ACC and more advanced partial automation that combines ACC with lane centering are often disabled on some of the sharper curves present on limited-access roadways, either because drivers switch the features off or they deactivate automatically.

ACC works like conventional cruise control, but it automatically slows the vehicle to maintain a preselected following distance from the vehicle ahead so the driver doesn’t need to repeatedly brake and reset the system. Lane centering provides automated steering assistance designed to keep the vehicle in the middle of the lane.

Hu and her co-authors used field operational test data collected by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Advanced Vehicle Technology Consortium. On-board data-acquisition systems collected information from two 2016 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque and two 2017 Volvo S90 vehicles driven by 39 drivers over four weeks. The Evoques were equipped with ACC, and the S90s were equipped with both ACC and Volvo’s Pilot Assist partial automation system — which combines ACC and lane centering.

Analyzing the data, the researchers found that ACC or Pilot Assist were less likely to be active as curves became sharper. In the Evoque vehicles, drivers were 72 percent less likely to use ACC on the sharpest category of curves (those with a radius smaller than 2,292 feet) than they were to use those features on straight road segments. In the S90 vehicles, drivers were 75 percent less likely to use Pilot Assist and 66 percent less likely to use ACC on the sharpest curves.

The researchers did not determine in this analysis whether the driver switched off the system or it deactivated automatically. Lane centering can automatically become suspended when the driver manipulates the steering wheel or uses the turn signal, or when the system’s sensors cannot detect the lines painted on the road. ACC deactivates when the driver applies the brakes.

An earlier IIHS study of police-reported crashes showed that front crash prevention cuts rear-end crash rates in half and reduces rear-end crashes involving injuries by 56 percent. ACC could boost those reductions, since it typically results in greater following distances, giving drivers more time to react to an emergency ahead.

Another study found that lane departure warning — which alerts the driver when the vehicle is drifting from its lane — lowers rates of single-vehicle, sideswipe and head-on crashes of all severities by 11 percent and lowers the rates of injury crashes of the same types by 21 percent. Because they also provide steering assistance, lane centering systems might boost those reductions as well.

To qualify for TOP SAFETY PICK+, a vehicle must earn good ratings in all six IIHS crashworthiness tests — driver- and passenger-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraints. It must be available with front crash prevention that earns a superior or advanced rating in both vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrian evaluations and also come with good or acceptable headlights across all trim levels and packages.

With a standard front crash prevention system that earns superior ratings in both evaluations and standard acceptable-rated LED projector headlights, the first SUV in the Genesis lineup meets all those requirements.

Drivers are substantially more likely to speed when using ACC or partial automation that combines that feature with lane centering than when not using either technology, the study showed. When selecting a speed to “set and forget,” many drivers choose one that’s over the limit.

“ACC does have some safety benefits, but it’s important to consider how drivers might cancel out these benefits by misusing the system,” says IIHS Statistician Sam Monfort, the lead author of the paper. “Speed at impact is among the most important factors in whether or not a crash turns out to be fatal.”

ACC is a more advanced version of traditional cruise control that uses sensors to calculate and maintain a preselected following distance from the vehicle ahead, eliminating the need for the driver to repeatedly brake and reset the system. With the addition of lane centering, the vehicle also maintains its position within the travel lane automatically.

The systems on the market today don’t restrict drivers from setting speeds that are higher than the legal limit, and they require constant supervision by the driver because they’re not capable of handling certain common road features and driving scenarios.

Nevertheless, an analysis of insurance claims data by the IIHS-affiliated Highway Loss Data Institute and other research indicate that ACC may lower crash risk. Other studies have shown that these systems maintain a greater following distance at their default settings than most human drivers and suggested that they reduce the frequency of passing and other lane changes.

To find out the impact ACC and lane centering technologies have on speeding, IIHS researchers analyzed the behavior of 40 drivers from the Boston metro area over a four-week period using data collected by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Advanced Vehicle Technology Consortium. These drivers were provided with a 2016 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque outfitted with ACC or with a 2017 Volvo S90 equipped with ACC and Pilot Assist — a partial automation system that combines ACC with lane centering. The data suggest that drivers were 24 percent more likely to drive over the speed limit on limited-access highways when those systems were turned on. The amount by which they exceeded the speed limit when they did speed was also greater when they were using the driver assistance features compared with driving manually.

