footprint

Cars

Light trucks

CUVs and Minivans47 Figure 4. 9 . Residual 13

- state casualty risk per crash after accounting for all driver, crash, and vehicle variables except mass and footprint, vs. curb weight

Table 4. 2 summarizes the relationships between predicted and residual casualty risk and vehicle curb weight that are presented in Figures 4. 7 through 4. 9 . In addition to the corr elation between casualty risk and curb weight, the table shows the slope of the linear regression line drawn through the risks by vehicle model, which represents the percent change in casualty risk per 100

- pound reduction in mass or 1

- square foot reduction in footprint. The relationship for the three vehicle types is shown at the top of the table, followed by those for the seven detailed vehicle subtypes (with small, i.e. compact and 1⁄2

- ton, pickups shown separately from heavy

- duty, i.e. 3⁄4

- and 1

- ton, picku ps), and finally the five vehicle type and weight groups NHTSA used in its regression analyses. Cases where there is a positive relationship between casualty risk and

vehicle mass reduction , i.e. where mass reduction leads to reduction in casualty risk , a re shown

in red in the table ; there are no c ases where the correlation between risk and weight by vehicle

model exceeds 0.30.

Table 4. 2 indicates that casualty risk consistently increases with lower vehicle mass , for almost all vehicle type s, although the correlation between casualty risk and weight is negligible in

almost all cases

. The exception is CUVs, where casualty risk increases by 1.6% for each 100

- lbs

of lower mass , with a moderate correlation between actual and p redicted casualty risk with an R 2

of 0. 21 . Table 4. 3 presents the same information as Table 4. 2 , but for the relationship between casualty risk and vehicle footprint reduction, with the similar results: casualty risk increase s slightly as footprint is reduced, with negligible correlation between casualty risk and footprint

reduction. R ! = 0.00

R ! = 0.00

R ! = 0.13
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10

0 10 20

2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 5600 6000 6400 6800 7200Residual 13-state risk (casualties per 1,000 crashes)

Curb weight (lbs) Residual risk accounting for all variables except weight and footprint

Cars

Light trucks

CUVs and Minivans48 Table 4. 2 . Rel ationship between actual, predicted, and residual 13

- state casualty risk per
crash , and vehicle mas s reduction, after accounting for all driver, crash, and vehicle variables except mass and footprint, by vehicle type and model

Vehicle type Actual 13

- state casualty risk per crash Predicted risk Residual risk

Estimate R 2 Estimate R 2 Estimate R 2

Cars 0.28% 0.02 0.22% 0.02 0.03% 0.00 Light trucks 0.09% 0.00 0.15% 0.00

- 0.01% 0.00

CUVs/minivans 0.93% 0.08 1.33% * 0.11

- 0.25% 0.08

2

- dr cars 0.25% 0.02 0.25% 0.02 0.04% 0.00

4

- dr cars 0.29% 0.02 0.21% 0.01 0.05% 0.00 Small pickups 0.07% 0.00 0.62% 0.0 3

- 0.49% 0.26 Heavy

- duty pickups 0.09% 0.00 1.04% 0.03

- 0.77% 0.11

SUVs 0.21% 0.00 0.38% 0.01

- 0.10% 0.01

CUVs 1.63% 0.21 2.06% * 0.21

- 0.25% 0.08

Minivans

- 0.39% 0.03

- 0.19% 0.01 0.02% 0.00

Cars < 3106 0.95% * 0.07 0.58% 0.0 3 0.38% 0.03

Cars > 3106

- 0.83% * 0.06

- 0.82% 0.07

- 0.28% 0.03

LTs < 4594 0.37% 0.00 0.62% 0.01

- 0.25% 0.02

LTs > 4594 0.63% 0.01 0.72% 0.01

- 0.07% 0.00

CUVs/ minivans 0.93% 0.08 1.33% * 0.11

- 0.25% 0.08 * statistically significa nt at the 95% confidence level

Table 4. 3 . Rel ationship between actual, predicted, and residual 13

- state casualty risk per crash, and vehicle footprint reduction

, after accounting for all driver, crash, and vehicle variables except mass and footprint, by vehicle type and model

Vehicle type Actual 13

- state casualty risk per crash Predicted risk Residual risk

Estimate R 2 Estimate R 2 Estimate R 2

Cars 0.34% 0.02 0.26% 0.01 0.06% 0.00 Light trucks

- 0.25% 0.01

- 0.35% 0.01 0.08% 0.01

CUVs/miniv ans 0.03% 0.00 0.30% 0.00

- 0.26% 0.07

2

- dr cars 0.44% 0.03 0.11% 0.00 0.36% 0.03

4

- dr cars 0.34% 0.02 0.26% 0.01 0.05% 0.00 Small pickups

- 0.51% 0.03

- 0.19% 0.00

- 0.36% 0.17 Heavy

- duty pickups

- 1.65% 0.15

- 2.19% 0.11 0.30% 0.01

SUVs

- 0.65% 0.01

- 0.48% 0.01

- 0.18% 0.02

CUVs 0.97% 0.04 1.29% 0.04

- 0.31% 0.06

Minivans 1.24% * 0.14 1.34% * 0.31

- 0.01% 0.00

Cars < 3106 1.39% * 0.10 0.63% 0.03 0.88% 0.11

Cars > 3106

- 0.79% 0.05

- 0.58% 0.03

- 0.43% 0.07

LTs < 4594

- 0.54% 0.01

- 0.72% 0.02 0.06% 0.00

LTs > 4594

- 0.31% 0.01

- 0.57% 0.01 0.18% 0.02

CUVs/ minivans 0.03% 0.00 0.30% 0.00

- 0.26% 0.07 * statistically significant at the 95% confidence level49 In its 2012 report NHTSA notes that , despite their theoretical advantage in terms of handling, braking, and accelerating, small and light vehicles historically have had higher crash and insurance claim frequency per vehicle mile traveled. This discrepancy suggests that small and light vehi cles have not been driven as well as larger, heavier ones, perhaps because less capable drivers tend to choose smaller and lighter vehicles. In their peer review, Kockelman and Chen (University of Texas) noted that low

- income drivers tend to drive poorly, or in environments that are more dangerous than higher income drivers (SRA 2012) . One indication of driving behavior is the frequency of one

- vehicle, non

- rollover crashes per VMT: one

- vehicle crashes are most likely the fault of the driver of the crash

- i nvolved vehicle, while it is more difficult to assign fault

to drivers in multi

- vehicle crashes.

The relationship between crash frequency in one

- vehicle non

- rollover crashes and household income, vehicle mass, and initial vehicle purchase price by vehicl e make and model is shown in Table 4.4 by vehicle type. The first columns of the table indicate that the frequency of one

vehicle crashes decreases as household income increases, for all vehicle types, and that the frequency of one

- vehicle crashes in cars , and to a lesser extent in CUVs and minivans, is

somewhat correlated with driver income, with an R 2 of over 0.30. The middle columns of the table indicate that, while the frequency of one

- vehicle crashes tends to decrease with increasing

vehicle mass for most vehicle types, it is not strongly correlated with vehicle mass. The frequency of one

- vehicle crashes involving full size pickups actually increases (by 2.3%) as full size pickup mass increases. NHTSA infers from its analysis of crash culpability th at “small, light vehicles have not been driven as well as large, heavier ones;” Table 4.4 suggests that the higher frequency of one

- vehicle crashes involving lighter cars is a function of poor driving

behavior of the lower income households that tend to ow n these vehicles, and is unrelated to

vehicle mass.

