Friedman: GM, Not NHTSA, Most To Blame For Recall Crisis

by Cameron Aubernon

Published: September 17th, 2014

friedman gm not nhtsa most to blame for recall crisis

It was a long day for David Friedman and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during congressional testimony Tuesday, admitting before a Senate panel that his agency has more work to do to improve itself, and that General Motors made “incredibly poor decisions” as far as recalls were concerned.

Automotive News reports Friedman and the NHTSA came under harsh criticism before the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee’s consumer protection subcommittee during this second round of testimony. Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri made the deputy administrator aware of the panel’s overall frustration with the excuses for why the NHTSA did not act swiftly in forcing GM to recall vehicles affected by an out-of-spec ignition switch now linked to 19 deaths and 31 injuries.

In turn, Friedman deflected criticism of the agency by placing the blame upon the automaker, proclaiming the execs “were more worried about [the NHTSA] getting information about problems than they were about actually fixing problems.” He added that a “new normal” has since been established upon all automakers, whereupon any defect is immediately reported to the agency, and that it would have “zero tolerance” on those who fail “to act quickly and aggressively” on reporting such flaws.

Regarding the original case, Friedman said that his agency lacked “ample information” in 2007 to determine whether or not a defect was to be found in the aforementioned ignition switch, despite a report by a House committee issued earlier in the day stating the opposite.

After testimony, Sen. McCaskill stated she found Friedman’s statements troubling, proclaiming he was more concerned with rebutting the news media than with taking responsibility for his and his agency’s role in the GM recall crisis.

#CongressionalHearings #DavidFriedman #GeneralMotors #NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration #Testimonies #U.S.SenateCommerceCommittee

Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 12 comments

Wmba on Sep 17, 2014

This is a pretty incomplete post compared to sources like Reuters. NHTSA has only 51 investigators. However, if they could argue for funds like EPA, then they could expand into frivolous areas like engine design. Next thing you know, vehicle manufacturers could be forced to use an EPA designed combustion chamber. Just what we all need - a Government 4 valve head. Think I'm kidding? From Society of Automotive Engineers July 23 2014. " As part of its effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun developing an advanced test engine to demonstrate fuel-saving and emissions-reducing technologies. The test engine is intended to help establish the feasibility of meeting fuel standards through improvements to combustion chamber geometries, fuel injection strategies, fuel composition, valve timing, and intake conditions. In development of the engine, the EPA is using ANSYS FORTÉ CFD software, giving its engineers the ability to quickly and inexpensively make multiple design iterations. ANSYS acquired FORTÉ as part of its acquisition of Reaction Design earlier this year." This is incredibly ridiculous. As if the EPA boy engineers know as much as the real engine designers at established manufacurers. Now they'll start sticking their oar in and creating a fuss on issues they don't understand the basics in. I mean, WTF is going on?

Like Reply
Erikstrawn on Sep 18, 2014

The NHTSA is between a rock and a hard place. If they had used their authority to force GM they'd be accused of onerous regulation. Since they didn't they're suffering accusations of being worthless and inept. A bureaucracy is very much a "pick your battles" environment, and GM has a lot of powerful backers. Once there was enough evidence (and unfortunately enough deaths) that the ignition switches were undeniably the cause, the NHTSA had the evidence and drive to intervene. Politically the NHTSA had to wait for GM's incompetence to destroy the will of their supporters.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Redapple2 Love the wheels
Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”