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?

 

A Large Insurer Warns of Recall Limitations


A Large Insurer Warns of Recall Limitations

July, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

A large insurer looks at the problems of crash victims in recalls — from the viewpoint of money — not safety.

“Even when a serious car recall impacts your vehicle, there’s a 70% chance you won’t hear about it. In general, the auto manufacturers make a good effort to reach all owners of these vehicles. But sometimes a good effort just isn’t enough. People who moved, changed their phone number or simply bought their car from someone other than a major dealership may not be reachable during an active car recall. For these reasons, manufacturers typically only reach about 30% of car owners affected by a car recall.

This translates into a high risk for accidents—and it’s not just the drivers of recalled cars that are at risk. Other drivers on the road could be victims of an accident involving a car that has been recalled. As a driver of a car that has an active recall, it’s important to be properly insured to make sure that you are covered and have both collision coverage and liability coverage.”

The message:  What you don’t know may cost you money.  Buy insurance it may save you money.  

Source:  http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/07/prweb12007868.htm

“ABOUT COMPARENOW.COM Comparenow.com is a limited liability corporation headquartered in Richmond, VA. Majority owned by the Admiral Group plc, the UK’s second largest auto insurer and a member of the FTSE 100,comparenow.com offers car insurance comparison services for US consumers.”

But what about your life and the lives of others?

Imagine the world as it was when insurers and consumer groups worked together in the 1980’s to get airbags into cars.  

Imagine the America of 30 years and more than 1 million crash victims’ lives ago.  At that time, insurers and consumer groups joined forces to overturn the Reagan Administration’s NHTSA rescission of the airbag rule.  At the time when America had a Supreme court that voted 9 to 0 to find the Reagan rescission wrong and wrote that the auto industry had ”waged the regulatory equivalent of war against air bags for a decade.’

See http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/29/business/the-air-bag-goes-to-court.html

Besides the loss of 1 million American lives to crash injuries and about 4 million serious crash injuries since then — What has happened in the industry’s continued war against auto safety?  And against America?

Lou

 

GM Recall: More Defective Switches – No More Victims “Eligible” for Some Compensation


GM Recall: More Defective Switches – No More Victims “Eligible” for Some Compensation

July, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

GM Switch problem in 7.6 million more recalled vehicles.  One difference from the previous recall is that in addition to putting more Americans at risk both in GM vehicles and all other motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, is that these crash victims will not be “eligible” for the GM compensation fund.““The compensation fund should be open clearly and readily to anyone who suffered death or injury as a result of these similar defects which were concealed in the same reprehensible way,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said in an interview Friday.”

See excellent article in NY Times athttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/business/gm-resists-expanding-victims-fund.html?hpw&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

See GM Letter to NHTSA at

The GM policies of “money is more important than people” continue in the stone walling of crash victims at the new GM.  
And so too do the needs of crash victims for compensation, safety, and justice continue in the U.S.A. — every day.
As I wrote in my May Monthly Report “What the public does not yet know can kill us”.   See “NHTSA & GM Crash Death Problems – Bigger Than We Know” athttps://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/MonthlyReport-May2014.pdf
Lou

 

Nader Offers Remedies for GM Ignition Switch Scandal


Nader Offers Remedies for GM Ignition Switch Scandal

July, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:  

Nader has the longest and most successful record of making safety recommendations that have saved more Americans from death and serious injuries than any other American I know.  Hundreds of thousands American families have been spared grief of becoming another statistic in NHTSA databases.  

In 2004, NHTSA published a report that found 

“Vehicle safety technologies saved an estimated 328,551 lives from 1960 through 2002.”  See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809833.pdf
Most of these lives saved came after Nader published Unsafe At Any Speed in 1965.

Many thousands more lives have been saved since 2002.  Just frontal airbags alone are credited by NHTSA of saving more than 25,000 lives since 2002 — and continue to save more than 2,000 lives each year.  That is more than 5 American lives saved each day just by frontal airbags.  See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811892.pdf

Ralph Nader deserves our gratitude for his service to America.  We can learn from his recommendations and apply them to save more lives in the future.
Lou

 

NHTSA Shrugs for 3 Decades


NHTSA Shrugs for 3 Decades

July, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

Here’s a little hope offered by NHTSA — 30 years after its corporate captivity accelerated under Ronald Reagan.

“One Ms. Marianne Karth of the Truck Safety Coalition and 11,000 signatories have succeeded where the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety – with all its fancy-pants testing – and the Canadians – with their much tougher standard – had failed, persuading the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to initiate a rulemaking to upgrade the rear underride standard.

