Is Volkswagen Scandal The Beginning Of A Healthier And Safer World

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

Automotive News and Bloomberg reports on the VW scandal indicate that this scandal may be early steps toward a safer and healthier world.  The contributions of auto emissions to early deaths are becoming clearer (53,000 each year in the U.S.A). And the atmospheric damage of automotive emissions to the planet endangering us all is also becoming clearer.Now more people are finally and forcefully acting.

Money

First, Automotive News carried the following Bloomberg (and Reuters) report:

“BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest money manager, is joining a growing list of investors and governments lining up to sue Volkswagen AG almost a year after the German carmaker admitted to duping emissions tests for as many as 11 million diesel cars.

“On behalf of their investors, a number of BlackRock-managed collective investment schemes are pursuing, alongside other institutional investors, legal action against Volkswagen,” BlackRock said Thursday in an e-mailed statement.”

See  http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20160916/COPY01/309169962/vw-being-sued-by-blackrock-as-more-investors-governments-take-legal

Second, Automotive news carried an excellent article on impacts so far on Volkswagen.

SEATTLE — These days, Volkswagen executives talk more about winning back trust than market share.

It has been that way ever since the diesel emissions scandal cast the brand known for happy hippie-mobiles into a basket of deplorables, alongside Enron, Lance Armstrong and Bernie Madoff.

See http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20160918/OEM/309199964

But this is just the beginning. 

Health of Our Citizens and Our Planet

I believe we will find that on road emissions of all vehicles (not just diesels) is much higher than Federal emission tests indicate.

And citizens are now organizing to create a safer and healthier world.  See https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/blog/blog-50yearsofairpollutionbyvehicles53000earlydeathsperyearinusatoday/

One result of existential threats is action – hopefully in time.

Hope is growing.

Lou Lombardo

____________________Lou Lombardowww.CareForCrashVictims.com

GM Recall Survivors Working to Save Future Lives

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

Laura Christian, mother of a daughter killed in a defective GM vehicle, has launched a Detroit Billboard initiative memorializing the 174 dead – counted so far.

One aim is to organize crash victims into a force for safety.

The Press Release and the Billboard design are attached.

Lou

Fwd Submission to DOT of the Comprehensive Underride Consensus Petition with Letter of Support

Fwd: Submission to DOT of the Comprehensive Underride Consensus Petition with Letter of Support

September, 2016

Dear Care for Crash Victims community Members:

Marianne Karth has organized a Petition to DOT Officials on a Comprehensive Consensus for action on protecting people from violent injuries from Truck Underride.

After decades of tragedies not prevented by DOT, DOT should finally act to protect people rather than profits.

Lou Lombardo

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Marianne Karth <mariannekarth@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:45 PM
Subject: Submission to DOT of the Comprehensive Underride Consensus Petition with Letter of Support
To: Anthony.Foxx@dot.gov, mark.rosekind@dot.gov, Scott.Darling@dot.gov
Cc: “Shelton, Terry (NHTSA)” <terry.shelton@dot.gov>, “Summers, Lori (NHTSA)” <Lori.Summers@dot.gov>, “Kuppa, Shashi (NHTSA)” <Shashi.Kuppa@dot.gov>, “Posten, Ryan (NHTSA)” <ryan.posten@dot.gov>, bryna helfer <bryna.helfer@dot.gov>, “Stephen Batzer, PhD, PE” <batzer@batzerengineering.com>, Byron Bloch <byron@autosafetyexpert.com>, Jared Bryson <jbryson@vtti.vt.edu>, Roy Crawford <roycrawford17@icloud.com>, Bruce Enz <bruceenz@gmail.com>, Jeannette Holman-Price <thejessicacampaign@gmail.com>, Isaac Karth <isaackarth@gmail.com>, Jerry Karth <jkarth1@yahoo.com>, Aaron Kiefer <AKiefer@accident-research.com>, “Louis V. Lombardo” <louis.v.lombardo@gmail.com>, Perry Ponder <sevenhillsengineering@gmail.com>, George Rechnitzer <georger@netspace.net.au>, Andrew Young <ayoung@nphm.com>, john.vansteenburg@dot.gov