Whether driving manually or using ACC or Pilot Assist, speeders exceeded the limit by the largest margin in zones with a 55 mph limit. In these areas, speeders averaged about 8 mph over the limit, compared with 5 mph in 60 mph and 65 mph zones. ACC also had the largest impact on how much they exceeded the limit in zones where it was 55 mph. In these slower zones, they averaged a little more than 1 mph higher over the limit when using ACC or Pilot Assist than they did driving manually.

That 1 mph increase may not sound like much. Leaving aside any other effect these features may have on crash risk, however, it means ACC and partial automation users are at about 10 percent higher risk of a fatal crash, according to a common formula for calculating probable crash outcomes. This study did not analyze real-world crashes.

The study did not account for several other factors that have been shown to reduce crash frequency and severity. For instance, it’s possible that drivers who set their systems at higher speeds also selected a greater following distance. ACC systems are also designed to respond sooner and less abruptly than human drivers when the vehicle ahead slows down.

Future research will need to balance these benefits against the effects of excess speeding to fully understand the technology’s impact on safety. Making systems more restrictive might be the answer, provided that limiting the maximum speed or linking it to posted limits doesn’t discourage risky drivers from using ACC altogether.

Both of the tested systems also allow drivers to bump their selected speed up or down by 5 mph increments at the touch of a button, which might at least partially explain why users exceeded the legal limit by larger amounts when they had the feature switched on.

Looking for a way to measure how aware drivers are of what’s happening on the road around them when they’re using partial automation, IIHS researchers dressed an enormous stuffed bear in a high-visibility jacket and strapped it to the back of a car. They then compared whether three different groups of drivers noticed the bizarre tailpiece when the vehicle overtook them as they motored down an interstate in Maryland.

That measure is useful because today’s partial automation systems still aren’t fully autonomous.

Under the classification system developed by SAE International, automation is classified from 0 (no automation) to 5 (fully self-driving). The highest level available in production vehicles today is Level 2. These systems continuously control acceleration, braking and steering to keep the vehicle traveling at a set speed in the center of its lane while maintaining a selected following distance from the vehicle ahead.

As a number of highly publicized crashes have demonstrated, however, Level 2 systems sometimes struggle to handle common road features and driving scenarios, so they require constant supervision by the driver. Research has also shown that it’s harder for drivers to remain focused on the road when they no longer have to make the constant steering and speed adjustments they’re accustomed to making when driving manually. Scientists need a robust way to study this problem in real-world driving conditions in order to understand whether the technology affects all drivers the same way.

To test the teddy bear concept, IIHS observed 31 drivers as they drove a 2019 Mercedes-Benz C300 for about an hour on a Maryland stretch of I-70. One set of drivers who regularly used similar Level 2 systems in their own vehicles drove with the Mercedes-Benz’s partially automated feature switched on, as did another group of drivers who had little or no experience with these types of systems. A third group that was also unfamiliar with Level 2 automation completed the trip in the same vehicle but left the automation switched off.

During the trip, the vehicle with the pink teddy bear overtook each driver three times and remained in view in front for approximately 30 seconds. Cameras inside the test vehicle recorded where the driver was looking as well as the view of the road through the windshield. After the trip, the drivers were asked whether they had seen anything odd about any vehicles they had encountered and, if they had, how many times they had seen it.

The researchers observed clear differences in how successfully the three groups of drivers took note of the hard-to-miss bear, suggesting that the method effectively provided an objective measure of situational awareness.

More than twice as many inexperienced Level 2 automation users driving with the system turned on failed to recall the bear at all compared with the other groups. Almost all of the frequent Level 2 automation users who had the vehicle’s system switched on noticed the bear. They were also more likely than the other groups to correctly recall the number of times it had appeared during the drive.

The researchers also analyzed the video data and found that drivers who better recalled the bear also tended to spend more time scanning the forward roadway as well as looking out of the driver and front passenger windows, where the bear emerged into view as the vehicle carrying it passed them. In contrast, drivers who missed the bear tended to spend more time looking straight ahead.

Though the sample was small, these results suggest that partially automated driving systems have the potential to improve drivers’ situational awareness after they have gained experience using the technology. Inexperienced drivers may have more difficulty keeping track of what’s going on around them when using the unfamiliar technology than when driving without it.

