|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
Share |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
|
![]() |
Feds' Roof Crush Rule Inadequate, Critics ChargeMore testing needed to protect occupants |
|||||||||||||
|
March 28, 2008
NHTSA’s proposed roof crush rule fails to require manufacturers to test both the driver and passenger sides of vehicles and does not require a dynamic test that mimics an actual rollover, which would include taking into account passenger ejection and containment, the group said. Instead, NHTSA’s rule relies on measuring the ability of the driver’s side roof to resist 2.5 times the vehicle’s weight, which is an increase from the existing standard but does very little by itself to improve safety, according to Public Citizen’s comments. “Congress demanded that NHTSA do something to reduce the more than 10,500 deaths each year from rollover crashes, and what it got was a feeble proposal that seems more intent on appeasing industry than improving safety,” said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook, who served as NHTSA administrator from 1977 to 1981. “In fact, NHTSA estimates that the proposal will save, at most, only 44 lives a year. We need a comprehensive, dynamic testing standard that looks not only at roof strength but also what happens to passengers during a rollover.” Congress instructed NHTSA in the 2005 highway bill to reduce rollover deaths by writing new performance standards that would improve vehicle stability, reduce passenger ejections and increase roof strength. The legislation also clearly called for testing both sides of the vehicle roof. Studies show that the initial impact of a rollover can substantially weaken the other side of the roof, which greatly increases the chance it will crumple and injure the occupant. Public Citizen’s comments call for NHTSA to put more research into developing a test that focuses on protecting occupants during rollover crashes. The agency’s proposal is so inadequate that Public Citizen recommends NHTSA go back to the drawing board and produce a completely new proposal. Report Your Experience
|
|||||||||||||
Back to the top | |
||||||||||||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
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 Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOUSE & HOME 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 Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide 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 © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|