Secretary Anthony Foxx, Administrator Mark Rosekind, Administrator Scott Darling
Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E.
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Secretary Foxx, Administrator Rosekind, and Administrator Darling:
On May 5, 2016, almost 100 people participated in an Underride Roundtable hosted by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety at their Vehicle Research Center in Ruckersville, Virginia, with cosponsors Truck Safety Coalition and AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety. Participants included
researchers, safety advocacy groups, the trucking industry, truck trailer manufactures and government
officials, including members of NHTSA staff.
Discussions during the meeting ranged from descriptions of the nature and magnitude of the underride problem to potential solutions including better conspicuity, new rear underride guard designs and the potential for side guards to prevent runovers of pedestrians and cyclists in urban environments, as well as prevention of side underride by passenger vehicles. Information shared during our meeting clearly illustrated the need to do more to address underride crashes as well as the possibility of doing so.
In light of the tragic and unnecessary countless loss of lives which delays in underride prevention have already cost, as well as the continued tragic and preventable loss of life sure to occur if decisive action is not taken now, we are hereby petitioning the DOT to take the following steps to mandate comprehensive underride protection:
1. NHTSA should immediately craft a final rule for rear underride guards on semi-trailers which will prevent underride and compartment intrusion when struck by a typical passenger vehicle (1500 kg/3307 lbs) and a typical SUV (2000 kg/4409 lbs) at initially at least 35 mph — 30% offset and center impacts.
1. NHTSA should immediately issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for rear underride guards of Single Unit Trucks (SUTs), with the intent of aligning SUT and semi-trailer requirements.
2. NHTSA should immediately issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for semi-trailer and SUT side underride protection.
3. NHTSA should immediately issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for heavy truck front underrun protection.
4. In order to ensure that underride equipment is strong enough to allow the inherent crashworthiness of modern passenger vehicles to be realized, as well as to significantly increase the survivable impact speeds through the energy absorption capability of the underride equipment itself, NHTSA should immediately issue a RFP to investigate, develop, and test such technology and update the standards accordingly.
5. NHTSA should thereafter conduct a periodic review of underride standards every five years in order to assess the need for changes in conjunction with advancements in technology and update the standards accordingly. This would include issuing additional RFPs to conduct research as needed.
6. FMCSA should take the necessary steps to enforce the requirement of proper maintenance of underride guards through annual safety inspection.
This petition has been carefully crafted with contributions from many concerned citizens and experts in this issue. The signatures below represent the support already gained for this petition. We will continue to gather signatures from others in the field, as well as launching an online petition to garner widespread support for the advancement of underride protection.
Please read all of the attached documents which accompany this petition letter.
With gratitude for the efforts of your Department and entreaties for you to go further,
Stephen A. Batzer
Batzer Engineering, Inc.
Byron Bloch
Institute for Car Crash Justice
Jared Bryson
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
Roy Crawford
R R Crawford Engineering, Inc.
Bruce Enz
Injury & Crash Analysis, LLC
Jeannette Holman-Price
The Jessica Campaign
Isaac Karth
AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety
Jerry Karth
AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety
Marianne Karth
AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety
Aaron Kiefer
Accident Research Specialists
Lou Lombardo
Care for Crash Victims
Perry Ponder
Seven Hills Engineering
George Rechnitzer
George Rechnitzer & Associates Pty Ltd,
Andrew Young
Nuremberg, Paris, Heller & McCarthy

Attachments

 

Fwd Advocates Statement on DOT Release of AV Policy

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

Joan Claybrook and Advocates have issued the following Press Releases on Public Safety, NHTSA, and Automated Vehicles.

For Immediate Release: September 20, 2016

Contact: Joan Claybrook, 202-422-6731

Statement of Joan Claybrook, former Administrator of NHTSA, on DOT AV Policy Release

 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) must use its federal regulatory authority to assure the American public of the safety of autonomous cars. Safety performance standards encourage competition among automotive companies because they help to assure a market for the real innovators and suppliers. The manufacturers always complain about new federal protections, but autonomous cars are a whole new technology with great promise but also with the potential for serious public harm.

We are pleased that DOT is planning to address these issues and seeking public comment for this new system of transportation but it must not shy away from assuring public safety with minimum federal vehicle safety standards. It should not rely instead on mere guidance, including for the initial elements of automatic vehicle operation such as Automatic Emergency Brakes (AEB) that currently is only guided with a useless industry voluntary standard (it was the key element that failed in the Tesla fatal crashes.)