On the other hand, previous studies have shown that familiarity with automation can also have drawbacks. Users can become complacent as their trust in the technology grows. That makes them more likely to check their phones or fiddle with the navigation or audio system than they would do while driving manually — a problem that has already been implicated in several serious crashes.

Teenage drivers are 3 times as likely as those 20 or older to be involved in a fatal crash. Those deaths are often the result of single-vehicle crashes caused by speeding or other errors that cause the driver to lose control.

Because teens most often drive older, cheaper vehicles, they’re also less likely to benefit from proven crash prevention technologies like automatic emergency braking (AEB) — which is expected to be installed in less than a quarter of the vehicles on U.S. roads by 2023 despite a major push from manufacturers. But AEB and other features like blind spot monitoring systems and sensors that warn the driver when the vehicle is drifting out of its lane are becoming more and more common on the cars that their parents drive and they learn on.

To explore how parents feel about these technologies, IIHS worked with J.D. Power to conduct three focus groups. The discussions involved a total of 21 parents who had used a vehicle equipped with at least four common driver assistance features to teach their teens to drive. These common features included blind spot monitoring, forward collision warning, front or rear AEB, lane departure warning and lane departure prevention — which steers the vehicle back on course when it drifts out of its lane. While many parents said they believe these features provide some safety benefits, they were divided about when and how they should be used during the process of learning to drive.

Overall, the parents expressed doubts about the technology more often than strong faith in its effectiveness. Some complained that the beeps and buzzes and warning lights could themselves be distracting, or that systems that momentarily take over the steering wheel to prevent lane departures could startle their teen into overreacting.

However, others were optimistic that the technologies could give fearful teens the confidence to learn. A few used the system alerts to help monitor the teen’s driving and give immediate feedback about unsafe maneuvers. AEB had already helped another parent’s teen avoid a crash. “When they’re unskilled, I think those features help a lot,” the parent said, adding it’s easy for new drivers to lose control.

Parents’ opinions were split about whether new drivers should be introduced to the driving assistance features at the beginning of the learning process or after they’d learned some of the basic skills. “I’m training my daughter to use all the technology that’s available with the car,” said a third parent, adding that young people are often more tech-savvy than older adults. “If it’s there, why not?”

The study did not include parents who had decided not to use these features at all during the learning process. However, some said they turned the features off after experimenting with them during driving practice to ensure their child didn’t use them as a crutch. These parents said they would later incorporate them into their sessions, since such technology was only going to become more common.

Rear AEB was the standout feature in HLDI’s annual compilation of its research on the impact of crash avoidance technologies.

The updated rear AEB analysis adds insurance data for model year 2015-18 Subaru vehicles with and without the feature to an earlier analysis of 2014-15 General Motors vehicles. The researchers found that vehicles equipped with rear AEB had 28 percent fewer property damage liability claims and 10 percent fewer collision claims across the two manufacturers.

Collision insurance covers damage to the insured driver’s vehicle, while property damage liability insurance covers damage to the other vehicle involved in a crash when the insured driver is at fault.

Low-speed backing crashes represent a substantial portion of insurance claims, a separate HLDI analysis that looked at the point of impact of crashes found. Collision claims with rear damage of less than $2,000 accounted for 17 percent of all collision claims and over $8 billion in estimated damage during calendar years 2010–17.

In comparison, HLDI has found that front AEB reduces the frequency of collision claims by 3 percent and property damage liability claims by 14 percent. However, it slashes the frequency of bodily injury liability claims, which are for injuries that at-fault drivers inflict on occupants of other vehicles or others on the road, by nearly a quarter. A similar study of police-reported crashes by the HLDI-affiliated Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that the technology reduced front-to-rear crashes by 50 percent.

Both front and rear AEB use sensors like cameras or radar to detect when the vehicle is getting too close to an obstacle and automatically apply the brakes to avoid or mitigate collisions. IIHS tests and rates both systems. Only front crash prevention performance is a criterion for the Institute’s TOP SAFETY PICK and TOP SAFETY PICK+ awards.

HLDI also found that two other features designed to prevent backing crashes, parking sensors and rear cameras, which are both more common than rear AEB, were much less effective. Data from seven other manufacturers showed that rear cameras reduced the frequency of property damage liability claims by 5 percent and actually increased the frequency of collision claims slightly, though that increase was not statistically significant. Parking sensors also reduced the frequency of property damage liability claims by 5 percent and reduced the frequency of collision claims by 1 percent.

