Volvo and IIHS See Vision Zero Crash Fatalities & Serious Injuries by 2020 Coming Into View


Volvo and IIHS See Vision Zero Crash Fatalities & Serious Injuries by 2020 Coming Into View

August, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

See the latest article on Vision Zero Progress athttp://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2014/08/death-free-highways-have-become-a-real-possibility/

Now if Congressional leaders would begin setting such a goal for the nation and/or the President would adopt such a goal, our chances of achieving it would be greatly improved.

We need such national leadership at this time to turn tragedy into safety here in the U.S.A.

See https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/MonthlyReport-June-July-2014.pdf

Proverbs teach us “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

We can, and must, adopt such a noble and moral goal.  Yes we can.

Lou

 

Senate Hearings Scheduled for September 16, 2014 on NHTSA Role in GM Recall Coverup


Senate Hearings Scheduled for September 16, 2014 on NHTSA Role in GM Recall Coverup

August, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

See my August 2014 Monthly Report (attached) on this next Hearing.

As we hear about violence in Iraq, think about the crash violence here in America going on now and for more than a century in the U.S.A. – more than 3.6 million Americans have died of crash injuries.
See Crash Death and Serious Injury Clocks at https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/clock.php
As we hear about boots on the ground, think about the NHTSA bureaucrats DUI of the auto industry and going in and out through the NHTSA Revolving Door.
Lou

 

GM Recall Scandal Ignites Nader Call for Legislation and Senate Bill Introduced


GM Recall Scandal Ignites Nader Call for Legislation and Senate Bill Introduced

August, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

See Nader interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZZHeIArIRQ

See informative articles on introduction of Senate Bill athttp://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140801/AUTO01/308010094/1148/rss25#comments

See Bill Summary athttp://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MVHSEASummary.pdf

and http://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/media-center/news-releases/automotive-and-highway-safety-bill-introduced-by-mccaskill

Lou

NHTSA and Hyundai Agree to a Civil Penalty of $17.35 Million


NHTSA and Hyundai Agree to a Civil Penalty of $17.35 Million

August, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:
NHTSA – Hyundai Agreement The attached Agreement was co-authored by NHTSA & Hyundai in private meetings.  As you read it consider the following questions: 
1.  What should the corporate penalty be for withholding from the public information that could result in preventable deaths and disabilities for American people?
2.  Who should decide?
3.  Under what transparency conditions should the decisions be made?
Senate Bill on Penalties
Senate Hearings Ahead
Senator McCaskill’s Committee is holding Hearings soon on NHTSA’s performance and participation in both GM and NHTSA’s failures to protect the public — for nearly a decade in the case of the GM Ignition Switch Recall.
The Times asked for comment:

“Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said that provision may be a result of regulators being “under more scrutiny than ever before,” but that it was a welcome surprise.

“I hope it’s a trend,” she said.”

I agreed and thought the agreement penalty was a slap on the wrist for a corporation of Hyundai’s size.How does one judge the significance of a NHTSA – Hyundai agreement penalty of $17.4 million?

Hyundai – NHTSA Agreement on Value of Fine

The cost of a single 30 second ad for the Super Bowl was $4 million plus a production cost of about $1 million.  Seehttp://admeter.usatoday.com/story/sports/ad-meter/super-bowl/2014/01/20/ad-meter-story-super-bowl-ad-costs/4476441/

Hyundai bought two 30 second ads for this last Super Bowl at a cost approaching $10 million.  Seehttp://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/hyundai-advertise-fox-s-broadcast-super-bowl-xlviii/244008/http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/super-bowl-ad-chart-buying-super-bowl-2014/244024/

Compare that $10 million to NHTSA’s annual budget for the Office of Defects Investigation which also is about $10 million.
Now let’s compare the cost of those two Super Bowl ads to the DOT policy value of just one statistical life — $9.1 million.  See attached DOT Policy Guidance on Value of Life (a morally reprehensible but required bureaucratic policy exercise of placing a dollar value on life).  
Why Did NHTSA Agree?
Appearances often are important in Washington especially when an agency and a company are facing negative scrutiny for known failures to protect people in favor of profits.  As a regulator, if NHTSA has been shown to be a weak regulator, it must at least appear tough before the Hearings.  
And if you can make GM look like it is not as bad as others, too, that’s a smart political opportunity.   As shown in NHTSA – Hyundai Agreement “Nature of Action” items 5, 6, and 8 both GM and Hyundai were notified by their supplier of a brake fluid corrosion problem in 2012.  GM, in November 2012, issued a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) to its dealers in the U.S. and informed its customers.  Hyundai, in March 2013, issued a TSB to its dealers but not to its customers.
The Agreement states:
“WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of NHTSA and Hyundai to resolve the TQ14-002 without the need for further action, to avoid the legal expenses and other costs of a protracted dispute and potential litigation:…”  Hyundai and NHTSA agree to the terms of the Consent Order (See attached).
Note: To my knowledge, neither crash victims past, present, and future nor consumer advocates were participants in these private meetings between NHTSA and Hyundai.  Nor does the Agreement address the tax deductibility of the civil penalties or legal and other expenses of Hyundai.  So taxpayers may be paying for this in more ways than one.
Hopefully, the Hearings will address these issues on behalf of the public interest as consumers, taxpayers, insurance premium payers, and motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.  
The NHTSA – Hyundai Agreement came out as the nation was noting the 40th Anniversary of the resignation of President Nixon for criminal activities, abuses of power, coverups, and obstruction of justice.  One can read transcripts of the Watergate Tapes with discussions of Nixon with CEOs of Ford and GM (Henry Ford II, Lee Iacocca, John Roche) discussing weakening auto safety and air pollution regulations.  See https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/Nixon-Transcriptions.pdf
Presidents Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton and Obama, as well as VP Biden, and candidate Romney have failed the American people.  More than two million Americans have died of crash injuries since Nixon took office.  Seehttp://www.fairwarning.org/2012/09/a-strange-indifference-to-highway-carnage/
So is the NHTSA – Hyundai Agreement more evidence of covering up the corporate control of NHTSA?
Lou

