Are there other strategies that might be quicker and save more lives for the same bucks?
On April 30, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a long-awaited — by Washington pressure groups anyway — notice of revisions to the roof-crush testing standard for all light vehicles.
In essence, it doubled the standard for passenger cars and trucks weighing up to 6,000 pounds, and for the first time added test requirements for vehicles weighing between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds (typically “super duty” pickups like Ford F-250/Chevrolet 2500 and up). The revised standards will be phased in September 2012 for 2013 model-year vehicles and completed with introduction of 2017 models.
In its news release, NHTSA made no claims for lives saved by the new regulation, or the resulting costs to buyers of new cars. However, published news accounts attributed to the Department of Transportation, of which NHTSA is part, stated that the upgraded standard will “save 135 lives, prevent 1,000 injuries and add up to $1.4 billion annually to the cost of new cars. (NHTSA did not respond to this reporter’s query.)
The question: is the government’s new roof-crush standard worth it? Of course, if you or a loved one is one of the 135 lives, obviously it is. But the real issue is could the money be better spent? Are there other strategies that might be quicker and more productive, save more lives and injuries for the same bucks? Possibly.
For one thing, the numbers of lives saved probably means only after all vehicles on the road have met the standard, replacing older vehicles. Given a typical passenger vehicle life of ten years, which means the 135 lives saved would come sometime between 2013 and 2027, and closer to the end than the beginning. Traditionally only about ten percent of the vehicle population is retired each year, and this applies mainly to passenger cars and may be out of date, meaning it could take even longer to get the hoped-for results in the current economic climate.
For another thing, there’s a July 2003 NHTSA study of deaths from rollover crashes called Initiatives to Address the Mitigation of Vehicle Rollover. It suggested a number of strategies-vehicle, roadway and behavioral–for reducing the highway toll from this type of incident. In my view the study was complete, scientific (meaning free from political interference) and filled with excellent initiatives for follow-up. Only one of the strategies dealt with roof-crush standard stiffening-and it seemed to be uncertain.
This makes one wonder if the issuance of the new standard emanated not from science but from the White House. After all, NHTSA belongs to an Executive Department and the guy at the top has only to say, “Jump” and the response has to be, “How high, boss?”
Let’s take a look at the 2003 NHTSA study of strategies to mitigate rollovers. “Rollover crashes are dangerous events,” the study begins. “Eight percent of light vehicles (passenger cars, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs)) in crashes roll over, yet 21% of seriously injured occupants and 31% of occupant fatalities occur in rollovers. According to the 2001 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a census of all crashes involving a motor vehicle on a public roadway that resulted in at least one fatality within 30 days of the incident, 10,138 people were killed as occupants of light vehicles in rollover crashes. Of those, 8,407 were killed in single-vehicle rollover crashes. Seventy-eight percent of the people who died in single-vehicle rollover crashes were not wearing the vehicle safety belt, and 64% were partially or completely ejected from the vehicle (including 53% who were completely ejected).”
When these numbers are analyzed by vehicle type, some important differences arise:
“Passenger car injuries make up slightly more than half of all serious injuries in light vehicles involved in a rollover, primarily because they are the most prevalent type of light vehicle.” Rollovers account for 13% to 16% of the occupant injuries in vans and cars, but account for a much higher proportion in pickup trucks (30%) and SUVs (46%).”
Continuing, the study reports “Rollovers account for 22% of passenger car fatalities, 39% of van fatalities, 44% of pickup fatalities, and 61% of SUV fatalities. Rollovers in SUVs are the leading cause of severe injury and death to their occupants. Likewise, rollovers are the leading cause of death to pickup truck occupants.”
Wow, makes one wonder why the revised standard couldn’t have been written just for pickups and SUVs, doesn’t it?
Here are some other telling factoids from the study: “Factors that strongly relate to rollover fatalities are: a single vehicle crash (83%), a rural crash location (60%), a high-speed (55 mph or higher) road (72%), nighttime (66%), off-road tripping/tipping mechanism (60%), young (under 30 years old) driver (46%), male driver (73%), alcohol-related (40%), speed-related (40%), unbelted (72%), and/or ejected (64%).”
Right there are lessons about driver behavior–and warnings for TheDetroitBureau.com readers.
Thus, the NHTSA study leaned heavily on Roadway and Behavioral strategies for mitigating rollovers, beginning with roadway and roadside improvements, including wider lanes, level and wider roadsides and rumble strips to warn drivers they are going off the road. It noted that (in 2003), rumble strips had been installed on an estimated 30% of U.S. rural freeways. Such dangerous roadside structures as rutting drop-offs at pavement edge or lips (minicurbs) can trigger driver over-steering (those diagonal skid marks you see on many highways indicating a likely rollover) need to be eliminated.
But these improvements cost lots of money-there were no estimates-when today state and local highway maintenance budgets are already being challenged by lower gasoline tax revenues from less driving.
As to Behavioral strategies, NHTSA suggested more seat-belt-usage communication as well as admittedly expensive advanced technologies that would allow SUV drivers to lower vehicle height to reduce likelihood of rollover.
Oddly, the Behavioral strategies did not address enhanced driver training for both new and experienced drivers. I was reminded, for instance, that one of the first crashes recorded by NHTSA involving Bridgestone Tires and a Ford Explorer several years ago noted that the driver slammed on her brakes at high speed when she heard a tire flapping, triggering a loss of control and a deadly rollover. Does any driver-training program instruct such proper crash avoidance as allowing coast-down while maintaining steering control?
Vehicle strategies besides tougher roof-crush standards included improved handling and stability (Electronic Stability Control, now either standard or optional in many if not most new vehicles) and reform of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standard. The report noted that regulation of fuel economy could have substantial effects on vehicle safety, the composition of the light vehicle fleet (lighter and less safe), the economic well being of the automobile industry, and the nation’s energy security. This was before the rise of the Global Warming scare, in which radically improved fleet fuel economy has been identified as a strategy for reduced carbon dioxide emissions, said to cause Warming.
Other vehicle strategies cover stronger door latches and locks, stronger side glass and improved airbag side curtains to enhance the prevention of occupant ejection in rollovers. There are some tentative suggestions for rather radical safety belt changes, including four-point belts like military aircraft.
But in the end, roof crush won out, even though the study noted that post-crash it was impossible to tell from available information on a rollover whether injury was due to the roof collapsing on the injured occupant, or the occupant sliding out of position into the roof.
The ruling is likely to affect small vehicles the most and large ones the least, since it will require substantial additional steel in roof pillars, proportionately more in the small. This in turn will work counter to demands for more fuel economy.
You be the judge if this regulation is worth the effort.