Information about http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/1205%20Alliance%20rebuttal.pdf
December 5, 2006 …
Tags: alliance of automobile manufacturers, blind zone, cameron gulbransen, child injuries, child safety issues, highway traffic safety, light trucks, misleading claims, national highway traffic, national highway traffic safety, national highway traffic safety administration, national highway traffic safety administration nhtsa, performance standard, safety groups, sally greenberg, sport utility vehicles, technology study, traffic safety administration, tragic deaths, transportation equity act,Pages: 7
Language: english
Created: Tue Dec 5 13:19:47 2006
Display cached document
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
December 5, 2006 Contact: Sally Greenberg, 202.462.6262
Janette Fennell, 415.336.9279
Jackie Gillan, 202.408.1711
The Cameron Gulbransen, Kids and Cars Safety Act
Safety Groups Respond to the Misleading Claims
By the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
A number of important child safety issues were addressed in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (2005). However, further legislation is needed
to correct three specific problems that continue to cause tragic deaths and injuries to children.
Backover Safety: Each week at least 2 children are killed and nearly 50 hospitalized after being struck by
vehicles in backover incidents. This occurs when drivers back up and cannot see children and other pedestrians
because the vehicle "blind zone" blocks rearward visibility. The "blind zone" behind light trucks and larger sport
utility vehicles is often 34 feet long or more, and can hide as many as 60 children from the driver's view.
SAFETEA-LU required just a study of vehicle backover technology, and data collection on child injuries in
noncrash incidents including backover, a first important step for understanding how to approach the safety
problem. The technology study is complete and data collection is in progress, the next step is for Congress to
direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a safety performance standard
for rearward visibility. Right now no such standard exists. A performance standard sets the minimum
requirement for detecting an object/child behind the vehicle but allows auto manufacturers flexibility to determine
what available technologies to use. S. 1948 and H.R. 2230 require a performance standard but not any specific
technology or equipment, and logically follows up on the study provisions included in SAFETEA-LU.
Power Window Safety: SAFETEA-LU required all power windows to have the safer pull-up-to-close design,
addressing one aspect of the threat posed to children by power windows. These safer switches reduce child
injuries by preventing the unintended or accidental closure of power windows. However, the safer switch design
will not eliminate deaths and injuries that result when someone pulls on the switch to close a power window
closes without realizing that a child (or other passenger) has an arm, hand or head in the window path. A
reasonable and cost-effective solution to preventing this common type of injury is adopting automatic reversal
technology, the same technology used to stop and reverse closing garage doors. This technology is available in
minivan sliding doors and SUV power back hatches in the U.S., and on most European-built vehicles. S. 1948
and HR 2230 require a performance standard not any specific technology or equipment to prevent child deaths
and injuries.
Vehicle Roll Away: SAFETEA-LU did not address vehicle roll-away. The brake-transmission shift interlock
(BTSI) is a basic safety feature for automatic transmission vehicles. It requires the driver to step on the brake
pedal before the shift lever can be moved out of the "park" position. BTSI costs little and prevents children from
shifting a vehicle into gear and causing it to roll-away, because children cannot reach the brake pedal. Despite the
importance of this fail-safe device, about 20 per cent of model year (MY) 2006 vehicles do not have BTSI and in
some vehicles with BTSI the brake interlock does not work in all ignition key positions. S. 1948 requires BTSI be
included in the vehicle safety standards for all light vehicles and in all ignition key positions.
Despite widespread use of these lifesaving and cost-effective technologies by the auto industry, the Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers has circulated a document raising questionable objections to S. 1948. The
attached chart lists their concerns and the response of consumer, health, and child safety groups that
support these bills.
I. Backover Safety: Need for a Rearward Visibility Standard - S. 1948 § 2(b)
The Alliance Says . . . The Safety Position Is . . .
"Congress has already addressed the issue of Congress requested NHTSA to conduct 2 studies
backover incidents by requiring [in related to the backover issue and they are
SAFETEA-LU] several studies on the important, but studies alone do not save lives.
magnitude of the problem and the potential That's why more than 50 Republican and
effectiveness of different technologies in Democratic Members of Congress, including
addressing the problem." members who played a key role in enacting
SAFETEA-LU, have sponsored S. 1948 and HR
2230 to direct federal action;
NHTSA has already completed the study of the
technology available that could be used to
solve the backover problem required by
SAFETEA-LU and must present that study to
Congress (Nov. 2006);
The other "study" requires data collection on
backover incidents, in order to get an accurate
picture of the total number of annual incidents.
It is not necessary to delay NHTSA work on a
safety performance standard while the data
collection process is being completed. Safety
groups and the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) have documented that preventable child
deaths and injuries due to backover incidents are
occurring daily with an unacceptable death toll.
