Automakers are making rapid advancements in automatic emergency braking (AEB) technology, with 22 out of 30 recently tested vehicles receiving good or acceptable ratings in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s (IIHS) latest front crash prevention evaluation. However, the results reveal ongoing challenges, particularly in preventing crashes with motorcycles at higher speeds.
“The rapid progress manufacturers have made to improve these vital crash avoidance systems is impressive,” said IIHS President David Harkey. “Vehicles that excel in this new test will save lives, as it addresses the most dangerous kinds of front-to-rear crashes.”
Among the vehicles tested, 15 earned a “good” rating for their standard AEB systems, including the Acura ZDX, BMW X5 and X6, Cadillac LYRIQ, Chevrolet Blazer EV, Genesis GV80, Honda Prologue, Hyundai Santa Fe, Kia EV9 and Toyota Camry. The Mercedes-Benz E-Class also received a “good” rating for its optional system.
Vehicles such as the Genesis G80, Honda HR-V and Jeep Wagoneer earned an “acceptable” rating, while the Ford Expedition received a “marginal” score.
Seven models -- including the Audi Q7, Chevrolet Tahoe and Nissan Altima -- were rated “poor.”
Tougher Crash Prevention Standards
IIHS revised its AEB testing in 2023 to better simulate real-world crash risks, increasing test speeds to 31, 37 and 43 mph, up from the previous 12 and 25 mph. The updated evaluation also incorporates multiple collision scenarios, including encounters with motorcycles and semitrailers, reflecting crash patterns that often lead to severe injuries and fatalities.
Each vehicle’s AEB system was assessed for its ability to issue forward collision warnings and automatically brake in time to avoid or mitigate a crash. Points were awarded for warnings given at least 2.1 seconds before impact and for substantial speed reductions in the braking tests.
Motorcycle Detection Remains a Weak Spot
While top-rated systems successfully prevented crashes in nearly all trials with a passenger car target, motorcycle detection proved more challenging. Some vehicles failed to stop before impact in at least one motorcycle test scenario, though they managed to reduce speed substantially.
For lower-rated vehicles, motorcycle crashes were the most common failure point. Systems rated “acceptable” generally performed well at lower speeds but failed to prevent collisions with the motorcycle target in the 43 mph tests, sometimes hitting the target at over 25 mph.
Poor-rated vehicles performed even worse, with some failing to slow down or issue warnings in time during the lowest-speed (31 mph) motorcycle test. These vehicles also struggled with the passenger car target, often failing to meet the minimum speed reduction required to continue AEB testing at higher speeds.
“These results indicate that preventing crashes at higher speeds, especially collisions with motorcycles, remains a challenge for some systems,” Harkey said. “Motorcycles are a special area of concern because, unlike passenger vehicle occupants, riders have little protection from crash injuries.”
Looking Ahead
The improvements in AEB systems indicate a significant step forward in crash prevention, but gaps remain -- especially in detecting smaller, more vulnerable road users like motorcyclists. With nearly 200 motorcyclists killed annually in rear-end crashes and over 400 fatalities from semitrailer collisions, IIHS’s stricter testing aims to push automakers toward more effective, life-saving technology.
