1. ABSTRACTThe U.S. National Highway Transportation and SafetyAgency's (NHTSA) early estimates of Motor TrafficFatalities in 2009 in the United States [ 1 ] show continuingprogress on improving traffic safety on the U.S. roadways.The number of total fatalities and the fatality rate per 100Million Vehicle Miles (MVM), both show continuingdeclines. In the 10 year period from 1999 through 2009, thetotal fatalities have dropped from 41,611 to 33,963 and thefatality rate has dropped from 1.5 fatalities per 100MVM to1.16 fatalities per 100MVM, a compound annual drop of2.01% and 2.54% respectively.

The large number of traffic fatalities, and the slowing downof the fatality rate decline, compared to the decade before,continues to remain a cause of concern for regulators. Thenew Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standardsrequiring vehicle manufacturer to meet a fleet wide fueleconomy of 35.5 mpg by 2016, has made it even morechallenging to maintain the declining rate of fatalities per100MVM. Automakers' pursuit of vehicle down-sizing andlight-weighting strategies works counter to improving safety,as smaller and lighter vehicles feature lower degree ofcrashworthiness compared to larger and heavier vehicles(greater track width and wheelbase both have positive impacton vehicle stability and safety).

In Europe, the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC)estimates [ 2 ] show that 39,000 people lost their lives in roadcollisions in 2008 across Europe; 15,400 less than in 2001 butstill far from the 27,000 deaths limit which the EuropeanUnion (EU) set for itself in its 2010 Road Safety Target. Theaverage annual progress since 2001 has been 4.4% instead ofthe 7.2% needed, which could delay the EU in reaching the

2010 target until 2017. In the EU 79 people are killed permillion inhabitants in 2008 compared to 113 in 2001.Disparity in road death rates across Europe has decreasedsince 2001, and in 2008 there was no longer any EU countrywith more than 150 road deaths per million inhabitants.

The development of passive safety systems has reached nearsaturation point and now offers limited potential to reducefatalities. To reduce fatality rates even further, the focus hasshifted to active safety systems and advanced driverassistance systems (ADAS). The recent spate of safety recallsinvolving electronic malfunctioning is likely to lowerconsumer confidence in advance safety systems in the short-term and impede the adoption of ADAS systems, asconsumers are likely to be less willing to pay extra for ADASsystems.

Even as vehicle makers are finding it hard to meet the stricterand contradictory regulations for safety and fuel efficiency;competitive pressures are forcing them to introduce advancedsafety systems to achieve highest safety ratings on theirvehicles and to differentiate their products. Such systemsinclude Blind Spot Detection (BSD), Lane DepartureWarning (LDW), Adaptive Front Lighting (AFL), NightVision Systems (NVS), Driver Drowsiness Warning (DDW)and Occupant Monitoring systems.

In today's market environment, where demand is weak andmargins tight, it is critical for vehicle manufacturers to offerconsumers vehicles with features and functions they valuemost and avoid costly development and consumerdissatisfaction with implementations.

In this paper, Frost & Sullivan analyzes consumer attitudestowards safety and their preferences and willingness to pay

“Consumer Attitudes and Perceptions about Safetyand Their Preferences and Willingness to Pay forSafety”

2010-01-2336Published

10/19/2010

Veerender Kaul, Sarwant Singh, Krishnasami Rajagopalan and Michael CouryFrost & Sullivan

Copyright © 2010 SAE International

for safety features. The analysis is discussed under thefollowing categories.

1. Consumer attitude and concerns for safety

2. Consumer perceptions toward current active and passivesafety systems and collision vulnerability

3. Buyer behavior and the influence of safety in the vehiclepurchasing process

4. Safety content and system feature preferences

5. Willingness to pay for safety and optimal safety packages

The analysis is based on an online survey of a sample ofvehicle owners across vehicle segments and demographicattributes. The study was conducted by Frost & Sullivan in2008, in the U.S., and in Europe in 2009.