The ability of a vehicle to avoid a crash altogether may account for some of the correlation between car crash frequency and driver income; low

- income drivers may not be able to afford

vehicles that tend to have higher crash avoidance capabilities, such as improved handling and reduced braking distance. We use the initial purchase price by vehicle model as a proxy for the general quality of vehicle design; clearly other measures of vehicle handling and b raking distance, such as vehicle tests conducted by Consumer’s Union, would be preferable measures of a vehicle’s crash avoidance capabilities. The last columns in Table 4.4 suggest that the frequency of one

- vehicle non

- rollover crashes does decline as in itial purchase price increases for most vehicle types, but the relationship is not strong. However, crash frequency increases as the purchase price of fullsize pickups and minivans increases.50 Table 4.4 . Rel ationship between frequency of one

- vehicle non

- rollover crashes and household income, vehicle mass, and initial vehicle purchase price, by vehicle type and

model

Vehicle type 1

- vehicle crash frequency and

household income 1

- vehicle crash frequency and mass 1

- vehicle crash frequency and initial purcha se price

Estimate R 2 Estimate R 2 Estimate R 2

Cars

- 6.0% * 0.36

- 3.6% * 0.12

- 2.3% * 0.23 Light trucks

- 3.0% 0.03

- 1.3% * 0.06

- 1.7% * 0.07

CUVs/minivans

- 4.0% * 0.40 0.0% 0.00

- 1.0% 0.03

2

- dr cars

- 10.6% * 0.42

- 2.3% 0.02

- 4.9% * 0.18

4

- dr cars

- 5.1% * 0.52

- 2.7% * 0.13

- 1.8% * 0.30 Small pickups

- 7.0% 0.04 0.0% 0.00 0.3% 0.00 Heavy

- duty pickups

- 4.4% 0.03 2.3% 0.09 5.3% * 0.28

SUVs

- 1.2% 0.01

- 2.4% * 0.14

- 2.2% * 0.14

CUVs

- 3.4% * 0.38

- 0.6% 0.01

- 1.8% * 0.17

Minivans

- 5. 0% * 0.32

- 2.7% 0.03 4.8% 0.19

Cars < 3106

- 5.2% * 0.13 1.2% 0.00

- 1.5% 0.01

Cars > 3106

- 5.5% * 0.58

- 4.0% * 0.07

- 2.1% * 0.31

LTs < 4594

- 3.5% 0.03

- 1.7% 0.02

- 1.0% 0.01

LTs > 4594

- 1.8% 0.02

- 0.1% 0.00

- 1.4% 0.04

CUVs/ minivans

- 4.0% * 0.40 0.0% 0.00

- 1.0% 0.03 * statistically significant at the 95% confidence level

We tested whether accounting for vehicle purchase price or household income in the regression models might change the unexpected relationship that crash frequen cy increases as vehicle mass

decreases. For every $1,000 increase in purchase price, crash frequency is estimated to decline

0.85% +/

- 0.05% for cars, 1.18% +/

- 0.07% for light trucks, and 1.22% +/

- 0.13% for CUVs/minivans; similarly, for every $1,000 incr ease in driver household income, crash frequency is estimated to decline 0.80% +/

- 0.06% for cars, 0.20% +/

- 0.10% for light trucks,

and 0.94% +/

- 0.11% for CUVs/minivans.

Figure 4.10 compares the estimates for mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state cras h frequency per VMT, before and after adding the vehicle price and household income control variables to the regression models. A dding vehicle purchase price substantially reduces the estimated increase in crash frequency as vehicle mass decreases for all vehicle types; in the case of heavier

than

- average cars, mass reduction is estimated to slightly decrease crash frequency. Adding

household income has virtually no effect on the estimated relationship between vehicle mass and crash frequency for cars and light trucks, but reduces the estimated increase in crash frequency

for CUVs/minivans

.51 Figure 4.10. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state crashes per VMT, after accounting for vehicle purchase price or median household income, b y vehicle type

We examine the estimated effect of mass or footprint reductions on casualty risk per crash after accounting for initial vehicle purchase price and median househo ld income in Sections 5.3 and

Section 5.5 , respectively

.2.00%1.50%1.44%0.94%0.95%0.64%1.04%-0.55%1.41%-0.06%0.85%0.20%0.14%0.73%0.83%-0.87%1.95%1.33%1.52%0.94%0.59%0.92%1.03%-0.23%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in crash frequency (crashes per VMT) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-state crashes per VMT

Including vehicle purchase price

Including median household income

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint52 5. Sensitivity o f 13

- state casualty risk per crash results to data used and model specification

In this section we examine the sensitivity of our results on the estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash . We examine the effec t of different methods of accounting for the sta te in which the crash occurred, and how the effect of mass or footprint reduction changes after accounting for vehicle manufacturer, after excluding the calendar year control variables, and after adding addit ional data to the analysis.

5.1. State control variables

As discussed above, we included 12 control variables to account for the different reporting requirements in each state, as well as other differences in risk per crash among states. Figure 5.1

co mpares the effect of this approach with two other approaches: not accounting for state at all in the analysis, and using only two control variables, HIINJ and LOINJ, to identify states with relatively high (Alabama, Florida, Maryland, and Wyoming,) and rel atively low (Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington) casualty risk per crash (see Figure 2.3 , above )

. Figure 5.1 indicates that mass reduction has a much larger estimated beneficial effect, and footprint reduction a much

more detrimental effect in cars and CUVs/minivans, when one excludes the state in which the crash occurred from the regression models (shown in blue). Including only the two variables to
control for state , HIINJ and LOINJ, substantially reduces the estimated effect of mass and footprint red uction on casualty risk per crash (shown in red) ; including the 12 control variables

for individual states reduces the estimated effect a little bit more (shown in green )

.

Figure 5.1

. E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, under two methods of controlling for the state in which the crash

occurred-0.64%-1.68%-0.21%-1.84%-2.09%1.52%-1.05%3.79%-0.13%-1.19%-0.15%-0.75%-0.47%0.45%-0.30%0.69%0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%

-3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (casualty probability) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

No state variables

Including HIINJ and LOINJ

Including 12 state variables

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint53 5.2. Alternative measure of risk

Figure 5.2 compares the estimated effect of mass and footprint reduction on the risk of a ca sualty crash, rather than the risk of all casualties that occurred in the crash ; i n other words, the casualty crash cases are not weighted by the total number of casualties, either in the case vehicle or in its crash partner. In his review of the previ ous NHTSA studies, Paul Green suggested that analyzing risk at the crash, rather than person, level might be a better approach; each fatal case would be a single independent observation, and may serve to increase any under

- estimation of the uncertainty aro und the parameter estimates. As shown in Figure 5.2, this alternative measure of risk, the risk of a casualty crash per all police

- reported crashes (shown in dark orange) slightly

increases the estimated detrimental effect of mass reduction on risk in lig hter

- than

- average cars , slightl y reduces the estimated beneficial effect of mass reduction in heavier cars, and has little

effect on risk in light

- duty trucks and CUVs/minivans. Footprint reduction is as sociated with

more detrimental estimated risk of casualty crash per police

- reported crash than risk of casualties per crash, for all three types of vehicles.

Figure 5.2

. E st imated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualties and casualty crashes per crash, by vehicle type

5.3. Vehicle manufacturer

The analysis by vehicle model in Section 4 indicates that the variables included in the regression

models account for only a fraction of the variability in risk. We suspect that other, more subtle differences in vehicle models, or driver behavior, may explain the large remaining variability in risk. We tested that assumption by adding 14 dummy variables b ased on the vehicle nameplate0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%0.30%-0.63%-0.04%-0.61%-0.21%0.34%-0.05%0.80%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) 

### Effect of increase in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-state casualties per crash

13-state casualty crashes per crash

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint54 manufacturer. 13 GM brands (Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Saturn) are treated as the default value, since combined they represent the most vehicles by manufacturer, in terms of both casualties and po lice

- reported crashes. The five Chrysler brands (Jeep, Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth, and Sprinter) were combined in a single Chrysler category,

while the three Ford brands (Ford, Lincoln, Mercury) were combined in a single For d category.

Ten low

- volume manufacturers were grouped into a separate Other manufacturer category. 14

Figur e 5. 3 compares the effect of adding variables for each of the 14 manufacturers (shown in red) to the regression model s estimating casualty risk per crash from the thirteen states in Figure

2.5 above (shown in light green ). A ccounting for vehicle manufa cturer results in a large

estimated increase in the harmful effect of mass reduction for cars, slightly increases the

estimated beneficial effect of mass reduction in light trucks

, and slightly decreases the estimated

beneficial effect in CUVs/minivans . Accounting for vehicle manufacturer has the opposite result on the effect of footprint reduction on risk: the estimated effect of footprint reduction becomes beneficial for cars, less beneficial for light trucks

, and more detrimental for CUVs/minivans.

