The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn’t seem to understand what Congress meant when it directed the agency to develop a new standard for vehicle roofs that would help reduce the thousands of deaths each year from rollover crashes. The standard it has proposed is so inadequate, it might as well have been written by the auto industry, which has a long history of opposing important vehicle safety improvements. Seat belts. Airbags. Those are just two of the advances industry opposed. Now, NHTSA has proposed a rule that requires stronger vehicle roofs but completely ignores what happens to the people inside a vehicle when it rolls over.
The test that NHTSA would require involves pressing a weight down on the driver’s side of the vehicle roof, which would have to stand up to 2.5 times the vehicle’s weight. The glaring problem with this approach is that it ignores reality.
When a vehicle rolls over, the structural damage from the initial contact with the ground can severely weaken the other side of the roof, which then has an even greater chance of crumpling as the car continues to roll.
Doesn’t it make sense that NHTSA design a test that puts a vehicle through an actual roll over? What is even more perplexing is that this type of test already exists, as you can see in the video above.
Here’s what Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook had to say about the proposed rule:
Congress demanded that NHTSA do something to reduce the more than 10,500 deaths each year from rollover crashes, and what it got was a feeble proposal that seems more intent on appeasing industry than improving safety. In fact, NHTSA estimates that the proposal will save, at most, only 44 lives a year. We need a comprehensive, dynamic testing standard that looks not only at roof strength but also what happens to passengers during a rollover.
Public Citizen submitted comments today to NHTSA urging the agency to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new rule that follows Congress’ mandate.
citizenvox.wordpress.com 
For the past 2-1/2 years I have been working on what justification there is for vehicles in the United States to have speedometers that cover a range to 160 mph? – that’s 85 mph OVER the legal speed limits in 49 of 51 U.S. States.
Can you let me know if you have a contact or recommendation to an individual or organization that would be of benefit in continuing my mission? I have had incredible “roadblocks” and “avoidance” of response by government, but lots of support by individuals.
I have already contacted the following individuals and organizations and now have contacts and responses from several: Senator John McCain (phone, letter, fax and e-mails in 2006/Response: phone and e-mail-Lead for me to contact U.S. Senate Commerce Committee), the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee (phone-main ofc contact Robert Foster and faxes in 2006/Response: phone several times-Robert Foster, but did not get me an appointment with any Senator or Assistant), The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (letter in 2006/Response: letter-No help), The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (phone and e-mail in 2007/Response: e-mail lead to contacting Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Center for Auto Safety, Governors Highway Safety Association (phoned all three in 2007/Response: No help on first two, following up with friend who is searching out contact at Governors Traffic Safety Commission – on-going), Triple A (AAA – phone in 2007/Response: Requested to get scientific data from Columbia, etc. – Obtained from Columbia and MIT – No known studies/research, see below), Senator Charles Schumer (e-mail in 2007/Response: Thanks received my e-mail, Still awaiting response though), Columbia University-Make Roads Safe-The Campaign for Global Road Safety (phone and e-mail in 2007/Response: No known studies), MIT-State Traffic and Speed Laws (e-mail in 2007/Response: No known research), and others (Rudy Giuliani – phone and e-mail in 2007/Response: None yet, &Senator Jon Corzine – letter and phone follow-up in 2007/Response: Referred to contact Senator Frank Lautenberg, who I phoned, but have not heard back from.
In lowering speedometers to 90 mph, what I have been specifically zeroing in on is how the following is possible:
1) increase the safety of drivers – to prevent deaths/injuries,
2) increase the safety of their passengers – to prevent death/injuries,
3) increase the safety of pedestrians – to prevent death/injuries,
3) reduce the fallout impact on families from these higher speed accidents,
4) reduce the fallout impact on law enforcement,
5) reduce the fallout impact on EMS,
6) reduce the fallout impact on medical/hospital personnel,
7) reduce the fallout impact on insurance – monetary costs,
8) reduce the fallout impact on car care – monetary costs,
9) reduce the fallout impact on road repair – monetary costs,
10) reduce the fallout impact on road congestion after these higher speed accidents,
11) reduce the fallout impact on the environment – pollution, as well as fuel costs,
12) reduce the fallout impact on businesses – employers of all above.
I have a great many friends all across the U.S. (at this point just more than half our U.S. states), who are already on board with finding out how to go about lowering vehicle speedometers. With so many individuals and some organizations looking to assist this important mission it is important to press on. Again, thank you for your involvement and dedication which benefits all of us. Kind regards, Cathee Antonetz
Thanks for posting your comment on Citizen Vox. It’s encouraging to hear from people with your type of passion! I asked Lena Pons, one of our auto safety analysts, to help me address this issue. It seems there’s actually a valid engineering reason for the gauges to be set at such high speeds
Here’s what Lena told me:
“(1) we obviously don’t advocate speeding, cars are designed to protect occupants in crashes at ~35 miles per hour, the faster a driver is going, the less likely they will be able to decelerate before the impact, and the greater the crash forces will be when the impact does happen; (2) round gauges are designed so that the value you are most likely to be reading is in the middle of the gauge, this has to do with the geometry of the gauge. If you are most interested in reading speed close to the speed limit, or 55-65 miles per hour, then the spedometer will be roughly double or 110-130 miles per hour. I think that we can safely say there’s no reason for spedometers to go up to 160. But I don’t think we should advocate having spedometers top out at something like 70 or 80. If you’ve ever looked at the spedometer when you’re driving very slow, the responsiveness is horrible, the needle bounces everywhere, and it’s not a very accurate reflection of your actual speed. I think it’s probably about 30 mph before the gauge is giving you an accurate number. It’s important for speed limit speeds to be the most accurate information available to the driver, that’s why they’re dead center.”
—-
So, you might take that into consideration as you advocate for auto safety. I don’t want to discourage your activism, however. One thing you might consider is focusing on lowering the national speed limit – we advocate a national speed limit of 65. If you prefer 55 that’s a matter of your choice. But there’s a great need to educate people about the speed issue – very few people understand that a 65 speed limit is (in part) designed so that if you decelerate to avoid a crash that the crash speed is near or below 35 mph – the survivable speed.
[…] written about the roof crush rule before (here and […]