2. INTRODUCTIONFrost & Sullivan conducted separate online survey of the U.S.and the European vehicle owners. While 1,152 consumersparticipated in the U.S. survey [3] conducted in 2008, 1,938consumers participated in the European survey [4] conductedin 2009. Respondents were selected based on certainparameters such as age of vehicle owned and future vehiclepurchase intentions. Safety features were broadly classifiedinto vehicle stability systems, driver warning and visionsystems, collision avoidance systems, occupant protectionsystems and post collision systems.

Figure 2.a. U.S. Consumer Survey - Respondents Mix bySegments of Vehicle Owned

Figure 2.b. European Consumer Survey - RespondentsMix by Segments of Vehicle Owned

3. CONSUMER ATTITUDE ANDCONCERNS FOR SAFETYAnalysis of U.S. and European consumers' responses clearlyhighlights the difference between their awareness, attitudesand concerns for vehicle safety. European consumers seem tobe more concerned about vehicle safety; have higher level ofawareness of advanced safety systems and are more willingto pay extra for additional safety features. U.S. consumersbelieve they are good drivers; don't require additional safetyfeatures in their vehicles and are less willing to pay foradditional safety features. This difference is the result of thetype of vehicle these consumers drive and the road anddriving conditions in the two regions. These findings indicateclear differences in perception of vehicle safety andexpectation of safety systems in Europe and the U.S.

4. CONSUMER PERCEPTIONSTOWARD CURRENT ACTIVE ANDPASSIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS ANDCOLLISION VULNERABILITYU.S. consumers perceive passive safety systems such asseatbelts and airbags to play a very important role when itcomes to vehicle safety. While U.S. consumer's stronglyassociate passive safety features to the concept of vehiclesafety, analysis of their responses indicate they are informedand are receptive to newer active safety and advanced driverassistance features. The importance U.S. consumers place on

features such as alcohol interlock, BSD, LDW and speedwarning systems clearly highlight increasing consumerawareness of advanced safety and driver assistance systemsand expectations from vehicle manufacturers to offer theseadvanced systems.

Though European consumers place high importance onfeatures such as BSD, low speed collision avoidance -partialhalt and emergency braking assistance (pre-charging);features such as alcohol interlock, semi-autonomous parking,parking assistance - rear view camera, and traffic signrecognition are not seen as very important.

Figure 3.a. U.S. Consumer Awareness and Perception towards Vehicle Safety

Figure 3.b. European Consumer Awareness and Perception towards Vehicle Safety

Analysis of consumer responses on vulnerability to collisionshighlights that U.S. consumers are more likely to be involvedin rear end collisions as compared to other type of collisions.After rear end collisions, it is lateral collisions that U.S.consumers are likely to get involved in. Unlike U.S.consumers, European consumers believe they are more likelyto be involved in forward collision, followed by rollover afterimpact, lateral collision, and then rear end collision.

Figure 4.a. U.S. Consumers Perception of Importance of Safety Systems to Overall Vehicle Safety

Figure 4.b. European Consumers Perception of Importance of Safety Systems to Overall Vehicle Safety

Figure 4.c. U.S. Consumers Feedback on CollisionScenarios Most Vulnerable to When Driving

Figure 4.d. European Consumers Feedback on CollisionScenarios Most Concerned About When Driving

While U.S. consumers tend to perceive a collision scenariowhere another vehicle hits their vehicle, European consumerstend to perceive it the other way round. The difference inperception is due to the kind of vehicles consumers drive inthe two regions. While U.S consumers drive large vehicleswith powerful engines, Europeans drive small, low poweredvehicles. Also the roadway infrastructure in the two regionsplays an important part in consumer perceptions. In the U.S.roads in urban, semi urban and rural areas are wider;relatively less congested and high speed driving is possiblewhen compared to the roads in urban, semi urban and ruralareas of major European countries. Analysis of the data alsoindicate that U.S. consumer perception of vehicle safety ishighly influenced by number of safety features offered byvehicle manufacturer in the vehicle; if the vehicle has passednecessary certification tests, and if they are able to see moreof the traffic ahead and around their vehicle.

