Rollover Safety and New Roof Rule

New Roof Rule for Rollover Safety

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and regulations with which automobile manufacturers must comply were first enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in March 1967 to provide manufacturers with guidelines regarding minimum safety performance requirements. Since 1967, new standards have been added and existing standards have been amended. These changes have been necessary due to the evolution and expansion of automobile manufacturing.  In 1973, FMVSS 216 was enacted. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, FMVSS 216 “specified requirements for roof crush resistance over the passenger compartment.” The intent of FMVSS 216 was to provide protection to individuals involved in rollover crashes by ensuring that automobile manufacturers adhered to federal roof standards. In April 2009, FMVSS 216 was amended to provide better protection for those involved in rollover crashes and extended the standards applicability to both heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUV).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that more than 280,000 rollover accidents are reported each year. As a result of these accidents, approximately 10,000 individuals are killed on a yearly basis. Many of these fatal accidents involve SUVs and trucks. Until the 2009 amendment to FMVSS 216, most SUVs and trucks were exempt from federal roof standards. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Status Report the amendment will begin being phased-in in the year 2012, and all automobile manufacturers will be expected to comply with the amendment by the year 2017. This means that all passenger cars, trucks and SUVs up to 10,000 pounds will be subject to federal roof standards. These standards will apply to both the driver and the passenger side of the vehicle’s roof.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Commission reports that only 2 percent of accidents involve rollovers, but these accidents account for approximately 33 percent of all vehicle related fatalities. In Florida, approximately 25 percent of motor vehicle fatalities were the result of rollover crashes in 2007 according to the Traffic Safety Performance (Core Outcome) Measures provided by the NHTSA. In 2007, Georgia (31%), Alabama (40%), and California (29%) all had higher percentages of rollover fatalities than Florida, and New York (17%), Michigan (19%), and Mississippi (19%) had lower percentages of rollover fatalities than did Florida. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Status Report predicts that 135 lives will be saved each year by the amendment to FMVSS 216.

The changes that FMVSS 216 will require automobile manufacturers to make in the production of vehicles up to 10,000 pounds will mean that the roofs of cars, trucks, and SUVs will be even sturdier than they have been in the past. Not only will the driver side be able to withstand greater impact but the passenger side will be able to withstand greater impact as well. Proponents of the amendment to FMVSS 216 feel that this change has been long overdue and that by updating and improving the federal roof standards individuals will be more likely to survive a rollover crash.
 

Yamaha Rhino ATV: Are they Safe?

Basic Information on the Rhino ATV
After all of the accidents and injuries caused by use of the Yamaha Rhino ATV, one can't help but wonder if the product is safe. Studies have shown that poor design of the All Terrain Vehicle cause most rollovers. Such accidents have notoriously resulted in serious injury for both ATV drivers and passengers and in some tragic cases, have even led to the death of children. According to its critics, the Yamaha Rhino ATV has a high center of gravity due to its narrow bottom and top-heavy design, which makes the vehicle more prone to rollovers. The majority of the reported injuries affected the victims’ extremities, such as their legs, feet, arms and hands.

Rhino ATV Design Flaws and Insufficient Model Modifications
Until Yamaha released its newest Rhino ATV model in 2008, the vehicle lacked doors—an oversight that has triggered multiple accidents. Before this updated model of the Rhino was distributed, Yamaha only offered side doors as an accessory option. However, the inclusion of doors on an ATV is not only necessary, but it seems that even with the doors the Rhino may be unsafe. Some people have reported that the doors have unlatched in the case of rollovers—thereby endangering the passenger just the same.

In 2006, Yamaha acknowledged certain defects of the Rhino ATV, and released safety warnings as a result, such as seat belt and helmet recommendations. Then, in 2007, the company offered to install doors and passenger holds on all 2004-2007 models.

Despite the numerous reported rollovers, Yamaha has yet to acknowledge the flaws inherent within the Rhino ATV’s design and has only issued a recall for the vehicle’s brakes.

Click here to read: ATV Safety Tips

Click here to read: ATV Recalls

Click here to read: Florida Statutes for ATV Use

Mitsubishi product liability case receives $11 million verdict

A West Palm Beach Jury awarded a couple $11 million in a Product Liability suit. The case involved the death of the couple's 25 year old son in a  2004 rollover crash. According to the Plaintiffs the death was caused by a defective seat belt and front passenger seat of a Mitsubishi Sport Vehicle involved in the fatal rollover.

The Counsel for the Plaintiff argued the seat belt was called an "energy absorbent" belt and was designed with an extra 10 inches of overlapping fabric, that could break and cause the belt to extend. 

The Counsel for the Defense argued the loop of material installed on the front passenger seat was designed to help protect the passenger from head and chest injuries. The Defense attorneys are appealing the $11 million jury verdict.

Thankfully the driver's belt did not have any extra material, therefore he suffered only minor injures.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 2007 report of rollover crashes and outcomes, there were 10,553 fatalities involving rollovers in 2004. Florida came in third in the nation with 627 fatal Rollovers in Florida. Texas came in second in the nation with 876 fatal rollovers in Texas. California led the nation with 1068 fatal rollovers in California. Ironically, Montana led the nation percentage wise with 67% fatal rollovers in Montana.

Click here to read more of this case from the Daily Business Review and Click here to read more from NHTSA on Rollovers

Rollover Accidents are deadly

Rollover Accidents account for only 2% of all accidents, but account for 33% of all Traffic Deaths according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Commission.

The following is a breakdown of Rollover fatalities by motor vehicle type:

61% of SUV occupant fatalities occur in rollover crashes.

45% of Pickup Truck occupant  fatalities occur in rollover crashes.

33% of Van occupant fatalities occur in rollover crashes.

23% of Passenger Car occupant fatalities occur in rollover crashes.

30% of all motor vehicle occupant fatalities in Florida involve rollover crashes.

Click here to read more on Rollover Accident statistics from the National Highway Safety Administration.

Click here to read more on Analysis of Motor Vehicle Rollover Crashes and Injury Outcomes from the National Highway Safety Administration.