Many drivers can recall a near miss saved by the quick application of brakes, while a smaller number remembers pounding the brake pedal too late and crashing. What does this subset have in common? Significant numbers of them will blame their accidents on brake failure. Most of them will be wrong.

The reality is drivers judge distances poorly, especially when traveling at freeway speeds. Typically, they have no idea how their brakes behave in critical situations and consequently believe crashes result from mechanical malfunction, when in truth their brakes performed as designed, but their following distances were too short for their speeds. The standardization of electronically controlled antilock braking systems (ABS), which prevent wheel lockup and skidding during heavy braking, has compounded the problem because ABS can make strange grinding noises when it activates, leading untutored drivers to suspect braking issues. When coupled with a human tendency to avoid blame, brake failure becomes the commonplace excuse for many crashes.

As a result, a significant percentage of the workload for forensic automotive investigators is brake-failure examinations. Despite the frequency of the claims, actual malfunctions in these complex systems are rare, although they can happen. Investigation requires the input of a trained automotive specialist who knows where to look for problems in braking components to find the telltale evidence of failure. Often issues associated with neglectful maintenance by owners impede brake function, especially when optimal performance is required.

Brake Physiology

In a typical automotive disc-brake system, when the driver depresses the brake pedal, that pressure is transferred to a system of fluid-filled brake lines. The fluid then transmits the pressure to the calipers, clamping the brake pads against the brake rotors, which are attached to the wheels. The friction generated between the pad and the rotor provides the force that stops the vehicle. Loud squeaking from the brakes when applied usually signals brake pads that are reaching the end of expected use.

Wear and Tear

Pad or shoe wear from normal usage is the most common brake maintenance issue, and examining the parts of the braking system is typically the first step for a forensic investigator. He or she will look for unusual wear in the pads or shoes. That effort entails removing the vehicle’s wheels to access the brake pads and may require removing the pads for more precise measurement.

When an investigator removes the brake pads, he can also inspect the pad surface. A smooth, reflective quality may indicate “glazing” caused by overheating, which decreases stopping power. Overheating may also result in brake rotor discoloration, and is usually caused by excessive brake “riding” by the driver.

Less commonly, brake failures may be caused by excessive rotor or drum wear. With the wheels removed for the pad inspection, the brake rotors or drums can then be checked for thickness, diameter, and warping to ensure that they are within manufacturer specifications. Rotors and drums need replacement less frequently than pads and shoes, but excessive wear can contribute to brake failure, especially if the pads or shoes are similarly worn.

Examining Fluid Issues

In a typical hydraulic brake system, a brake fluid leak can result in complete brake failure if the fluid level drops too low. Such leaks can develop from excessive wear because of vibration or age, or from collision or roadway hazard damage. For example, an investigation of a suspected brake failure in a medium-duty truck that sustained significant crash damage in a freeway accident revealed that the truck had a brake-line design that allowed the primary fluid lines to rub against one another. The constant friction of the rubbing lines culminated in a sudden fluid leak and a complete loss of braking power.

Inspection for fluid leaks is simple and should be done by mechanics as part of routine maintenance. A forensic investigator examining a crashed vehicle will have little trouble spotting a leak, but determining its cause may be more complex, sometimes requiring laboratory examination with advanced equipment.

Another fluid-related cause of brake failure is the introduction of small air bubbles into the brake lines. Air bubbles occur when overheating brake fluid reaches the boiling point (brake fluid ages and has a limited usage life) or a slow leak allows air into the system. (A boiling point or other chemical test can determine if the vehicle’s brake fluid has exceeded its useful life.) The resulting bubbles interfere with the brake system’s ability to transmit braking force to the wheels, causing the brake pedal to feel softer than normal and making it very difficult to apply maximum braking effort.

Such a condition can contribute to an accident if a driver does not have sufficient stopping distance when facing a hazard. Once again, the way to avoid failures because of tainted or deficient fluid brake failures is proper preventative maintenance practices by the vehicle owner. This may include changing the brake fluid in accordance with manufacturer recommendations and regular brake bleeding to eliminate any air introduced into the system.