"[S]ome of the same consumer groups that are Praising the study provisions intended to gather
advocating S. 1948 strongly praised the data and information and directing NHTSA to
provisions [for studies in SAFETEA-LU]." begin the process of issuing a safety standard to
prevent needless deaths and injuries are not at
odds. Effective technology to save lives is
already available and being sold by the auto
industry so it is unacceptable to delay or defer
action on a safety standard.
Providing drivers with a means of detecting Data from KIDS AND CARS shows that no
the presence of obstacles behind a vehicle driver who has a rear view camera installed
does not mean they will successfully do so." has ever hit a child.
Denying drivers the capability to see into the
"blind zone" guarantees that drivers will not
successfully detect objects and children behind
the vehicle;
· Citing study results that show 33-65% These auto industry-funded studies are based on
of drivers detect surprise obstacles "simulated" not real world driving conditions,
using rear vision system. and the test drivers were given little practice time;
Even so, the result that 2 out of 3 drivers detected
and avoided objects when backing is far better
than 0% which is the case if no performance
standard is adopted.
2
The Alliance Says . . . The Safety Position Is . . .
· Drivers only use rear vision display at Consumer Reports tested vehicles with rear
start of backing maneuver and do not visibility cameras and found that drivers use the
detect objects that appear later. cameras continuously (but also scan around the
vehicle) while backing;
Consumer Reports found that where a child is
in motion and cameras are in continuous use,
none of the drivers failed to see the child.
· Expectancy plays a key role in driver If this statistic is accurate, it means that at
response to any warning. Studies of a least 25% (one quarter) of all current
rear backing warning system to backover incidents where a child, without
support collision avoidance with warning, runs into the vehicle path could be
obstacles that encroach into the prevented a very high success rate;
vehicle path after the start of backing If the Alliance is seriously concerned about the
maneuvers showed that . . . drivers effectiveness of backover prevention systems,
still hit the obstacle in 75% of the manufacturers would not install cameras, even as
cases." options, in some high-end models, promote their
use in expensive advertising campaigns, and
charge consumers higher prices rear view
cameras are an option on many new vehicles;
Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to
develop vehicle radar systems for crash
avoidance as part of the Intelligent Transportation
System and Intelligent Vehicle Initiative. It's time
to put this technology to use to protect children.
"The most effective way to help prevent Checking around the vehicle before driving is
backing non-crash incidents is to urge the only one part of the solution. Since children
driver to check around the vehicle before can quickly move into the path of backing
backing." (Emphasis added). vehicles the driver needs to have either direct
visual or other confirmation that there is no
object or child in the path of the vehicle during
the backing maneuver;
The Alliance's advice directly contradicts their
own claim, supported by safety groups that many
backing incidents result from a "surprise" when
children move into the path of the vehicle after
backing has started and after the driver has
checked around and behind the vehicle;
You cannot avoid hitting what you cannot see.
Many firsthand accounts of backover tragedies
confirm that the drivers did in fact check behind
the vehicle before starting the engine. This
advice alone is simply not sufficient to address
the root cause of the safety problem lack of
driver information about what and who is in the
vehicle "blind zone" when backing up.
3
The Alliance Says . . . The Safety Position Is . . .
"Spot the Tot" national awareness campaign S. 1948 and HR 2230 include funds for education
"provides a few simple tips for adults and programs to increase awareness. However,
kids to make sure the area around the vehicle education is no substitute for providing the driver
is safe before driving away." with a direct view of the area immediately behind
the vehicle;
Also, awareness campaigns are not effective in
changing the behavior of children too young to
understand or retain the message;
There is a need for a federal safety standard
which allows drivers to see directly behind their
vehicle into the area currently hidden by the
"blind zone."
4
II. Power Window Safety: Automatic Reversal to Protect Children - S. 1948 § 2(a)
The Alliance Says . . . The Safety Position Is . . .
The power window standard was recently In 2006 NHTSA required "pull to close"
amended in April 2006 in response to power window switches instead of see-saw
SAFETEA-LU to require that "`a power- or rocker type switches that are pressed
operated window must operate by pulling down to activate window closure. This
away from the surface in the vehicle on change is an important safety advance
which the device is mounted [i.e., `pull-to- but addressed only a portion of the child
close' switches]'." injury problem, accidental closures
caused by children leaning on power
window switches with their feet, knees,
elbows, etc. Pull-to-close switches have
long been required in Europe and Japan;
This rule change did not deal with the
power window injury problem caused
when another person closes a power
window without realizing a child or other
passenger is caught in the window path, or
when a child activates the power window
by pulling on the switch while playing.
There have already been two recent rules The fact that a safety standard was recently
on power window switch safety, the revised to improve safety is not a bar to
SAFETEA-LU required rule replaced and making further necessary improvements,
superceded a weaker version that NHTSA especially for safety standards where
adopted in 2004. delays in making improvements result is
the loss of life;
Congress realized that the earlier 2004
NHTSA rule did not fix the problem
because the agency did not require "pull-to-
close" switches in the earlier rule;
The performance standard for power
windows in S. 1948 deals with a different
type of safety issue that goes beyond that
addressed by "pull to close" switches;
NHTSA has authority to provide auto
manufacturers with sufficient lead- time
and to phase-in rules to ease economic
burdens on the industry.
