Advanced Safety Features Cut Crashes but Raise Repair Costs

Key Takeaways

• Advanced driver assistance systems can reduce insurance claim frequency, but the claims that remain can cost more to repair.
• Modern vehicles can have radar sensors, cameras, ultrasonic sensors, complex wiring and other electronic components positioned in areas that are commonly damaged in crashes.
• The latest Highway Loss Data Institute study examined 2015-23 Mazda vehicles and found that more comprehensive driver-assistance packages generally produced larger reductions in claim frequency.
• The most comprehensive package studied was associated with a 39 percent reduction in property-damage liability claim frequency, although the reduction in bodily injury liability claims was not statistically significant.
• Blind spot detection combined with rear cross-traffic alert was associated with nearly a 10 percent reduction in property-damage liability claim frequency.
• Most of the systems studied were also associated with higher claim severity, partly because sensors and other crash-avoidance components can be expensive to replace.
• When fewer crashes are combined with the cost of the crashes that still occur, the overall financial picture is generally more favorable than looking at repair severity alone.

What’s Behind the Higher Repair Costs?

After 30 years of watching the automotive industry turn increasingly sophisticated, I can tell you that one of the biggest changes has happened in the space between the bumper cover and the passenger compartment.

That space used to be relatively simple. Today, it can be home to some very expensive technology.

Modern vehicles can use radar sensors, cameras, ultrasonic sensors, electronic control modules, wiring harnesses and other components to monitor what is happening around the vehicle. Those systems can support automatic emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitoring, lane departure prevention, parking assistance and other driver-assistance features.

The problem for owners becomes obvious after even a relatively minor collision.

A bumper can look like a piece of molded plastic, but there may be a radar sensor mounted behind it. A windshield can look like a sheet of glass, but a forward-facing camera may be mounted behind the glass and need to be correctly positioned for the safety systems to work.

That means a repair that once involved bodywork and paint can now involve diagnostics, sensor replacement, electronic scanning and calibration.

Headlights have become another expensive example. LED and adaptive lighting systems can contain sophisticated electronics and may cost considerably more to replace than the conventional headlights that were common for decades.

And then there is the sensor calibration that drivers rarely think about until they receive a repair estimate.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has documented how collision repairs and windshield replacements can complicate the operation of crash-avoidance systems. Depending on the vehicle and the repair, cameras and sensors may need to be recalibrated so they once again meet the manufacturer’s specifications.

That is an important distinction. A vehicle can leave a body shop looking perfectly straight and still require additional work before every electronic safety system is functioning correctly.

How Do Advanced Safety Features Affect Repair Costs?

The latest insurance research presents a picture that initially sounds contradictory: advanced safety technology can reduce the number of crashes while increasing the cost of some of the crashes that remain.

The Highway Loss Data Institute recently examined driver-assistance technology on 2015-23 Mazda vehicles. The research compared six bundles of driver-assistance features and four individual systems using insurance claim data.

The packages included technologies such as forward collision warning, automatic emergency braking, pedestrian detection, adaptive cruise control, high-beam assist, lane departure warning, lane departure prevention, rear automatic emergency braking and driver attention monitoring.

The results were significant because the benefit generally became larger as more technologies were combined.

According to the latest IIHS report on the HLDI study, the most basic package was associated with a 13 percent reduction in property-damage liability claim frequency. The most comprehensive package was associated with a 39 percent reduction in property-damage liability claim frequency.

The most comprehensive package was also associated with a 21 percent reduction in bodily injury liability claim frequency, although HLDI noted that this particular result was not statistically significant.

That distinction matters. A research result can point in a positive direction without being strong enough statistically to prove that the technology caused the difference.

The individual technologies also produced interesting results.

Blind spot detection and rear cross-traffic alert, which are combined on the Mazda vehicles included in the study, were associated with nearly a 10 percent reduction in property-damage liability claim frequency and a 13 percent reduction in bodily injury liability claim frequency.