Aside from rear AEB, front AEB and forward collision warning are the only stand-alone driver assistance features analyzed by HLDI that show double-digit percent reductions in claim frequency under any type of coverage.  

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requested comments on proposed changes to the rules for occupant protection. The changes are intended to account for new designs and seating choices that may come with the introduction of fully automated vehicles. But it would be a mistake to issue those standards without including enforceable regulations to govern the driving behavior of such automated systems, IIHS Chief Research Officer David Zuby wrote in the comment.

IIHS research has shown that manufacturers will need to design self-driving vehicles specifically to prioritize safety over other rider preferences to eliminate the majority of today’s crashes (see “Self-driving vehicles could struggle to eliminate most crashes,” June 4, 2020).

Removing some of the hurdles to the introduction of these vehicles without first establishing rules for how they should drive would be putting the cart before the horse, Zuby said.

In the context of occupant protection, regulators should require that automated systems be designed to refuse to start a journey if an airbag is malfunctioning or any passenger is not properly restrained.

Zuby also argued that the same level of protection currently mandated for the front row should be required for all available seats. When a driver is no longer needed and in some cases vehicles no longer have driver controls, there is no reason to suppose people will sit where they have traditionally. IIHS research shows occupants seated behind the front row are no longer safer than those seated in front, and occupants of some ages are at greater risk in the back (see “Rear-seat occupant protection hasn’t kept pace with the front,” April 25, 2019). 

For vehicles without a steering wheel and other traditional controls, the left front seat should be subject to the same requirements that are currently mandated for the front passenger seat. Similarly, in vehicles with bench seats, lap and shoulder belts should be required for the middle seat in all rows.

Conventional thinking has it that self-driving vehicles could one day make crashes a thing of the past. The reality is not that simple. According to a national survey of police-reported crashes, driver error is the final failure in the chain of events leading to more than 9 out of 10 crashes.

But the Institute’s analysis suggests that only about a third of those crashes were the result of mistakes that automated vehicles would be expected to avoid simply because they have more accurate perception than human drivers and aren’t vulnerable to incapacitation. To avoid the other two-thirds, they would need to be specifically programmed to prioritize safety over speed and convenience.

To estimate how many crashes might continue to occur if self-driving cars are designed to make the same decisions about risk that humans do, IIHS researchers examined more than 5,000 police-reported crashes from the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey. Collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, this sample is representative of crashes across the U.S. in which at least one vehicle was towed away, and emergency medical services were called to the scene.

The IIHS team reviewed the case files and separated the driver-related factors that contributed to the crashes into five categories:

• “Sensing and perceiving” errors included things like driver distraction, impeded visibility and failing to recognize hazards before it was too late.
• “Predicting” errors occurred when drivers misjudged a gap in traffic, incorrectly estimated how fast another vehicle was going or made an incorrect assumption about what another road user was going to do.
• “Planning and deciding” errors included driving too fast or too slow for the road conditions, driving aggressively or leaving too little following distance from the vehicle ahead.
• “Execution and performance” errors included inadequate or incorrect evasive maneuvers, overcompensation and other mistakes in controlling the vehicle.
• “Incapacitation” involved impairment due to alcohol or drug use, medical problems or falling asleep at the wheel.

The researchers also determined that some crashes were unavoidable, such as those caused by a vehicle failure like a blowout or broken axle.

For the study, the researchers imagined a future in which all the vehicles on the road are self-driving. They assumed these future vehicles would prevent those crashes that were caused exclusively by perception errors or involved an incapacitated driver. That’s because cameras and sensors of fully autonomous vehicles could be expected to monitor the roadway and identify potential hazards better than a human driver and be incapable of distraction or incapacitation.

Crashes due to only sensing and perceiving errors accounted for 24 percent of the total, and incapacitation accounted for 10 percent. Those crashes might be avoided if all vehicles on the road were self-driving — though it would require sensors that worked perfectly and systems that never malfunctioned. The remaining two-thirds might still occur unless autonomous vehicles are also specifically programmed to avoid other types of predicting, decision-making and performance errors.

Consider the crash of an Uber test vehicle that killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona, in March 2018. Its automated driving system initially struggled to correctly identify 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg on the side of the road. But once it did, it still was not able to predict that she would cross in front of the vehicle, and it failed to execute the correct evasive maneuver to avoid striking her when she did so.

