In fact, because of this close coupling of vehicle characteristics and vehicle crashworthiness, federal regulations and research have placed a high priority on measures for improving vehicle crashworthiness. Numerous studies have documented that crashworthiness improvements have resulted in measurable reductions in fatalities and that the benefits of crashworthiness regulations on the average are greater than the costs. Nearly 30 years of federal safety regulation and manufacturer design to comply with these standards has resulted in great improvements in vehicle design and performance.
In addition, safety regulations have provided standards against which individual vehicles can be compared and their performance measured. The primary concern of NHTSA's early vehicle-related programs was to improve vehicle crashworthiness in frontal crashes, because of the large number of fatalities and injuries in this type of crash TRB ,. Early crashworthiness research focused on methods for reducing injury in frontal collisions through demonstration of air bag technologies and development of anthropometric test devices crash dummies.
After a lengthy and contentious debate over the technical feasibility and reliability of automatic or passive occupant restraint systems to improve vehicle crashworthiness, the U. Department of Transportation DOT issued a final rule in requiring automatic protection in new vehicles.
After the initial emphasis on mitigation of frontal collisions, NHTSA 's attention shifted to occupant protection in side-impact crashes during the mids TRB , The standard was upgraded in so that all passenger vehicles must now meet a dynamic side-impact crash standard. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in January , but NHTSA concluded in its recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that establishing a single minimum stability standard for passenger cars and light trucks could not be justified on cost-benefit grounds Federal Register , 33, Federal vehicle safety regulations appear to have contributed to greater uniformity in safety performance, particularly in vehicle crashworthiness as measured by frontal crash test results for passenger vehicles of roughly equivalent weight Kahane et al.
Moreover, safety standards now apply to all categories of vehicles. By all new passenger vehicles—light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles as well as cars—will be required to have the same major safety features and meet the same crash test standards. Federal vehicle safety standards also provide a source of comparative information about vehicle safety features and performance that can be adapted for consumer information purposes.
- National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act - Wikipedia.
- 5 Priorities Auto Regulators Need to Address - Consumer Reports.
- how to look up ip addresses.
- S | US Congress | Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of | TrackBill.
- U.S.C. Title 49 - TRANSPORTATION.
- arrest massachusetts melissa peter police springfield.
Information is or soon will be available for a wide variety of vehicle safety characteristics and features, much of which is derived from vehicle regulatory requirements. However, some important vehicle safety characteristics, such as size, weight, energy-absorbing capability, and many nonregulated safety features are not reflected in federal motor vehicle safety standards. There may be a receptive audience for vehicle safety information now that consumers have become more aware of the value of vehicle safety features.
Some consumers, however, may take safety for granted in automobile purchasing decisions because of the existence of federal regulations. Consumer interest in vehicle safety information also may be affected by how drivers perceive the riskiness of driving.
Millions of Americans drive each day and complete their trips safely, thus reinforcing the individual's perception that the risks involved in driving are low. With about million licensed drivers, each driving an average of 21 km 13, mi per year, the occurrence of a crash, 15 on the average, is one every driver kilometers , driver miles or every 16 years of driving. The occurrence of a fatality is considerably less—one every 93 million driver kilometers 58 million driver miles or every 4, years of driving.
The likelihood of fatalities is considerably higher on two-lane rural roads, on weekend nights when alcohol consumption is a key factor, and for young under 25 and older 65 or over drivers and vehicle occupants. Nevertheless, the common perception, even among drivers who have been in a crash, is that such incidents are rare, unpredictable events largely outside reasonable human control—a view reinforced by the frequent direct feedback of crash-free motor vehicle trips Evans , Many drivers believe that driving risk is low and that they themselves are less likely than others to experience a crash.
Research indi-. Thus, they may not be inclined to seek information on vehicle safety, or, where information is provided, they may view the information as applying to others.
The Open Public Health Journal
A final issue that affects the provision of meaningful consumer automotive safety information concerns the providers of that information. The agency 's primary consumer vehicle safety information initiative—the NCAP—has encouraged manufacturers to design more crashworthy vehicles. Vehicle crash test scores have improved markedly since testing was begun in , with the greatest improvements in the early model years. Parallel reductions in fatality likelihood for belted drivers in actual head-on collisions over this same period suggest that publication of NCAP scores contributed to vehicle design improvements Kahane et al.
However, there are limitations to NHTSA's role as consumer safety information provider, suggesting the need for a broader-based effort. NHTSA's ability to develop more comprehensive consumer information is severely limited by resource constraints. Further progress also requires systematic rethinking of improvements in testing and measurement, which will be difficult for NHTSA if it does not have the collaboration of industry.
- warrant info on cathy c crosby.
- how to find the right people to hire.
- public criminal records pasco county florida.
- Congress considers regulations for rear seat child alerts?
For example, consumers could be urged to purchase larger and heavier cars to reduce the injury potential of vehicle occupants, but this prescription would likely be at odds with NHTSA's responsibility to improve vehicle fuel economy. Given all the caveats about the difficulty of providing meaningful consumer automotive safety information—the multidimensional character of vehicle safety and crash likelihood, the diminishing variation in safety features among motor vehicles, and the low risk that many travelers assign to driving—why attempt to improve vehicle safety infor-. There are four good reasons.