Figure 5. 3 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, after controlling for vehicle manufacturer

Figure 5.3 also shows a second case in which f ive additional control variables are included for five luxury brands (Cadillac, Lincoln, Acura, Infiniti, and Lexus). I ncluding the five luxury brands in the regression models (shown in light orange) results in little change in the estimated

13 The 14 manufacturers are: Chrysler, Ford, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes

- Be nz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

14 The manufacturers included in the Other category are: AM General, Audi, Daewoo, Isuzu, Jaguar, Land Rover, Mini, Porsche, Saab, and Suzuki.0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%0.85%0.78%-0.24%-0.65%-0.05%-0.52%-0.09%0.88%0.96%0.76%-0.24%-0.60%-0.40%-0.60%-0.11%1.16%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (fatality probability per 1010VMT) 

### Effect of increase in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-state casualties per crash

Including 14 vehicle makes

Plus 5 luxury brands

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint55 effect of mass or footprint reduction on risk in cars and light trucks , but increases the estimated beneficial effect of mass reduction, and increases the estimated detrimental effect of footprint reduction, in CUVs/minivans.

Initial vehicle purchase price, rather than manufacturer nameplate, is another proxy for the general quality of vehicle design. We obtained the initial purchase price from the Polk VIN decoder, using 2010 California registration data from the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Every $1,000 incre ase in initial purchase price is estimated to reduce casualty risk per crash in all three types of vehicles: by 0.52% +/

- 0.13% in cars , 0.28% +/

- 0.15% in light trucks, and 0.52%

+/

- 0.31% in CUVs/minivans

. Figure 5.4 shows how accounting for vehicle pur chase price changes the estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash , compared

to the control variables for vehicle manufacturer

. I n contrast with the manufacturer variables, including vehicle purchase price increases the est imated beneficial effect o f mass reduction

, especially in cars and CUVs/minivans. Accounting for initial vehicle purchase price makes the estimated effect of footprint reduction slightly more detrimental in cars, more beneficial in light

duty trucks, and l ess detrimental in CUVs/minivans

.

Figure 5.4

. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on US fatalities per VMT, after controlling for vehicle manufacturer or for initial vehicle purchase price, by vehicle type

The control variables for vehicle manufacturer and initial purchase price attempt to account for differences in vehicle models not controlled for in the NHTSA regression models. Other vehicle attributes which could explain the remaining unexplained risk include:

• relatively low bumper height, which increases the extent to which a vehicle’s front bumper

overlaps the bumper or door sill of a crash partner, may reduce risk in two

- vehicle crashes;0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%0.85%0.78%-0.24%-0.65%-0.05%-0.52%-0.09%0.88%0.96%0.76%-0.24%-0.60%-0.40%-0.60%-0.11%1.16%-0.35%-1.72%-0.14%-0.71%-0.64%0.29%-0.40%0.41%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (fatality probability per 1010VMT) 

### Effect of increase in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-state casualties per crash

Including 14 vehicle makes

Plus 5 luxury brands

Initial purchase price

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint56 • lower center of gravity, or static stability factor, may reduce the tendency of a vehicle to

roll over; • high engine power

- to

- weight ratio may increase crash frequency, and • measures of braking distance and handling capabilities which may affect the ability of

vehicles to avoid crashes;

LBNL may estimate the effect of accounting for these veh icle attributes in future analyses.

5. 4 . Calendar year variables

One interesting effect of the regression models is the reduction in casualty risk per crash over time, as indicated by the coefficients for the calendar year control variables. The reducti on is

consistent , and of roughly the same magnitude, for each vehicle type, as shown in Figure 5. 5

. The calendar year variables account for changes in both case vehicles and their crash partners, as well as the crash environment, over time, changes that are not explicitly included as other control variables in the regression models. In its 2011 report NHTSA interprets the trend of reduced risk

over time as a reflection of general improvements in vehicle and roadway safety, increase in curb weight of cras h partners, and, in particular, improvement in light truck design to reduce their tendency to rollover.

Figure 5. 6 shows the estimated effect on light truck casualty risk per crash , by type of crash, over time; for the most part, these results are cons istent with fatality risk per VMT over time, reported

in LBNL 2012 . The figure indicates that the estimated effect of the calendar year variables on light truck risk is strong for crashes with light er

- than

- average cars and lighter

- than

- average light

duty trucks. NHTSA believes that this may be the result of the removal over time of very light and unsafe cars and light trucks as potential crash partners for light trucks. However, there also are consistent decreases over time in light truck ris k in crashes with heavy

- duty trucks, and other (mostly multi

- vehicle) crashes , as well as in crashes with heavier cars, although the effect is not as large . NHTSA suspects that the risk associated with light trucks involved in crashes with heavy

- duty truc ks has decreased over time because heavy

- duty truck activity decreases as the

economy has falter ed ; t he economic recession in 2008 may have reduced the number of heavy

duty trucks traveling roadways, and thus available as potential crash partners with light

- duty

vehicles.

Note that there is a fairly consistent trend in light truck casualty risk per crash in rollover crashes in Figure 5. 6 ; NHTSA believes that the decline in light truck rollover fatality risk per VMT over time (reported in LBNL 2012) may be the result of manufacturers increasing static stability factor or other aspects of light truck design to reduce their likelihood to rollover. These changes would not be expected to reduce risk of casualty (or fatality) in light trucks once a rollov er has occurred, however Figure 5. 6 does suggest that a consistent reduction in rollover risk per crash.57 Figure 5. 5 . E stimated e ffect of calendar year variables on 13

- state casualty risk per crash, by vehicle type

Figure 5. 6 . E stimated e ffect of calendar year variables on light truck risk , by crash type -20% -15% -10%

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008Percent change in risk (casualtyy probability per crash) Effect of control variables on risk, CUVs and minivans

Cars Light Trucks CUVs/Minivans

-40% -30% -20% -10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008CY2002CY2003CY2004CY2005CY2007CY2008Percent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) Effect of control variables on risk, light trucks

Rollover w/obj w/ped w/HDT w/lgt car w/hvy car w/lgt LT w/hvy LT Other58 Figures 5

. 7 through 5. 10 show the effect of removing the calendar year variables from the regression model of 13

- state casualty risk per crash (shown in white ). Figure 5. 7 indicates that excluding the calendar year variables has little impact on the estimated effect of mass reduction in cars, or for footprint reduction in CUVs/minivans. However, removing the calend ar year variables reduces the estimated beneficial effect of mass reduction in trucks and CUVs/minivans ; and increases the estimated detrimental effect of footprint reduction in cars but increases the

estimated beneficial effect of footprint reduction in l ight trucks.

Figure 5. 7 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, including and excluding calendar year variables

Figures 5. 8 through 5. 10 show what effect removing the calendar yea r variables ha s on the vehicle control variables; there is little to no effect on the driver or crash control variables (not shown). Figures 5

. 8 through 5. 10 indicate that removing the calendar year variables has a large effect on the curtain airbag variable in cars and CUVs/minivans, the SUV, HD pickup, BLOCKER2, and ESC variables in light trucks , and the minivan variable in CUVs/minivans . In addition, the figures indicate that removing the calendar year variables reduces the estimated

de trimental effect of vehicle age , and whether a vehicle is brand new, on casualty risk per crash in all three vehicle types. Figures 5

. 7 through 5. 10 suggest that inclusion of the calendar year variables in the regression models dilutes the effect of airbag technologies in cars and CUVs and minivans, the added risk in SUVs and heavy

- duty pickups, and the beneficial effect of ESC in light trucks in general, while over

- stating the effect of vehicle age in all three vehicle types.0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%0.00%-0.99%0.43%-0.20%0.28%0.69%-0.49%0.47%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) 

### Effect of increase in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-state casualties per crash

Excluding CY variables

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint59 Figure 5. 8 . E stimated e ffect of selected control variables on car risk , including and excluding calendar year variables

Figure 5. 9 . E stimated e ffect of selected control variables on light truck risk , including and excluding calendar year variables -25% -20% -15% -10%

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%TWODOORROLLCURTCURTAINCOMBOTORSOABSESCVEHAGEBRANDNEWPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) Effect of control variables on risk, passenger cars

13-state casualties per crash

Excluding CY variables

-25% -20% -15% -10%

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%SUVHD_PKPBLOCKER1BLOCKER2ESCAWDVEHAGEBRANDNEWPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) Effect of control variables on risk, light trucks

13-state casualties per crash

Excluding CY variables60 Figure 5. 10 . E stimated e ffect of selected control variables on CUV/minivan risk , including and excluding calendar year variables

5.5. Effect of household income

Unlike in FARS, details on the driver’s condition or behavior are not consistently reported in the

state crash dat a; therefore, we cannot account for the behavior of individual drivers in our estimates of the effect of mass or footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash. One possible surrogate for the behavior of drivers who tend to select certain vehicle models i s driver

household income. There is a fairly strong correlation between household income and predicted fatality risk, with risk decreasing as income increases. And crash frequency decreases as household income increases, particularly for cars and CUVs/mi nivans , as discussed in Section 4

. Every $1,000 increase in household income is estimated to reduce 13

- state casualty risk per

crash in all three types of vehicles: by 1.51% +/

- 0.15% in cars , 0.99% +/

- 0.21% in light trucks,

and 1.34% +/

- 0.31% in CUVs/m inivans

.