Potential Mechanical Problems

The most unexpected cause of brake failure that investigators may encounter is a mechanical failure in the brake pedal assembly. In rare cases it is possible for the master cylinder (the component that distributes the brake pedal force to the wheels) to become detached from the pedal linkage. This condition is immediately obvious to an inspecting investigator, so the real item of interest will be pinpointing the cause of the linkage failure, whether it is rust, tampering, or metal fatigue.

Tapping Accident Data

Increasingly, crash data retrieved from a damaged vehicle’s event data recorder (EDR) is providing useful insight to accident investigators. If the module is accessible in a brake failure examination and has collected the crash event data, then the forensic investigator can gain insight about driver actions in the seconds that preceded and followed impact. A brake failure allegation could wither away if that data reveals that the driver never engaged the brakes prior to a collision. More likely, the data will deliver the context that will guide the further investigation of a brake failure allegation.

Perhaps the record will show that the driver was not speeding and applied the brakes suitably, but did not stop quickly enough to avert disaster. That could open the possibility of a brake problem that should be identified in the claims resolution process.

A brake failure from a maintenance issue could implicate a repair shop, thus identifying a subrogation opportunity, whereas an original equipment failure could result in a product liability action.

Managing Brake Failure Claims

While brake failure is probably the most common excuse for a crash, cumulative experience shows that driver error probably trumps actual brake malfunctions as the primary cause of accidents because of braking issues. Although it is easy to be swayed by a dramatic recitation of the crash story, if there is any doubt about the logic or sense of the event sequence, consult an automotive expert.

By Ryan L. Devine, Gregory J. Quan

December 16, 2011

While signaling a lane change on a deserted stretch of highway at 3 a.m. may seem unnecessary, that’s a situation that few people find themselves in regularly. Most people drive where their actions on the road have a direct effect on the other drivers sharing that same stretch of highway as well as on pedestrians.

The safe, thoughtful driver always signals lane changes and builds that habit. When other drivers can predict your behavior, everyone on the road is safer.

Think before you signal: You’re planning to turn right into the bank that’s on the opposite corner of the intersection. So when should you signal your right turn? Don’t confuse the drivers coming at you by putting your signal on too soon. They might just make a left turn in front of you. But do get that signal on before you turn. Some drivers deliberately don’t signal a lane change because they fear that the drivers in that lane will speed up and close the gap, shutting out their move. That might happen occasionally, but usually if you do signal other drivers are courteous and let you in. Not signaling is dangerous and could cause an accident.

The danger at intersections: Dangers abound at intersections. An estimated 80 percent of fatal city collisions happen at intersections that have stoplights. Why are they so deadly? Because many motorists travel at speeds approaching 50 miles per hour at intersections and crashes are often t-bone hits where one car is hit either on the driver or passenger door. As you enter an intersection on a green light, look left, then right, then left again. Make sure it’s visually clear before you enter it.

Yellow means slow down, not speed up to beat the red light: Red means stop whether it’s a sign or a signal. If it’s a signal, yellow means slow down and stop! It’s pretty simple. Running stop signs and lights cause many fatalities every year. And remember, a rolling stop is not a stop in the eyes of the law. Would you rather spend your hard earned cash on a ticket or on something enjoyable?

Backing up: Many people back up without looking and that causes many accidents each year. If you don’t believe it, next time you’re walking through a parking lot (don’t do this when driving, it will distract you) check out the back ends of the cars for damage that comes from accidents caused by backing up without looking. Sadly, each year children are run over at home when cars are backed over them. Backing down a roadway is never a good idea either and on limited access highways it’s illegal. Even if it was, it wouldn’t be safe.

Freeway and expressway driving: Freeways and expressways have their own set of driving rules. Closed access highways forbid many things: stopping unless for an emergency, backing up and staying out of emergency vehicle crossover lanes are typical. Because limited access highways usually have higher speed limits, it’s critical that drivers pay attention and follow the rules of the road. One of the most important things to learn as a driver is to properly use the acceleration and deceleration lanes for entering and exiting a freeway.

When you drive safely and courteously, whether you’re on a country road, a city street or a limited access highway you’ll find that most other drivers will be courteous as well. So drive safely and enjoy your trip and consider talking to Statewide Insurance (704)821-7630 if you’re in the market for auto insurance.

