GM plans to equip all models with rollover air bags
Although rollovers only make up three percent of crashes in the US, they account for over a quarter of all traffic fatalities. General Motors is in the process of investing over $10 million to study the effects of rollover crashes and while doing so, has made a pledge to outfit all their vehicles with rollover-enabled airbags by 2012.
Currently, a little under half of the vehicles sold by GM are equipped with such detection and deployment systems, and although the number of rollover crashes is small in comparison when viewed amidst the majority of crashes, the General thinks that more research is necessary.
[Source: Detroit News]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Glenn 8:17AM (12/05/2006)
I have a far better idea. Why don't GM and the other car companies NOT make tall, tippy, high-center-of-gravity on-frame Stupendously Useless Vehicles, Steamroller Ugly Vehicles, Stupidly Unstable Vehicles?
I live in northwestern Michigan and you'd be amazed to see the pathetic standard of driving. People "think" (or they presume to "think" even though the come up with entirely the wrong conclusions) that SUVs are "safer" because of all-wheel drive. Wrong. The advantages of all wheel drive may be had in vehicles such as Subaru's, with a lower center of gravity.
Tall vehicles are unstable and any advantages of all wheel drive are more than made up for by - roll over accidents.
I can't tell you how many SUV's I've seen in the ditch over the years, ass-over-teakettle - greasy-side-up.
People "think" (not accurately) that all wheel drive makes them invincible and then when it comes time to go around a curve in the road, or stop, they suddenly realize that their vehicle is LESS capable than a car. Being able to "go" faster from the lights with all wheel drive only gives people a false sense of security.
So, Nanny GM now wants to spend billions of our money (because, the price of their crap vehicles will go up for the extra airbags) to fix a problem which should AND easily could be avoided in the first place? Idiotic morons.
Reply
Glenn 8:19AM (12/05/2006)
Sorry, typo. Spend MILLIONS not Billions.
Reply
smokeydog 2:12PM (12/05/2006)
Why not roll cages and helmets?
Reply
That One Person 8:52AM (12/05/2006)
#1...the only reason SUVs are unsafe is because the drivers make them that way. You know how many flipped CARS I have seen in ditches? A hell of a lot more than SUVs. Cars can be dangerous, too. It depends on the driver.
A vehicle is only as safe as the driver wants it to be...
And putting these airbags into ALL of their vehicles is a good idea.
Reply
Phil L. 8:54AM (12/05/2006)
Glenn -
Agreed. Though GM will be spending millions of our dollars - because we pay them to do it.
Sadly, I don't think most such "invincible" drivers ever figure out "that their vehicle is LESS capable than a car."
However, I wish they'd start building other vehicles that have many of the useful traits in SUVs. Quick example: Today's remarkably powerful minivans and sedans have handling and braking that shames anything I grew up with. Yet trailer towing capacities are pathetically low (and let's not get started with the different tow ratings available in European versions of cars we get in the US).
I tow a popup camper with my minivan - and love its combination of good handling, low center of gravity, reasonable tow rating and useful cargo space. I don't want an SUV - but as my kids grow up, most any camper larger than a popup pushes me into a truck or SUV. A '71 Impala had a 7000 pound tow capacity. Why is a V8 Buick Lucerne limited to 1000 pounds? With the resurgence of RWD sedans, I'd like to think that reasonable tow capacities would follow - but it doesn't seem to be working that way.
Reply
William 9:01AM (12/05/2006)
Big surprise, GM gets slammed on this blog for doing the right thing. More self-hatred of anything American.
Reply
menice 9:39AM (12/05/2006)
they dont even put air bag systems in the 3rd row of the crappy highlander/caravan. even the second row has sub-par air bags and they tout about roll over protection in 2012? "ok loyal GM drivers, we're going to make a safe car by 2012.. just wait another 6yrs or so."
Reply
Takeo 10:22AM (12/05/2006)
#6 William:
GM taking steps to increase safety in response to market pressure: Absolutely Good, hope their safety program extends across their entire line.
Putting rollover airbags in an SUV: Polishing the turd.
Reply
XBDriver 10:31AM (12/05/2006)
Big surprise, GM gets slammed on this blog for doing the right thing. More self-hatred of anything American....
We wouldn't bash them if it wasn't well deserved. GM is full heartedly responsible for America's obsession with various gas guzzling monstrosities.
Reply
DriftPunch 10:52AM (12/05/2006)
Isn't this Autoblog? Please tell me if I've mistakenly clicked on Autoblog Green!
