Error processing SSI file
The government has its say, John Hess says, and the auto industry has its say. "It seems like people like me have nothing to say about all of this," says Hess, who was paralyzed when the Ford F-150 he was riding in rolled.Feds, Big Three gird for roof showdown
Automakers fight plan to toughen roof-crush rules
Sunday, April 11: A Detroit News examination found that automakers have fought to preserve a 33-year-old federal safety standard for roof strength despite critics who say the law is woefully inadequate at saving lives.
Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, told a House panel that the Senate bill would interfere with NHTSA's ability to carry out its own priorities.
Monday, April 12: Clyde "Ray" Noyes was killed when a split-second traffic manuever led to a rollover accident. His death is an example of how even seat-belted motorists can die when their vehicle roof crushes around them.
Tuesday, April 13: Federal regulators plan to propose stiffer roof standards later this year, setting up a battle in Washington among automakers, safety advocates and political officials.
Michael Puize, John Hess' lawyer, next to the F-150 that crushed Hess in 1987 when the vehicle rolled and the roof caved in.
Comment on this story
WASHINGTON — After years of debate and thousands of lives lost, a showdown is looming over the U.S. government’s safety standard for vehicle roofs.
While Detroit’s Big Three automakers staunchly oppose new regulations — contending crushed roofs don’t cause deaths and injuries — the nation’s top auto-safety official says it’s time to act.
“We have to tackle this problem,” Dr. Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, told The Detroit News. “That’s not me being hysterical. That’s me looking at the data.”
With an increasing number of drivers buying rollover-prone SUVs and pickups, an estimated 7,000 people are killed or seriously injured each year when the roofs of their vehicles collapse in rollover accidents, according to NHTSA.
For automakers, much is riding on the outcome. New regulations could mean substantial investments in stronger roof structures. And any admission that roofs have been substandard could lead to more product-liability lawsuits.
Updating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 has been on the government’s agenda since the regulation was adopted 33 years ago as a “temporary” measure.
Yet NHTSA’s critics say that rule 216 is a telling example of the agency’s inability to stand up to the powerful auto industry.
For years, NHTSA has struggled to push through new or updated safety regulations in the face of political opposition and the powerful auto-industry lobby.
It took the nationwide Firestone tire controversy before the agency finally moved to rewrite its three-decade old federal tire standard in 2000.
“The agency not only simmers for years, it simmers for decades, and nothing happens,” said Gerald Donaldson, senior research director of the Washington-based Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
Although an official public-comment period on rule 216 has dragged on for 28 months, NHTSA says it is firmly committed to proposing a new roof strength standard this year.
“When rollovers do occur, they’re very dangerous and very lethal,” Runge said. “Intuitively, you know if you have a stronger roof structure, you’re better protected.”
Congress will play a major role in shaping any new regulation. The Senate has already passed a bill that calls for tougher roof-crush rules. The House and the Bush administration, however, have signaled that they oppose the Senate’s plan.
Auto-safety advocates are also clamoring for their voice to be heard on rule 216 .
In a key closed-door session on March 22, three of the most influential auto industry watchdogs met privately with Runge to discuss roof strength.
Ex-General Motors Corp. engineer Don Friedman — accompanied by Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, and Clarence Ditlow, Center for Auto Safety executive director — showed Runge a dynamic rollover test that may evaluate a vehicle’s performance in real-life rollover conditions.
Friedman and Claybrook also briefed the staff of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as well as staffers for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
“This has become a much bigger problem with the SUV,” Ditlow said. “By the time they became popular in the 1990s, every engineer in America knew we had a problem.”
Pressure builds
But with a long list of traffic-safety issues on NHTSA’s agenda, where does a new roof standard rate?
Safety advocates like Claybrook, who headed NHTSA from 1977 to 1980, say roof-crush is a critical problem that has to become a priority.
“These are the most preventable injuries in auto crashes,” said Claybrook. “The cardinal principle of occupant protection is the integrity of the passenger compartment.”
Victims of rollover accidents in which the roof collapsed also want their say.
John Hess is one of them.
On Dec. 25, 1987 — Christmas Day — Hess was riding in a Ford F-150 pickup on his way to find batteries for his 7-year-old daughter’s new toy.
When the pickup went through an intersection, the truck was hit by a car that ran a red light, according to court records.
Hess’s pickup rolled over. The roof collapsed, crumpling to just inches above his seat.
The roof hit Hess so hard that his lower body broke the seat springs. He was left a paraplegic, and in a subsequent trial a California jury awarded him $12.5 million.
Hess, from his home in Castaic, Calif., follows the debate over roof crush in Washington. The government makes its point, Hess said, and the auto industry has its say.
But what about the victims?
“It seems like people like me have nothing to say about all of this,” Hess said. “It seems like the people who have had to pay the consequences should have a lot more to say about it.”
Window of opportunity
The next stage of debate will begin later this year when NHTSA proposes a new test for roof strength.