Curve-adaptive headlights and a head-up display were also associated with reductions in certain claim frequencies. Traffic Sign Recognition was different. HLDI found that its effect was unclear, illustrating why it is dangerous to assume that every feature carrying a sophisticated name automatically produces the same measurable safety benefit.

But there was another side to the data.

Most of the driver-assistance packages and individual systems studied were associated with increases in claim severity. In insurance terminology, severity represents the amount paid to settle a claim.

Part of that increase is straightforward: if a crash damages a radar sensor, camera or other electronic component, replacing it can add significantly to the repair bill.

But HLDI points to another reason that is easy to overlook. Driver-assistance systems tend to prevent some of the slower-speed crashes that would otherwise produce inexpensive insurance claims. Remove those low-dollar claims from the pool and the average cost of the claims that remain naturally becomes higher.

That does not necessarily mean the technology is making drivers worse off.

It means you have to look beyond the average repair bill.

But Do Advanced Safety Features Save You Money in the Long Run?

This is where the insurance mathematics become much more interesting.

Claim frequency tells us how often a claim happens. Claim severity tells us how much the claim costs. Neither number tells the complete story on its own.

If a safety system reduces the number of crashes substantially but makes the remaining crashes somewhat more expensive to repair, the overall result can still be positive.

HLDI calls the combination of frequency and severity overall losses, and that is arguably the more useful number when evaluating the economic effect of a safety technology.

In the latest Mazda analysis, all of the driver-assistance bundles and individual features except Traffic Sign Recognition were associated with lower overall losses under property-damage liability coverage.

That is an important finding because property-damage liability claims involve damage that the insured driver causes to another vehicle or other property. Reducing those crashes can have a direct effect on insurance losses even when the repair cost of an individual crash becomes more expensive.

The picture under collision coverage was less uniform. Some systems were associated with small increases in overall collision losses, which cover damage to the policyholder’s own vehicle.

That is why there is no honest one-line answer that says, “ADAS always saves money.”

The results depend on the technology, the vehicle, the type of insurance coverage and the crashes being prevented.

Still, the broad direction of the evidence is encouraging. A system that prevents a crash entirely is doing something far more valuable than simply making the resulting repair slightly cheaper.

If automatic emergency braking prevents you from hitting the car ahead, you have not just avoided a bumper replacement. You have potentially avoided a deductible, a rental car, lost time, insurance paperwork, possible injuries and the risk of a second collision.

That is the economic value that can be missed when people focus exclusively on the price of replacing a sensor.

Why Can a Small Crash Create a Big Repair Bill?

Anyone who has owned a modern vehicle for long enough has probably experienced the sticker shock of a repair estimate.

The reason is that modern collision repair is no longer just about restoring the visible bodywork.

Consider a typical front-end impact. The bumper cover may be damaged. Behind it could be a radar sensor used by automatic emergency braking or adaptive cruise control. The grille may have to be replaced. Wiring may have been disturbed. A camera may need to be checked. The vehicle may require a diagnostic scan before and after the repair.

If a sensor or camera has been replaced or its mounting position has been affected, calibration may also be necessary.

A windshield replacement can create a similar situation. On some vehicles, a forward-facing camera is mounted near the rearview mirror. Replacing the windshield can therefore become more than a glass job.

IIHS research into consumer experiences with crash-avoidance repairs found that vehicle owners sometimes continued to experience problems with these features after repairs. The research also found that repairs following vehicle damage, including crashes and windshield damage, were particularly associated with post-repair issues.

That is one reason consumers should not treat calibration as an optional extra that can simply be skipped to save money.

If the manufacturer requires calibration after a repair, it is part of restoring the vehicle properly.

What Do the Numbers Mean for Car Owners?

None of this makes a four-figure bumper repair feel any less absurd when it lands in your lap.

