New Roof Regulations Questioned

Safety advocates, automakers and federal regulators debated proposed new standards for vehicle roof strength Thursday morning. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed raising roof standards from having to withstand 1.5 times the vehicle’s weight to a capability of withstanding 2.5 times its weight.

About 10,000 motorists are killed in rollover accidents each year in the United States, a number both safety advocates and the government are anxious to lower. Automakers contend, however, that the government has not only low-balled the cost of implementing such a change (NHTSA set the price tag at $95 million) but also exaggerated the ability of the structural changes to save lives.

Regulators say roof-crush is responsible for 476 traffic deaths annually, and that improvements to roofs could save 44 lives a year. It should be noted, though, that the cause of death during rollovers is heavily disputed by the auto industry, and that requiring electronic stability control is an effective way to prevent accidents in the first place.

NHTSA said it would review the standards and take comments from the public over the next 45 days, so here’s your chance to participate in a democratic car-safety process.

Safety of Vehicle Roofs in Rollovers is Debated (Detroit Free Press)

Comments

i tend to agree that preventing rollovers makes much more sense. however, whether requiring standard electronic stability controls (which many makers would probably make a switch to allow the feature to be turned off and deafeat the purpose) or some set of standard rollover tests that vehicles must pass, or something else, would be a very tough question.

i do know that pretty much all the vehicles that rolled over at lower speeds that present to our trauma team in Springfield, MA are SUV's. people who drive fast enough and/or recklessly enough to roll over other types of vehicles tend not to do well no matter what kinds of gizmos/airbags/curtains etc they have.

So I imagine that if we require the auto companies to put more steel in the roof that we will lower their CAFE standards right?

Not a chance. Why not require breathalysers in all new cars while you're at it, if you really want to save lives. Or how about not letting any teenagers or people over 65 drive? I'm not advocating any of this, but 44 lives per year? Sneezing probably takes more lives than that.

I agree with Sam. The money spent on R&D and extra cost of the cars and trucks could be better spent in other areas to save a lot more than 44 lives. Why isn't anybody advocating better driver education to reduce accidents?

With 44 lives per annum we're getting well into the realm of diminishing returns - and where is this extra strength (and weight) going to be added? Yup, above the centre of gravity where it can make the vehicles more prone to rollover in the first place. I wonder if the additional rollovers resulting from this will kill an extra 44 people?

How will strenghend roofs affect the ability of EMT first responders to cut into a roof for extraction?

Darn it cars.com, stop posting that picture of me!