If you've been following the ongoing roof strength regulation saga, this will likely come as no surprise. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters has again asked for an extension to rewrite the government's vehicle roof strength rule. We've been reporting on this for more than three years, and the delays never seem to end (of course, we can assume the big cheese in Washington have more pressing issues on their plates these days). Rewriting the legislation set back in the 1970s isn't as simple as specifying stronger roof pillars. Beefing up the roof will add weight – potentially making a vehicle more top heavy and likely increasing the possibility of a rollover. The new rules will need to address these concerns, and take into account new safety technologies (curtain airbags, stability control, etc...) that are on our current-generation models. While each previous request for an extension included new deadline dates, this latest appeal didn't. A wise move considering the administration's track record on this issue.
While rollover resistance is improving, current vehicle roof strength regulations date back nearly 35 years. With that in mind, Congress will be taking a careful look at federal regulators as they work on upgrading the standards early next month before they unveil a final regulation at the end of July. Current standards require a vehicle under 6,000 pounds to withstand a force of 1.5 times the vehicle weight without crushing and striking the head of a belted average-size adult male. In August 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed toughening that standard to 2.5 times the vehicle weight (and adding it should cover all vehicles under 10,000 pounds). Safety advocates, however, have argued that the standard should be 3 to 3.5 times the vehicle weight.
According to the NHTSA, increasing the crush resistance to 3 times the vehicle weight would cost automakers at least $1.1 billion more that it would to meet the 2.5 standard. Automakers have shown resistance to the proposals too. They have asked for more time to comply with the toughened rules, and that some vehicles (such as the Jeep Wrangler) be exempt. They have also pointed out that increased roof strength means added weight -- counterproductive in their continued efforts to meet stringent fuel economy standards.
There's been considerable debate between automakers, legislators and safety advocates over how roof strength correlates to deaths in rollover crashes. The majority of the focus has appropriately been heaped on SUVs, whose high center of gravity makes them more prone to rollovers, particularly when they leave the road.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has just released a study that proves that more roof strength can reduce injuries by some 39 to 57 percent when compared to the weaker models it tested. The IIHS used the same roof strength test as the feds on a group of SUVs that currently meet the government's roof requirements. At the top of the heap was the 2000-2004 Nissan Xterra that was able to withstand almost 12,000 pounds of force, while the lowest ranked vehicle, the 1999-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee, lost its head(room) after 6,500 pounds of force was applied to the roof.
Vehicle roof crush standards have not been significantly revised since 1971. The current requirements say one side of a vehicle's roof must support at least 1.5 times the total vehicle weight. However, the strength requirements reach a maximum at 5,000 lbs, whether or not the calculated standard is greater. The regulations also do not apply to convertibles or vehicles weighing more than 6,000 lbs. In 2005, a proposal was created to revise the requirement to 2.5 times the total vehicle weight on one side of the vehicle. Now that proposal has been altered, since NHTSA says it is feasible to distribute the test to press on both sides of a vehicle's roof. It has also been proposed to increase the standards to cover vehicles up to 10,000 lbs. An active rollover test is ruled out though, due to repeatability issues and lack of variable control. To appease Congress, NHTSA must put a revised standard in place by April 2009.
While updating safety standards is always a good thing, the issued statements relating to the proposal leave some questions. It is not stated whether the testing weight cap of 5,000 lbs will be increased along with the maximum tested vehicle weight. These days, many automobiles weigh in at upwards of 4,000 lbs. 2.5 times a 4,000-lb vehicle falls well above the 5,000-pound limit. There is also still no mention of convertible safety. Hopefully the full proposal is more detailed than the points touched upon in this piece.
FoMoCo is on the brink of settling a class-action lawsuit brought by owners claiming that Ford's Explorer was prone to rolling over. The settlement covers approximately one million people in California, Connecticut, Illinois and Texas who've owned 1991 through 2001 Explorers.
Ford's spokesperson, Kristen Kinley, believes that "the settlement is fair and reasonable," but declined to given an estimate of how much Ford would be shilling out to slighted owners. However, vouchers are expected to be issued to owners in the four states that would allow them to put $500 towards a new Explorer or $300 for another Ford, Lincoln or Mercury product.
Nicole Nason, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), maintains that the crash standards that have been on the books since 1973 are due for a revision. Recognizing the 9 out of 10 vehicles routinely score either four- or five-stars on the administration's tests, she's seeking to increase the standards for front- and side-impacts, along with more stringent testing of rollover protection.