After three decades covering cars, I have seen the industry go from basic mechanical systems to vehicles that can monitor traffic, recognize pedestrians, steer within a lane and automatically apply the brakes.

That progress comes with a price.

The same technology that can prevent a crash can also be sitting directly in the path of the crash when the system fails to prevent it.

For owners, the sensible approach is not to reject advanced safety technology because it can make repairs more complicated. The better approach is to understand what you are buying.

When shopping for a new vehicle, find out which driver-assistance systems are standard and which are optional. Ask where the cameras and radar sensors are located. Find out whether the vehicle requires calibration following windshield replacement or certain body repairs.

It is also worth asking an insurer how the vehicle’s safety equipment affects coverage and premiums. Do not assume that adding more technology automatically produces a major insurance discount. Insurance pricing is based on a much larger collection of factors, and a reduction in claims does not automatically translate into an equivalent reduction in premiums.

Repairability should also be part of the conversation.

Automakers have an opportunity to make these systems easier and less expensive to repair. Sensor mounting systems, replacement procedures, diagnostic information and calibration requirements all affect the final bill paid by consumers and insurers.

Repair shops face their own challenge. Technicians need access to the correct procedures, equipment and information to return these vehicles to the road safely.

There is also a larger issue hiding underneath all of this: consumer confidence.

A driver who spends thousands of dollars repairing a safety system expects that system to work exactly as it did before the accident. If the repair process is poorly understood or the system is not correctly calibrated, the entire promise of the technology starts to unravel.

The good news is that the latest HLDI research gives us a reason to believe the technology is moving in the right direction. The more comprehensive systems generally prevented more insurance claims, and several individual features demonstrated measurable reductions in claim frequency.

Yes, modern cars can be more expensive to repair.

Yes, a radar sensor or camera can turn a seemingly minor accident into a much larger repair bill.

But the more important question is what happened before the repair bill ever existed.

If the vehicle’s safety technology prevented several crashes during its lifetime, the expensive sensor may have already paid for itself without the owner ever knowing it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Are advanced safety features worth the extra cost?

A: The latest HLDI research suggests that many advanced driver-assistance systems can provide meaningful safety benefits by reducing insurance claim frequency. The value varies by system and vehicle, so buyers should look at the specific technology rather than assuming every feature provides the same benefit.

Q: Do advanced safety features increase repair costs?

A: They can. Modern vehicles may have cameras, radar sensors, ultrasonic sensors, electronic modules and wiring located in areas that can be damaged during a collision. Replacing or realigning those components can increase repair costs.

Q: How do advanced safety features affect insurance claims?

A: Many systems reduce the frequency of certain insurance claims. In HLDI’s latest study of 2015-23 Mazda vehicles, more comprehensive driver-assistance packages generally produced larger reductions in claim frequency. However, many of the systems were also associated with higher claim severity when a crash did occur.

Q: Why can a safety system make an insurance claim more expensive?

A: There are two major reasons. The first is the cost of replacing damaged sensors and other electronic components. The second is that safety systems can eliminate inexpensive, low-speed crashes, leaving a higher proportion of more serious claims in the data. That can increase the average severity of the remaining claims.

Q: Can a windshield replacement require safety-system calibration?

A: Yes. Some vehicles have forward-facing cameras mounted near the windshield, and replacing the glass can affect the camera’s position. Depending on the vehicle manufacturer’s requirements, calibration may be necessary after windshield replacement.

Q: Does every advanced safety feature reduce insurance losses?

A: No. Results vary by technology and type of insurance coverage. HLDI found that most of the systems in its latest Mazda study were associated with lower overall losses under property-damage liability coverage, but Traffic Sign Recognition did not show the same clear benefit.

Q: Should I avoid a car because it has expensive sensors?

A: Not necessarily. The possibility of higher repair costs should be weighed against the potential safety benefit of preventing a crash in the first place. Advanced safety technology can make repairs more complicated while simultaneously reducing the likelihood that you will need those repairs.