###

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                   

September 20, 2016

Contact: Allison Kennedy, 202-408-1711

akennedy@saferoads.org

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE GILLAN,

PRESIDENT OF ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY,

ON U.S. DOT RELEASE OF FEDERAL AUTOMATED VEHICLES POLICY

 

The U.S. DOT proactive approach to the safe deployment of automated vehicles is a welcomed development.

Yet, policy and legal gaps could result in consumers becoming

“human crash test dummies” in the rush to market.

 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is pleased to see the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) taking a proactive approach to safety by releasing guidelines for the development of autonomous vehicles (AVs).  The advent of driverless cars holds great promise to advance safety.  However, federal oversight, minimum performance requirements, rigorous testing as well as transparent and verified data are essential in the development process.  Consumers cannot be “human guinea pigs” in this experiment and the federal government cannot be a passive spectator. 

The guidance about future plans released today by the federal government must be considered a first step in the process of ensuring that AVs are safe for the public. While we welcome innovation and the life-saving potential of AVs, we are concerned about life-threatening dangers in a rush to market.  The improvements promised by AVs needs to be framed and encouraged by federal safety standards which DOT has the authority to issue today.  The DOT must ensure that the American public is not used to “beta test” these new technologies. Beta testing, to eliminate program flaws, can be used for computer simulations but not for real world situations impacting life and death.

This announcement should not be seen as an alternative to comprehensive safety standards, thorough oversight and strong enforcement. The promising benefits of AVs are great, but the potential problems are too serious and the public safety risks are too momentous to be left to industry alone. Recent incidents involving the recall of tens of millions of vehicles and needless deaths and injuries due to faulty General Motors’ ignition switches, dangerous Takata airbags and cheating emissions systems in Volkswagen vehicles highlight how the industry easily conceals problems from both the public and the government.  That must also change. Now is the time for Congress to give the DOT and its agencies additional legal authority and enforcement tools that other safety agencies already have.  These include imminent hazard authority to quickly pull dangerous vehicles off the roads, criminal penalties for corporate malfeasance, and pre-market approval of new technologies to ensure public safety.

Advocates strongly urges the DOT to establish and enforce functional safety standards, before consumers even open the car door to AVs.  This is the same approach the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses to review and approve new technologies in the aviation industry.  It has served the public well, has guaranteed safety and has not hampered the introduction and deployment of new safety technologies.

The DOT has the responsibility to ensure that motor vehicles do not pose an unreasonable safety risk to the public.  The potential safety benefits that AV systems may provide will only come once they are able to operate safely and without fail under all operating conditions and at all times.  During this transition between old and new, which may take many years, federal agency oversight and involvement are essential to ensuring that public safety doesn’t take a back seat to private enterprise.

###

Climate Change Leadership From California Officials

Climate Change Leadership From California Officials

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

A NY Times article reports on leadership that set climate change goals.

“LOS ANGELES — California will extend its landmark climate change legislation to 2030, a move that climate specialists say solidifies the state’s role as a leader in the effort to curb heat-trapping emissions.

Lawmakers have passed, and Gov. Jerry Brown has promised to sign, bills requiring the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels.”

See  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/us/californias-emissions-goal-is-a-milestone-on-climate-efforts.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine

This story is relevant because it addresses one of the forms of vehicle violence: air pollution emissions.  The story shows that people can get worthy goals set despite corporate opposition.

Long Fight For Clean Air

A story I recall took place California while I was working on the Clean Air Act. In 1969 students from MIT challenged students from CalTech to a Clean Air Car Race during the summer of 1970.  Engineering students from about 40 schools joined in.  My job in the summer of 1970 was to monitor the emission measurements in Boston, then at the Government lab in Ann Arbor MI, and finally at CalTech.   The goal was to see if students could build a car that could meet stringent standards being considered by Sen. Muskie.   At the time President Nixon was afraid that he might have to run against Sen. Muskie in 1972.  So the President tried to preempt Muskie by proposing stringent standards to be met by 1980.  Muskie and the Congress proposed moving up the 1980 standards to 1975 in the Clean Air Act.