 

A Step Toward A Safer America – Texting to 911- Safer America, Care for Crash Victims, Crash Statistics, USA Crash Deaths Statistics, USA Crash Research


A Step Toward A Safer America – Texting to 911

August, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

Please see new FCC Action on Texting to 911.http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-rules-promote-widespread-text-911-availability

Lou

 

U.S. News Article on GM Recall and Nader’s Warnings


U.S. News Article on GM Recall and Nader’s Warnings

August, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

To recognize Nader’s warnings, it takes a scandal involving tragedies….

See http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2014/04/02/gms-recall-debacle-shows-ralph-naders-auto-warnings-still-ring-true

And we still don’t know how much GM and NHTSA knew using OnStar data.  

“OnStar handles about 10,000 emergency service requests a month, GM says. The figure that could go down as drivers have a greater understanding about what is (and isn’t) going on with their car….

A company spokesperson declined to comment on how the system’s data could have informed GM about faulty parts.”

See  http://fortune.com/2014/08/06/gm-car-safety-mary-chan/

Over the decade of this scandal, a GM report, published by NHTSA, in 2007 suggests there may have been about 3,500 airbag non-deployment frontal crashes.

Has NHTSA requested all such airbag non- deployment frontal crash OnStar data be made available to the public?
Lou

 

What Did GM and NHTSA Know Using OnStar Data for Safety Recalls?


What Did GM and NHTSA Know Using OnStar Data for Safety Recalls?

July, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:
As I wrote in my Monthly Report of May, 2014, the GM Crash Death Problems are Bigger Than We Know.   We have about “30 Americans dying of crash injuries each day involving GM vehicles.”   That report went on to note how much GM and NHTSA knew, when, and could and should have known.  And that what GM and NHTSA know and the public does not yet know — can kill us.

Today an excellent article in the NY Times sheds light on the important questions of what and when did GM and NHTSA know (and could and should have known) about defective vehicles using OnStar data?

“As General Motors overhauls its approach to safety, one powerful tool may be a technology that dates back two decades — the OnStar in-car assistance system.

Yet in the automaker’s recent flurry of recalls, with new safety problems announced in millions of cars, the automaker says none were prompted by analysis of the voluminous OnStar data it collects. And the company declined to discuss how it is using OnStar to investigate safety problems, citing competitive reasons. It would say only that OnStar is being used to notify owners of G.M. vehicles about the recent recalls, which now have reached about 29 million for the year….

At the heart of the OnStar system is a link to the vehicle’s computerized brain, which collects more than 1,000 separate measurements on virtually every aspect of the vehicle’s health. What are the fluid levels? How is the engine running? Are the air bags functioning? Did they just deploy?

Subscribers who receive OnStar’s monthly diagnostic emails see a few dozen of those measurements. G.M. itself gets them all. The company can analyze that data, looking across thousands or even millions of vehicles in search of safety problems. But G.M. remains tight-lipped about how it uses OnStar data.

“OnStar, like many other parts of G.M., will be leveraged, where applicable, as part of the larger company efforts to improve the overall quality, safety and total ownership experience related to its vehicles,” a G.M. spokeswoman, Kelly Cusinato, said in a statement.

Jack R. Nerad, senior analyst at the auto research firm Kelley Blue Book, said that some at G.M. might be worried that if OnStar data analysis became a significant way to spot safety problems, the company could face pressure to share its methods and even its technology.

“You could have people start asking, why shouldn’t everyone benefit from this?” he said….

G.M. would not comment, for instance, on how OnStar data could be used to track moving stalls — which after years of being labeled a matter of “convenience” are now considered a safety problem.

But a former OnStar employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that while the system might not capture data on the ignition switches specifically at issue in numerous recent recalls, other data points could, in theory, act as proxies for detecting stalls….

“If you look for the engine being off, while at the same time the car shift is in drive, then that’s one way,” he said….

While much automotive research is done in a lab, at a proving ground or with company-owned vehicles, OnStar allowed G.M. researchers to analyze how tens of thousands of real-world vehicles performed over time.

“This approach represents a new, useful approach to assessing field crash rates, potentially providing better estimates of field effectiveness than has been possible through current approaches,” the 2011 study concluded….

“We’re all a little in the dark,” said James S. Rogers, a lawyer based in Seattle who is representing clients in cases related to the G.M. ignition switch recalls. He said that consumers should be told specifically if G.M. uses their data to root out safety problems, and if so, how.

Mr. Toprak, the Cars.com analyst, said G.M. might be keeping silent about OnStar’s role in its current safety efforts to avoid public pressure.

“It might open up the discussion that G.M. knows everything, that they’re capturing all of this data, but they’re not doing anything about it,” he said.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/business/gm-data-has-potential-as-safety-tool.html?&hpw&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Note:  Who owns OnStar data?  Who has rights to OnStar data?