Renee KolzowDecember 6, 2011 11:15 amAuto, Featured Articles, On The Road, Safety on the Road

Six of 13 small cars recently evaluated by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) earned the group’s top safety pick award, and none earned a poor rating in any of four tests.

This is a turnaround from a few years ago when small cars struggled to earn top safety ratings. The new tests include hybrids and gasoline-only models that are among the most fuel-efficient vehicles available in the U.S. market.

The ratings are based on performance in front, side, rollover, and rear impact evaluations. Cars that earn the top rating of good in each test and have available electronic stability control (ESC) qualify for top safety pick. Winners are the 2012 Ford Focus and Honda Civic, along with the 2011 Hyundai Elantra, Lexus CT 200h hybrid, Nissan Juke, and Toyota Prius hybrid. The Civic, CT 200h, Elantra, Focus, and Prius have at least one version with a government fuel economy rating of at least 40 miles per gallon on the highway. The Dodge Caliber, Honda CR-Z and Insight hybrids, Nissan Sentra and Versa, Scion xD, and Suzuki SX4 also were rated but didn’t earn Top Safety Pick.

“The list of cars with the best fuel economy now includes those with the highest crash test ratings in their class, too,” says David Zuby, the institute’s chief research officer. “At a time of high gasoline prices, consumers have never had a bigger selection of small cars that earn Top Safety Pick.”

The IIHS began awarding top safety picks for the 2006 model year with less stringent criteria than today. Then only three small cars earned the designation (Honda Civic, Saab 9-2X, and Subaru Impreza). Now 22 small models, including those the Institute tested previously, earn the award with tougher requirements including a roof strength test, an ESC requirement to help drivers avoid crashes, and a higher bar for rear impact protection.

Still, Zuby points out that small, lightweight cars “don’t protect their occupants as well as bigger, heavier ones. Even though fuel prices sometimes defy gravity, the laws of physics always are in effect for cars. That’s why it’s important that the crashworthiness designs of smaller cars be as good as possible. The new ratings demonstrate that small cars are much safer than they used to be.”

In the latest group, the Toyota Prius hybrid is a top safety pick and also one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the market, with estimates of 51 miles per gallon in the city and 48 mpg on the highway. Altogether, 10 small and minicar models with government fuel economy ratings of at least 40 mpg on the highway also earned top spots.

Small cars used to have the least safety equipment. Now all have standard side airbags, and in this group all but the Caliber, SX4, and Versa have standard ESC for preventing many kinds of crashes. Auto manufacturers put ESC on cars and SUVs after research by the IIHS and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration demonstrated the effectiveness of this feature. An IIHS study found that ESC reduces fatal single-vehicle crashes by up to 50 percent. The government will require standard ESC on all new vehicles, starting with 2012 models.

In 1997, when the institute first put small cars through its then-new 40 mph frontal offset test, none of the 11 small cars earned the top rating of good, and 3 were poor. The first results for small cars in the side test in 2005 were no more encouraging — none was good, and 14 of the 16 models evaluated earned the lowest rating of poor.

“Each time we’ve introduced a new test, automakers have stepped up and improved designs,” Zuby says. “Now it’s rare for any vehicle to earn less than a good rating in front, side, or rear tests, and automakers are working on rollover protection.”

The Hyundai Elantra’s results show how vehicle designs have improved. The 2001-03 Elantra was rated poor for frontal crash protection. A late-deploying airbag contributed to high forces on the driver dummy’s head and neck. Forces on both lower legs indicated that fractured bones and a foot injury would be possible in a real-world crash of similar severity.

The 2001-06 Elantra also earned a poor side rating, even with standard side airbags. The structure of the older Elantra allowed a lot of intrusion into the occupant compartment, and driver dummy injury measures indicated that rib fractures, internal organ injuries, and a broken left leg would be possible in a real-world crash. ESC wasn’t available on this version of the Elantra, even as an option.

Acceptable ratings in one or more evaluations kept 5 of the 13 small cars off the top safety pick list. That was the case for the Honda CR-Z and Insight, Nissan Versa and Sentra, and Scion xD. The Suzuki SX4 is rated marginal for rollover and rear protection. The Dodge Caliber is rated marginal for side protection, while it is acceptable in the rollover test. None of the cars recently tested earn a poor rating in any evaluation.

