Spinal Cord Injury (SCI)
   · Types of Injury
   · Classification &      Terminology
   · Injuries / Prognosis
   · At Risk Activities
 Treatment Options
   · Coping with the Injury
 Rehabilitation
   · Finding the Right
      Rehab Center
   · Pediatric Questions
   · List of Rehab Centers
 Clinical Trials
 At Risk Activities
 SUV Rollovers & SCI
 Financial Assistance
 Spinal Injury News
 Spinal Injury Resources
 Site Map
 
Search for information:
 
     Match:
any search words
all search words

Click Here for a Free
Information Packet

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Please call
1-800-913-6370

We will gladly answer your questions and send a free packet with additional
information on:

  • New treatment options
  • New clinical trials
  • Doctors
  • Research
  • Financial Assistance

 

 



spin cord
Spinal  Cord  Injuries
suv rollover accident
Spinal cord injury

 

Spinal Cord Injury News - Return to Menu

Proposal calls for stronger car roofs

NHTSA cites rollover death statistics

By CINDY SKRZYCKI
The Washington Post

December 7, 2005 - WASHINGTON - Fasten your seat belt. The Bush administration's proposal to require that vehicle roofs be made stronger - in hopes of reducing deaths and injuries from rollover accidents - promises to be as bumpy a regulatory ride as the implementation of air bags in cars and trucks. The air-bag rule took years to put in place and inflamed the acrimony that exists between safety groups and the auto industry.

The comment period closed Nov. 21 for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's so-called roof-crush rule, a modification of a 30-year-old standard that long has been criticized as weak and ineffective. Rollover accidents are responsible for 24,000 injuries and 10,000 fatalities annually - one-third of all people killed in auto crashes.

NHTSA said 807 people wearing seat belts are seriously injured and an additional 596 die annually in rollovers that involve occupants making contact with the roof, or "roof intrusion." Two-thirds of those killed in all rollovers weren't wearing seat belts at the time of the crash, according to agency spokesman Rae Tyson.

Despite the sobering statistics, the proposal calls for only a modest increase in roof strength, inclusion of large sport-utility vehicles and vans, and protection for car manufacturers from lawsuits brought by victims of rollovers in which the roof is involved.

It says that vehicles up to 10,000 pounds would have to withstand force applied to the roof that are 2.5 times vehicles' unloaded weight and that the roof cannot touch an occupant's head. The current rule, which predated the flood into the market of sport-utility vehicles that are more prone to roll over, requires vehicles to withstand force of 1.5 times the vehicle's weight on the roof, up to 5,000 pounds.

Notably, two-thirds of car and light truck models on the road already meet the proposed standard. The agency estimated that the average cost of strengthening the roof for vehicles that don't meet the new standard would be $58.6 million annually, or $10.67 per vehicle. NHTSA estimates that the improvement in roof strength will save only 13 to 44 lives and prevent 498 to 793 injuries. That's because some rollover accidents are so violent that no amount of roof strengthening would save the occupants, the agency said, without other improvements, such as side air bags.

Carmakers, meanwhile, say no rule will prevent serious injury when a vehicle tips over, especially if the occupants are not wearing seat belts. Companies such as Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. insist that injuries occur before the roof caves in.

"Both Ford and Volvo have looked at injury and fatality rates in rollovers involving vehicles that meet the federal standard to vehicles that have roof strengths that are multiples of the federal standard, and there isn't a difference," Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said in a statement. Volvo is a Ford subsidiary.

The animosity between the auto industry and safety groups is apparent in the fate of the "Volvo documents" that advocates of a tougher rule tried to include in comments to the agency.

The documents show how Volvo made its XC90 model roofs stronger than the norm by designing a "steel cage" to protect occupants in rollovers. They came up in a trial in Jacksonville, Fla., last spring in which a jury awarded $10.2 million to the family of Claire Duncan, a 26-year-old engineer. The jury found the roof in a Ford Explorer to be defective. Ford is appealing.

