Critics assail proposed NHTSA vehicle rollover standards

Controversy continues over pending roof crush resistance regulations as independent automotive engineers and consumer safety advocates have hit the ceiling over the federal government’s latest version of its proposed standards. Opponents are calling for sturdier OEM designs and a more robust testing procedure to reduce the carnage inflicted by rollover wrecks.

Critics say the projected scale of vehicle occupant protection tendered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in a recent supplemental announcement is far too weak to adequately address the paralyzing injuries and deaths suffered by drivers and passengers involved in roof crush crashes.

Rollovers annually injure about 17,000 people and claim some 10,500 lives, amounting to a third of all traffic deaths. NHTSA says the “target population” of its proposed standards represents 476 potential victims that could be spared if the regulations are adopted as-written. NHTSA is soliciting comments on the issue through early March; a final decision is due later this year. (A link to the entire document is at the end of this story.)

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 below 6,000 pounds be able to withstand a crush-level of 1.5; it remains unchanged since 1975. The revised standards, as initially proposed by NHTSA in 2005, would establish a 2.5 crush-level applied to vehicles weighing up to 10,000 pounds.

As occurred in 2005, the agency’s most-recently released SWR (strength-to-weight ratio) proposal of 2.5 is again being assailed as unacceptable. An SWR number of 3.5 would be a much more effective safety standard, according to consulting automotive engineer Donald Friedman, president of Xprts LLC in Goleta, Calif.

“It’s not too hard to reach 3.5 because so many foreign manufacturers are already doing it,” he says. OEMs could reach the higher compliance level for less than $100 per car and $200 for trucks and SUVs, Friedman asserts. “It’s not a lot of money compared to the cost of the vehicles.”

In addition to saving lives, says Friedman, a 3.5 roof crush resistance standard would mean fewer cars being totaled and relegated to the crusher – resulting in more work for collision shops.

“You’ll be able to repair vehicles rather than just drop them,” he notes. “You can bend them out and straighten them in a way that can put them back on the road. And, by the time you get to 3.5 or 4 the injury factor is very low.”

Friedman says added amounts of high-strength steel may enter the equation; this material is destined to become more prevalent because of side-impact protection upgrades being implemented. “You guys are going to have to learn how to deal with high-strength steel anyway,” he points out.

However, Friedman continues, “Most of the manufacturers (currently achieving a 3.5 SWR) are not doing it with high-strength steel. They’re doing it with overlays that are easier to repair.”

The cost of complying with a 3.5 SWR could exceed $500 for some of the larger trucks and SUVs on the market, according to an analysis of OEM-submitted data conducted by Stephen R. Kratzke, NHTSA associate administrator for rulemaking.

Meeting NHTSA’s proposed 2.5 SWR would cost about $16 per car and $38 to $58 for SUVs and trucks, with vehicle weight gains ranging from 4 to 67 pounds. Applying a 3.5 SWR could add as much as 250 to 540 pounds to larger trucks and SUVs, Kratzke reports. OEMs say added weight could adversely affect fuel economy and vehicle stability.

Quibbling over such minor amounts of money is an outrage, and a 2.5 SWR is simply not enough, says Paula Lawlor, executive director of the People Safe in Rollovers Foundation and co-author with Todd Tracy of Roof Crush Intrusion: Deadly by Design. The 24-page, highly detailed publication is available free for downloading at the Foundation’s Internet site, http://www.peoplesafeinrollovers.org.

The non-profit organization is continuing its campaign to ignite Congressional hearings into the roof crush issue, maintaining that the best approach is to get the various parties under oath to discuss what they know and when they knew it, says Lawlor. NHTSA and vehicle designers have long known about the propensity for roof crush casualties – and the relative ease of engineering needed to alleviate them – for several decades, yet so little has been done to remedy the problem, she contends.

“They come right out and say that (the latest NHTSA proposal) is not going to save many lives,” says Lawlor, referring to the “target population” figure of 476.

Lawlor alleges that in the past, certain OEMs “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 explains, “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.”

NHTSA counters that its latest proposal is praise-worthy because it would mandate a two-sided crush test that includes the passenger seat ceiling rather than the existing one-sided test covering only the driver’s position.

