|
|
CONSUMER NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters Spanish |
|
|
![]() |
NHTSA Refuses to Investigate Ford Explorer |
|||||
|
By Joe Benton September 5, 2006
The Detroit News reports that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last week rejected a petition by California-based Safety Analysis & Forensic Engineering Research (SAFE) to retest 10 vehicles built during the period. NHTSA turned down the request after a year of reviewing a SAFE Research argument that many Explorers did didn't meet Federal Safety Standard 216, which requires that vehicle roofs withstand a force equal to at least 1.5 times the vehicle's unloaded weight. The group, which does work for lawyers suing automakers, based its findings on two roof strength tests Ford conducted in 1999, which the company said were to test a prototype windshield design that was never put into production. Steven Forrest, a senior engineer and principal with SAFE Research criticized the NHTSA decision and expressed bitter disappointment. "I am not the least bit surprised due to the obvious political and economic ramifications for Ford," Forrest said. NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson denied anything but safety was a factor in the decision. Ford spokesman Dan Jarvis praised NHTSA's decision. "We felt all along and still do that this report SAFE issued a year ago was based on junk science," Jarvis said. "You can't take a prototype vehicle and make the leap somehow that it relates to vehicles on the road." Ford has faced hundreds of lawsuits stemming from Explorer rollovers. And the company has been hit with several multi-million dollar jury verdicts in cases in which plaintiffs alleged the Explorer's roof was too weak. Rollover deaths continue to rise in the United States, accounting for 25 percent of all traffic deaths, up 2.1 percent to 10,816 in 2005, according to a government report NHSTA issued last month. The NHTSA decision comes as the agency continues to review the question of roof strength. In August 2005, the agency proposed raising the roof strength standard to 2.5 times the vehicle's unloaded weight, but has run into opposition from automakers, who want different testing procedures. No final rule is expected until at least next fall and a new standard wouldn't take effect until 2010 at the earliest. Report Your Experience
|
|||||
Back to the top | |
||||||
Advertisement
|
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|