The agency is in the midst of a major study to determine the relationship between crushed roofs and highway deaths anf catastrophic injuries. In addition, the National Crash Analysis Center at George Washington University also is digging into years of rollover accident data, to determine the impact of collapsing roofs.
The existing 216 test was devised decades before rollover-prone SUVs ruled the road. The test consists of gradually applying a force of 1.5 times the vehicle’s weight to a steel plate on one side of the roof.
But the big question is, how much further a new test should go?
Safety advocates say the current test does not replicate the forces a car or truck experiences in a rollover. The test applies force to one side of the roof. But in the real world, the most damage usually occurs when the trailing side contacts the ground, after the roof structure has been weakened.
And through a loophole, the heaviest SUVs and pickups, those with gross vehicle weights of 6,000 pounds or more, don’t face any government regulation.
NHTSA officials say they most likely will adjust the angles and forces in the current regulation instead of devising a more technically dynamic test. Regulators also expect to require markedly better seat belts as part of a new rule 216.
“This is a critically important issue,” said Dr. Ricardo Martinez, who headed NHTSA from 1994-99. “We know the technology is there. We now have SUVs that have become the family station wagon. They are very rollover prone, but they provide very little protection in a rollover crash.”
But auto companies, facing huge potential liabilities in court cases, have pressed NHTSA to do more research before changing rule 216.
The Big Three are united in their opposition to a new roof-strength standard.
Occupant safety “is not likely to be enhanced as a result of additional roof crush requirements,” DaimlerChrysler AG said a filing with NHTSA in 2001. “The scientific research instead suggests that FMVSS 216 appears adequate and sufficient in scope.”
Congressional showdown
The Senate voted in February to give NHTSA specific directions on roof crush. Its legislation calls for the agency to issue a set of new regulations, including a final “rollover crashworthiness standard.”
The provision calls for NHTSA to consider a roof-strength standard “based on dynamic tests that realistically duplicate the actual forces transmitted to a passenger motor vehicle during an on-roof rollover crash.”
But a new rule 216 could become mired in politics.
At a March 18 hearing, House Energy and Commerce Committee questioned the need to update rule 216. Leading the charge was U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, the Big Three’s most influential defender in Congress.
Dingell said nobody has made a compelling case that a congressional mandate is necessary to improve the roof-strength standard.
“You may be better off with a strong roof,” Dingell told The News. “But they don’t know what a strong roof is, and they don’t know how to design the test. They don’t know how much better a strong roof will do in a rollover.”
Dingell said he may support a new regulation if a public-safety need was demonstrated — and it would not add significant costs to vehicles.
The Bush administration also has weighed in against the Senate plan, primarily if it interferes with the rest of NHTSA’s current auto-safety agenda.
But long-time auto-safety advocates see this year as the prime opportunity to make a change in rule 216.
Claybrook’s Public Citizen organization brought roof-crush victims to Washington last month to lobby for new legislation. Safety watchdogs see the 216 debate as their best chance in years to pressure NHTSA for tougher regulations.
“You have to light a bonfire under the agency,” said Donaldson of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
There is reason to be skeptical. Congress called for new standards for occupant protection in rollovers as far back as 1991.
Then, NHTSA studied the issue for three years, focusing on tests to measure vehicle stability in road maneuvers that might lead to rollover.
But, in 1994, U.S. Transportation Secretary Frederico Pena brought the project to a halt.
Pena said said that a rollover-avoidance test was too technically difficult. Instead, he said that NHTSA would concentrate on how vehicles could withstand rollovers better.
A stronger roof crush test would have to wait.
“The slower they are,” said David Pittle, senior vice president for technical policy and advocacy at Consumers Union, “the more the risk, the longer the risks are in the marketplace, the more people are injured or killed until those standards are in place and those hazards are reduced.”
Limited NHTSA resources
Now, a decade later, it falls to Runge and his staff to address the strength of vehicle roofs.
NHTSA officials, feeling criticism from safety advocates, say the agency is ready to move.
“If you look at the things we promised, then you’re right, we didn’t put out,” said Stephen Kratzke, NHTSA’s associate administrator for safety performance standards. “It’s fair enough to hold us accountable for that.”
The agency’s small budget and staff have hamstrung its efforts, consumer groups say.
“There’s no doubt these are complicated issues, but it has been far too slow,” said David Pittle, senior vice president for technical policy and advocacy at Consumers Union. “The slower they are, the longer the risks are in the marketplace.”
You can reach Jeff Plungis at (202) 906-8204 or at jplungis@detnews.com.
Consumer advocates like Joan Claybrook, a former NHTSA administrator, are pushing hard to generate support for the Senate bill. A coalition of groups brought crash victims to lobby on Capitol Hill on March 23.
Copyright © 2004
The Detroit News.
Use of this site indicates your agreement to the Terms of Service (updated 12/19/2002).