First, market incentives may not be adequate to provide the comprehensive safety information that consumers need to make informed purchase decisions. Second, although motor vehicle safety regulations have provided common safety standards among passenger vehicles, vehicles continue to differ in many safety-related dimensions e.
These dimensions can affect safety-related performance, which suggests the desirability of publicizing these differences. Third, the experience of NHTSA's NCAP indicates that providing comparative information on vehicle safety performance can be effective in motivating automobile manufacturers to build added safety into vehicle design. Fourth, the information may affect consumer attitudes and purchasing behavior. Many individuals of driving age will be in the market for a car 18 in the next few years, and market research suggests that consumers, at least new car purchasers, are more aware today of the value of vehicle safety features.
US - S | BillTrack50
Thus, a potentially large audience exists for meaningful vehicle safety information, which can help consumers select the safest vehicle that will meet their needs and minimize crash likelihood and injury potential. The remainder of the report is concerned with what and how vehicle safety information should be provided to consumers. The key data sources and state of knowledge about vehicle crash avoidance and crashworthiness as a basis for providing consumer vehicle safety information are summarized in Chapter 2.
The strengths and weaknesses of currently available consumer safety information are reviewed in Chapter 3 , and recommendations are made for improving current information. An overview of what is known about how consumers think about automobile safety and how they search for and use information in making automobile purchase decisions is given in Chapter 4.
Research to fill current gaps in knowledge is identified. Recommendations for developing and communicating improved consumer vehicle safety information, including summary measures of vehicle safety, are presented in Chapter 5 , and an organizational structure and an implementation strategy to promote continuing improvements in consumer safety information and vehicle safety design are proposed in Chapter 6.
Economic costs include medical costs, present and future discounted earnings losses, legal and court costs, coroner or medical examiner costs, emergency services, insurance administrative expenses, and delay costs caused by the crash NHTSA and FHWA , Costs are estimated in dollars. However, other federal agencies are involved.
NASA likely to buy Soyuz seats, defer Japanese astronaut flight
The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for fuel economy information, the Justice Department handles price labeling on new cars, and the Federal Trade Commission handles used car labeling. In the longer run, the NHTSA-proposed safety label could contain other information on vehicle safety, such as vehicle performance in frontal and side-impact crashes. Industry and safety advocates both criticized the proposed safety label, but for different reasons. The automobile manufacturers questioned the feasibility of providing meaningful comparative information on vehicle rollover propensity in a simplified form AAMA Safety advocates supported the concept of a safety label but were highly critical of what they regard as the overly simplified information NHTSA currently provides on vehicle frontal crashworthiness IIHS a.
Moreover, they strongly opposed the requirement of a safety label, perceiving it as a substitute for a rollover stability standard Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Providing safety information about used vehicles is a far more complex task because of the potential for modifications to used vehicles as well as their different crash experience. However, some methods of communicating vehicle safety information on new vehicles e. The Intelligent Transportation Systems program includes four major categories of technology: a advanced traffic management systems for controlling and optimizing traffic flows on road networks, b advanced traveler information systems, c advanced vehicle control systems, and d commercial vehicle operations TRB , 21— The analysis was based on a North Carolina data base, and hence the findings cannot be generalized to the nation as a whole.
Evans summarizes the NHTSA estimates of fatality reductions for vehicle occupants that can be attributed to the introduction of individual crashworthiness regulations, which range from 0. Note that these results do not include effects on nonoccupants, who, it can be argued, are largely unaffected by crashworthiness measures that are aimed at protecting vehicle occupants, such as energy-absorbing steering. Other researchers such as Crandall et al. The companion Highway Safety Act P. Specifically, the test measures the force of impact on the heads, chests, and upper legs of electronically instrumented, safety-belted dummies in the driver and passenger seats.
DOT agreed to rescind the federal requirement that automobile manufacturers install air bags or automatic belts if states representing two-thirds of the population mandated the use of safety belts. In the end, however, the conditions laid out by DOT were not met within the proposed guidelines, and the automobile manufacturers were required to phase in either air bags or automatic belts TRB , This ruling has been vigorously opposed by highway safety groups, among others, who maintain that NHTSA could have examined other options such as stability standards for certain vehicle classes Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety However, because of the slow turnover of the vehicle fleet, it may be a decade or more before all vehicles on the road meet current regulatory requirements.
Estimates of crashes provided by the National Safety Council—11,, motor vehicle crashes in —were used for this calculation Fearn et al. The automatic protection requirement of FMVSS , which affected model years and later, also contributed to reductions in fatality risk Kahane et al. In there were 0. Response to Docket No. Detroit, Mich. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Washington, D.
IN ADDITION TO READING ONLINE, THIS TITLE IS AVAILABLE IN THESE FORMATS:
Booz, Allen Applied Research. Bethesda, Md. Crandall, R. Gruenspecht, T.