Source: IIHS

American drivers believe their own driving knowledge, ability and safe driving habits are well above other drivers on the road, according to a recent study by Allstate Corp.

Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, of American drivers rate themselves as “excellent” or “very good” drivers. American drivers’ positive self-rating is more than twice as high as the rating they give to their own close friends — 29 percent “excellent” or “very good” — and also other people their age, 22 percent.

Drivers also don’t think much of the driving ability of people from surrounding states. Fifty-three percent rate them as “average” or “poor,” while just 8 percent rate those drivers as “excellent” or “very good.”

Others who American drivers rated lower than themselves include:

Teenage drivers received the lowest rating; 81 percent rated teenagers as “average” or “poor” drivers.
70 percent of Americans gave senior citizen drivers comparatively low scores.
Parents with very young children in the car received a mediocre rating, with 26 percent of American drivers rating this group as “excellent” or “good,” while 33 percent rate them as “average” or “poor.”
Even those with their own very young children are critical of their peers and rate themselves more than twice as high as “excellent” or “good” drivers — 64 percent — than they rate their fellow parents — 29 percent.
Men are more likely to rate themselves as “excellent” than women (36 percent versus 26 percent), as are college-educated drivers (35 percent) compared to those with no degree (28 percent).
Republicans also rate themselves higher (70 percent) than Democrats (61 percent) or Independents (61 percent).
Despite American drivers’ confidence in their abilities, many admit to practicing dangerous behaviors on the road.

Eighty-nine percent say they’ve driven faster than the posted speed limit, and 40 percent say they’ve driven more than 20 miles per hour over the limit.
Men are more likely to speed than women — 48 percent versus 30 percent.
Almost half (45 percent) say they have driven while excessively tired — to the point of almost falling asleep.
Fifteen percent say they have driven while intoxicated, with men almost four times more likely than women to have done so — 23 percent of men versus six percent of women.
More than one-third (34 percent) have sent a text-message or email while driving, but the prevalence of the practice changes by age group.
Those 18-29 years of age are the most likely to text while driving (63 percent) with drivers ages 30-44 not far behind (58 percent).
Texting while driving decreases with older age groups; only 25 percent of those 45-54, six percent of those 55-64, and two percent of those over 65 admit to the practice.
Most American drivers have caused some dangerous situations for others while driving.

Seven in 10 American drivers say that as a result of being distracted while driving, they have slammed their brakes or swerved to avoid an accident, missed a traffic signal, or actually caused an accident.
Fifty-three percent report having received a speeding ticket or other moving violation. Among these drivers, 44 percent say they have received three or more. More men say they have received a ticket than women — 61 percent vs. 46 percent — and those who have received tickets get more of them — an average of 4.3 per man compared to 2.6 per woman.
Fifty-six percent of American drivers say they have been involved in an accident, but only 28 percent of them say the accident was their own fault.
Regardless of confidence or high self-ratings, a significant number of American drivers experience concern about certain driving situations.

Two-thirds (64 percent) of American drivers say that driving in the snow, heavy rain or other bad weather is stressful and uncomfortable.
Fifty-six percent report the same about driving in heavy traffic, and 41 percent say that driving behind or near large trucks is stressful and uncomfortable.
Driving at night (29 percent stressful and uncomfortable), driving over a long bridge (17 percent), driving through a tunnel (13 percent), and driving on the highway (16 percent) rate lower on the stress scale.
The survey of 1,000 American adults was conducted July 13, 14, 16 and 17 via landline and cell phone and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent. Of the 1,000 adults, the survey identified 848 drivers who hold a license and drive at least occasionally. The survey was conducted by Financial Dynamics (FD) for Allstate.

The 7th annual GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test results projected that 18 percent of Americans—or 36.9 million people—would fail the test with a score of less than 70 percent.

Though the average score across the country was 77.9 percent, up from last year’s 76.2 percent average, 85 percent of test takers could not identify the correct action to take when approaching a steady yellow traffic light, and about 75 percent were unaware of safe following distances.

