Category: Blog

NY Times Editorial Calls Out Against Bipartisan Effort To Undermine Regulations


NY Times Editorial Calls Out Against Bipartisan Effort To Undermine Regulations

January, 2016

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

The NY Times Editorial Board wrote:Under the legislation, however, Congress would actively interfere in the rule-making process. One provision would require that the Congressional Budget Office review and approve the costs and benefits of proposed rules….The Democrats behind the effort are Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Warner of Virginia and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, joined by Angus King Jr., an independent from Maine. The Republicans are Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rob Portman of Ohio, James Lankford of Oklahoma and Roy Blunt of Missouri. The group is trying to recruit more co-sponsors, especially among Democrats.  See

Citizens need information on how wrong and harmful this effort is to people in their own States and Congressional Districts.   For crash deaths by State see the Table attached:
Sen. Heitkamp D of ND, 1st Term:  148 crash deaths in 2013,  ND ranked 48th in crash deaths per population, and 68% of the crash deaths were not taken to any medical facility for emergency care.
Sen. Mark Warner D of VA, 2nd Term:
748 crash deaths in 2013, VA ranked 16th in crash deaths per population, and 60% of the crash deaths were not taken to any medical facility for emergency care.
Sen. Joe Manchin D of WV, 2nd Term:
332 crash deaths in 2013, WV ranked 47th in crash deaths per population, and 53% of the crash deaths were not taken to any medical facility for emergency care.
Sen. Angus King I of ME, 1st Term:
145 crash deaths in 2013, ME ranked 25th in crash deaths per population, and 66% of the crash deaths were not taken to any medical facility for emergency care.
Sen. Ron Johnson R of WI, 1st Term:

543 crash deaths in 2013, WI ranked 18th in crash deaths per population, and 62% of the crash deaths were not taken to any medical facility for emergency care.
Sen. Rob Portman R of OH, 1st Term:

989 crash deaths in 2013, OH ranked 13th in crash deaths per population, and 53% of the crash deaths were not taken to any medical facility for emergency care.
Sen. James Lankford R of OK, 1st Term:

678 crash deaths in 2013, OK ranked 45th in crash deaths per population, and 60% of the crash deaths were not taken to any medical facility for emergency care.
Sen. Roy Blunt R of MO, 1st Term:

757 crash deaths in 2013, MO ranked 32nd in crash deaths per population, and 60% of the crash deaths were not taken to any medical facility for emergency care.
Let’s give voters the information they need to understand what is happening to them and to act in their own best interest to prevent politics and policies detrimental to all of us.  
We all have roles and responsibilities to build a Safer America.   Let’s use our voices and votes for Safety.
Lou

 

President Obama’s Visit to Detroit Auto Show & Safety Vision


President Obama’s Visit to Detroit Auto Show & Safety Vision

January, 2016

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

President Obama’s Visit to Detroit Auto Show this week is being cast as a political victory lap, but it will mask further giveaways to industry.   Safety leaders are already telling it like it is. 

