Filed under: Government/Legal, Safety
NHTSA mandates head protection on all cars by 2013
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced today that by 2013, all passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. will be required to provide head protection in side-impact crashes.The regulation comes after three years of research, which found that about 29-percent, or 9,200 people, were killed in crashes resulting from side impacts. However, the auto industry as a whole has agreed to install side airbags on all vehicles by September 2009.
NHTSA's full press release is available after the jump.
[Source; NHTSA]
PRESS RELEASE
Secretary Peters Announces Tougher Vehicle Safety Standard To Protect Against Side-Impact Crashes
U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters today announced new side impact safety requirements for all passenger vehicles. It is expected that the upgrade, developed by DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), will save hundreds of lives every year. The new standard requires auto manufacturers – for the first time ever – to provide head protection in side-impact crashes. It also would enhance other protections for passengers involved in such crashes.
"This new standard will spare hundreds of families from losing a loved one in a side- impact accident, and will forever raise the bar on safety for drivers and passengers across America," Secretary Peters said.
Side-impact passenger vehicle crashes are a serious – and frequently severe – safety problem on the nation's roadways. Side impact crashes account for 28 percent of all fatalities, the majority of which involve a brain injury. NHTSA estimates that the new requirements will save over 300 lives and prevent nearly 400 serious injuries per year.
For the first time, a dummy representing a small adult female will be used in side-impact performance testing. A new and more technically advanced dummy representing an adult male of average height will also be used in crash testing.
"With these rigorous new requirements, we are building on the strength of innovative and life-saving side impact technologies that are already available to many new car buyers," NHTSA Administrator Nicole R. Nason said.
While NHTSA does not require specific technologies to meet its new performance requirements, manufacturers likely would meet this upgraded rule with various types of innovative head, chest and pelvis protection systems, such as side curtain air bags and thorax air bags.
Issued today by NHTSA, the new rule will require that manufacturers begin equipping all vehicles with improved side-impact protection that meets the federal standard, beginning with a phase-in schedule that starts in 2009.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
cheezwiz 3:10PM (9/05/2007)
"NHTSA estimates that the new requirements will save over 300 lives and prevent nearly 400 serious injuries per year"
Read:
Odds of this affecting you in a positive way: 1 in 500,000
Odds of adding weight and expense to all cars by 2013: 1 in 1.
Awesome. Pardon me while I go get excited for more regulation.
Reply
mr friggles 4:39PM (9/05/2007)
People like you disgust me. I wonder how you'd feel it was someone close to you who died or had a serious head injury which this could've prevented. I wonder, if you died by your own words, could you be nominated for a Darwin award?
Hmm. What would I rather have. My loved one driving a car with a few extra pounds of safety gear and get side-hit, or my loved one driving a car thats a little cheaper because its less safe..and get side-hit.
m 4:48PM (9/05/2007)
Mr. Friggles, people like you are the ones that disgust me. You think we make our roads safer by adding more weight to cars? Let's remember, no matter how many "safety" features we add to cars, they're still sharing the roads with the most economical travelers out there: bicyclists. Do you want to know what safety feature they have working better than any car? No matter how badly they screw up, they probably won't hurt you in your overweight tin can. Next time you see one, maybe you should thank him for protecting you and your family instead of just himself.
mr friggles 5:02PM (9/05/2007)
m, if you're suggesting we should make cars as small, light, and "safe" as bicycles then I wouldn't disagree. If all cars had a max 20mph speed we probably wouldn't even need these safety features.
paul34 5:14PM (9/05/2007)
I really don't think that's the issue at all. Sure, it will add weight... but the reason we need weight-adding features like this is because of certain vehicles people buy that already have an embarrasingly high curb weight. Yes, I'm talking about large vehicles.
All this new legislation coming out about new safety features? They're all directly related to the trend of lard Americans buying lard vehicles.
It really puts people like me, who purchase smaller and more efficient (and practical) vehicles at risk. No matter how safely and nicely I drive, others will always abuse that privilege.
Personally, I think we should put large metal spikes filled with explosives on smaller cars, but at the height level of SUV drivers. There's a definite safety feature which will hit back against the real problem, which is poor choices made by free consumers.
Justin 7:58AM (9/06/2007)
cheezwiz, you sicken me. I imagine you still don't wear a seatbelt...we're probably all better off that way.
Don 3:12PM (9/05/2007)
Excellent. Next we'll have crotch airbags, arse airbags, etc...
