Critics call safety administration into question over inadequate performance levels.
New federal regulations regarding rollovers and roof crush resistance have again been delayed while officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are re-tooling the proposed standards. Consumer advocates are calling for congressional hearings into the matter, contending that the roof performance levels currently under consideration cannot ensure the safety of vehicle occupants.
NHTSA's projected scale of protection is far too low, according to automotive consultant Stephen Forrest, a former General Motors engineer who is now a principal with Safety Analysis & Forensics Engineering (SAFE) in Goleta, Calif. The proposed standards represent only minor changes in roof design, he says, and the testing procedures are flawed.
"After 10 years of study, they say we're going to go from 1.5 to 2.5 and save 44 lives," Forrest says. The strength-to-weight ratio should range from 3 to 5, he adds.Known officially as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216 — Roof Crush Resistance and commonly referred to as "216," the existing regulations mandate that vehicles weighing less than 6,000 pounds be able to withstand a crush-level of 1.5. The revised standards — as described by NHTSA in 2005 — call for a 2.5 crush-level applied to vehicles weighing up to 10,000 pounds.
The issue is highly complex; the agency remains publicly mum on most details, but Forrest says he's "been hearing rumblings" that the five-inch stroke standard now applied to acceptable headroom during a roof collapse will be changed to "a survival-based number" that varies according to vehicle model. "A roof on a Ford Escort doesn't have to be as strong as the roof on an Escalade," he explains.
NHTSA says it is striving to keep the motoring public safe, and the pushed-back publication date of January 2008 rather than August of this year is necessary, because "we want to get it right."
Others are not convinced
"After more than 30 years of inaction, 70 percent of new vehicles will require no upgrade in safety to meet the standard, yet rollover crashes kill over 10,000 people each year — one-third of all occupant deaths," says Joan Claybrook, a former NHTSA head administrator who is now president of the Public Citizen consumer advocacy group. "The proposal is so weak it is projected by NHTSA to save only 13 to 44 lives annually — fewer than one-half of 1 percent of rollover deaths."
NHTSA's rudimentary testing relies too much on the presumed benefits of Electronic Stability Controls (ESC) and does not take into account the impact of actual rollover crashes, according to Paula Lawlor, founder of the People Safe in Rollovers Foundation. The organization is seeking increased congressional oversight and has mounted a nationwide billboard campaign to rally public support.
"There are many, many more rollover scenarios (that happen in real-life) — the roofs are not strong enough," Lawlor insists. "They haven't addressed the roof crush issue, which is easy and inexpensive to fix."
"The 216 test is pretty much useless: Even NHTSA admits it won't have any significant change," says Forrest, estimating that it would cost a carmaker $10 per vehicle to bring a 1.5-compliant roof up to the announced 2.5 standard. The OEM price tag to reach a 4- or 5-level would be about $30.
His company, SAFE, analyzes roof designs for expert court testimony and automotive consultations. "We buy roofs all the time and cut them up. When we look at the 'baloney slices' of the Volvo, we see a dramatic difference." High-strength steel is presented in a larger diameter, it's thicker and the section sizes are larger and internally reinforced rather than relying on a simpler, weaker tube construction.
Lawlor, Claybrook and Forrest all point to the Volvo XC-90 as the gold standard for roof excellence. Its 3.8-level roof is able to withstand multiple flips. Volvo did thoroughly vet the vehicle using state-of-the-art "inverted drop" and "dolly rollover" tests. "They take the car and throw it down the road," says Forrest, providing a much more accurate view of what transpires under actual road conditions.
"It's just a crusher test; it doesn't predict anything about a real-world rollover," with NHTSA, he maintains. "It's like a trash compactor under your kitchen counter. The steel plate that compacts the trash is now pushing on the roof."
Lawlor alleges that the crusher test was promoted as the official government-approved measure of roof safety to cover the passenger dangers inherent in the rolling behemoths of the 1960s and early '70s.
"They got such bad results that they basically stopped drop-testing the vehicles. Instead of changing the roof of the vehicles, they came up with a new test," she says. "And it's the same static test we've had for 35 years. If they fixed it, we'd save thousands of lives each year."
OEMs have warned that heavier and stronger roof construction would afflict fuel economy and vehicle stability. They say the NHTSA's 2.5-level proposal would add between 38 and 67 pounds to pickup trucks and larger sport utility vehicles.
Lawlor realizes that the automakers have a leg up on extending their legislative influence, so she has been lobbying U.S. senators, representatives and the Bush administration on her quest for dynamic testing.
"The goal is awareness," she says. "You want to make some waves and make people stand up and take notice. Hopefully, it will get some results."