The results revealed some interesting statistics:

Kansas held the top spot for the second year in a row with an 82.9 percent average score, while Washington D.C. fell to last place with a 71.8 percent average score. This marked the first time in four years that New York did not fall to the bottom spot.
More than 27 percent of women failed the test, while only 13.6 percent of men failed.
The Midwest was dubbed the best driving region, while the Northeast was considered the worst.
Thirty-four percent of drivers in New York and Washington D.C. failed the test.
Older drivers achieved higher scores than younger drivers. However, there were strong indications that the youngest test takers, aged 16-24, are becoming better drivers.
The survey took into account 5,130 licensed drivers aged 16-65 and included participants from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The online exam consisted of 20 questions taken from state Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) exams, with regional differentiators, such as what to do when driving in a snow, eliminated to create a universal set of questions.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expects manufactures to modify existing side curtain air bags to make them larger and deploy in all types of serious crashes, according to a regulation published on Thursday.

The ejection rule, which was years in the making, is the latest action by NHTSA to address rollovers since deadly crashes of Ford Motor Co. sport utility vehicles linked to defective Firestone tires in the 1990s spurred congressional scrutiny and massive recalls.

“Rollover crashes are the deadliest of all crash types and this is another important step in our efforts to reduce fatalities and serious injuries that result from them,” said NHTSA Administrator David Strickland.

Carrying out the mandate would cost manufactures roughly $31 per vehicle, or $400 million based on total annual U.S. sales of 13 million cars and trucks, which is what the auto industry forecasts for 2011.

Rollovers represent about a third of all crash deaths and were blamed for an average of 10,000 fatalities per year over the past decade, according to government statistics. About half of those killed in rollovers are ejected and most are ejected through side windows.

Strickland said the new rule would prevent, on average, 373 deaths and 476 serious injuries annually.

Industry has two years to begin phasing in changes, which must be standard by 2017.

The agency previously adopted tougher crash tests and mandates for electronic stability systems to help keep vehicles on the road.

Since the Firestone tire problem, manufacturers have redesigned many mid-size and smaller SUVs, including the Explorer, to lower their center of gravity. They are now called crossovers.

Regulators addressing ejection were also influenced by stubbornly high fatal crash statistics and studies showing that drivers and their passengers have a much better chance of surviving a crash if they are not thrown from their vehicle.

By John Crawley | January 18, 2011

(Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

There are regulations that drop premiums and keep drivers safer. Some state requirements include certified driver’s education courses for young drivers to get a license by 16 years old. If these are not completed they will need to wait until they are 18 years old. These classes help teens learn good driving habits and can reduce their automobile insurance rates by up to 15 percent. These certified classes are not required in all areas but they can be taken on a voluntary basis to get low-cost automobile insurance.

Most automobile insurance companies offer discounts up to 10 or 20 percent for students who maintain a minimal GPA, often called a good student discount. Teens can also gain cheaper rates by maintaining a clean driving record. Speeding tickets, accidents and other violations greatly increase premiums. By avoiding these, some companies will offer consistently lower rates each year the teen has remained free of traffic violations and accidents.

In addition to educating young drivers, there are also laws in various states that are intended to keep teens safe when behind the wheel. Besides the mandatory certified driver’s education classes, there are laws limiting time driving at night, graduated licenses, and a specific minimal amount of time driving with adult supervision. Parents and guardians can also give their young drivers rules to keep them safe. Studies have shown that accidents that involve young drivers are often caused by distracted driving. Examples of these rules while driving can include not using cell phones or not listening to music. They can also include a curfew to keep teens off roads during the high-risk times of weekend evenings and nights.

South Korean automakers Hyundai Motor Corp. and Kia Motor Corp., and German automaker Volkswagen along with its Audi brand each received nine awards. Ford Motor Corp., General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. came in second with eight awards each.

To earn a top safety pick award, vehicles must earn top scores in front and side crash tests, whiplash deterrence tests and rollover tests. In addition, the vehicles must be sold with an electronic stability control option.

Hyundai received recognition for its Genesis sedan, Sonata midsize car, and Santa Fe and Tucson sport utility vehicles. Kia won for its Optima midsize car, Forte and Soul small cars, and the Sorento and Sportage SUVs. Volkswagen’s Jetta, Jetta SportWagen, Golf and GTI small care, and Touareg and Tiguan SUVs received awards. Audi was recognized for its A3 and A4 sedans and the Q5 SUV.