Earlier this month, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it would issue two separate notices – an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on rear impact

guards and other safety strategies for single-unit trucks, and an NPRM on rear impact guards on trailers and semitrailers. Apparently, it was a May 5 meeting between the Coalition and Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx that turned the tide. The advocacy group presented their signatures and made the case that amendments to FMVSS No. 223, Rear Impact Guards, and FMVSS No. 224, Rear Impact Protection were long overdue.”

See SRS report at http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/nhtsa-finally-tackles-rear-underride

Bear in mind that an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) has little legal significance more than a Press Release.  And an NPRM has often either gone nowhere or was later watered down to be largely ineffective.

Still, President Obama did promise Americans hope when he ran for election in 2008 — more than 150,000 crash deaths ago — more than the number of Americans who died in the Afghanistan, Iraq, Viet Nam, and Korean wars combined.   On his watch Americans continue to die of crash injuries at a rate of nearly 100 per day and suffer serious injuries at a rate of nearly 400 per day.
So forgive me for thinking that President Obama is still not doing enough to protect Americans from becoming crash victims.

Lou

 

GM and NHTSA “Missed” Red Flags on Rental Car Crashes


GM and NHTSA “Missed” Red Flags on Rental Car Crashes

July, 2014

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

An excellent Bloomberg News article using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) uncovers more evidence of failures to protect Americans by GM and NHTSA.“More than seven years before General Motors began the biggest wave of auto recalls in history, an investigator for Vanguard Car Rental USA contacted the carmaker about a fatal rollover crash in California.

A driver in a new Chevrolet Cobalt rented from Vanguard’s Alamo unit lost control on a warm, dry and clear day in September 2006. Traffic had been light, according to the police report. The sedan drifted across lanes, got caught in a gravel median and rolled over. The seat belt was buckled. The air bag didn’t deploy. The driver was killed.

A Vanguard claims adjuster wrote to GM and said even though the cause of the crash wasn’t immediately known, “due to the serious nature of this accident we feel that it is imperative that you open a claim and inspect this vehicle for possible defects,” according to a review of documents obtained by Bloomberg News after a Freedom of Information Act request….”

“The files obtained are among scores exchanged between GM and the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over an eight-year period beginning in 2005 related to cars stalling and air bags not deploying in crashes. In the files GM submitted, there were 30 crashes involving 37 fatalities in the Cobalt and the Saturn Ion. The victims’ names were redacted.

The documents add to the evidence that GM for at least a decade failed to promptly resolve a wave of complaints from rental-car companies, consumers, automotive reviewers and even its own dealers and mechanics about abnormal crashes that have since been linked to a faulty ignition switch.

The files show many missed opportunities to ask questions and connect disparate events — the very type of evidence that is supposed to be routed to and vetted by the government’s Early Warning Reporting system for potential automotive defects….”

GM ordered recalls early this year for the Cobalt, Ion and four other U.S. models. The automaker has since said that those cars — about 2.6 million of them — may have had faulty ignition switches that when bumped could shut off engines while driving and disable air bags.

By the end of June, the number of cars in North America that GM had called back for repairs related to the ignitions had passed 16 million, more than the 9.71 million vehicles the Detroit-based company sold worldwide in 2013.

The role of rental cars in the GM ignition-switch controversy hasn’t been fully examined. Rental cars tend to be driven a lot of miles. They’re used by different drivers all the time, many of whom are unfamiliar with the vehicle. That can be the difference in surviving and perishing in an emergency situation, said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Washington-based research group Center for Auto Safety.

“The Cobalt was a popular, cheap model for rental-car companies,” Ditlow said. “This highlights why they should be vigilant about handling recalls….”

“NHTSA also has been under scrutiny for missing signs of the broader ignition-switch failures and passing on opening a formal defect investigation in 2007 and again in 2010. The U.S. Transportation Department’s inspector general, Calvin Scovel, is reviewing the agency’s actions. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said he asked for the review after questions raised by members of Congress, the public and the media.”

Source: http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/rental-car-companies-pushed-gm-on-fatal-crashes-before-recall/article_97419d4e-be5b-5dce-a619-4a6a6e6ef119.html

Missing from the picture, so far, are the GM and industry related people in positions of power in and over NHTSA since 2001.  Imagine criminal investigators ignoring people who had the means, motives, and opportunities to contribute to the failures of NHTSA and GM to protect American lives for a decade.  A partial list of people in positions of influence is at https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/CFCV-MonthlyReport-March2014-2%20.pdf

With more excellent digging and reporting, hopefully the nation will get closer to the underlying reasons NHTSA has been “driving under the influence” for so long.

Lou