The Counterintuitive Truth About Roof Crush Standards

Bob Elton
by Bob Elton
the counterintuitive truth about roof crush standards

Ever since the United States began issuing safety and emission standards, regulations have led to better cars. Emission standards forced automakers to develop electronic engine controls, creating modern cars’ power and drivability. Safety standards– seat belts, airbags, etc.– have saved countless lives. But there’s one standard that’s not only ineffective, but antithetical to its stated goal: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) roof crush standard.

NHTSA enacted FMVSS 216 in the mid-70’s. Before then, unbelted passengers were often ejected during a crash and killed or injured by “external factors.” It was assumed that roof strength played an insignificant role during serious accidents. As seat belts gained popularity, NHSTA created its new roof crush standard to ensure that vehicle roofs wouldn’t crush belted occupants during a rollover.

FMVSS 216 requires all light vehicles sold in the United States to withstand a force equal to 1.5 times the vehicle’s unladen weight or 5000lbs. (whichever is less), with no more than five inches intrusion. NHTSA’s technicians apply a measured force to one side of the roof’s edge, at a 25-degree angle (sideways) and a five-degree pitch angle (forwards), then measure the deflection, or failure, of the roof structure. As a result of this requirement, car makers have strengthened their vehicles’ roof structures. It would be easy to posit that the standard was– and is– an excellent piece of federal legislation. A closer examination of the evidence suggests otherwise.

The legislation’s framers knew that convertibles would never be able to meet the new roof crush standard. So they exempted them. At the time that the standard was created, convertibles were becoming increasingly unpopular. NHTSA figured that extinction would make the exemption a moot point. When convertibles made a comeback, the exemption provided valuable statistical data. Unfortunately for the rule-makers, real world experience didn’t validate the roof crush standard’s original premise. Passengers in convertibles during rollover accidents were not killed in any greater numbers than occupants of cars that met NHTSA’s roof crush standard.

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. That’s an estimated 26,376 deaths annually. But the assumption that a weak roof collapsed and crushed the passengers is simply not supported by the data. 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.

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.

Safety campaigners like “Protecting Health, Safety & Democracy” are lobbying the federal government to revise roof crush standards “upwards.” They want roofs to be “stronger,” so they can withstand greater impacts. Although it’s theoretically possible to find light weight materials that would withstand insult better than steel, in the real world, more stringent legislation would result in even more weight up top. And that would mean that vehicles already more prone to rollover accidents will be made even more prone to rollover accidents by the increased stringency of the rollover protection standard.

The past three decades have shown the basic futility of the roof crush standard. Yes, rollovers are a deadly and common factor in American road deaths. But regulating the parts of the car that don’t tend to cause death or serious injury has little effect on real-world results. If rollover protection is the goal, there are better ways to save lives. Enforcing seat belt laws would have a major depressing effect on rollover fatalities. Electronic stability systems have proven enormously effective at preventing rollovers from occurring in the first place. Suspension systems that automatically lower the car’s center of gravity also have great potential.

In any case, data gathered over the last three decades shows that it’s time to repeal NHTSA’s roof crush standard. The increasing trend towards taller vehicles, with a greater propensity to roll over, argues for the repeal of this standard completely, before it does even more harm. While safety campaigners argue that the revised roof crush standards don’t go far enough, NHTSA should fully and scientifically investigate the likelihood that the exact opposite is true. The rule-makers must admit the possibility that they’ve made a mistake, and find a new and more effective fix for a deadly problem.

Join the conversation
2 of 16 comments
  • Confused1096 Confused1096 on Feb 15, 2007

    Are increased safety standards why nothing is made with T-tops anymore? I really, really miss those... 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.

  • Joeaverage Joeaverage on Jun 05, 2008

    And though tough to measure - might it not be that folks in a convertible are conscious that there is little (top up) or no (top down) roof structure over their heads and thus they tone down their driving style to save their necks? 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.

  • SCE to AUX The UAW may win the battle, but it will lose the war.The mfrs will never agree to job protections, and production outsourcing will match any pay increases won by the union.With most US market cars not produced by Detroit, how many people really care about this strike?
  • El scotto My iPhone gets too hot while using the wireless charging in my BMW. One more line on why someone is a dumbazz list?
  • Buickman yeah, get Ron Fellows each time I get a Vette. screw Caddy.
  • Dusterdude The Detroit 2.5 did a big disservice by paying their CEO’s so generously ( overpaying them ) It is a valid talking point for for the union ) However , the bottom line - The percentage of workers in the private sector who have a defined benefit pension plan is almost non existent - and the reason being is it’s unaffordable ! . This is a a huge sticking point as to have lower tier workers join would be prohibitive ( aside from other high price demands being requested - ie >30% wage gain request ) . Do the math - can a company afford to pay employees for 35 years , followed by funding a pension for a further 30 years ?
  • El scotto Human safety driver? Some on here need a human safety thinker.