Planning and deciding errors, such as speeding and illegal maneuvers, were contributing factors in about 40 percent of crashes in the study sample. The fact that deliberate decisions made by drivers can lead to crashes indicates that rider preferences might sometimes conflict with the safety priorities of autonomous vehicles. For self-driving vehicles to live up to their promise of eliminating most crashes, they will have to be designed to focus on safety rather than rider preference when those two are at odds.

Self-driving vehicles will need not only to obey traffic laws but also to adapt to road conditions and implement driving strategies that account for uncertainty about what other road users will do, such as driving more slowly than a human driver would in areas with high pedestrian traffic or in low-visibility conditions.

To qualify for the 2020 TOP SAFETY PICK and TOP SAFETY PICK+ awards, Mazda vehicles earned good ratings in each of the Institute’s six crashworthiness evaluations: moderate overlap front, driver-side small overlap front, passenger-side small overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraints & seats. Mazda vehicles also earned advanced or superior ratings for front crash prevention in both vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrian evaluations. Additionally, Mazda achieved good or acceptable headlight ratings, with the “plus” awarded to its models that come exclusively with good or acceptable rated headlights.

To qualify for a 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK award, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as a good or acceptable rating in the passenger-side small overlap front test. It also needs an advanced or superior rating for vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention and a good or acceptable headlight rating.

The 2020 Renegade, a small SUV, earns an acceptable rating in the passenger-side small overlap crash test and good ratings in five other evaluations. The good rating in the driver-side small overlap crash test, however, only applies to models built after September, when modifications to the front-end structure were made to improve occupant protection.

The Renegade’s optional vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention system earns a superior rating. In track tests, it avoided collisions in both 12 and 25 mph tests.

The SUV’s available LED headlights with high-beam assist — a system that automatically switches between high-beams and low beams depending on the presence of other vehicles — earn an acceptable rating. The same headlights without high-beam assist earn a marginal rating. The Renegade’s base halogen headlights earn a poor rating.

n the driver-side small overlap test of the Explorer, the structure held up well overall — an improvement over the severe intrusion seen in the Explorer prior to the redesign. However, in the test of the new model, there was enough intrusion into the outboard part of the footwell to elevate the risk of injury to the driver’s left leg, as indicated by measures taken from the dummy, resulting in an overall rating of acceptable.

A good rating in the driver-side small overlap crash test is a requirement for both the 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK and TOP SAFETY PICK+ awards, so neither the Explorer nor Aviator is eligible.

The two models earn good ratings in the moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint evaluations. Neither model has been evaluated in the passenger-side small overlap crash test. The previous generation of the Explorer earned a poor rating in the passenger-side test.

Ford had expected the Explorer to earn a good rating in the driver-side small overlap test and said it would investigate why it didn’t. The automaker plans to implement changes with the aim of improving the vehicle’s performance for a future test.

The 2020 Explorer and Aviator are both equipped with a standard vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention system that scores a superior rating in Institute tests. The SUVs are also available with a second, optional system that also rates superior. Both systems prevented collisions in 12 and 25 mph tests.

The two models differ in headlight performance. All Explorers built after June 2019 earn an acceptable headlight rating. The Aviator’s base headlights — static LED reflectors — rate marginal, while its available curve-adaptive headlights earn a good rating.

The Explorer and Aviator each earn an acceptable rating for ease of use of the vehicles’ LATCH hardware. LATCH, which stands for Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, is a system of attachment hardware for child restraints.

To qualify for a 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK award, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as a good or acceptable rating in the passenger-side small overlap front test. It also needs an advanced or superior rating for vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention and a good or acceptable headlight rating.

The XT6 is new for the 2020 model year and is built on the same platform as the GMC Acadia. XT6 models built after October earn a good rating in the Institute’s newest crash test configuration — the passenger-side small overlap crash test. At that time, changes were incorporated into the side curtain airbags to provide better occupant protection. The XT6 also earns good ratings in the Institute’s five other crashworthiness evaluations.

The XT6’s standard vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention system rates superior. A second, optional system also rates superior. Both systems prevented collisions in 12 and 25 mph track tests.

The SUV is available with two different headlight systems, both of which earn an acceptable rating. Combined with its other ratings, a good headlight rating would have qualified the XT6 for the higher-tier TOP SAFETY PICK+ award.