Figure 5.1 1 shows the effect of including household income on the relationship between lower mass or footprint and casualty risk per crash (shown in light violet) . Accounting for household

income substantially increases the estimated beneficia l effect of mass reduction in heavier

- than

average cars and CUVs/minivans, but has little effect on other types of vehicles

. Adding household income to the regression models substantially increases the estimated detrimenta l effect of footprint reduction i n cars and CUVs/minivans , but has little effect on the estimated effect of footprint reduction in light trucks

. -25% -20% -15% -10%

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%MINIVANROLLCURTCURTAINCOMBOTORSOABSESCAWDVEHAGEBRANDNEWPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) Effect of control variables on risk, CUVs and minivans

13-state casualties per crash

Excluding CY variables61 Figure 5.1 1

. Estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualties per

crash , after controlling for median household income, by vehicle type

5.6. Effect of including sports, police, and all

- wheel drive cars, and fullsize vans

In its analysis of US fatality risk per VMT, NHTSA excluded three types of cars ( model s used as sports cars, police cars, and models with all

- wheel drive )

, all Ford Crown Victorias, and fullsize passenger and cargo vans . Including these vehicles in the analysis, and adding control variables

for the four additional vehicle types, has essentially no effect on the relationship between lower

mass and 13

- state casualty risk per crash in either cars or light trucks

, as shown in Figure 5. 1 2

.0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%-0.04%-1.12%-0.05%-0.68%-0.65%0.69%-0.26%1.01%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (fatality probability per 1010VMT) 

### Effect of increase in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-state casualties per crash

Including household income

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint62 Figure 5. 1 2 . E stimated e ffect of mass and footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, after including sports, police, and all

- wheel drive cars, and fullsize passenger and cargo vans

5. 7

. Effect of adding additional data

As mentioned above, we e xcluded certain data that NHTSA did not include in their regression analyses:

• vehicles from 2000 to 2008 for three states (Georgia, Illinois, and New Mexico) that

NHTSA did not include in its analysis because those states did not report the posted

s peed limit at the crash site (Georgia data are available only through 2007 ) . NHTSA included IL in its 2003 and 2010 analyses, using the fraction of FARS crashes occurring on roads with a posted limit 5 5 mph or over, by roadway classification; we used this same method to assign posted speed limits to these three states in this analysis; • vehicles whose model year was not reported in the state crash data (except all crash

records from Washington, which w ere included in the above analysis); • vehicles involved in police

- reported crashes in 2000 and 2001

, from all states but

Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington); • vehicles that had apparent VIN transcription errors that we corrected so that the model

year reported in the state crash data matched the VIN model year . The method to

make these corrections for VIN errors is described in LBNL 2011a

.

We analyzed the effect of adding all of these data on the regression coefficients for vehicle mass and footprint; w e added five new control variables for the additional calendar years 2000 and 2001, and for the thr ee additional states, GA, IL, and NM. Figure 5. 1 3 shows that including all of the additional data increases the number of vehicle records by nearly 40%.0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%0.10%-0.76%-0.09%-0.64%-0.16%0.25%-0.27%0.56%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) 

### Effect of increase in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-state casualties per crash

Including all cars and fullsize vans

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint63 Figure 5. 1 3 . Number of vehicles involved in casualty crashes by vehicle type, using

additional s tate crash data

Figure 5. 1 4 indicates that adding the data results in little change in the estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash, for all vehicle types. Note in Figure 5. 1 4 that the last column (in light orange), which represents the effect from increasing the sample size by about 40%, reduces the uncertainty of the estimates of the effect of mass or footprint on risk by only a small amount. This suggests that the uncertainty is a function of the variability in the effect of mass or footprint reduction on risk by vehicle, and not a function of rela tively small sample sizes. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000

Cars Light trucks CUVs/minivansNumber of vehicles involved in casualty crashes 

### Effect of increase in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-states
16-states plus missing MY, corrected VINs, and CY00, CY0164 Figure 5. 1 4 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, using additional state crash data

5.8. Effect of changes suggested by NHTSA peer reviewers

In its review of th e preliminary NHTSA 2011 study, DRI suggested that NHTSA account for the two components of vehicle footprint, wheelbase and track width, separately in the regression

models ; i n previous analyses DRI found that these two changes to the regression models ten ded to reduce the estimated detrimental effect of mass reduction on risk (Van Auken and Zellner, 2005b). Figure 5. 1 5 shows th at r eplacing vehicle footprint with track width and wheelbase

increases the estimated beneficial effect of mass reduction on casua lties per crash (shown in olive) ; in addition, a one

- inch reduction in track width is associated with a large increase in casualty risk per crash, particularly for cars and CUVs/minivans, while a one

- inch reduction in

wheelbase is associated with a small r eduction in risk for all three types of vehicles

.

Other reviewers suggested that NHTSA conduct two additional sensitivities: reweighting the

casualties of CUVs and minivans by their market shares in 2010 (Paul Green); and removing the

non

- significant con trol variables from the 27 regression models for the three vehicle types and nine crash types ( Charles Farmer). Figure 5.16 shows the sensitivity of our estimates to these changes. Weighting the distribution of casualties in CUVs and minivans by their re spective shares of sales in 2010 (which reflects more CUVs and fewer minivans) has very little effect on the relationship between lower mass or footprint and casualty risk per crash in CUVs and minivans (shown in orange). Removing non

- significant control variables from each of the regression models results in slightly more detrimental effects of reduced mass estimated for cars and CUVs/minivans , and slightly more beneficial effects estimated for light trucks.0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%0.19%-0.54%-0.02%-0.64%-0.34%0.02%-0.30%0.44%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) 

### Effect of increase in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-states
16-states plus missing MY, corrected VINs, and CY00, CY01

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint65 Figure 5.1 5

. Estimated effect of mass or footpr int reduction on casualty risk per crash by vehicle type, replacing footprint with track width and wheelbase

Figure 5.1 6 . E stimated e ffect of mass and footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash

, after reweighting CUV/minivan fatalities to 2010 sales and excluding non

- significant control variables, by vehicle type0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%-0.37%-1.05%-0.40%-0.75%-0.34%2.58%0.40%2.10%-0.59%-0.15%-0.33%

-2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3%

Cars <

3106 Cars >

3106 LTs <

4594 LTs >

4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) 13-state casualty risk per crash

Replace footprint with track width and wheelbase

100-lb reduction 1-sq ft reduction 1-inch reduction 1-inch reduction in weight in footprint in track width in wheelbase0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.16%0.23%-0.25%0.56%0.09%-0.77%-0.11%-0.62%-0.24%0.23%-0.25%0.53%0.17%-0.58%-0.24%-0.68%-0.03%0.11%-0.15%0.64%

-2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%

Cars < 3106 Cars > 3106 LTs < 4594 LTs > 4594 CUVs/

minivans Cars LTs CUVs/

minivansPercent change in risk (casualty probability per crash) 

### Effect of reduction in weight or size on risk, by vehicle type

13-state casualties per crash

Reweighting CUV/minivans to 2010 sales

Excluding non-significant control variables

100-lb reduction in weight 1-sq ft reduction in footprint66 6. Conclusions

NHTSA recently completed a logis tic regression analysis (Kahane 201 2 ) updating its 2003 and 2010 studies of the relationship between vehicle mass and US fatality risk per vehicle mile traveled (VMT). The new study updates the previous analyses in several ways: updated FARS data for 2002 to 2008 involving MY00 to MY07 vehicles are used; induced exposure data from police reported crashes in several additional states are adde d; a new vehicle category for car

based crossover utility vehicles (CUVs) and minivans is created; crashes with other light

- duty vehicles are divided into two groups based on the crash partner vehicle’s weight, and a category

for all other fatal crashes is added; and new control variables for new safety technologies and designs, such as electronic stability controls (ESC), side airbags, and methods to meet voluntary agreement to improve light truck compatibility with cars, are included.

