PARKING CRASHES: THE RATIONALE FOR ACTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEST
PROCEDURES
Colin, Grover
Matthew, Avery
Thatcham Research
UK
Iain, Knight
Apollo Vehicle Safety Limited
UK
Paper Number 15-0348
INTRODUCTION
During the last decade parking and manoeuvring accidents appear to be increasingly relevant in third party damage
liability and first party or motor own damage claims; a trend evident in many countries around the world. At the
same time, vehicle manufacturers have offered a rapidly increasing variety of advanced driver assist systems such
that there is greater scope for the avoidance of collisions than ever before. The low speed nature of parking and
manoeuvring crashes strongly suggests that this problem should be solvable using technologies similar to those
already used in other applications. In fact, several systems directly influencing parking crashes already exist,
including proximity based warning systems, systems that will detect parking spaces and park semi-automatically and
automatic braking systems similar to AEB that function in reverse.
This paper aims to assess the scale of the problem with low speed manoevring crashes, identify the most common
collision mechanisms, assess the potential of the different technologies to solve the problem and to describe the
development of test procedures capable of characterising system performance in relation to real world crashes.
CHARACTERISING PARKING CRASHES
Objectives
The objective of this element of the work was to quantify the scale of parking crashes around the world in terms of
their frequency and cost and to investigate the common crash mechanisms such that a detailed understanding could
be developed of what would be required of a really effective avoidance system for such crashes.
Methods
Several Members of the RCAR network of insurance research centres analysed their individual data sets in
order to answer the questions set out in the objectives. Crashes are classified differently in each data set but
wherever possible the data have been compared on a consistent basis. The data sets included:
• Thatcham Research, UK: Analysis of 12,565 claims from a First Notification of Loss (FNOL) dataset
involving collisions occurring in the UK in 2010. The data includes 1st and 3rd party claims, of which
7,687 (61%) are 1st party and single vehicle at fault cases. Crash categorisation was based on text
analytics studies of collision descriptions.
• Allianz Centre for Technology, Germany: Analysis of 1,000 Third Party Liability (TPL) claims with
material damage only and 983 Motor own Damage (MoD) claims from collisions occurring in
Germany in 2011.
• German Insurers Accident Research (UDV), Germany: 345 Third Party Liability (TPL) claims with
material damage and 219 Motor own Damage (MoD) claims with collisions only in Germany in 2004
to 2006 and 2012.
Grover 1
, • Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, US: IIHS based their analysis on a retrospective analysis of data
accumulated through a survey of 509 vehicles brought to drive-in insurance claims centers in the
Washington D.C. metropolitan area in 2001 to 2002. The study examined the types and amounts of
vehicle damage sustained in relatively minor front and rear crashes.
• Korea Insurance Development Institute, South Korea: 45,153 Third Party Liability claims (bodily
injury & property damage) from 2007 to 2012 in Korea; Analysis was based on automatic extraction
of parking related claims by using keywords such as ‘parking’ and ‘reversing’ etc.
• Jiken Centre, Japan: Analyses of insurance payment data from 2011.
• Insurance Australia Group, Australia: Data from in excess of 1million 1st and 3rd party insurance
claims from 2010 to 2014 in Australia. Analysis was based on automatic extraction of parking related
claims by using keywords such as ‘parking’ and ‘reversing’ etc.
Results
Despite the differences in data classification and analytical techniques used by the various RCAR partners in
their independent analyses, the findings were remarkably consistent in the UK, Germany, US, Australia, Korea
and Japan. Based on these analysis it can be confidently concluded that crashes while parking and
manoeuvring at low speed:
• Represent a high proportion of all claims frequency, representing between approximately 15% and
40% of all claims;
• Are responsible for a large proportion (10% to 30%) of all motor insurance claims costs;
• Mostly (60% to 80 % of parking claims) result from reversing manoeuvres;
• Mainly involve collision with 3rd party vehicles (approximately 55% to 80%), poles and walls;
• Typically occur in car parks, and on private property and urban roads.
The findings above are valid internationally. More details were available in some of the individual national
data sets. Although these cannot be strictly considered to be internationally valid, the high level of agreement
where comparable data is available suggests that there is a good chance that results will be similar in other
countries.
Analysis of the German data by Allianz and UDV shows that the main problem is not entering a parking space, but
moving out of a parking space and manoeuvring (70% to 85%). Analysis of the UK data by Thatcham showed a
comprehensive breakdown of the types of collision, as shown in Table 1 below.