"Nearly 20% of 2004 model year vehicles This shows that automatic reverse systems
had automatic reversal systems available." are technologically feasible and can be
produced in large numbers and mass
production would lower per vehicle costs.
"Snow, ice, dirt buildup around the Many European-built vehicles have
window opening may cause the window to automatic reverse and in cold climate
unintentionally reverse due to obstruction." countries this has not been a problem;
Cleaning windows, like scraping ice off the
windshield, can resolve such problems.
5
The Alliance Says . . . The Safety Position Is . . .
"NHTSA denied petitions for rulemaking The petition was erroneously denied based
requesting that automatic reversal systems on misinformation:
be mandated for all new vehicles equipped
with power windows[,]" because:
· "The agency still believes that these There is no basis to believe that a
systems still might not meet the performance standard for auto reverse of
requirements of S5 of the rule power windows would not work. Such a
relating to protection of very small standard would most likely be based on the
appendages, such as a child's amount of force or resistance detected by
fingers" the window sensors, not necessarily on the
width of an object such as a child's finger;
· "The cost per vehicle of these The technology is already in use in Europe
systems is significant ($40 to $50 and other countries. Cost estimates from
per vehicle (or $600 to $800 million "real world" use is only $10-$12 a window.
annually)" Mass production as standard equipment
would likely reduce costs even further.
Even these cost figures are low compared
to the cost of nonessential, non-safety
options such as chrome wheels, GPS,
satellite radio and DVD systems.
· "This rule by mandating an In 2004 alone, at least 8 children were
automatic reversal system might reported killed when strangled by a
save one additional life per year, on power window;
average, according to NHTSA" NHTSA estimated that there could be 499
hospitalizations annually (Research Note,
May 1997); small children are often
victims, losing fingers and even limbs;
Especially because unprotected children
predominantly suffer these deaths and
injuries, classic cost/benefit analysis should
be considered in light of the population at
risk from power windows.
"For some customers, automatic closure There is no data to support this claim;
reversal is undesirable from the standpoint
Claims of security concerns are undercut
of security concerns."
by the fact that manufacturers made
automatic reverse systems available on
20% of MY 2004 vehicles;
A criminal act through an open window Carjacking and other crimes of vehicle
can be thwarted with window closure; an occupants occur now despite existing
automatic reversal of the closure prevents power window designs that do not include
the full closing of the window to mitigate automatic window reversal;
the act."
Similar automatic reverse technology now
in widespread use to prevent injuries from
garage door closings have not led to an
increase in crime statistics for burglaries
and home invasions.
6
III. Preventing Vehicle Roll Away: Brake Transmission Shift Interlock - S.1948 § 2(c)
The Alliance Says . . . The Safety Position Is . . .
Auto manufacturers signed a voluntary The voluntary agreement permits
agreement to install BTSI in covered motor millions of new vehicles to be built each
vehicles by September 1, 2010 (MY 2011 year between now and MY 2011 (Sept. 1,
vehicles) 2010) without BTSI;
· The voluntary agreement states that Not all vehicle manufacturers signed the
it is a "Commitment for Continued voluntary agreement and vehicles without
Action by Leading Automakers" BTSI may still be sold after Sept. 1, 2010;
The voluntary agreement only commits
· Under the voluntary agreement auto vehicle manufacturers to provide
manufacturers disclose which information about which of their vehicles
vehicles have BSI have BTSI. Under the terms of the
agreement the manufacturers do not
have to disclose to NHTSA or the public
which vehicle makes and models do not
have BTSI or do not have BTSI that
works in all key positions;
This critical piece of safety information
is denied to consumers who need it to
make an informed decision about which
vehicle to purchase for their families.
The voluntary agreement is only a A voluntary agreement is exactly that
commitment of those auto manufacturers purely voluntary. The agreement is not a
that signed the agreement. legal commitment and is not enforceable
by NHTSA. Any manufacturer can decide
not to fulfill its commitment for any reason
and there is no legal action that can be
taken to prevent it;
NHTSA has no oversight responsibility for
a voluntary agreement to ensure it is
carried out;
Unlike a safety standard, the voluntary
agreement lapses and after the MY 2011
there is no continuing commitment to
install BTSI after that model year.
Under the voluntary agreement, 20% of the MY 2006 vehicles sold in the
manufactures have to comply by 2011. U.S., over 3 million vehicles, do not have
BTSI. Detroit News (Aug. 17, 2006);
Also, the Chevrolet Suburban is equipped
with BTSI but it does not function when
the ignition key is turned to the "accessory"
(acc.) position, and 4 million Suburbans
have been sold in the past 10 years;
By 2011 many more vehicles will be sold
that do not have BTSI in all key positions.
7