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

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon

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.

Cameron Aubernon
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 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?

  • Erikstrawn 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.

  • SCE to AUX All that lift makes for an easy rollover of your $70k truck.
  • SCE to AUX My son cross-shopped the RAV4 and Model Y, then bought the Y. To their surprise, they hated the RAV4.
  • SCE to AUX I'm already driving the cheap EV (19 Ioniq EV).$30k MSRP in late 2018, $23k after subsidy at lease (no tax hassle)$549/year insurance$40 in electricity to drive 1000 miles/month66k miles, no range lossAffordable 16" tiresVirtually no maintenance expensesHyundai (for example) has dramatically cut prices on their EVs, so you can get a 361-mile Ioniq 6 in the high 30s right now.But ask me if I'd go to the Subaru brand if one was affordable, and the answer is no.
  • David Murilee Martin, These Toyota Vans were absolute garbage. As the labor even basic service cost 400% as much as servicing a VW Vanagon or American minivan. A skilled Toyota tech would take about 2.5 hours just to change the air cleaner. Also they also broke often, as they overheated and warped the engine and boiled the automatic transmission...
  • Marcr My wife and I mostly work from home (or use public transit), the kid is grown, and we no longer do road trips of more than 150 miles or so. Our one car mostly gets used for local errands and the occasional airport pickup. The first non-Tesla, non-Mini, non-Fiat, non-Kia/Hyundai, non-GM (I do have my biases) small fun-to-drive hatchback EV with 200+ mile range, instrument display behind the wheel where it belongs and actual knobs for oft-used functions for under $35K will get our money. What we really want is a proper 21st century equivalent of the original Honda Civic. The Volvo EX30 is close and may end up being the compromise choice.
Next