See NY Times article at

What to watch for, but probably won’t see: 1.  For President Obama’s tears for the nearly 230,000 people that died of crash injuries and were counted by NHTSA under Obama’s watch so far + another estimated 33,000 that will die this year.  And for the estimated 1 million that will have suffered serious crash injuries under his two terms as President.  See NHTSA stats at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812217.pdf
2.  For President Obama to apologize for not meeting with safety advocates such as Ralph Nader and citizens to rectify NHTSA’s corporate captivity.  He has often met with CEOs.  See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/weak-oversight-deadly-cars.htmland https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/CFCV-MonthlyReport-March2014.pdf 
3.  For President Obama to acknowledge that his appointees have met with auto CEO’s, agreed to weak agreements behind closed doors, gone through the revolving door to work for the auto industry, and left people to continue to die.  See the latest fatal Jeep court case at http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/15/massive-suit-over-fatal-pennsylvania-crash.htmand http://www.autosafety.org/jeep-grand-cherokee-fires-homepage
4.  For President Obama’s apologies for a 7 year failure to adopt a Vision Zero Goal for crash deaths and serious injuries in or by a new vehicle in a decade.  Seehttps://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/MonthlyReportforJanuary2016-Corrected.pdf
5.  For President Obama to take his thumb off the scale favoring (more of the same) candidate Clinton over (change) candidate Sanders.  See https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/blog/blog-hillaryguns/
As one of our community noted wryly:  “This one’s had me smiling since the “Historic Agreement” was breathlessly leaked to Reuters a few days ago on the 11th. Then after four days of suspense we get… Jing Tinglers and Sparkle Ponies and a nice photo op:  no task objectives… no implementation dates… no resource commitments… no metrics to measure success or failure… and above all, no regulations that might improve safety. Checking my calendar, it’s 371 days until Foxx and Rosekind will need new jobs. The historic agreement looks just like a resume.”
Lou

 

Adverse Weather and Adverse Road Conditions


Adverse Weather and Adverse Road Conditions

January, 2016

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:
As we are seeing severe weather conditions, it raises questions of crashes and weather.

Back in the year 2000, I did an analysis at NHTSA on the statistics of weather and crashes.  

The numbers then revealed:

*  Large Trucks and Buses were over involved compared with cars and light trucks.  See slide 17

*  About 7,000 people were killed each year in adverse weather and road conditions in the 1990s.  See slide 21

NHTSA’s latest figures for 2013 show about 3,500 killed in adverse weather conditions (does not include adverse road conditions).  See p. 110 at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812139.pdf
Lou

 

Personnel is Policy for Safety and Justice


Personnel is Policy for Safety and Justice

January, 2016

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

The NY Times just published an Op-Ed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren that notes: “Justice Department has dodged one opportunity after another to impose meaningful accountability on big corporations and their executives.

Each of these government divisions is headed by someone nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The lesson is clear: Personnel is policy.”

See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/opinion/elizabeth-warren-one-way-to-rebuild-our-institutions.html

Sen. Warren refers to her new Report “Rigged Justice: 2016” (copy attached) that highlights just three of the many Automobile Safety Law Violations: GM, Honda, and Graco.  

So if Personnel is Policy – and I believe it is – what do we find at NHTSA today?

In 2014, I examined the question: Who is responsible for the last decade of crash deaths?  See https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/CFCV-MonthlyReport-March2014.pdf 

Today NHTSA still has the same two former GM employees in powerful auto safety research positions.  See NHTSA Organization Chart attached.

Note: I do not believe in people being fired.  But they should have been reassigned to positions with less obvious apparent conflict of interest.  For example, let them work on behavioral research such as alcohol, speed, and fatigue problems rather than vehicle safety research which they are still in charge of.

President Obama, DOT Secretary Foxx, and NHTSA Administrator Rosekind can and must do better than they have so far.  They have the power to do so.  More importantly, they have the responsibilities to do so when:  
Every average day 100 Americans die of crash injuries in the U.S.A. and 400 suffer serious injuries, and DOT values such crash losses at $2 billion – each day. 

 

Center for Auto Safety Intervenes in VW Pollution Lawsuit – CAS Press Release


Center for Auto Safety Intervenes in VW Pollution Lawsuit – CAS Press Release

January, 2016

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

FYI here is a Release on this important case important to protecting the public health.

Lou

Center for Auto Safety Moves to Intervene in Justice Department Lawsuit Against VW

January 5, 2016

The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit filed yesterday by the Justice Department on behalf of the United States of America (US) in US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Porsche AG and their affiliated American companies (VW).  As a consumer group that has long worked for clean cars and improved fuel efficiency and which has the Safe Climate Campaign integrated into its structure, CAS has a strong, independent interest in this litigation and seeing that VW is held accountable for its action which have damaged VW owners and the environment.

