Consumer information concerning the predicted 'safeness' of a new car mode is based on the results of crash tests. Unfortunately, because it allows comparisons only within size/weight groups, the information is somewhat incompatible with the normal car-purchase decision process since consumers often consider cars within different groups. In addition, based on past research, the association of the crash-test information with real-world crash outcomes is, at best, somewhat limited. The goal of this study was to explore a methodology for improving this information, a methodology which incorporates not only the crash-test information, but also information concerning real-world occupant injury experience in prior crashes involving similar vehicles ('clones'). The clone information included both driver injury severity in past clone crashes from the North Carolina accident file and various indicators of relative driver injury in clones extracted from published insurance-related data from the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI). Final models developed included both measures of the Head Index Criteria (HIC) from the crash test and some measure of clone performances as significant predictors. While the North Carolina clone data is intuitively 'cleaner' in that it describes injury level per crash rather than per insured year, the medical claims indices from the HLDI data consistently were shown to be the stronger predictors. Future research will need to look at ways of better combining the crash-test variables and of possible modifications to the HLDI indices. In general, the analyses generated encouraging results that appear to point to possible improvements in the crashworthiness information. (Author/publisher).
Abstract