Objective:​ Analysts evaluated insurance claims under collision and property damage liability (PDL) coverage for the 2010 Mazda 3 by time of the crash to see if vehicles equipped with Mazda’s adaptive lighting system are associated with fewer nighttime claims compared to those without.

Methods:​ Mazda supplied the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) with the vehicle identification numbers for 2010 Mazda 3 vehicles that were equipped with Adaptive Front Lighting System (AFLS). Vehicles of the same model year and series not identified by Mazda were assumed not to have AFLS and served as the control vehicles. The 2010 Mazda 3 was selected due to the available exposure (over 100,000 vehicle years insured) and because there were no other collision avoidance systems available on this vehicle that might confound with the effect of AFLS. HLDI data suppliers provided time of crash information for approximately 57% of claims associated with the 2010 Mazda 3. Using state-level data on sunrise and sunset times from the U.S. Naval Observatory, 69% of collision claims with known crash times were classified as day claims, whereas 23% were classified as night claims and 8% as twilight claims. For property damage liability, a higher proportion of claims (75%) occurred during the day, with only 17% of claims occurring at night. Regression analysis was used to quantify the effect of AFLS while controlling for other covariates, including calendar year, garaging state, vehicle density, age group, gender, marital status, deductible range, risk, and vehicle series. Claim frequency was modeled using a Poisson distribution. Separate models were constructed for the day and night analyses.

Results:​ For both collision and PDL, Mazda’s Adaptive Front Lighting System was found to be associated with statistically significant reductions in nighttime claim frequency of 10% and 15%, respectively. During the day, when headlights typically would not be in use, there was no statistically significant difference in either collision or PDL claim frequencies.

Discussion:​ The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has begun testing and rating the performance of automobile headlight systems. A primary motivation for evaluating headlight systems was research by HLDI indicating that some curve-adaptive, or steerable lighting systems were associated with reductions in insurance losses. While these analyses controlled for potential confounding factors, a key limitation was that information on the time of crash was not available. Consequently, the estimated reductions represented the gross effect of the light systems on all claims regardless of the time of day.

This examination of insurance data by time of day revealed that Mazda’s Adaptive Front Lighting System is associated with significant reductions in claim rates during nighttime conditions.

Conclusion:​ Mazda’s Adaptive Front Lighting System is associated with a lower nighttime claim frequency than models with the base headlights. This confirms that the previously reported benefits of adaptive front lighting are due to improved illumination for drivers at night. Efforts to promote similar lighting systems will improve vehicle safety.