A SUV may get 15 mpg, your Subaru may get 25, a difference of only 10 mpg. If that gap begets a 'gas guzzling monster description', then how might the driver of a Prius, Insight, or other fuel miser describe your Subaru getting 20 mpg less? You monster!
Bottom line, Good Job GM!
It's funny how many persue the doctorine of 'need', when discussing things they don't like. Why do you 'need' a SUV, or 'need' a pickup to commute? There are just as many Al Gore types out there that say "Why do you 'need' AWD, RWD, turbos, 200+ hp in a commuter, (insert luxury or performance item here)...
Reply
craig 11:03AM (12/05/2006)
"We wouldn't bash them if it wasn't well deserved. GM is full heartedly responsible for America's obsession with various gas guzzling monstrosities."
The car industry is very consumer driven. As such, they build vehicles to satisfy market demand. If the market demands that a certain type of vehicle is in demand by the buying public, they're going to build it. It is, after all, a business. If the market demand was SO high (and has been so high for years) for little city cars, don't you think that they would all be in the business of selling them? Additionally, if the buying public had been so adamant about buying fuel sippers in the past, the SUV would have been a thing of the past a long time ago.
So instead of placing blame on companies satisfying a market demand, place the blame on the people who have been demanding these things for years.
Reply
Bob 11:30AM (12/05/2006)
GM currently has one of the smallest percentage of cars in the industry with 6 airbags standard. Hopefully this will change things.
Reply
Tony 11:30AM (12/05/2006)
Why does national pride come into every discussion. If it is right it's right if it's wrong it's wrong, leave the country of origin out of the discussion.
Reply
Richard Warren 11:57AM (12/05/2006)
#1 & #5 agreed.
Reply
Glenn 12:23PM (12/05/2006)
Phil, find out what the "safe" rating of a particular minivan you are interested in is, for CANADA, equip the vehicle to suit, and tow happily.
The reason (as I understand it) that US spec cars are so miserably low in tow capacity is because of two reasons. One, anything to make things easier on the emissions equipment saves the company money because the US government demands a long warrantee on emissions equipment, so the companies down-rate towing on all US spec vehicles. Two, isn't it patently obvious that downrating minivans and rear wheel drive cars for tow capacity automatically increases the demand for high-profit on-frame SUVs?
Reply
blackpeopleloveus.com 1:39PM (12/05/2006)
dammn b1t3h you stupid fly
Reply
Fabulo 7:01PM (12/05/2006)
wow, 3% of accidents are responsible for 25% of fatalities? Are you sure? Where's that number come from?
Wouldn't that warrant a ban for SUVs? The extremely safety conscious (or so they say) NHTSA ought to do something about that!
Reply
GhostDoggy 4:54AM (12/06/2006)
I'd rather have GM teach people how to drive their products instead of accommodating bad drivers.
Reply
pow 10:11PM (12/05/2006)
yeap, agreed to #1, when it comes time to break you have 4 tires adn if you ad AWD you have 200lbs more to stop, so you're more likely to rear-end
personally I can live with RWD 33i, G35 as their braking is great adn handling is great,, adn if it's snow out why would i need to accelerate fast of a light - i'd just be putting myself in danger.
Reply
accordsforall 9:16AM (12/06/2006)
Hmmm...
This isnt about their.. rollover problems.. its the fact that a 5500+ SUV Tahoe and all of its stable mates.. can not survive a simple drop onto the roof.
Do the same thing to a XC90.. and there will be VERY LITTLE frame and or body damage. Do that same test to a Exploder.. and ya have to declare it a LOSS. Yet the company will step in and say it meets all company regs.
The only reason that GM is putting more.. alphabet soup into their vehicles.. is because to increase the roof strength.. is to make the pillars STRONGER. To make the pillars stronger on a Tahoe / Slade / Burban / Denali.. (they dont want to add any more weight)-- even tho the average gvwr is 5500lbs, they put the tech into it. Its basically a cop out. They know the vehicles weight that much. They know they have problems with roll overs, they wotn fix it by strenghten the roof.. no they add more alphabet soup.
And I got news for ya.. GM deserves.. a poor comment, every g-d damn comment about their shi**y designed vehicles, about their crap that only sells on rebate.. and from one of the big 2.5 whose large crap is the only stuff worth buying. Cause they put all of the money into it. The small stuff isnt worth a damn, and the resale value.. is deep in the crapper.
But ya get what ya pay for.. and if you go out and buy a Tahoe to be safe in.. I dont want to be within 4 states of that lumbering mound of dog SH**. Ya gonna roll over like a dougnut. I just wish I had more icing.
Reply