The final afternoon of measurements was a high air pollution day in LA.  Someone came over to me and told me were experiencing record smog levels.  I was dubious and asked how he could say that.  He said that in the adjacent parking lot the County had a trailer measuring air pollution levels.  At a break, I decided to go over and see it.  So I jogged across the lot up three steps and could feel a burning in my lungs.  I went into the trailer and there were a few people watching the measurement charts going up and up.  I remarked: Wow that really is a high level.  Just then a man in a three piece suit next to me scowled at me:  “Smog doesn’t bother me one bit!”  I felt the hair on my neck stand up and returned to my tasks.

In the 1970 race a team from Wayne State University put together a Ford Capri with two catalysts.  The vehicle demonstrated the feasibility of meeting the 1975 standards Sen Muskie was proposing in 1970 and we did not have to wait until 1980 as Nixon was proposing. My job was to present the results to a National Academy of Sciences panel of Judges the following morning meeting them at a picnic table.  I knew by face who the Chairman was but not the other judges.  Five of six judges were there.  I showed the results to the Chairman and the other Judges who were present.  All were impressed. Then the Chairman started calling out to someone:  Harry!  Harry!  Over here.  Harry came over and sat down and the Chair told him the results.  Harry tried to get up but the Chairman said Harry, what do you think?  Harry tried to get up again.   And the Chairman put his arm around him and said again “Harry Isn’t this amazing?  What do you think?  Harry did not want to answer and desperately wanted to leave. Who was Harry?  Harry was the man that scowled at me the previous day. He was Harry Barr, VP of Engineering of GM.  See image attached.

Fortunately, I had previously met Sen. Muskie’s aide.  So I called him later and told him what had happened.  The test results were put into the Congressional Record.  The Muskie standards were enacted.

Seehttps://www.careforcrashvictims.com/1970-PolutionControlEfforts.phphttps://www.technologyreview.com/s/517961/a-clean-race/http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/293/1/car.pdfhttps://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/20008FX9.PDF

But the auto industry ultimately won by going to Nixon and getting the test methods changed.  I blew the whistle, was fired from EPA a year later, and sued the National Academy of Sciences for access to documents showing that the test procedures were being rigged.  Subsequently, years later, after the Nixon Tapes were released, the information I had been seeking from the NAS became public. The Nixon tapes revealed conversations in the White House with Henry Ford II in 1971 that the emission tests were being rigged (I was right).  The EPA, the Courts, and the NAS were wrong.    The American people were forced to breathe air with higher pollution levels for decades. See https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/blog/blog-cheatcircle/

The fight for Clean Air continues as does the harm to people breathing polluted air and suffering from climate change effects.

Lou Lombardo

CDC Violent Death Surveillance System Under counts Vehicle Violence by Thousands

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

CDC Report:

Please see CDC’s MMWR Report on Violent Deaths that under-counts vehicle deaths by thousands.

“Surveillance for Violent Deaths — National Violent Death Reporting System, 17 States, 2013”

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/ss6510a1.htm?s_cid=ss6510a1_e#T1_down

CDC Response:
When I asked CDC for an explanation, I received the following response:
“Thank you for your question. Here’s information from Dr. Lyons:The reason that motor vehicle deaths look smaller than what you might expect is that in the NVDRS we look at motor vehicle deaths that are specifically associated with violent deaths. The system uses the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of a violent death: “a death resulting from the intentional use of physical force or power against oneself, another person, or against a group or community”. Therefore, motor vehicle deaths as a whole are not collected in NVDRS, only those related to suicides, homicides, deaths from legal intervention (a subtype of homicide where the victim is killed by law enforcement acting in the line of duty), deaths of undetermined intent, and unintentional firearm fatalities.” 
Evaluation of CDC Response:
I then asked Ben Kelley, a long time leader in Public Health and Safety, for his views on the CDC response.
Mr. Kelley offered Dr. William Haddon’s landmark paper published in the Journal of Public Health (copy attached) and the following:

“Violence involves an energy exchange in which the human body is damaged by experiencing an energy onset at intolerable (harmful) levels. A look at Haddon’s “Escape of Tigers” (attached), which is a fundamental guide to public health thinking about injury, makes it clear that there is no distinction, from a public health standpoint, between “intended” and “unintended” violence. Nor is such a distinction useful. Assigning motives or lack of motive to such harm is a very slippery slope. Did the manufacturer of the injurious product “intend” or “want” to hurt someone? Did the errant driver? These are not useful exercises for creating a taxonomy of violence and its injurious consequences. Lenard’s description tells the story: 
“Therefore, motor vehicle deaths as a whole are not collected in NVDRS, only those related to suicides, homicides, deaths from legal intervention (a subtype of homicide where the victim is killed by law enforcement acting in the line of duty), deaths of undetermined intent, and unintentional firearm fatalities.” 