Dan Becker, head of the Safe Climate Campaign at CAS, stated:

“It is imperative for the protection of public health that all of the VWs with defeat devices be repaired so that they stop emitting excessive pollution. VW must also take actions that will make up for the excess pollution they have already and will emit, making the atmosphere whole.  They must begin by switching from polluting diesels to truly clean automobiles such as electric vehicles.”

Clarence Ditlow, CAS Executive Director, stated:

The Clean Act provides for citizen suits and intervention. CAS has intervened in this lawsuit over VW’s unprecedented emission cheating to protect the public interest and insure that VW is held fully accountable for its actions under all applicable laws.  The US does not oppose CAS’ intervention in this lawsuit.

#     #     #

CAS has a long history in working on motor vehicle fuel economy and emissions dating back to the early 1970’s. The Safe Climate Campaign, a program of CAS, is headed by Dan Becker.

CAS is represented by Hausfeld LLP, 1700 K Street NW Ste 650, Washington DC 20006, 202.540.7200.

Hausfeld is a leading global law firm with offices in Washington, DC; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Brussels; and London. The firm has a broad range of complex litigation expertise, particularly in consumer, antitrust/competition, financial services, sports and entertainment, environmental, mass torts, and human rights matters. For more information about the firm, please visit:www.hausfeld.com.

Motion to Intervene

Proposed Complaint

Clarence Ditlow

Executive Director

Center for Auto Safety

1825 Connecticut Ave NW #330

Washington DC 20009″

 

NHTSA’s Still Looking for “Root Cause” of Tragic Takata Airbag Failures


NHTSA’s Still Looking for “Root Cause” of Tragic Takata Airbag Failures

January, 2016

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

In June of 2015, I noted that NHTSA’s new Administrator Rosekind refreshingly told the truth about “root cause”. Perhaps the most important revelation at yesterday’s hearing was the refreshing truth spoken by NHTSA’s new Administrator Dr. Mark R. Rosekind.  “MARK ROSEKIND: Some factors appear to have a role, such as time and absolute humidity. The full story is not yet known and a definitive root cause has not been identified. In my recent experience as an NTSB board member and a veteran of many major transportation investigations, it may be that there is no single root cause, or the root cause may never be known.”  Seehttp://www.npr.org/2015/06/02/411533526/questions-remain-about-airbag-recall-after-takata-testifies-before-house

Now we read in the NY Times, the “root cause” still has not been determined by NHTSA.

“Rosemary Shahan, the founder of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said that regulators needed to be more forthcoming with which other cars might be at risk and that automakers needed to be more aggressive in fixing the cars.

“The people who are driving in those cars deserve to know,” Ms. Shahan said.

Although the root cause of the defect is still unknown, regulators have focused on the airbags’ propellant, which contains ammonium nitrate, a compound that breaks down over time or when it is exposed to moisture. When that happens, the ammonium nitrate can combust violently, causing the propellant’s metal casing, called an inflater, to overpressurize and rupture.

Regulators have said that Takata must prove that ammonium nitrate, which is more commonly used in large-scale applications like mining, is safe to use or it will order all airbags containing that compound to be recalled. Takata, the only major airbag manufacturer to use the ammonium nitrate propellant, has said it is safe when properly treated with a stabilizing compound.

But for now, there is no blanket recall, which Gordon Trowbridge, a spokesman for N.H.T.S.A. said could eventually affect “tens of millions” of additional vehicles.

“Many millions of these vehicles are relatively new,” Mr. Trowbridge said, “and given what we know about the role of age in degrading the ammonium nitrate propellant, are unlikely to present a rupture risk for some years.”

Mr. Trowbridge noted that the agency had prioritized the recalls — which will take years to finish — to account for models and geographic regions that pose a higher risk.

“If N.H.T.S.A. believes a vehicle presents an unreasonable risk to safety, the agency would seek a recall,” he said.”  See 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/business/takata-airbag-death-recall.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine

How many more tragedies will it take?