Not so, says Joan Claybrook, a former NHTSA chief administrator from 1977 to 1981who is now president of the Public Citizen consumer advocacy group.

“The proposal is still a static test – one based on mathematical calculations rather than a dynamic physical test – and it still is at 2.5 times the weight of the vehicle,” she notes.

Friedman agrees: “To do a static test is a whole bunch of correlations; it’s like magic to get the numbers to come out. I’m a very strong advocate of dynamic testing because that’s the best way to measure injury potential.”

At age 80, Friedman is widely viewed as the dean of automotive roof safety. A former engineer with General Motors, he went on to become a strong advocate of better testing, design and construction strategies. Four of his “disciples” have opened their own safety related design-analysis firms throughout California’s Santa Barbara County, providing industry engineering services and expert testimony in court cases.

The static roof crush testing favored by NHTSA functions like a trash compactor; a metal plate is pressed down upon a stationary vehicle’s roof, measuring the movement.

A key difference in the techniques is that “inverted drop” and “dolly rollover” tests are considered “dynamic” while the crusher test is “static” and not an appropriate determination of how a roof reacts in a real-world crash, critics contend.

The inverted drop procedure involves dropping the car upside down from a prescribed height. In a dolly rollover, a vehicle is actually tossed about to analyze how it performs under duress. Factors such as engine weight, size, positioning and configuration are among the variables dictating vehicle movement during a rollover.

Lawlor, Claybrook and Friedman point to the Volvo XC-90 as a gold standard for roof excellence with a 4.6 SWR capable of withstanding multiple rotations. An engineer who has dissected the roof and observed the “baloney slices” of its design says he sees “a dramatic difference” in the top’s larger-diameter high-strength steel and larger, reinforced sections instead of utilizing a simpler, weaker tube construction. Volvo vetted the vehicle via inverted drop and dolly rollover tests, plus the automaker applied sophisticated occupant containment technology.

The issue of occupant containment is yet another source of controversy between safety advocates and NHTSA. Lawlor says people die and are rendered quadriplegics even when using their seatbelts. She and others dispute NHTSA’s focus on encouraging seatbelt use and the benefits of Electronic Stability Controls (ESC). According to Lawlor, this stance does not account for the crippling impact of the roof caving in on a victim’s head, neck and shoulders.

“Roof crush causes windows to break and people are ejected or partially ejected,” she adds.

“The proposal absolutely ignores ejection and containment in the vehicle during rollovers,” says Claybrook. “To justify a strong rollover protection standard, the agency should address roof crush, ejection and containment as one standard. By dividing it into three standards, the roof crush portion of the protection proposal continues to be totally inadequate.”

A recent statement from U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters explains that the amended roof crush proposal is part of a comprehensive program to reduce rollover fatalities and injuries, and it includes mandating newer technologies such as ESC – which can save an estimated 9,600 lives a year – as well as stronger door locks. She also emphasizes that using seatbelts continues to be the most effective way to prevent fatalities and injuries in all types of crashes, including rollovers.

In the meantime, Lawlor remains adamant that the roof crush issue needs to be addressed on Capitol Hill in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. She says a thorough review of the document trail should prove most enlightening based on what has surfaced in liability lawsuit testimony and document submissions.

“They’ve known this stuff for 30 years,” says Lawlor, “and they’ve kept the documents protected” by getting judges to label them as “trade secrets.” She goes on to describe how “I’m trying to get the documents unprotected so I can pass them out” to the public, news media and government officials.

Lawlor would like to see each vehicle’s SWR number and rollover propensity posted on auto dealer window stickers along with the gas mileage information. “If you ever offered this to consumers they’d go for it, but it’s something that people never know – even the salesmen don’t know; consumers should have an educated choice when they buy a car.”

Lawlor’s spirited interest in roof crush resistance standards stems from 1989 when she was handling a case while working in a lawyer’s office. Since then she’s met with many bereaved families and quadriplegic victims and delved into the complex engineering variables.

When the film “Erin Brockovich” was released, her seven children insisted that she view the flick profiling the outspoken activist. “When I saw that movie, I thought, ‘Wow, that’s me.’” Others also see the resemblance, frequently making the comparison: “That’s what they say.”