To qualify for a 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK award, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as a good or acceptable rating in the passenger-side small overlap front test. It also needs an advanced or superior rating for vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention and a good or acceptable headlight rating.

The 2020 Equinox earns good ratings in all six IIHS crashworthiness evaluations.

The SUV’s standard vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention system earns a superior rating. In Institute tests, it avoided a collision in the 12 mph test and reduced its impact speed by an average of 22 mph in the 25 mph. The Equinox earns an advanced rating for pedestrian front crash prevention, though that rating doesn’t factor into 2019 award criteria.

The 2020 Equinox comes standard with high-beam assist, a system that automatically switches between high beams and low beams, depending on the presence of other vehicles. Vehicles can earn extra credit in Institute headlight tests for having high-beam assist because research has shown that drivers don’t use high beams as often as they should. The safety feature helps the Equinox’s available HID projector headlights earn an acceptable rating. Its other two headlight options, including its base halogens and available LED projectors, both rate marginal.

The Outback earns a TOP SAFETY PICK award. The award applies to all Outbacks built after October, as well as earlier models equipped with the base headlights instead of curve-adaptive ones.

The Legacy earns a TOP SAFETY PICK+ award when equipped with curve-adaptive headlights.

To qualify for a 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK award, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as a good or acceptable rating in the passenger-side small overlap front test. It also needs an advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention and a good or acceptable headlight rating. The TOP SAFETY PICK+ award requires a good passenger-side small overlap rating and a good headlight rating.

Both the Legacy and the Outback earn good ratings in all six of the Institute’s crashworthiness evaluations and come standard with Subaru’s EyeSight crash avoidance system. Each model earns a superior rating for vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention, avoiding collisions in 12 and 25 mph track tests. They have also been evaluated for pedestrian crash prevention, earning a superior rating, though that test isn’t part of the 2019 awards criteria.

The 2020 Legacy earns a TOP SAFETY PICK+ award when equipped with curve-adaptive headlights. Its base headlights earn an acceptable rating. That would be sufficient to qualify for an award without the “plus,” though only one of the awards is given per model.

While the 2019 Outback earned the higher-tier “plus” award, the 2020 model is limited to a TOP SAFETY PICK due to an acceptable headlight rating. That rating applies to its base headlights as well as its available curve-adaptive LEDs on models built after October 2019. The curve-adaptive lights on earlier models rate marginal.

Additionally, the 2020 Subaru Impreza sedan and wagon were not redesigned for 2020 but have updated headlights. The new headlights earn identical ratings to the 2019 models, meaning the vehicles’ 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK+ awards now extend to 2019-20 models equipped with optional front crash prevention and specific headlights.

To qualify for a 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK award, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as a good or acceptable rating in the passenger-side small overlap front test. It also needs an advanced or superior rating for vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention and a good or acceptable headlight rating.

The Edge, a midsize SUV, last qualified for an IIHS safety award under the 2015 criteria. Criteria for TOP SAFETY PICK awards change each year, and the Edge has been held back in recent years partly by an acceptable rating in the driver-side small overlap crash test.

Beginning with the 2019 model year, the Edge was modified using the same body and bumper structure as the Lincoln Nautilus. It now earns a good rating in both the driver-side and passenger-side small overlap crash tests. The Edge also earns good ratings in the Institute’s four other crashworthiness evaluations.

The 2019 model also demonstrates improvements in headlight performance. Its available curve-adaptive LED projector headlights earn an acceptable rating for models built after March. The same headlights on models built earlier earn a poor rating, largely due to excessive glare. The Edge’s base headlights — static LED projectors — rate poor, regardless of build date.

The Edge comes with a standard front crash prevention system that rates superior for its ability to react to an imminent crash with another vehicle. In track tests, the system avoided collisions in both 12 and 25 mph tests. The SUV is also available with an optional system that also rates superior.

The Edge has not yet been rated for pedestrian crash prevention.

While the Edge earns the year’s first safety award for the Ford brand, Ford Motor Company’s luxury brand, Lincoln, previously earned a TOP SAFETY PICK+ award for the 2019 Continental.

The 2019 Passport, which is derived from the larger Honda Pilot, earns good ratings in five crashworthiness evaluations and an acceptable rating in the passenger-side small overlap front crash test.

