IIHS Demands Increased Roof Crush Standards. Wrong Answer.

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

There are two main problems with debunking auto-related misconceptions. First, not everyone is ready, willing or able to confront the truth. Second, once you debunk something, it doesn’t stay debunked. TTAC’s Bob Elton dealt with the roof crush standard issue in his editorial “ The Counterintuitive Truth About Roof Crush Standards” back in June 2006. He argued that increasing roof strength only increases the number of rollover accidents. Common sense: the higher a vehicle’s center of gravity, the more likely it will roll. Elton also revealed that “In 74% of cases, roof intrusion was not a factor. Rollover accidents are fatal because the occupants are usually ejected, or partially ejected, during the crash.” And that’s because… they’re not wearing their seat-belts. And yet, The Detroit News reports that “The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [IIHS] said Wednesday it will require automakers to dramatically increase the strength of vehicle roofs to receive its top safety pick ratings.” The road to hell? You don’t know the half of it…

As we’ve pointed out numerous times, the National Highway Transportation Administration (NHTSA) is one of America’s best governmental agencies. When it comes to new regulations, they move slowly because they move carefully.

A great deal of road safety is counter-intuitive (e.g. “sobriety checkpoints” are less effective at removing drunk drivers from the the road than roving patrols). The NHTSA doesn’t rush to judgement to avoid exactly the kind of unintended consequences described above. And here goes the industry lobby group, once again, subverting science and pretending to stick-up for their customers’ safety.

In January, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration unveiled a proposal to require a vehicle roof to withstand a force equal to 2.5 times the vehicle weight while at the same time maintaining sufficient head room for a buckled-in, average-size adult male to avoid being struck. That’s up from the current standard of withstanding a force equal to 1.5 times the vehicle weight. But NHTSA hasn’t finalized its regulation.

Lund said starting in the fall IIHS will require automakers to have a 4.0 rating to win a top safety pick.

“We see significant safety benefits in stronger vehicle roofs,” Lund said.

“The government is moving slowly and they are going to continue to move slowly.”

He said NHTSA has “clearly undercounted” the number of injuries and deaths that can be prevented by stronger roofs.

How? And how can The Detroit News repeat such a viscious slur without asking for proof? Show me the benefits.

You know me folks; I don’t blindly accept the word of any auto industry pressure groups of any stripe on anything. But on this one, I reckon the Auto Alliance has got it right. The IIHS’ roof crush standard would decrease fleet wide mpg and increase costs to the consumer– without adding significant demonstrable safety to motorists.

“Drivers and passengers are better served by a system of enhancements including improvements in vehicle stability, ejection mitigation, roof crush resistance as well as road improvement and behavioral strategies aimed at consumer education,” alliance spokesman Wade Newton said.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 56 comments
  • Roofcrushvictim Roofcrushvictim on Mar 25, 2009

    Leading consumer advocate, Paula Lawlor of the People Safe in Rollovers Foundation (peoplesafeinrollovers.org) found damaging internal documents from car companies and put them into an excellent expose report called "Roof Crush Intrusion, Deadly by Design" available for free on her web sight. The report documents the history of the roof crush issue from the '50's all the way up to current times. An excellent 24 page read for anyone with a serious interest in the subject matter. Included is detailed documentation of Volvo's Industry leading design concepts in roof design.

  • Danwat1234 Danwat1234 on Jun 11, 2014

    I totally welcome increased roof strengths. The Dodge Charger is at a bit more than 20,000 pounds for 5 inches of crush! Chevy Volt at about 16,000. Compact cars above 10,000. They are using high tech steeles to keep weight down I think and keep pillar thickness down but eventually we probably will need computer screens wrapped around the pillars so the pillars appear opaque.

  • Tassos Jong-iL Communist America Rises!
  • Merc190 A CB7 Accord with the 5 cylinder
  • MRF 95 T-Bird Daihatsu Copen- A fun Kei sized roadster. Equipped with a 660cc three, a five speed manual and a retractable roof it’s all you need. Subaru Levorg wagon-because not everyone needs a lifted Outback.
  • Merc190 I test drive one of these back in the day with an automatic, just to drive an Alfa, with a Busso no less. Didn't care for the dash design, would be a fun adventure to find some scrapped Lancia Themas or Saab 900's and do some swapping to make car even sweeter. But definitely lose the ground effects.
  • MRF 95 T-Bird These 164s, as documented by its owner have to be constantly sorted, as they say. They are nice drivers. I’d rather find a, under the 25 year rule nice and easier to deal with Type 916 Alfa Romeo GTV/Spyder.
Next