 

Consumer Groups Petition NHTSA For Mandatory – Not Voluntary – Safety Standards


Consumer Groups Petition NHTSA For Mandatory – Not Voluntary – Safety Standards

January, 2016

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members: For Immediate Release: January 13, 2016 Contact:

Joan Claybrook
202-422-6731 (mobile) Harvey Rosenfield(310) 392-0072(310) 345 8816 (mobile) Consumer Advocates Ask Auto Safety Agency to Make New Technologies Standard Equipment Urge NHTSA Not to Defer to Industry “Self Regulation” Three of the nation’s top consumer advocates today asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to adopt as standard equipment three new advanced safety technologies that could prevent thousands of deaths and injuries, and billions in property damage, from rear-end crashes. The formal petition by Consumer Watchdog, the Center for Auto Safety and Joan Claybrook, former NHTSA Administrator and now President Emeritus of Public Citizen, asks the agency to support Automatic Emergency Breaking, a set of three technologies that use combinations of radar, lidar (reflected laser light) and cameras to prevent collisions. • Forward Collision Warning alerts a motorist (via audio or visual signals) that a collision with a car in front is imminent. • Crash Imminent Braking intervenes when the driver does not respond to the Forward Collision Warning; it automatically applies the brakes to prevent a collision or reduce the vehicle’s speed at impact. • Dynamic Brake Support applies supplemental braking when the braking applied by the driver is insufficient to avoid a collision. The technologies are proven and have already been deployed by some auto manufacturers in higher-end vehicles, the Petition points out.  Moreover, in October NHTSA agreed to consider whether to order manufacturers to install the equipment in heavy vehicles like trucks. And just last month, the agency decided to incorporate these systems into its car rating system, the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), so that consumers are able to determine whether which cars offer AEB as an option. “There is no reason to distinguish between the dangers posed by heavy vehicles, such as trucks, and those posed by light vehicles, such as cars,” says the Petition, authored by Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog and now counsel to the organization. And “as helpful as the rating system is when it comes to comparison shopping, a binding regulation is the only way to ensure the minimum safety of every motorist on the road, not just those who can afford the most expensive luxury vehicles.” Petition Urges NHTSA to Mandate Safety Features, Not Defer to Industry “Self-Regulation” Noting that auto manufacturers were lobbying to “‘voluntarily’ establish safety standards in place of the mandatory safety regulation requested by this Petition,” the Petition urges NHTSA to reject that approach and proceed through the formal process of adopting mandatory installation requirements for all vehicles. As the Petition explains, “voluntary agreements”: [A]re developed behind closed doors, with no public involvement; are not binding on any company or particular vehicle or model at any given time and can be unilaterally (and secretly) abandoned; cannot be enforced by any members of the public, NHTSA or any other government agency; and often do not reflect objective, scientific or empirical research. Indeed, they are typically the product of industry players seeking to maximize profit and marketing concerns at the expense of robust consumer protection, reflecting the lowest common denominator of industry practice …. As Congress said in 1966, when it created NHTSA: ‘The promotion of motor vehicle safety through voluntary standards has largely failed.’” The Petition also notes that making the safety technologies standard equipment is the only way to ensure that the technologies are rapidly and uniformly deployed and “that all motorists are protected by available safety technologies, not just those in higher income brackets.” Finally, the Petition says that the formal rulemaking process is essential to protecting “public confidence in NHTSA,” in what it notes as “a challenging era” for the agency. Now is not the time to permit the automobile industry to regulate itself. With the record number of vehicle recalls in recent years; the Volkswagen and Hyundai fuel economy scandals; and the extraordinarily rapid introduction of new vehicle automation technologies, some of which pose independent and unprecedented social and safety concerns, it is more important than ever that NHTSA proceed through the legal rulemaking process, with its guarantees of science-based decision-making, due process and disclosure. This is the only way to assure public confidence in the agency’s actions.