The move is due to what some feel are antiquated testing measures, as well as the assertion that automakers engineer vehicles specifically to perform well on the current tests. Increased rollover protection is apparently one of the major goals of the administration, and Nason is planning on rewriting a 2005 proposal that would increase roof strength. However, she concedes that it will only save approximately 100 lives per year.
Automakers have contended for some time that the technological saturation point for crash protection is getting closer, and that driver behavior needs to be addressed. Nason maintains that vehicles should be able to overcome mistakes by the user, saying, "The future of automotive safety is crash avoidance technology." Why these two goals can't be addressed simultaneously is anyone's guess.
New safety ratings issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for 2007 model year SUVs reveal the former deathtraps are now much less likely to suffer from a rollover at high speed. Rollovers account for 10,000 deaths in the U.S. every year, which is 30% of all vehicle related deaths in the country despite rollovers accounting for only 3% off all crashes.
The ratings describe the likelihood of an SUV entering a rollover and are ranked on a scale of five stars, five being the safest. The latest findings show that more than half of the 2007 model-year SUVs scored a four-star rating in the rollover tests, compared with just one model back in 2001. One of the new features that have lead to the improved safety levels is electronic stability control, now standard on 86% of new SUVs.
Pickup trucks fared even better than SUVs, with 74 out of the 89 vehicles tested scoring a four star rating. Surprisingly, no SUV or pickup has ever scored a five star rating in these particular safety tests.
Do a search for "roof regulations" on Autoblog and the No. 1 result will be a post written back on August 19, 2005. That's how long it's been since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed the latest increase to the 35-year-old federal requirements that govern the strength of a vehicle's roof. The proposal was to increase the current standard of a roof being able to hold 1.5 times the vehicle's weight to 2.5 times.
Despite this being a very time sensitive issue, the proposal has been delayed yet again. The Detroit News reports the NHTSA says it will not be able to rule on the new standards by the prior set date of August 31st, but will instead write up a "revised preliminary proposal" by the end of September and finalize it by July of 2008.
In 2002, Benetta Buell-Wilson was driving her 1997 Ford Explorer in Southern California when she swerved to avoid debris on the freeway. The high center of gravity of the SUV and the quick steering input caused the Explorer to roll four-and-a-half times, eventually coming to rest on its roof. The impact caused the roof to collapse, crushing Mrs. Buell-Wilson's neck and paralyzing her from the waist down. The subsequent lawsuit, claiming that Ford manufacturered a faulty roof, awarded her $369 million dollars, of which $246 million was classified as punitive damages. In the proceeding cases, that figure was cut down twice by a California state appeals court to $82.6 million.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered the state appeals court to review the decision, using the court's decision to overturn $79.5 million in punitive damages awarded during the highly-publicized tobacco case that was heard earlier this year. The rational being that the jury can punish a defendant only for the harm done to the plaintiff and not to the other people affected.
Ford claims that the roof was designed to meet federal safety standards and that no wrongdoing had taken place. This is one of many cases that Ford has had to defend over the past several years.
Embattled NASCAR star Michael Waltrip has some new problems on his plate. According to Yahoo Sports, he has been charged with reckless driving and failing to report an accident. The charges resulted from an incident over the weekend where Waltrip's Toyota Land Cruiser hit a telephone pole and rolled over about a mile from his house. He apparently fell asleep at the wheel, crashed and then walked home early Saturday morning.
Police discovered the wrecked SUV and then tracked down the two-time Daytona 500 winner at his home, where he was quoted as saying he was embarrassed but glad he was unhurt in the incident. Police reported finding blood at the scene, but Waltrip apparently suffered only minor cuts and abrasions. Accordint to the authorities, they saw the SUV on its side, traced the plates and realized it was Waltrip's vehicle.
Waltrip's first season as a car owner running Toyotas in NASCAR has been a difficult one, to say the least. Illegal fuel additives found in his engine during the Daytona 500 led to a record fine of $100,000 and 100 drivers points in the championship standings. He hasn't even managed to qualify for any of the other five races since the 500. Driver Dale Jarrett has only made the field on provisionals for 5 of those 6 races and is currently 37th in the points. Teammate David Reutimann failed to make two races and is 43rd in the standings. And now, Waltrip has this matter to contend with. It simply hasn't been his year so far.
Embattled NASCAR star Michael Waltrip has some new problems on his plate. According to Yahoo Sports, he has been charged with reckless driving and failing to report an accident. The charges resulted from an incident over the weekend where Waltrip's Toyota Land Cruiser hit a telephone pole and rolled over about a mile from his house. He apparently fell asleep at the wheel, crashed and then walked home early Saturday morning.
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z caught undisguised
GM on Corvette ZR1 cancellation rumor: "Not true."
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