5. BUYER BEHAVIOR AND THEINFLUENCE OF THE SAFETYPACKAGE IN THE VEHICLEPURCHASING PROCESSU.S. consumers who indicated they were willing to buy a carengineered to be safe for pedestrians (even if it costs more)supported their intentions with a higher budget allocation totechnologies that protect them while driving (33%) andminimize injuries to others (24%). Also U.S. consumersallocate most of their budget to safety technologies thatprotect them while driving, followed by pedestrianprotection. Crash compatibility and occupant protection arelower on their priority and budget allocation list, withmedium/large car drivers most likely to budget and pay for it,and pick-up truck drivers least likely to budget and pay for it.Proven technology and reputation are key attributes thatinfluence the purchase of safety features. Relative influenceof factors like automated driver responses and new,sophisticated technology has increased.

Reliability, safety and comfort lead purchase importanceamong European consumers when it comes to making adecision on new vehicle purchase. While MPV owner'spriority is space, comfort and design & style are moreimportant for D&E and SUV segment vehicle owners. Fueleconomy is important for A&B segment vehicle owners. Csegment owners see safety significantly more important,which is a reflection of the greater time they spend on theroad compared to other segments.

6. SAFETY CONTENT AND SYSTEMFEATURE PREFERENCESU.S. respondents are most likely to purchase occupantprotection technologies first, followed by braking or steeringtechnologies. Telematics technologies that relay forassistance after a collision were likely to be purchased last.

When it comes to features that enhance braking, Anti-lockBraking Systems (ABS) remains the most preferred optionfor U.S. consumers followed by Traction Control System(TCS). The desirability of newer features is lower asconsumers prefer tested, proven, and reliable systems/technologies.

When it comes to features that warn driver of potential risks,technologies that take over driver control (Lane DeviationControl and Driver Drowsiness Control) were the leastpreferred, with about a fifth of respondents indicating they donot want such features,. A strong preference for thesetechnologies is yet to emerge, highlighting the reluctance ofU.S. consumers for such features. However, a third arewilling to purchase the vehicle if these features are offered asstandard at no extra cost. When it comes to features thatprotect occupants, with the tendency of respondents toperceive vehicle safety as passive protection, it is notsurprising that U.S. respondents continue to desire front andside airbags.

Figure 5.a. Factors That Influence New Vehicle Purchase Decisions of U.S. Consumers

Figure 5.b. Importance of Factors in New Vehicle Purchase Decisions of European Consumers

From the response of European consumers, it is clearlyevident that technologies which help prevent accidents are themost desired by vehicle owners. There are no significantdifferences by age, by gender, by country or by vehiclesegment. Clearly low speed collision avoidance - partial haltand braking performance improvement system, lead overallimportance for consumers. Interestingly, while they are the

most expensive technologies, automatic emergency braking -complete halt and collision warning, are also highly rated byconsumers, almost twice more important than speed alert andparking assistance by warning (ultrasonic park assist).

Figure 6.a. U.S. Consumers Willingness to Purchase Safety Features if Offered as Optional Add-ons

Figure 6.b. Safety Features Grouping in U.S. Consumers Survey

7. WILLINGNESS TO PAY FORSAFETY AND OPTIMAL SAFETYPACKAGESAnalysis of respondent's feedback clearly indicates that U.S.consumers consider safety features that protect occupants in acollision and features that enhance braking or steering such asABS, TCS, ESC, airbags, BSD as important features when itcomes to new vehicle purchase. Consumers expect safetyfeatures that help maintain safe distances between vehicles,and features that enhance braking or steering such as ACC,Collision Mitigation Braking, Collision Warning System andRollover Mitigation and Prevention to be offered as standardequipment. U.S. consumers expect other safety features suchas LDW, AFL, park assist system, NVS to be offered asoptional.

Analysis of European respondent ratings indicate thatconsumers are willing to spend 33% of their budget on safetytechnologies that protect while driving as against only 18%for post-crash support systems. European consumers hadrated safety second in terms of importance, only afterreliability. The importance consumers place on high cost(over €1,000) ADAS features indicate that they are willing topay more for avoidance systems clearly indicating that ADASsystems are likely to buck the trend and attract Europeanconsumers to pay for these features.