The papers include e-mail traffic between the two companies in which Ford tells its subsidiary that it must cease its emphasis on roof strength and get in step with Ford's position on the issue.

The documents were then placed in the NHTSA rulemaking docket. But the agency removed them after Volvo said they were under a protective court order.

Last Thursday, Public Citizen petitioned the Florida state court to make the papers public, claiming they are directly relevant to the current rulemaking. Ford, in a statement, said the documents should be kept from the public because they contain trade secrets.

This twist in the process isn't likely to change much about the final rule, especially since the auto industry says it can meet it easily.

In fact, safety groups also complain that the test for meeting the standard is too weak. NHTSA's proposal includes a test that uses a steel plate or "arm" to crush the roof on one side of the vehicle. The amount of intrusion into passenger space is then calculated. Safety advocates want a test that would replicate the multiple flips that happen in a rollover, which the agency rejected.

Manufacturers stress that other NHTSA rulemakings would better enhance safety, such as side air bags to keep passengers from being ejected from vehicles and requiring stability control systems to keep the vehicle on the road.


NHTSA in for a Fight Over 'Roof-Crush Rule'

By Cindy Skrzycki

December 6, 2005 - Fasten your seat belt. The Bush administration 's proposal to require that vehicle roofs be made stronger -- in hopes of reducing deaths and injuries from rollover accidents -- promises to be as bumpy a regulatory ride as the implementation of air bags in cars and trucks. The air-bag rule took years to put in place and inflamed the acrimony that exists between safety groups and the auto industry.

On Nov. 21, the comment period closed for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 's so-called "roof-crush rule," a modification of a 30-year-old standard that long has been criticized as weak and ineffective. Rollover accidents are responsible for 24,000 injuries and 10,000 fatalities annually -- one-third of all people killed in auto crashes.

NHTSA said 807 people wearing seat belts are seriously injured and an additional 596 die annually in rollovers that involve occupants making contact with the roof, or "roof intrusion." Two-thirds of those killed in all rollovers weren't wearing seat belts at the time of the crash, according to agency spokesman Rae Tyson .

Despite the sobering statistics, the proposal calls for only a modest increase in roof strength, inclusion of large sport-utility vehicles and vans, and protection for car manufacturers from lawsuits brought by victims of rollovers in which the roof is involved.

It says that vehicles up to 10,000 pounds would have to withstand force applied to the roof that are 2.5 times vehicles' unloaded weight and that the roof cannot touch an occupant's head. The current rule, which predated the flood into the market of sport-utility vehicles that are more prone to roll over, requires vehicles to withstand force of 1.5 times the vehicle's weight on the roof, up to 5,000 pounds.

Notably, two-thirds of car and light truck models on the road already meet the proposed standard. The agency estimated that the average cost of strengthening the roof for vehicles that don't meet the new standard would be $58.6 million annually, or $10.67 per vehicle. Automakers will have three years to implement the rule after it becomes final.

NHTSA estimates that the improvement in roof strength will save only 13 to 44 lives and prevent 498 to 793 injuries. That's because some rollover accidents are so violent that no amount of roof strengthening would save the occupants, the agency said, without other improvements, such as side air bags. Public Citizen , a consumer group that advocates safer vehicles, disagrees and said a strong roof-crush rule would save thousands of lives.

Thus, highway safety groups have lambasted the proposal. "It's virtually a nothing burger," said Joan Claybrook , president of Public Citizen. "This proposal is useless."

Updating the rule has been at the top of the wish list for safety groups for many years. At the same time, the number of court cases blaming weak roofs for injuries and fatalities has increased.

Carmakers, meanwhile, say no rule is going to prevent serious injury when a vehicle tips over, especially if the occupants are not wearing seat belts. Over the years, companies such as Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. have insisted that injuries occur before the roof caves in.

"Both Ford and Volvo have looked at injury and fatality rates in rollovers involving vehicles that meet the federal standard to vehicles that have roof strengths that are multiples of the federal standard, and there isn't a difference," said Kathleen Vokes , a Ford spokeswoman, in a statement. Volvo is a Ford subsidiary.

