Last Update on : March 12, 2008
Study finds stronger car roofs raise survival rate
 WASHINGTON -- Stronger vehicle roofs would increase the number of people who survive rollover crashes, according to a study released today by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
The new report argues that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has been debating for decades whether to increase the strength requirements, dramatically underestimates the number of lives that can be saved.
The 20-page study, based on analysis of 22,817 rollover crashes in 12 states between 1997-2005, suggests midsize SUVs with the strongest roofs have a 39 percent to 57 percent lower injury risk than weaker ones.
Rollovers account for about 10,000 traffic deaths annually, and 59 percent of all crash deaths in SUVs occur in rollover accidents.
The current standard requires vehicles to withstand a force of 1.5 times the vehicle's weight before reaching five inches of crush. The NHTSA has proposed increasing it to 2.5 times the vehicle's weight and has promised to issue a final regulation by the end of July to comply with a congressional deadline.
Automakers have faced dozens of lawsuits in rollover accidents in recent years, with some plaintiffs blaming weak roofs.
On Tuesday, an appeals court in California upheld an $82.6 million verdict against Ford involving a woman who was paralyzed in a 2002 Ford Explorer rollover. Ford plans to again appeal the verdict.
In August 2005, the NHTSA proposed upgrading the more than 34-year-old roof strength standard. The NHTSA said its rules across the entire fleet would save up to 44 lives a year, far less than the Insurance Institute study.
Institute researchers predict 212 of 668 midsize SUV rollover deaths could have been prevented in 2006 if the stricter standards had been in place. The institute says the number of lives saved would be significantly larger when applied to the entire vehicle fleet.
"These are big risk reductions, bigger than what the government or anyone else has established," said Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based, industry-funded group that pushes automakers to make safer cars.
Group calls study 'flawed'
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the trade group that represents Detroit's Big Three automakers, Toyota and six other automakers, called the new Insurance Institute study "flawed."
"Unfortunately, there remains no definitive answer as to what effect roof strength has on injury risk in rollover crashes," the group said.
Automakers agree with efforts "to enhance overall roof stiffness as part of its comprehensive plan to enhanced rollover injury mitigation," a statement from the group said.
Automakers argue the study didn't take into account anti-rollover systems like electronic stability control that will dramatically reduce rollovers and become mandatory in 2011. It also failed to differentiate between belted and unbelted occupants, which automakers argue are unlikely to benefit much from stronger roofs.
But the Insurance Institute said that doesn't eliminate the need for protection. "Until these crashes are reduced to zero, roof strength will remain an important aspect of occupant protection," Lund said.
Public comment sought
The NHTSA has decided to extend the public comment period on its proposed new standard through March 27 to give safety advocates more time to comment.
In January, the NHTSA amended its 2005 proposal to say it was considering requiring tests on both sides of vehicles roofs. But the agency rejected calls to go beyond the 2.5 times standard, as some safety advocates urged.
Stronger roofs would likely be dramatically heavier, more expensive and could reduce fuel efficiency.
NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson declined to address the Insurance Institute's criticism since the agency is in the middle of its regulatory efforts. "We welcome opinions from all interested parties."
GM and Ford essentially drafted the current roof-strength regulation, leading an industrywide effort in 1971 to convince federal officials to adopt a minimum standard, but only after their vehicle fleets failed the government's first proposed test.
|