In a companion repo rt (Wenzel 201 2 b ), we use the updated databases NHTSA has created to replicate their findings on the relationship between vehicle weight, size (actually footprint, or vehicle wheelbase times track width), and US fatality risk per vehicle miles traveled (VM T), for model year 2000 to 2007 light

- duty vehicles involved in fatal crashes between 2002 and 2008. The data are examined in slightly different ways, to get a deeper understanding of the relationship between reductions in vehicle mass and footprint, and overall safety.

This report compares the logistic regression results of the NHTSA analysis of US fatality risk per VMT with an analysis of 13

- state fatality risk and casualty risk per crash. This final report incorporates revisions from the preliminary report released in November 2011, including revised estimates of national weights for vehicle miles traveled, inclusion of 2008 police

- reported crash data from eight additional states, and responses to reviewers’ comments.

Our analysis differs from the NHTSA analysis in two respects: first, it analyzes risk per crash, using data on all police

- reported crashes from thirteen states, rather than risk per estimated VMT; and second, it analyzes casualty (fatality plus serious injury) risk, as opposed to just fatality risk. There are several good reasons to investigate the effect of mass and footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash. First, risk per VMT, includes two effects that influence whether a person is killed or seriously injured in a crash: how well a vehicle can be, or actually is, driven (based on its handling, acceleration, and braking capabilities) to avoid being involved in a serious crash (crash avoidance), and, once a serious crash has occurred, how well a vehicle protects its occupants fr om fatality or serious injury (crashworthiness) as well as the occupants of any crash partner (compatibility). By encompassing both of these aspects of vehicle design, risk per VMT gives a complete picture of how vehicle design can promote, or reduce, roa d user safety. On the other hand, risk per crash isolates the second of these two safety effects, crashworthiness/compatibility, by examining the effect of mass and footprint reduction on how well a vehicle protects its occupants once a crash occurs.

Se cond, estimating risk on a per crash basis only requires using data on police

- reported crashes from states, and does not require combining them with data from other sources, such as vehicle registration data and VMT information, as in NHTSA 201 2 . Because o nly sixteen states currently record the vehicle identification number of vehicles involved in police

- reported crashes, which is necessary to determine vehicle characteristics, and only thirteen states also67 report the posted speed limit of the roadway on wh ich the crash occurred, extending the analysis to casualties (fatalities plus serious/incapacitating injuries; i.e. level “K” and “A” injuries in police reports) reduces the statistical uncertainty of analyzing just fatalities per crash. Finally, a

seriou s incapacitating injury can be just as traumatic to the victim and her family, and costly from an economic perspective, as a fatality. Limiting the analysis to the risk of fatality, which is an extremely rare event, ignores the effect vehicle design may h ave on reducing the large number of incapacitating injuries that occur each year on the nation’s roadways. All risks in this report are societal risk, including fatalities and serious injuries in the case vehicle and any crash partners, and include not on ly driver casualties but passenger and non

- occupant casualties as

well.

However, the frequency of police

- reported crashes per V MT and of casualties per police

reported crash can both be influenced, in opposite directions, by the probability that a collisi on event b ecomes a police

- reported crash. If collisions of certain vehicles are slightly less likely to

be report ed , because these vehicles are either somewhat less damage

- prone or are uninsured , this

would tend to increase the observed detrimental effect of mass reduction on reported crashes per VMT and conversely decrease its detrimental effect on casualties per reported crash. By contrast, fatalities or casualties per VMT would be not be affected by crash

- reporting rates,

because the crash

- reporting ra te is not part of the formula for calculating ri sk. The extent to which any reporting bias of non

- injury crashes exists, the observed effects for police

- reported crashes per VMT might not correspond exactly to the “effect of mass reduction on crash

avoida nce” and the observed effects for casualties per police

- reported crash might not correspond exactly to the “effect of mass reduction on crashworthiness/compatibility.” We suspect that large pickups are less likely to suffer damage in non

- injury crashes th an other vehicle types; and that older, less expensive, or uninsured vehicles are less likely to report crash damage to police. In addition, one vehicle crashes are more likely to suffer from this reporting bias, as there is no crash partner who may file an insurance claim.

Table 6 .1 summarizes the results of our analysis of the effect of vehicle mass or footprint reduction on the two components of risk per VMT, crash frequency (number of crashes per VMT) and crashworthiness/compatibility (risk per crash ), for both fatality and casualty risk, using data from 13 states. We convert the percent change in the log

- odds of casualty or fatality

per crash output from the SAS LOGIST procedure to the percent change in the probability of casualty or fatality per cr ash. This conversion has no effect on the output regression coefficients when the change in the log

- odds of casualty is small , but substantially increases the percent change for explanatory variables that have a large effect on the log

- odds of casualty

. Effects that are statistically significant are shown in red in the table; significance is based on the 95% confidence interval derived from the standard error of the output of the SAS LOGIST procedure, converted to a percent probability interval.

Table 6

. 1 indicates that f or cars and light trucks, the effects from the two components , crash frequency and crashworthiness/compatibility, roughly add together to result in the overall effect on fatality risk per VMT. For example, the models estimate that 100

- lb lower mass in lighter

than

- average cars is associated with a 2.00 % increase in crash frequency (column B) , while

lower mass is associated with a 0. 54 % decrease in the number of fatalities per crash (column C) ; the net effect is only a 1. 42 % increase in th e risk of fatality per VMT (column D), which is68 roughly the sum of the crash frequency and crashworthiness/compatibility effects (2.00%

- 0.54% = 1.45%) . For CUVs/minivans, the relationship is different; lower mass is associated

with a 0. 95 % increase in c rash frequency, as well as a 0. 98 % increase in the number of fatalities per crash; however, the net result, a n estimated 1.60 % increase in the number of fatalities per VMT, is less than the sum of the two components (0.95% + 0.98% = 1.92%)

. Solving the th ree equations (crashes per VMT, risk per crash, and risk per VMT) simultaneously, as DRI has done,

forces the estimates for the first two

- stages of the regression (crashes per VMT and risk per crash) to equal that of the third state of the regression (risk per VMT).

The regression results in Table 6 .1 estimate that mass reduction increases crash frequency (columns B and E) in all five vehicle types, with larger estimated increases in lighter

- than

average cars and light

- duty trucks. As a result, mass reduc tion is estimated to have a more beneficial effect on crashworthiness/compatibility, or casualty risk per crash (column F), than on casualty risk per VMT (column G), and on fatality risk per crash (column C) than on fatality risk per VMT (column D). Mass r eduction is associated with decreases in casualty risk per crash (column F) in all vehicles except lighter cars; in two of the four cases these estimated reductions are statistically significant, albeit small. Footprint reduction is associated with increa ses in crash frequency (columns B and E) in cars and light trucks, but with a small decrease in crash frequency in CUVs/minivans; footprint reduction does not have a statistically

- significant effect on fatality risk per crash (column C), and only for casua lty risk per crash (column F) for light

trucks. For cars and light trucks, lower mass is associated with a more beneficial effect on fatality risk per crash (column C) than on casualty risk per crash (column F), while lower footprint is associated with sl ightly more detrimental effects. For CUVs/minivans Table ES.1 shows the opposite: lower mass is associated with a more beneficial effect, while lower footprint is associated with a more detrimental effect, on casualty than fatality risk per crash.