The animosity between the auto industry and safety groups is apparent in the fate of the "Volvo documents" that advocates of a tougher rule tried to include in comments to the agency.

The documents show how Volvo made its XC90 model roofs stronger than the norm by designing a "steel cage" to protect occupants in rollovers. They came up in a trial in Jacksonville, Fla., last spring in which a jury awarded $10.2 million to the family of Claire Duncan , a 26-year-old engineer. The jury found the roof in a Ford Explorer to be defective. Ford is appealing.

The papers include e-mail traffic between the two companies in which Ford tells its subsidiary that it must cease its emphasis on roof strength and get in step with Ford's position on the issue.

The documents were then placed in the NHTSA rulemaking docket. But the agency removed them after Volvo said they were under a protective court order.

Last Thursday, Public Citizen petitioned the Florida state court to make the papers public, claiming they are directly relevant to the current rulemaking. Ford, in a statement, said the documents should be kept from the public because they contain trade secrets.

This twist in the process isn't likely to change much about the final rule, especially since the auto industry says it can meet it easily.

In fact, safety groups also complain that the test for meeting the standard is too weak. NHTSA's proposal includes a test that uses a steel plate or "arm" to crush the roof on one side of the vehicle. The amount of intrusion into passenger space is then calculated. Safety advocates want a test that would replicate the multiple flips that happen in a rollover, which the agency rejected.

Manufacturers stress that other NHTSA rulemakings would better enhance occupant safety, such as side air bags to keep passengers from being ejected from vehicles and requiring stability control systems to keep the vehicle on the road.

"The thing that is getting lost in the weeds is you have to look at all the various initiatives the agency has," said Robert Strassburger , vice president for safety and harmonization for the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers . "The roof-crush rule will be more of a backstop than anything else."

About Cindy Skrzycki
Cindy Skrzycki has been a reporter and columnist on the Business Staff of the Washington Post since 1987. Her journalism career started at the Buffalo News before she moved to Washington to earn an advanced degree and work at Fairchild Publications, where she covered the steel industry; the Fort-Worth Star Telegram Washington Bureau; and U.S. News and World Report. The Regulators made its debut on the business pages in 1993 and since then has had something to say about virtually every regulatory agency that has anything to do with business.

Her e-mail address is skrzyckic AT washpost DOT com.

 

FREE
Spinal Cord Injury Packet
Spinal Cord Injury Booklet
Click here to get this important patient information delivered to you quickly!

 


To Obtain the Best Treatment Info & Financial Assistance contact us for a FREE SPINAL CORD INJURY INFORMATION PACKET which includes;

Rehabilitation Hospital Locations
Clinical Trials
Research
New Treatment Options
Doctors
Financial Assistance

Fill out the form below or call 1-800-913-6370.

First Name
Last Name
Address
City
State
Zip

Phone

Email
   
Have you or a loved one had :
Spinal Cord Injury (paraplegic)?

Yes No

Spinal Cord Injury
(tetraplegic) / (quadriplegic)?

Yes No

How were you or your loved one injured?
Car or SUV Accident:
Yes No

Car Rollover:

Yes  No
SUV Rollover:
Yes  No
Vehicle Roof Crush Injury:
Yes  No
Tire Failure:
Yes  No
Was a seat belt worn at the time of the accident?:

Yes  No Not Sure
Work Related:
Yes  No
Gun Related:
Yes  No
Swimming Pool Injury:
Yes  No
Other Accident:
Yes  No
Disease:
Yes  No
Age of Injured Person:
  
Date Injury Occurred:
  
   

Please tell us
what happened:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sitemap | Spinal Cord Injury Types | Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers | Injury Classification | Spinal Injury Prognosis | Spinal Cord Injury Risk | SCI Treatment Options | Coping with Spinal Cord Injuries | SCI Rehabilitation Units | Finding a Rehab Center | Pediatric Programs | SCI Rehabilitation Centers | Spinal Cord Clinical Trials | SUV Rollovers | Financial Assistance | Spinal Cord Injury |