Reply
SPG 3:19PM (9/05/2007)
Uh Don, the term is "Crotchbag".
Don 3:30PM (9/05/2007)
Lol! Aye aye, sir!
SPG 3:20PM (9/05/2007)
On that note, cancel your home, life, and car insurance.
They create extra work and expense for you right?
I do however agree that the extra expense and weight won't be too fun.
A little Wednesday devil's advocate action.
Reply
beaker 3:31PM (9/05/2007)
When is our government going to do something that will actually save lives: set up rigorous drivers license requirements and enforce the laws that already exist. You can add all the technology you want, but it won't protect you from the idiots that are allowed to get behind the wheel.
Reply
Richard 3:45PM (9/05/2007)
Well, THAT would be our government ceding to the logic that individuals are responsible for things. Instead our government is working to make sure that if you die behind the wheel it is not your fault, but the fault of the car company for not providing you a safe vehicle in which to do whatever stupid things you did that got you killed in the first place.
Isn't it every idiot's right to be able to drive here?
howard 5:11PM (9/05/2007)
When I started riding Motorycles my dad told me the secret to stating alive on a bike was twofold; never argue with something bigger than you and you have to watch 5 vehicles; the one from the rear, the one coming at you, the one from the left, the one from the right! I said, but dad, that's only 4, he said, AND THE ONE YOU CAN'T/DON'T SEE, THATS THE SOB THAT WILL GET YOU so be alert! I rode for over 50 years and NEVER got a scratch! For 12 years all I had was a motorcycle of some kind but no cars! No I never rode a MO-PED! My bikes were H.R.D. VINCENT BALACK SHADOWS & LIGHTENINGS, TRIUMPH BONEVILLES, B.M.Ws. ZUNDAPS, INDIAN CHIEFS, AERIAL SQUARE 4s, B.S.A. FLASH BUT NEVER A HARLEY, they vibrated to much and leaked oil all over the place!
paul34 5:17PM (9/05/2007)
What?! Are you suggesting that people in this country take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
My, how dare you! You must be a terr-ist workin with dem al-qaay duh gosh dernit
berne1 3:43PM (9/05/2007)
Let me guess...
Meet all these new safety regulations (which continually add weight) while at the same time complying with increased CAFE standards and decreasing emissions. But I guess that's up to a DIFFERENT government agency to be concerned with THOSE sets of regulations. Oh, and keep costs to a reasonable level while you're at it. And we wonder why the price of cars keeps going up...
How long do you think a wasteful government agency like NHTSA would survive if it were as strictly regulated as the auto industry?
Reply
kballs 3:46PM (9/05/2007)
Does this include the back seats? It seems like most cars already have some type of side-impact bags (head/torso) in the front seats, but not all have "curtain" bags that cover all rows (but they are slowly moving that way).
Reply
Bob-omb 3:58PM (9/05/2007)
It's obvious from these one-dimensional responses that none of you has had a family member or loved one t-boned before. Hopefully you never will, but your naive responses are pretty childish, really. Especially considering 95% of the cars sold in the U.S. this year already have this technology. Kind of ironic that a 10 pound air bag system is being slammed by a group of people who all demand manufacturers cram enormous V8s into their engine bays.
Reply
beaker 5:10PM (9/05/2007)
Quite to the contrary... my father is permanently disabled due to a bad accident. Would extra airbags have saved him? Maybe. But, if the other driver had been paying attention and obeying (and known) the rules of driving, I'm certain that the accident wouldn't have happened in the first place.
mr friggles 4:54PM (9/05/2007)
Please don't tell me its only 10 pounds. From these responses alone I hope its at least a 100. I hope they add some more restrictions and we have saddle-but rides that get 150 a gallon, look like deformed pruis's, and can't go over 70. Then these pathetic losers would keel over when their hemorrhoids burst.
If these losers really want that much less weight in their cars then I suggest a diet and exercise. I bet they are republicans. Only those type of people could put profit and gag*performance*gag ahead of lives so carelessly.
JeffS 4:10PM (9/05/2007)
I would agree that this is just another case of redicolous Federal mandation adding unnecessary weight, complexity, and expense to new vehicles. For those of you unaware, Federal mandation has also made tire pressure monitoring systems and vehicle stability programs standard on new light vehicles as well.
If consumers want side airbags, let them choose vehicles that offer them on their own.
The official NHTSA documents outlining every detail on the requirements can be found here:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=486048&docketid=29131
Feel free to file a written request for reconsideration. It is open to the public and the .pdf documents even outline how to file it.
Reply