 |
Back Stability Control Standard By 2012\
The U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced last week a new regulation making electronic stability systems standard safety features by 2012. Ford had already pledged to make stability control standard by 2009, and many companies already include it standard on their SUVs. Now the federal government is taking the final step to make stability control as routine as seat belts and airbags. NHTSA says stability control could save up to 9,600 lives a year, and almost 200,000 injuries. The rule would require all 2012-model-year vehicles be equipped with the system by September 2011. Today’s car shoppers should know that stability systems go by a number of names, depending on the manufacturer. Hopefully they’ll all adopt a standard naming convention, but until then check out the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s list of names of stability systems here. They’re standard on most SUVs and luxury cars, but it will take a few years before they’re available on all vehicles. You can also search new cars with stability control using Cars.com’s vehicle recommender here. [U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters Announces A Substantial Life-Saving Technology For All New Passenger Vehicles, U.S. Department of Transportation] "Now, it's five years later, and they couldn't come up with a better rule than this?" The debate was kept alive by an increase in the number of sport-utility vehicles and pickup trucks on the road and a rise in rollover crashes. The failure of Firestone tires on Ford Explorers that rolled over focused public attention on the issue and prompted calls from Congress for reforms. Under orders from Congress, NHTSA proposed raising the standard in 2005 to 2.5 times the weight of the vehicle. This year, the agency proposed testing the roof on both sides. Lawmakers set the July 1 deadline when they told NHTSA to upgrade the standard as part of a comprehensive approach to addressing rollovers. After factoring in technical improvements to cars, such as better stability control and stronger door locks, the agency concluded in 2005 that increasing roof strength would save 44 lives annually and prevent up to 793 injuries. Costs to the carmakers would be up to $95 million a year. Many new cars already meet the proposed standard, and safety groups and the insurance industry say the rule should be set at 3 times the weight or higher. Two recurring themes in the debate have been how to conduct the tests and how strong the connection is between crushed roofs and injuries. Stricter Roof Crush Rule Hits a Roadblock
» Links to this article The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says there is no relationship between a stronger roof "and the risk of serious head/neck/face injury for belted occupants," according to testimony by Robert Strassburger, vice president of vehicle safety for the trade group, at the Senate automotive safety subcommittee hearing. Automakers associate rollover fatalities to such factors as speed, alcohol use, the age of the driver and whether a seatbelt is buckled. Safety groups say a stronger roof protects all ages and types of drivers. In March, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in Washington released a study that found that, in a test of 11 SUVs, "the weaker the roof, the more likely an injury." "It always seemed illogical to us that roof strength didn't make a difference," said Adrian Lund, president of the insurance industry-funded group, which also does independent front- and side-crash testing of vehicles. Safety groups are willing to wait for a new administration, saying that the agency's proposal is weak. The auto industry isn't in any hurry either, though for a different reason. Michael Stanton, president and chief executive of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers in Washington, which represents carmakers such as Nissan, Suzuki and Kia Motors, said his members will need up to six years to implement any changes in concert with model changes. "Lead time is huge on this one," he said. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who chaired the recent hearing, said he wants a stronger rule and for regulators to ask for more time if they need it. "I hope NHTSA will take safety into consideration and not politics and come up with the best public policy," he said. An agency official working on the rule said NHTSA will notify Congress if it needs more time. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who testified at the hearing, said he also has doubts about the proposal. "I am not for more government, but I am for safety,'' he said. He predicted that if the agency doesn't "do the right thing, Congress will write a rule for them." Cindy Skrzycki is a regulatory columnist for Bloomberg News. She can be reached atcskrzycki@bloomberg.net. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pryor urges extension of roof-crush ruling Senators Seek Delay in New Roof Strength Safety Rules 'Roof crush' rule for rollovers faces deadline |