If motor vehicle crash death is not included, why are “unintentional firearm fatalities” and “deaths of undetermined intent”? It’s a nonsensical mishmash, skewed to favor powerful interests, intentionally or not. Violence and the harm it causes is a single “set” and should be treated as such.”

I forwarded Mr. Kelley’s thoughts to CDC and added that I continued to be concerned on behalf of crash victims (past, present, and future) that the CDC continues to minimize deaths and serious injuries from vehicle violence.  I wrote:
“How should American taxpayers view this CDC work that: 1.  relies on a WHO (paid in part by U.S. taxpayers) definition of violent death not an American definition?
2.  creates a data system NVDRS that excludes the daily American tragedies of about 100 deaths, 400 serious injuries, losses estimated at $2 Billion due to vehicle violence here in the U.S.A. today?
3.  continues the CDC travesty of minimizing vehicle violence notoriously exemplified by the CDC removal of “Rollover and Extrication” (one of the most violent vehicle crash modes) from the triage guidelines after CDC acceptance of $250,000 from GM.  Seehttps://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/CFCV-MonthlyReport-March2014-2%20.pdf   See also http://www.cdcfoundation.org/what/partners  andhttp://www.cdcfoundation.org/
All this feeds into the growing narrative of government policies being politically rigged.  See https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/cdc-gun-violence-research-dickey-amendment/

Following Some of The CDC Money:

The work of CDC is often funded by corporate dollars – including GM – through the CDC Foundation.  See the long list of corporate partners at http://www.cdcfoundation.org/what/partners#category-299
And the work of CDC today also is often funded by Foundations that in an age of Pay to Play also have to be considered.  See long list of CDC Foundation Partners athttp://www.cdcfoundation.org/what/partners#category-363
And then there are the CDC Foundation’s Organization Partners.  See http://www.cdcfoundation.org/what/partners#category-365
As the U.S.A. today is historically approaching its 4 millionth death due to vehicle violence, what would the families who have suffered losses think of CDC today?
Lou Lombardo

Billion Dollar Rico Suit Against State Farm Insurance

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

Excellent article on decision in class action involving money and corruption allegations reveals problems in the justice system.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys alleging that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. bought off an Illinois Supreme Court justice to evade a $1.05 billion award have cleared a major hurdle in their long-running litigation against the insurer.

In an order Friday, U.S. District Judge David Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois granted a motion certifying a class of roughly 4.7 million auto insurance policyholders who were allegedly deprived of their 1999 trial court victory against State Farm.

Herndon found that the alleged fixing of the state Supreme Court decision affected all the proposed class members uniformly, and that the named plaintiffs and their attorneys otherwise satisfied court rules around class actions.

“[T]he injury in this case is based on the interest the plaintiffs and the proposed class members had in a neutral forum and the damages correspond with the undivided interest in the judgment each lost as a result of the tainted tribunal,” the judge wrote. “This issue is identical for all plaintiffs and class members.”

The suit alleges violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and could put State Farm on the hook for more than $7.6 billion because of interest that has accrued on the original jury award, according to plaintiffs lawyers….

According to the complaint, filed in 2012, the state high court’s decision reversing the judgement was unfairly influenced by Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who State Farm and its agents worked to elect during a campaign in 2003 and 2004. Karmeier’s campaign received at least $4 million from the insurer and individuals connected to it, plaintiffs allege.

Illinois’ Supreme Court has seven justices, and the decision at issue was not authored by Karmeier. It won the support of four justices, with two issuing a dissent that still concurred on key holdings, and another abstaining. The court reversed the award against State Farm on the grounds that certification of a nationwide class of policyholders was improper, among other things.

On Monday, Karmeier was named Illinois chief justice, after being unanimously elected to that post by his fellow state supreme court justices, the court said in a press release.” 

See  http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202767758973/State-Farm-Must-Face-7B-RICO-Class-Action-Judge-Rules?mcode=1202617074964&curindex=1&slreturn=20160820072629

____________________Lou Lombardowww.CareForCrashVictims.com