Table 6 .1. E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on two components of 13

- state fatality and casualty risk per VMT: crash frequency (crashes per VMT) and crashworthiness/compatibility (risk per crash)

Variable Case vehicle

typeA. NHTSA USfatalitiesper VMTB. 13-state crashesper VMTC. 13-state fatalitiesper crashD. 13-state fatalitiesper VMTE. 13-state crashesper VMTF. 13-state casualtiesper crashG. 13-state casualtiesper VMT

Mass

reduction Cars < 3106 lbs 1.55% * 2.00%

- 0.54% 1.42% 2. 00% 0.09% 1.86%

Cars > 3106 lbs 0.51% 1.50%

- 2.39%

- 1.07% 1.50%

- 0.77% 0.73%

LTs < 4594 lbs 0.52% 1.44%

- 1.61%

- 0.13% 1.44%

- 0.11% 1.55%

LTs > 4594 lbs

- 0.34% 0.94%

- 1.25%

- 0.34% 0.94%

- 0.62%

- 0.04%

CUV/ minivan

- 0.38% 0.95% 0.98% 1.60% 0.95%

- 0.16 % 0.10% Footprint

reduction Cars 1.87% 0.64% 0.92% 2.11% 0.64% 0.23% 1.54%

LTs

- 0.07% 1.04% 0.48% 1.64% 1.04%

- 0.25% 0.94%

CUV/ minivan 1.72%

- 0.55%

- 1.67%

- 1.24%

- 0.55% 0.56% 1.54% * Based on NHTSA’s estimation of uncertainty using a jack

- knife meth od, only mass reduction in cars less than 3,106 lbs has a statistically significant effect on US fatality risk.

Estimates that are statistically significant at the 95% level are shown in red.69 It is unclear why lower vehicle mass is associated with higher crash frequency, but lower risk per crash, in the regression models. It is possible that including variables that more accurately account for important differences among vehicles and driver behavior would reverse this relationship. For example, a dding ve hicle purchase price substantially reduces the estimated increase in crash frequency as vehicle mass decreases, for all vehicle types; in the case of

heavier

- than

- average cars, mass reduction is estimated to slightly decrease crash frequency. On

the other hand, it is also possible that over thirty years of improvements in vehicle design to achieve high crash test ratings have enabled manufacturers to use clever vehicle design to mitigate the hypothetical safety penalty of low mass vehicles.

The associatio n of mass reduction with 13

- state casualty risk per VMT (column G) is quite consistent with that NHTSA estimated for US fatality risk per VMT (column A), although we estimate the effects on casualty risk to be more detrimental than the effects on fatality risk, for all vehicle types. The association of footprint reduction also is similar, with 13

- state casualty risk per VMT slightly more beneficial than US fatality risk per VMT for cars and CUVs/minivans,

while 13

- state casualty risk is substantially more detrimental than US casualty risk for light

- duty

trucks.

In contrast with NHTSA’s estimates on US fatality risk per VMT (column A), mass reduction is

estimated to reduce casualty risk per crash (column F) for four of the five vehicle types, with two

of th ese four reductions estimated to be statistically significant. Mass reduction is associated with a small but insignificant increase in casualty risk per crash for lighter cars. And footprint reduction is associated with much smaller, and not statisticall y significant, estimated increases in casualty risk per crash (column F) than in US fatality risk per VMT (column A).

Many of the control variables included in the logistic regressions are statistically significant, and have a large effect on fatality or casualty risk per crash, in some cases one to two orders of magnitude larger. However, the estimated association of these variables with risks per crash are not as large as their estimated association with fatality risk per VMT. While the estimated effect of mass reduction may result in a statistically

- significant increase in risk in certain cases, the increase is small and is overwhelmed by other known vehicle, driver, and crash factors.

ABS and ESC in cars are estimated to reduce crash frequency more t han risk per crash, as expected, while AWD in light trucks and CUVs/minivans is estimated to increase crash frequency more than risk per crash. Two

- door cars and the side airbag variables in cars have a larger effect on risk given a crash than on crash fr equency; two

- door cars increase risks per crash, while side airbags decrease risks per crash. The driver age variables estimate that crash frequency consistently increases for the youngest and oldest drivers, and that risk per crash consistently increases for the two oldest groups of drivers (over 50 years old). All of these results are expected.

On the other hand, there are several unexpected results: side airbags in light trucks and CUVs/minivans are estimated to reduce crash frequency; ESC and ABS a re estimated to reduce risk once a crash has occurred; and AWD and brand new vehicles are estimated to increase risk once a crash has occurred. In addition, male drivers are estimated to have essentially no effect on crash frequency, but are associated wit h a statistically significant increase in fatality risk once a70 crash occurs. And driving at night, on high

- speed or rural roads, are associated with higher increases in risk per crash than on crash frequency. These unexpected results suggest that importa nt control variables are not being included in the regression models. For example, crashes involving male drivers, in vehicles equipped with AWD, or that occur at night on rural or high

- speed roads, may not be more frequent but rather more severe than oth er crashes, and thus lead to greater fatality or casualty risk. And drivers who select vehicles with certain safety features may tend to drive more carefully, resulting in vehicle safety features designed to improve crashworthiness or compatibility, such as side airbags, being also associated with lower crash frequency.

In contrast with NHTSA’s results for US fatalities per VMT, allowing footprint to vary along with weight results in little change in the estimated effect of mass reduction on casualty ris k per crash than when footprint is held constant; however, the estimated detrimental effect of mass reduction on casualty risk per crash in lighter cars is increased just enough to make it statistically significant. When mass is allowed to vary along with footprint, footprint reduction is estimated to be slightly more beneficial for cars and light trucks (Alternative 3 in Table 6 .2; further addressed in Section 3 of this report). As with NHTSA’s analysis of fatality risk per VMT, mass

reduction is not con sistently associated with increased casualty risk per crash across all footprint deciles for any combination of vehicle type and crash type. Lower m ass is associated with

increase d casualty risk per crash in a majority of footprint deciles for 9 of the 27 crash and vehicle combinations, but few of these increases are statistically significant. On the other hand,

lower mass is associated with decrease d risk in a majority of footprint deciles for 12 of the 27

crash and vehicle combinations.

Similar to our findings on US fatality risk per VMT, after accounting for all of the control variables in the logistic regression model, except for vehicle mass and footprint, we find that the correlation between mass and the casualty risk per crash by vehicle model is v ery low. There also is no significant correlation between the residual, unexplained risk and vehicle weight. These results corroborate our earlier finding that, even after accounting for many vehicle, driver, and crash factors, the variation in risk by v ehicle model is quite large and unrelated to vehicle weight (addressed in more detail in Section 4). The large remaining unexplained variation in risk by vehicle model could be attributable to other differences in vehicle design, or how drivers who

select certain vehicles drive them. It is possible that including variables that account for these factors in the regression models would change the estimated relationship between mass or footprint and risk.

Other changes in the data and variables used in the regression models result in changes in the estimated effect of mass or footprint reductions on casualty risk per crash, as summarized in

Tables 6 .2 and 6 .3. For example:

• Regression analyses using police

- reported crash data from states must use control variables

to account for differences in definitions of “serious” or “incapacitating” injuries, and reporting requirements, across states. Removing the 12 state control variables results in a large reduction in estimated casualty risk per crash from mass r eduction in all five vehicle types, a large increase in estimated risk from footprint reduction in cars and CUVs/minivans, and a small reduction in estimated risk from footprint reduction in light71 trucks (Alternative 4 in Table 6 .2). Including only two va riables to control for states with high and low casualty risk per crash substantially reduces the estimated effect of mass and footprint reduction on casualty risk (Alternative 5 in Table 6 .2), while including the 12

control variables for individual states reduces the estimated effect a little bit more. These results indicate that excluding control variables for the state in which a crash occurred from a regression model using state police

- reported crash data can give inaccurate estimates of

the effect of mass or footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash (addressed in Section 5.1).

• Calculating risk as casualty crashes, rather than total casualties, per crash results in little

change in the association between mass or footprint and risk, but does inc rease the small estimated detrimental effect of footprint reduction in cars on risk, and makes it statistically significant (Alternative 6 in Table 6 .2; addressed in Section 5.2).

• Adding control variables for vehicle manufacturer estimates that lower m ass is associated

with higher casualty risk per crash for cars, with little effect on the estimates for light trucks and CUVs/minivans. Accounting for vehicle manufacturer turns the small estimated increase in casualty risk per crash from footprint reduct ion in cars to a small decrease in risk, and slightly increases the estimated casualty risk per crash in light trucks and CUVs/minivans (Alternative 7 in Table 6 .3). Also including control variables for five luxury vehicle makes has little effect on the e stimated relationships between mass or footprint and casualty risk per crash (Alternative 8 in Table 6 .3; addressed in Section 5.3).