The SUV comes standard with a superior-rated front crash prevention system. In IIHS track tests, the system avoided a collision in the 12 mph test and reduced its impact speed by an average of 12 mph in the 25 mph test. It has a forward collision warning component that meets the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s criteria.

The Passport’s two available headlight systems both earn acceptable ratings for models built after June 2019. Both rate poor for Passports built earlier, meaning earlier models don’t qualify for TOP SAFETY PICK. High-beam assist, a system that automatically switches between high beams and low beams, depending on the presence of other vehicles, is a standard feature with all headlights.

To qualify for a 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK award, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as a good or acceptable rating in the passenger-side small overlap front test. It also needs an advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention and a good or acceptable headlight rating.

The Passport joins seven other 2019 models from Honda in the winner’s circle. Six earn TOP SAFETY PICK awards, and one — the 2019 Insight — earns the higher-tier TOP SAFETY PICK+ award.

Now, in new tests from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Model 3 has been named a 2019 IIHS TOP SAFETY PICK+ vehicle, the highest achievement awarded by the Institute. To evaluate whether Model 3 met the criteria for this top rating, IIHS tested the car’s crashworthiness, occupant protection, crash avoidance, and headlight systems. Model 3 earned top marks in all eight tests, including a superior rating in front crash prevention, which evaluates a car’s Automatic Emergency Braking system, and the highest possible rating in IIHS’ headlight assessment.

To qualify for a 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK+ award, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, passenger-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests. It also needs an advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention and a good headlight rating.

The NX, which is derived from the design of the Toyota RAV4, earns good ratings in all six IIHS crashworthiness evaluations. The good rating in the Institute’s newest test — the passenger-side small overlap crash test — applies to models built after January 2019, when structural reinforcements were incorporated into the passenger side of the vehicle to provide better protection in passenger-side small overlap frontal crashes.

The NX has a standard front crash prevention system that rates superior. In IIHS track tests, the NX avoided collisions at 12 and 25 mph.

The SUV has two available headlight options. Its base headlights — static LED projectors — and its optional curve-adaptive headlights both earn good ratings in Institute evaluations. Both options feature high-beam assist, a system which automatically switches between high beams and low beams, depending on the presence of other vehicles.

To qualify for a 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK award, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as a good or acceptable rating in the passenger-side small overlap front test. It also needs an advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention and a good or acceptable headlight rating.

The QX60, which is based on the design of the Nissan Pathfinder, earns good ratings in five crashworthiness evaluations and an acceptable rating in the passenger-side small overlap crash test.

The SUV scores a superior rating for its standard front crash prevention system, which avoided collisions in 12 and 25 mph track tests. The system also has a warning component that meets criteria set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Infiniti made mid-year changes in 2019 to improve the QX60’s headlights. The LED headlights on vehicles built after May earn an acceptable rating when combined with high-beam assist, a system that automatically switches between high beams and low beams, depending on the presence of other vehicles. High-beam assist is available only on the QX60’s Luxe trim. The same headlights without high-beam assist earn a marginal rating.

QX60s built after August 2018 and before June 2019 — before the latest headlight modification — earn a marginal headlight rating, whether they are equipped with high-beam assist or not. All 2019 QX60s built before September 2018 have HID headlights that earn a poor rating, largely due to excessive glare.

The Nexo, which is only available in California, is the first hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that IIHS has tested. Such a vehicle wouldn’t normally be included in the Institute’s routine test schedule, but the Nexo was nominated for testing by Hyundai. Evaluating the Nexo was also beneficial to IIHS, offering an early opportunity to evaluate a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.

To qualify for a 2019 TOP SAFETY PICK+ award, a vehicle must earn good ratings in the driver-side small overlap front, passenger-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests. It also needs an advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention and a good headlight rating.

The Nexo, a midsize luxury SUV, has good ratings in all six crashworthiness tests.

Its standard front crash prevention system earns a superior rating. The vehicle avoided collisions in 12 mph and 25 mph track tests and has a forward collision warning system that meets National Highway Traffic Safety Administration criteria.

The Nexo’s only available headlights earn a good rating for models built after June, when Hyundai adjusted the headlights’ factory aim to provide better visibility, particularly through curves. Earlier 2019 models earn an acceptable headlight rating, and therefore qualify for the Institute’s second-tier TOP SAFETY PICK award. The SUV comes with standard high-beam assist, which automatically switches between high beams and low beams, depending on the presence of other vehicles.