Figure 6.c. U.S. Consumers Importance Ranking of Safety Features

Figure 6.d. European Consumers Importance Rating of Safety and ADAS Features

Figure 7.b. European Consumers Willingness to Spendon Additional Safety Features on Next Vehicle Purchase

8. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONSAnalysis of consumer feedback from the U.S. and Europeansurveys clearly illustrate the difference in perception andawareness of U.S. and European consumers when it comes tovehicle safety. It also highlights the difference in theirattitude towards active and passive safety systems andadvanced driver assistance systems, and willingness to payfor these systems during their next vehicle purchase.

Type of vehicles (based on size, power and road presence)and road infrastructure play a key role in shaping consumerattitudes and perceptions towards vehicle safety. Majority ofU.S. consumers believe they are good drivers, they don'trequire significant additional safety features, and they arelikely to get involved in accidents because of the vehiclesaround them. Whereas majority of European consumers tendto think the other way round; that they require additionalsafety features to keep them safe and they are likely to bemore involved in accidents caused by frontal impact. Thedifference in perceptions of the U.S. and European consumersis explained by the vehicles they drive and conditions inwhich they drive. While U.S. consumers drive largervehicles, European consumers drive compact vehiclesprimarily in urban roads. Narrower roads and trafficcongestions on average are higher in Europe as compared tothe U.S.

U.S. consumers perceive passive safety systems such asseatbelts, airbags and occupant protection systems as mostimportant followed by active safety systems such as ABS andTCS. With ABS, TCS and smart airbags already mandated byNHTSA [5]; U.S. consumers perceive BSD, collisionwarning system, collision mitigation braking and rollovermitigation system as important in order of purchase priority.

European consumers perceive advanced driver assistancesystems such as low speed collision avoidance -partial halt,braking performance improvement system, ABS, automaticemergency braking - complete halt, and collision warning asmost important. However interesting to note is that both U.S.and European consumers rate occupant protection systems

Figure 7.a. U.S. Consumers Willingness to Pay for Key Safety Features

and braking / collision related systems as most importantwhen it comes to safety.

With a spate of recent vehicle recalls raising number ofquestions about safety of vehicles, consumer perceptions andattitudes towards advanced safety features is expected to beless positive in the short-term. Recent vehicle recalls havealso raised questions about the reliability of electronic andautonomous systems that take control away from the driver.As a result, consumers are expected to be less willing to payfor newer safety features compared to tried and tested safetyfeatures. While there is a big opportunity for vehiclemanufacturers and suppliers to introduce / offer advanceddriver assistance systems in the long-term, it is going to be amajor challenge to prove the reliability of these systems andconvince consumers to pay for these systems in their nextvehicle purchase.

9. REFERENCES1. U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 810 983,“Evaluation Program Plan, 2008 - 2012”, (August 2008)

2. ETSC News Release Embargoed until 14 January 2010,“Ambitious Road Safety Targets Needed for 2020”, (14January 2010)

3. Frost & Sullivan Report “U.S. Consumers' Desirabilityand Willingness to Pay for Safety Systems”, (2008)

4. Frost & Sullivan Report “European Consumers'Desirability and Willingness to Pay for Advanced Safety andDriver Assistance Systems”, (2009)

5. U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 811 291,NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats - A Brief StatisticalSummary, (March 2010)

10. CONTACT INFORMATIONBrian Drake248-836-82603brian.drake@frost.com

11. DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONSNHTSA

National Highway Transportation and SafetyAdministration

EUEuropean Union

ETSCEuropean Transport Safety Council

ADASAdvanced Driver Assistance Systems

ABSAnti-lock Braking System

LDWLane Departure Warning

BSDBlind Spot Detection

ESCElectronic Stability Control

AFLAdaptive Front Lighting

NVSNight Vision Systems

DDWDriver Drowsiness Warning

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It hassuccessfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the sessionorganizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE.

ISSN 0148-7191

doi:10.4271/2010-01-2336

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and notnecessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.

SAE Customer Service:Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)Fax: 724-776-0790Email: CustomerService@sae.orgSAE Web Address: http://www.sae.orgPrinted in USA