Table 6

. 2 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per
crash , under alternative regress ion model specifications

Variable Case vehicle

typeLBNL 13-statecasualties per policereported crash1.Single regressionmodel for all crashtypes2.Weighted bycurrent distributionof fatalities3.Excludingfootprintor weight4. Excluding statecontrol variables5. Including onlytwo state controlvariables6. Casualty crashesper crash

Mass

reduction Cars < 3106 lbs 0.09% 0.07% 0.08% 0.25%

- 0.64%

- 0.13% 0.30%

Cars > 3106 lbs

- 0.77%

- 0.87%

- 0.86%

- 0.61%

- 1.68%

- 1.19%

- 0.63%

LTs < 4594 lbs

- 0 .11%

- 0.11%

- 0.09%

- 0.38%

- 0.21%

- 0.15%

- 0.04%

LTs > 4594 lbs

- 0.62%

- 0.74%

- 0.67%

- 0.78%

- 1.84%

- 0.75%

- 0.61%

CUV/ minivan

- 0.16%

- 0.31%

- 0.26% 0.13%

- 2.09%

- 0.47%

- 0.21% Footprint

reduction Cars 0.23% 0.50% 0.41%

- 0.10% 1.52% 0.45% 0.34%

LTs

- 0.25 % 0.05%

- 0.13%

- 0.49%

- 1.05%

- 0.30%

- 0.05%

CUV/ minivan 0.56% 0.68% 0.75% 0.56% 3.79% 0.69% 0.80%

Estimates that are statistically significant at the 95% level are shown in red.

• An alternative to control variables for vehicle manufacturers is a singl e continuous variable

for the vehicle’s initial purchase price; purchase price may better account for other differences in vehicle design that may influence traffic safety. Adding this single variable turns the estimated small increase in casualty risk pe r crash from mass reduction into an estimated small decrease in risk for lighter

- than

- average cars, and increases the estimated beneficial effect from mass reduction for other vehicles, particularly heavier

- than

- average72 cars and CUVs/minivans; the price va riable makes the estimated effect of footprint reduction slightly more detrimental in cars, more beneficial in light

- duty trucks, and less detrimental in CUVs/minivans (Alternative 9 in Table 6 .3; also addressed in Section 5.3).

• As we found in our asses sment of NHTSA’s analysis of US fatality risk per VMT,

including calendar year variables in the regression models appears to weaken the benefit of side air bags in cars and CUVs/minivans, and compatibility measures and ESC in light

trucks. These variables also appear to minimize the increased risk of SUVs and heavy

- duty pickup trucks. Excluding the calendar year variables from the regression models slightly reduces the beneficial effect of mass reduction on casualty risk per crash in light trucks and

CUVs /minivans, and slightly increases the detrimental effect of footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash in cars (Alternative 10 in Table 6 .3; addressed in Section 5.4).

• Because details on the driver’s condition or behavior are not consistently report ed in the

state crash data, we cannot account for the behavior of individual drivers in our estimates. One possible surrogate for the behavior of drivers who tend to select certain vehicle models is driver household income. Including a measure of househol d income by vehicle model makes the estimated effect of mass reduction on casualty risk per crash more beneficial, and the estimated effect of footprint reduction more detrimental, for cars and CUVs/minivans, but has little effect on the estimates for ligh t trucks (Alternative 11 in

Table 6 .3).

• Including all

- wheel

- drive, sports, and police cars, and fullsize vans results in virtually no

change in the estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash for cars or light trucks (Al ternative 12 in Table 6 .3; addressed in Section 5.5).

Table 6

. 3 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per
crash

, excluding certain data or using different control variables

Variable Case vehicle

typeLBNL 13-statecasualties per policereported crash7. Accounting forvehicle manufacturer8.Accounting forvehicle manufacturerplus five luxurybrands9. Accounting forinitial vehiclepurchase price10. Excluding CYvariables11. Accounting formedian householdincome12. Including sports,squad, AWD cars andfullsize vans13. Including alladditional data

Mass

reduction Cars < 3106 lbs 0.09% 0.85% 0.96%

- 0.35% 0.00%

- 0.04% 0.10% 0.19%

Cars > 3106 lbs

- 0.77% 0.78% 0.76%

- 1.72%

- 0.99%

- 1.12%

- 0.76%

- 0.54%

LTs < 459 4 lbs

- 0.11%

- 0.24%

- 0.24%

- 0.14% 0.43%

- 0.05%

- 0.09%

- 0.02%

LTs > 4594 lbs

- 0.62%

- 0.65%

- 0.60%

- 0.71%

- 0.20%

- 0.68%

- 0.64%

- 0.64%

CUV/ minivan

- 0.16%

- 0.05%

- 0.40%

- 0.64% 0.28%

- 0.65%

- 0.16%

- 0.34% Footprint

reduction Cars 0.23%

- 0.52%

- 0.60% 0.29% 0.69% 0.69% 0.25% 0.02%

LTs

- 0.25%

- 0.09%

- 0.11%

- 0.40%

- 0.49%

- 0.26%

- 0.27%

- 0.30%

CUV/ minivan 0.56% 0.88% 1.16% 0.41% 0.47% 1.01% 0.56% 0.44%

Estimates that are statistically significant at the 95% level are shown in red.

• Adding data from three additional states, including vehicles with unreported model year,

correcting VIN transcription errors, and expanding the analysis to calendar years 2000,73 2001, and 2008, increases the number of state crash records by about 40 percent. Including

these data in the regression analyses makes the estimated effect of mass reduction in cars and lighter light trucks more detrimental, and in CUVs/minivans more beneficial. Including these data slightly reduces the estimated detrimental effect of footprint reduction on casualty risk per crash in cars and CUVs/minivans. However, increasing the sample size included in the regression analysis by 40% does not noticeably reduce the confidence intervals around the point estimates (Alternative 13 in Table 6 .3; addressed in Section 5.6).

Table 6 .4 shows the results of additional sensitivity tests NHTSA conducted in response to comments from peer reviewers of its preliminary 2011 report. Replacing vehicle footprint with its two components, track width and wheelbase, increas es the estimated beneficial effect of mass reduction on casualty risk per crash, making it statistically significant for four of the five vehicle types, as shown in Alternative 14. Decreasing track width is associated with a significant

increase in casual ty risk per crash, while decreasing wheelbase is associated with a small

decrease in risk. Weighting the distribution of fatalities in CUVs and minivans by their respective shares of sales in 2010 (which reflects more CUVs and fewer minivans) has little

e ffect on the estimated effects (Alternative 15). Alternative 16 removes non

- significant control variables from each of the regression models, which results in only small changes in the

estimated effects.

Table 6

. 4 . E stimated e ffect of mass or footprint reduction on 13

- state casualty risk per
crash , alternative regression model specifications suggested by NHTSA peer reviewers

Variable Case vehicle

typeLBNL 13-state casualtiesper police-reported crash14. Including trackwidth and wheelbaseinstead offootprint15. Reweighting CUVsand minivans by 2010sales16. Excluding nonsignificant controlvariables

Mass

reduction Cars < 3106 lbs 0.09%

- 0.37% 0.09% 0.17%

Cars > 3106 lbs

- 0.77%

- 1.05%

- 0.77%

- 0.58%

LTs < 4594 lbs

- 0.11%

- 0.40%

- 0.11%

- 0.24%

LTs > 4594 lbs

- 0.62%

- 0.75%

- 0.62%

- 0.68%

CUV/ minivan

- 0.16%

- 0.34%

- 0.24%

- 0.03% Footprint

reduction Cars 0.23%

— 0.23% 0.11%

LTs

- 0.25%

— - 0.25%

- 0.15%

CUV/ minivan 0.56%

— 0.53% 0.64%

Track

width

reduction Cars

— 2.58%

— — LTs

— 0.40%

— — CUV/ minivan

— 2.10%

— —

Wheel

base

reduction Cars

— - 0.59%

— — LTs

— - 0.15%

— — CUV/ minivan

— - 0.33%

— — Estimates that are statistically significant at the 95% level are shown in red.

In conclusion, casualty risk per crash is not necessarily a b etter metric than fatality risk per VMT for evaluating the effect of mass or footprint reduction on risk; rather, it provides a different74 perspective in assessing the benefits or drawbacks of mass and footprint reduction on safety in vehicles. However, it does allow the risk per VMT to be separated into its two components, crash frequency and risk per crash. Our analysis indicates that much of the estimated detrimental effect of mass or footprint reduction on risk can be attributed to the tendency for cra sh frequency, rather than crashworthiness/compatibility (risk once a crash has occurred), to increase as vehicle mass or footprint decreases.

