New Study: Stronger Roofs Will Save More Lives

That headline might sound like a no-brainer, but a study released today gives major ammunition to safety advocates when it comes to the importance of stronger car and SUV roofs. The report, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, looked at 22,817 rollover crashes in 12 states between 1997 and 2005 and found that midsize SUVs with strong roofs had a lower risk of injury than SUVs with weaker roofs.

How much less? The injury risk was 39-57% less in the stronger-roofed SUVs. This is big news because rollover accidents claim nearly 10,000 lives a year. They’re especially lethal in SUVs, where 59% of all crash deaths are in rollovers.

The study only targeted midsize SUVS and doesn’t take into account non-seat-belted passengers, but the sheer size of the sample should compensate for the omissions. An automaker trade group representing GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota and six other companies calls the study flawed and is trying to prevent the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from raising roof standards, requiring automakers to build roofs that will withstand 2.5 times the vehicle’s weight, versus the current 1.5 times it requires now.

The debate is open to the public. If you want stronger roofs mandated by NHTSA, contact the organization via this link. The deadline for comments is March 27. Let us know what you think as well in the comments below.

Study finds stronger car roofs raise survival rate (Detroit News)

Comments

They had to do a study to tell us that? Duh!

Ziggy,
Well actually they did because previous studies didn't really give such solid figures. And they want to put pressure on the NHTSA.

We keep adding devices, traction control, stability control, ABS, airbags popping out everywhere, and now stronger roofs. Why don't we force people to learn how to drive first. We can try all we want and we will never make cars idiot proof. So, let's address the "idiot" problem instead.

JTH,

I completely agree with your comments...though I've been chastized in the past for making them with comments like "I don't get it...why wouldn't we want automobiles to be safer." We do need to address the idiot problem. All these safety features are driving the weight and also cost of these vehicles north. Some might say, "If it saves lives...who cares about the cost...it's a small price to pay." I say many of these devices are crutches anyway. Before Electonic Stability Control/ Traction control, we knew that if it's slippery out...drive more carefully. I've seen people use these devices as a crutch to drive faster in these situations. How many people have we seen barrelling down on us on the interstate with a HUGE suv...because THEY feel safer. I say give us all 2000lb. cars and teach us to drive...make obtaining a drivers license as difficult as it is to get a motorcycle license.

I think we would all appreicate less crime in the world too, but since there will always be criminals, there will always be high-tech weapons.

There will always be bad drivers. So, it has to be addressed with safer vehicles.

Bowrider,

"I think we would all appreicate less crime in the world too, but since there will always be criminals, there will always be high-tech weapons"

Bad driving is a crime! We should persue them the same way we do other criminals.

"There will always be bad drivers. So, it has to be addressed with safer vehicles."

We as civilians don't go out and wear bullet proof vests...we take the criminal's freedom away so that we may still have ours.

Bowrider,

That's been the attitude for far too long. We need to address the real problem. Driving a car has become secondary to so many other things. Look at the people you see eating, drinking, reading, shaving, etc. My point is, too many people don't think it's necessary to concentrate on driving. So what has our answer been? Instead of better driver education we just add gizmos to the vehicles in the hope that it solves the problem. Now, I'm not opposed to advancing techology in vehicles but for the purpose of making driving better. We could force the automakers to load up vehicles with everything imaginable, but I don't think many would like the price tag.

You can't think every rollover is the driver's fault can you? Let's say it's 50/50. What about those other 50%? They shouldn't have a safer car?

That doesn't sound right to me. and that other 50% would be 5,000 people! not a small number.

I'm not for over regulating but this is a pretty large survey of accidents. I just wonder how the stronger roofed vehicles in the study are newer models leading me to think we're already on our way to improvements in 2008 compared to the 1997-2005 vehicles.

Wouldn't a stronger roof make the vehicle more top heavy, and thus more prone to rollovers, especially in SUVs? By the way, I'm all in favor of making vehicles safer with new technology, that's how we advance in society.

JTH/Spanky - I agree with you. But, at the same time, if we have the technology to save lives, we should employ it. We should also adapt our laws to make our roads safer. But, it's hard to convince some people that police officers should be able to pull you over for putting your make-up on while you are driving. If a woman can put on make-up while keeping her vehicle between the lines, she isn't committing a crime. Nothwithstanding, there will always be women who can't keep it between the lines and they cause accidents. Thus the need for safer vehicles.

Bowrider, you are wrong. Male drivers account for 73 percent of fatal car accidents in the United States. Obviously your perceptions of female drivers being the cause of SUV accidents is based on the lack of the most basic research.

If roll bars in all SUVs and vans were mandated years ago,there would be no need to discuss stronger roofs now.

Car manufacturers, this is the government speaking. We would like you to make your fleets get an average of 35 mpg. Also we would like 35 mpg while burning ethanol which has less energy per gallon. Oh another thing could you make the roof stronger? No, we don't care that it will add weight, that is your problem. Could you work on the flying thing too while you're at it?

Dave T. Umm how can a roll over NOT be a driver's fault? Here's a test, lets take the lowest, wedgeiest car out there, a Z06 perhaps and broad side it into a Tahoe.

Does it roll? If not I can't see how SUV's roll spontainiously with out some input from the driver.

A lot of rolls are caused by "hooking" a tire while sliding sideways. When you are in a terminal slide and have zero tire friction, then suddenly the tires hit something solid. Bam, polar inertia! The mass of the vehicle keeps going but a single point of resistance induces rotation.

There's no such thing as foolproof. Fools Inc. has an AMAZING R&D budget.

50% of the roll overs are the cars fault?

Closer to 100% of rollovers are operator error. Overdriving the vehicles capability, not driving to road conditions or improper maintenance causing component failure.

How many SUV rollovers are due to people driving them like sports cars? Having owned 2 SUVs they come with a pretty good number of warnings on how to drive them. If the driver chooses to ignore them, it is not the fault of the vehicle.

Hey Dan, take some Ritalin. My use of women putting on makeup was merely an attempt to provide example of someone who isn't paying attention while they are driving.