Product Safety News
NHTSA Rolls Over for the Auto Industry
10,000 people die every year in vehicle rollover crashes; NHTSA chooses
to protect auto industry profits over Americans' safety.
Under the Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (Public Law No. 109-59), Congress
directed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish
rules to reduce deaths and injuries caused by vehicle rollover accidents
and to specifically propose a new standard for how strong a vehicles
roof must be.
Currently, 10,000 people die and 24,000 people are injured every year in
rollover accidents. Instead of acting to significantly reduce injuries as
Congress directed, NHTSA proposed a weak roof crush standard
that leaves safety at the status quo70% of vehicles on the road currently
meet the new proposed standard.
Still worse, the proposed rule marks an unprecedented power grab by a federal
agency, preempting all state requirements and state tort law. The
result: as long as a car manufacturer meets the proposed standard, no individual
may bring a claim in any court if they are injured or killed because of
a badly made roof.
This is a fundamental change in auto safety that all Americans should be
concerned about. Historically, federal regulations have been interpreted
to set a minimum standard of safety. If a manufacturer met the minimum
standard but still put a defective product out there that killed people,
they could be held accountable. No longer.
The automakers know they can make safer vehicles, they know how to make
safer vehicles, but they dont want to spend the money. Instead this
rule says to the industry, if you knowingly put a roof design on the market
that happens to meet a bare minimum standard but is defective and a child
is paralyzed in a rollover accident, the family can never hold the manufacturer
accountable in court.
Weaknesses and Failures with NHTSA's Proposed
Standards
NHTSA ignored the Congressional directive and failed to make people
safer. Congress demanded rules that would make people safer, that would
significantly lessen the thousands of deaths and paralyzing injuries that
occur when a car or truck rolls over. NHTSA freely admits that their proposed
rule would save an estimated 13 to 44 lives out the 10,000 persons that
die every year in rollover crashes. Cant the federal agency responsible
for the auto safety of all Americans do any better? The majority of cars
currently on the road already meet the proposed rules new
requirements, yet 10,000 thousand people die every year.
Under NHTSAs proposed rule, there is no incentive to make safer
cars. As long as the manufacturer complies with the minimum federal
standard, consumers are left without the ability to hold manufacturers accountable
in court for causing harm. The civil justice system demands only that people
and companies act reasonably under the circumstances. Accountability acts
as an incentive for manufacturers to make safe cars. In some cases it also
prompts manufacturers to take defective vehicles off the market. With a
weak federal standard and no accountability, where are the protections for
consumers? Where is the improved safety standard Congress demanded?
Federal regulations alone cannot keep people safe in a fast-paced, ever-changing
world. Federal regulations quickly become obsolete as rapidly evolving
motor vehicle technology offers better and safer options. This is the first
time in over 30 years the safety standard on roof crush resistance has been
updated by NHTSA. With all of the technology that has been developed in
the last 30 years, why is NHTSA claiming to only be able to save 13 to 44
lives? The American public cannot rely solely on a slow-moving federal agency
to keep them safe. It is critical to the public health and safety that there
be additional mechanismsincluding the civil justice systemto
maintain a high level of safety and ensure that we dont have to wait
another 30 years for enhanced safety.
The civil justice system uncovers information essential to public safety.
NHTSA does not publicly disclose any data they gather from manufacturers
in regards to vehicle defects. Thus, the only mechanism available to compel
manufacturers to reveal to the public internal safety and testing data is
the civil justice system. Through this process the public is made aware
of problems and, as a result, is better able to protect themselves against
dangerous products in the market.
NHTSA failed to follow the statutory directions provided by Congress.
In the Transportation Equity Act of 2005 Congress specifically directed
NHTSA to promulgate a roof strength rule that would require vehicle manufacturers
to test roof strength on both the driver and passenger sides of the vehicle.
Two-sided testing is important to ensure that all vehicle passengers are
protected no matter which way the vehicle rolls. The proposed rule only
requires drivers side testing. By not following Congresss directions,
NHTSA is usurping the power of Congress while at the same time putting consumers
at risk.
NHTSA usurped the authority of Congress, state legislatures and state
courts. NHTSA expressly states their intention to override all state
requirements and all common law developed by both state and federal courts.
NHTSA does this without Congressional authority, without constitutional
authority, and without complying with Executive Order 13132, which requires
NHTSA to consult with the states before proposing a rule that would substantially
affect them. Instead, NHTSA purports to take away the right of all Americans
to bring a claim in any court against a car manufacturer who meets the new,
low standard. NHTSAs attempt to override all other rollover safety
determinations of the state and federal courts is nothing more than an agency
power grab and should not be tolerated by Congress or the American public.
NHTSAs standards are a floor, not a ceiling. Congress, in the
Safety Act, delegated certain vehicle safety responsibilities to NHTSA.
This act defines "motor vehicle safety standard" as a minimum
standard for motor vehicle performance. (49 U.S.C.A. § 30102) Thus,
NHTSAs regulations provide minimum requirements that cars must meet
in order to be sold to consumers. State and federal courts should not suddenly
be prohibited from finding a manufacturer liable when it is proven that
a manufacturer reasonably could have and should have done something additional
to avoid causing harm. Because the majority of cars on the road already
meet the proposed standard, and in some cases are still found to be defective
and to have caused injuries, this rule should constitute the minimum, not
the maximum safety standard.
Updated December 6, 2005
|