When I drive vintage cars I am VERY conscious of the fact that there is very little safety equipment in my vehicle. In my VW van I am very aware that only the bumper structure (VERY stout) and the steel dash structure is going to save me in a collision. In between those two parts is a thin sheetmetal skin that may spread the collision forces – but only if something doesn’t puncture it. I have seen alot of crashed VW van pics from around the web and they aren’t automatic death traps but they are much less safe than most of the other vehicles on the web.

The problem with the SUVs is that people have been sold them on the premise that they are safer b/c they are larger.

Because I’d like to see more of them go away (the large ones), let them be sold but make it clear to the buying public exactly what happens in hard turns and rollovers.

Safety campaigns = people without a healthy respect for safety and understanding of risk.

I truly think that the safety campaign has had a negative result on America. I grew up crashing my bike. Lots of skinned elbows and knees. I quickly grew to respect the physics involved in riding my bike and my awareness that my bicycle was a conscious being trying to kill me. VBG! Alot of kids today have been coddled through the period of their life where my generation was going to the emergency for stitches often and therefore do not have a healthy respect for risk. Same with those same kids when they reach driving ages.

I would hate to see the laws eliminated as I am one of the people that’s alive because those standards were in place. My Geo Prizm retained most of its roof integrity when I decided to park it greasy side up about 10 years ago. Something tells me my old ‘72 DeVille project car I owned at the same time wouldn’t have done that.

Bob Elton touched on this in the text of the article, but did not provide a detailed explanation:

“This empirical data has been ignored in the face of the increased lethality of rollover accidents. Although rollover crashes constitute just three percent of all American accidents, they account for almost half of all fatalities”.

Here’s what we know about the issue without cracking a book:

1) Deaths per million miles traveled have been trending downward since the seventies.

2) All automotive safety equipment is designed to protect occupants INSIDE the car.

Based on those two facts, it seems that recent safety innovations work, protecting people who remain in the car, while those persons ejected receive NO protection.

The same dangerous outside hazards present in 1960 present an equal hazard today (trees, concrete curbs, the rollover car itself, other cars…), so the death rate among persons ejected represent an ever-growing percentage of total fatalities, rather than an ever-growing number of people.

In other words, without disputing that a rollover is more likely to kill you than any other accident, is it so that they’re more lethal than they used to be?

Or is the increased percentage of deaths due to rollovers (the rate) higher simply because other safety improvements have made the total number of deaths (total and/or per-passenger-mile) lower?

It’s very important to not confuse the total and the rate, when doing such things, especially over time. The rate is what’s really important.

The roof strength issue reminds of something I learned about industrial forklift trucks. Before rollover protection standards were implemented very few people were seriously injured in forklift tipping accidents. When the use of a rollover protection cage was required people started dying because their instinctive reaction was to jump out of the tipping truck, now to be crushed by the very device meant to save their skin. Of course they do serve as falling object protective devices, which is why they were renamed as such in Canada.

I don’t know if Bob has presented evidence to justify repealing the standard, but I support him in his contention that it should not be beefed up.

For what it’s worth, the CG of the old Chrysler K-car convertibles, when I measured back in the 80s, was actually higher, by about 2 millimeters, than the coupe (with the top up). Casual observation ofthe Mustang convertible looks as though all of the heavy parts are added near or above the center of gravity. The convertible top is a heavy piece of equipment. Not the fabric, but all of the mechanisms, framework parts, hydraulic pump and motor, and so on.

Old cars, like my 64 Imperial convertible with a frame like the Brooklyn Bridge, may have had lower CGs than coupes, but that’s ancient history.

Furthermore, the quote that is shown when clicking on the last picture seems to confirm my suspicions that vehicles are becoming less likely to roll over as time goes on, despite added requirements for structural rigidity up top.

The convertible issue is even more convoluted, since convertibles almost always have lower centers of gravity than their hard top counterparts due to a lack of a roof (obviously) and structural reinforcements lower in the car.

“There has been a sharp increase in convertible offerings in the past decade, and existing roof-strength rules exempt convertibles. Several import automakers have added rollover safety equipment voluntarily. Although concern has mounted over rollover deaths in SUVs, convertible rollover deaths are a nonissue for NHTSA, the insurance industry and some automakers. The 94 fatalities attributed to 87 convertibles that rolled over in 2004 accounted for fewer than 1 percent of about 10,000 U.S. rollover deaths last year.

“We’ve been asked the convertible question many times, and we don’t see a higher pattern of injury losses,” said Kim Hazelbaker, senior vice president of the Highway Loss Data Institute, a research organization for auto insurers.”

Granted, more people seem to be dying in rollover accidents, but the increase could very well be attributed to an increase in SUV sales rather than those SUVs being less safe. I don’t know, but I would expect TTAC to do some research instead of just throwing out sensational editorials.

The best way to meet NHTSA’s roof crush standard: increase the strength (and weight) of components at the top of the car, well above the center of gravity. This adds significantly to an SUV’s “top-heavy”? character, and contributes greatly to their propensity to roll when subjected to large lateral forces. In other words, the requirement to make roofs stronger to withstand rollovers may well be making vehicles more likely to rollover. NHTSA’s roof crush standard is creating a vicious circle; people may be dying because of the law… not despite it.

Bolded emphasis is mine. Where are the references to back this up? Are you a materials and structural engineer? You sound like one of the uninitiated commenters on this and other sites (like me) who predict the end of the automobile if the Democrats get elected.

There’s not a single reference to hard data, or quote from a reliable, knowledgeable source, and without those, this smacks of irresponsible journalism.

I say keep the roof standards as they are, removing them are not going to make SUV’s any safer.

Bob Elton

So, something like a Vette which if 46 inches off the ground would get a 5-star rating cause the thing never tips over?