Grover 2
PROCEDURES
Colin, Grover
Matthew, Avery
Thatcham Research
UK
Iain, Knight
Apollo Vehicle Safety Limited
UK
Paper Number 15-0348
INTRODUCTION
During the last decade parking and manoeuvring accidents appear to be increasingly relevant in third party damage
liability and first party or motor own damage claims; a trend evident in many countries around the world. At the
same time, vehicle manufacturers have offered a rapidly increasing variety of advanced driver assist systems such
that there is greater scope for the avoidance of collisions than ever before. The low speed nature of parking and
manoeuvring crashes strongly suggests that this problem should be solvable using technologies similar to those
already used in other applications. In fact, several systems directly influencing parking crashes already exist,
including proximity based warning systems, systems that will detect parking spaces and park semi-automatically and
automatic braking systems similar to AEB that function in reverse.
This paper aims to assess the scale of the problem with low speed manoevring crashes, identify the most common
collision mechanisms, assess the potential of the different technologies to solve the problem and to describe the
development of test procedures capable of characterising system performance in relation to real world crashes.
CHARACTERISING PARKING CRASHES
Objectives
The objective of this element of the work was to quantify the scale of parking crashes around the world in terms of
their frequency and cost and to investigate the common crash mechanisms such that a detailed understanding could
be developed of what would be required of a really effective avoidance system for such crashes.
Methods
Several Members of the RCAR network of insurance research centres analysed their individual data sets in
order to answer the questions set out in the objectives. Crashes are classified differently in each data set but
wherever possible the data have been compared on a consistent basis. The data sets included:
• Thatcham Research, UK: Analysis of 12,565 claims from a First Notification of Loss (FNOL) dataset
involving collisions occurring in the UK in 2010. The data includes 1st and 3rd party claims, of which
7,687 (61%) are 1st party and single vehicle at fault cases. Crash categorisation was based on text
analytics studies of collision descriptions.
• Allianz Centre for Technology, Germany: Analysis of 1,000 Third Party Liability (TPL) claims with
material damage only and 983 Motor own Damage (MoD) claims from collisions occurring in
Germany in 2011.
• German Insurers Accident Research (UDV), Germany: 345 Third Party Liability (TPL) claims with
material damage and 219 Motor own Damage (MoD) claims with collisions only in Germany in 2004
to 2006 and 2012.
Grover 1
, • Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, US: IIHS based their analysis on a retrospective analysis of data
accumulated through a survey of 509 vehicles brought to drive-in insurance claims centers in the
Washington D.C. metropolitan area in 2001 to 2002. The study examined the types and amounts of
vehicle damage sustained in relatively minor front and rear crashes.
• Korea Insurance Development Institute, South Korea: 45,153 Third Party Liability claims (bodily
injury & property damage) from 2007 to 2012 in Korea; Analysis was based on automatic extraction
of parking related claims by using keywords such as ‘parking’ and ‘reversing’ etc.
• Jiken Centre, Japan: Analyses of insurance payment data from 2011.
• Insurance Australia Group, Australia: Data from in excess of 1million 1st and 3rd party insurance
claims from 2010 to 2014 in Australia. Analysis was based on automatic extraction of parking related
claims by using keywords such as ‘parking’ and ‘reversing’ etc.
Results
Despite the differences in data classification and analytical techniques used by the various RCAR partners in
their independent analyses, the findings were remarkably consistent in the UK, Germany, US, Australia, Korea
and Japan. Based on these analysis it can be confidently concluded that crashes while parking and
manoeuvring at low speed:
• Represent a high proportion of all claims frequency, representing between approximately 15% and
40% of all claims;
• Are responsible for a large proportion (10% to 30%) of all motor insurance claims costs;
• Mostly (60% to 80 % of parking claims) result from reversing manoeuvres;
• Mainly involve collision with 3rd party vehicles (approximately 55% to 80%), poles and walls;
• Typically occur in car parks, and on private property and urban roads.
The findings above are valid internationally. More details were available in some of the individual national
data sets. Although these cannot be strictly considered to be internationally valid, the high level of agreement
where comparable data is available suggests that there is a good chance that results will be similar in other
countries.
Analysis of the German data by Allianz and UDV shows that the main problem is not entering a parking space, but
moving out of a parking space and manoeuvring (70% to 85%). Analysis of the UK data by Thatcham showed a
comprehensive breakdown of the types of collision, as shown in Table 1 below.
Grover 2