There’s some good news: U.S. traffic fatalities fell 9.7 percent in 2009 to 33,808, the lowest number since 1950. In 2008, an estimated 37,423 people died on the highways, a decline of 9.3 percent from the previous year.

But dramatic declines in traffic fatalities in the U.S. over the last several years are likely due to a sour economy in which people drive less, rather than lasting changes in behavior, the report suggests. As the economy improves, researchers said, fatalities are likely to rebound.

“The experience of the past three years is not grounds for concluding that sustainable progress has been made on traffic safety,” the report said.

In the 1970s, the U.S. fatality rate was the lowest in the world. But because safety efforts have improved more slowly in the United States than elsewhere, most high-income countries have now matched or gone below the U.S. rate, said the report by the Transportation Research Board.

Countries with comparable living standards where fatality rates per mile (kilometer) of travel were substantially higher than in the United States 15 years ago are now below the U.S. rate, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, France and Britain.

“The United States can no longer claim to rank highly in road safety by world standards,” the report said.

From 1995 to 2009, fatalities dropped 52 percent in France, 38 percent in Britain, 25 percent in Australia, and 50 percent in 15 high-income countries for which long-term fatality and traffic data are available, the report said. But they dropped only 19 percent in the U.S.

The dramatic declines in fatalities in other nations have been achieved in part through the kinds of programs that have sometimes generated opposition in the U.S: speed cameras and speed measuring devices, sobriety checkpoints and mandatory motorcycle helmets, for example.

If such programs were widely adopted in the U.S., it’s probable that thousands of lives could be saved each year, the report said.

Researchers estimated that nationwide, sustained and frequent use of checkpoints to detect drunk drivers could save 1,500 to 3,000 lives annually. Systematic speed control programs applied nationwide could save another 1,000 to 2,000 lives, the report said.

If every state required all motorcyclists to wear helmets, about 450 deaths a year could be avoided, the report said. Increasing the rate of seat belt use just 5 percent — from the present 85 percent to 90 percent — would save about 1,200 lives.

“Where is the public outcry against these preventable deaths?” said National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman.

“Americans should strive for zero fatalities on the road. We should be leading, rather than following the international community when it comes to roadway design and safety measures,” Hersman said. “But it is a sad fact that the U.S. is in their rear view mirror and falling further behind the rest of the world when it comes to highway safety.”

By Joan Lowy
November 17, 2010

Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/11/17/114965.htm#ixzz161pfFiRD

“If Toyota drivers experience any issues with their accelerator pedal, they should contact their Toyota dealer without delay,” said Robert Passmore, senior director of claims for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI).

In the event that a driver experiences an accelerator pedal that sticks or returns slowly to idle position, Toyota says the vehicle can be controlled with firm and steady application of the brakes. The brakes should not be pumped repeatedly because it could deplete vacuum assist, requiring stronger brake pedal pressure. The vehicle should be driven to the nearest safe location, the engine shut off and a Toyota dealer contacted for assistance.

“Consumer safety is a top concern for the insurance industry and we are encouraged that Toyota dealers nationwide are beginning to make repairs on the vehicles involved in the recall,” said Passmore.

Insurers want consumers to know that if Toyota’s recalled part causes an accident, the driver’s automobile liability or physical damage insurance will provide coverage.

“This type of unforeseen event is what insurance is for,” said PCI’s Passmore. “If the pedal is a factor, the insurer will pay the claim for the driver and then likely seek to be reimbursed by Toyota. This is one less thing for the consumer to worry about.”

There is also good news for consumers because a vehicle recall by itself will generally not cause insurance rates to increase, Passmore said. “Looking forward, it is unlikely that rates would be affected by the recall.”

Over the years Toyotas have had a good safety record as evidenced by their popularity, so it is unlikely that there will be enough accidents caused by the faulty pedals that rates will increase, according to Passmore.

“Insurers look at the cost of claims over a period of time for vehicle,” he added. “They are interested in how much it costs to repair a vehicle and how often the vehicle is involved in an accident.”

While Toyota is pursuing repairs to recalled vehicles, the nation’s largest auto insurer says Toyota vehicle safety has been a concern for some time.