As with our analysis of US fatalities per VMT, this report concludes that the estimated effect of

mass reduction on casualty risk per crash is small, and is overwhelmed by other control variables, such as vehicle type, specific safety technologies, and crash conditions such as whether the crash occurred at night, in a rural county, or on a high

- speed road. This repo rt indicates that the effects are sensitive to what variables and data are included in the regression analysis. Finally, as in our analysis of US fatality risk per VMT, this report shows that after accounting for many vehicle, driver, and crash variables t here remains a wide variation in casualty risk per crash by vehicle make and model, and this variation is unrelated to vehicle

mass.

Although the purpose of the NHTSA and LBNL reports is to estimate the effect of vehicle mass

reduction on societal risk, t his is not exactly what the regression models are estimating . Rather, they are estimating the recent historical relationship between mass and risk, after accounting for

most measurable differences between vehicles, drivers, and crash times and locations. In essence, the regression models are comparing the risk of a 2600

- lb Dodge Neon with that of a 2500

- lb Honda Civic, after attempting to account for all other differences between the two vehicles. The

models are not estimating the effect of literally remo ving 100 lbs from the Neon, leaving everything else unchanged.

In addition, the analyses are based on the relationship of vehicle mass and footprint on risk for recent vehicle designs (model year 2000 to 2007). These relationships may or may not contin ue into the future as manufacturers utilize new vehicle designs and incorporate new technologies, such as more extensive use of strong lightweight materials and specific safety technologies. Therefore, throughout this report we use the phrase “the estimat ed effect of mass (or footprint) reduction on risk” as shorthand for “the estimated change in risk as a function of its relationship to mass (or footprint) for vehicle models of recent design.”75 7 . References

Allison, P.D., 1999. Logistic Regression Using the SAS System . Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., pp. 48

- 51.

Farmer, Charles M. 2003. “Reliability of Police

- Reported Information for Determining Crash and Injury Severity.” Traffic Injury Prevention , 4:1, 38

- 44.

Farmer, Charles M. 2012. Review of “Relationships Between Fatality Ri sk, Mass, and Footprint

in Model Year 2000

- 2007 Passenger Cars and LTVs” by Charles J. Kahane, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. January 6.

Green, Paul E. 2012. Review of “Relationships Between Fatal ity Risk, Mass, and Footprint in

Model Year 2000

- 2007 Passenger Cars and LTVs” by Charles J. Kahane, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. February 15.

Green, Paul E., Lidia Kostyniuk, Tim Gordon, Matt Reed. 2011. Independent Review: Statistical Analyses of Relationship between Vehicle Curb Weight, Track Width, Wheelbase and Fatality Rates. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. March. UMTRI

2011

- 12.

Kahane, C.J. 2003. Vehicle Weight, Fatality Risk and Crash Compatibility of Model Year 1991

- 99 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Technical Report , Washington, D.C. DO T HS 809

- 662, Oct ober

.

Kahane C.J. 2010. Relations hips Between Fatality Risk, Mass, and Footprint in Model Year

1991

- 1999 and Other Passenger Cars and LTVs. Final report included in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2012

- MY2016 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Final Regulatory Impact Analysis , NHT SA, March

.

Kahane, C.J. 2011. Relationships Between Fatality Risk, Mass, and Footprint in Model Year

2000

- 2007 Passenger Cars and LTVs. Preliminary report prepared for the Nationa l Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration , Washington, D.C. July

.

Kahane, C.J. 2012. Relationships Between Fatality Risk, Mass, and Footprint in Model Year

2000

- 2007 Passenger Cars and LTVs. Final report prepared for the Nationa l Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration , Washington, D.C. August

.

Menard, S. 2002. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis, Second Edition . Sage Publications,

Thousand Oaks CA.

O’Brien, R.M. 2007. “A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors,” Quality and Quantity, (41) 673

- 690.76 Partyka, S.C., 1995

. Impacts with Yielding Fixed Objects by Vehicle Weight . NHTSA Technical Report. DOT HS 808 574. U.S

. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Sivinski R. 2011

. Update of NHTSA’s 2007 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Light Vehicle Electronic Stability Control (ESC) in Crash Prevention

, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 811 486. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

, Washington, DC

.

Systems Research and Application Corporation. 2012. Peer Review of L BNL Statistical Analysis of the Effect of Vehicle Mass & Footprint Reduction on Safety (LBNL Phase 1 and 2 Reports) . Prepared for Office of Transportation and Air Qua lity, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA contract number EP

- C

- 11

- 007. February.

Van Auken, R.M., Zellner, J.W., 2002. An A ssessment of the E ffects of V ehicle W eight on

F

atal ity Risk in M odel Y ear 1985

- 98 P assenger Cars and 1985

- 97 Light T rucks . DRI

- TR02

- 02. Dynamic Research, Inc., Torrance, California.

Van Auken, R.M., Zellner, J.W., Boughton, J.P., Brubacher, J.M., 2003. A Further A ssessment of the E ffects of V ehicle W eight and Size Parameters on F atal ity Risk in M odel Y e ar 1985

- 98

P assenger Cars and 1985

- 97 Light T rucks . DRI

- TR03

- 01. Dynamic Research, Inc., Torrance,

California

Van Auken, R.M., Zellner, J.W., 2004. A Review of the Results in the 1997 Kahane, 2002 DRI, 2003 DRI, and 2003 Kahane Reports on the Effects of Passenger Car and Light Truck Weight and Size on Fatality Risk. DRI

- TR

- 04

- 02. Dynamic Research, Inc., Torrance, California.

Van Auken, R.M., Zellner, J.W., 2005a. An A ssessment of the E ffects of V ehicle W eight and Size

on F atal ity Risk in 1985 to 1998 Model Year P assenger C ar s and 1985 to 19 97 Model Year Light T rucks and Vans. SAE Technical Paper Series, 2005

- 01

- 1354. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.

Van Auken, R.M., Zellner, J.W., 2005b. Supplemental Results on the I n dependent Effects of Curb Weight, Wheel base, and Track on Fatality Risk in 1985

- 1998 Model Year Passenger Cars

and 1986

- 1997 Model Y ear LTVs . DRI

- TR05

- 01. Dynamic Research, Inc., Torrance, California.

Van Auken, R.M., and Zellner, J. W. 2012a. Updated Analysis of the Effects of Passenger

Vehi cle Size and Weight on Safety, Phase II; Preliminary Analysis Based on 2002 to 2008 Calendar Year Data for 2000 to 2007 Model Year Light Passenger Vehicles to Induced

Exposure and Vehicle Size Variables . Report No. DRI

- TR

- 12

- 01. Torrance, CA: Dynamic

Rese arch, Inc. January.

Van Auken, R.M., and Zellner, J. W. 2012b. Updated Analysis of the Effects of Passenger Vehicle Size and Weight on Safety; Sensitivity of the Estimates for 2002 to 2008 Calendar Year Data for 2000 to 2007 Model Year Light Passenger V ehicles to Induced

- Exposure and Vehicle

Size Variables . Report No. DRI

- TR

- 12

- 03. Torrance, CA: Dynamic Research, Inc. February.77 Wenzel, Tom P. 2011. An Analysis of the Relationship between Casualty Risk Per Crash and Vehicle Mass and Footprint for Mode l Year 2000

- 2007 Light

- Duty Vehicles

. Preliminary report prepared for the Office of E nergy E fficiency and Renewable Energy

, US Department of Energy

, Berkeley, California. December

. LBNL

-

.

Wenzel, Tom P. 2012a

. Analysis of Casualty Risk per Polic e

- Reported Crash for Model Year 2000 to 2004 Vehicles, using Crash Data from Five States . Final report prepared for the Office

of E nergy E fficiency and Renewable Energy

, US Department of Energy

, Berkeley, California.

March

. LBNL

- 4897E.

Wenzel, Tom P. 2012b

. Assessment of NHTSA’s Report “Relationships Between Fatality Risk, Mass, and Footprint in Model Year 2000

- 2007 Passenger Cars and LTVs”

. F inal report prepared for the Office of E nergy E fficiency and Renewable Energy

, US Department of Ene rgy , Berkeley, California. August

. LBNL

-

.