xcel
11-21-2006, 12:17 PM
Each side finds fault with stability proposal. (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061121/BUSINESS01/611210393/1014)
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Volvo_SUV_Rollover.jpgJustin Hyde - Detroit Free Press - Nov. 21, 2006
10,000 fatal crashes could be avoided annually if all vehicles were equipped with ESC. (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1522)
Auto safety groups want federal regulators to make sweeping changes to a proposed rule requiring electronic stability control in all vehicles, saying automakers could move faster to put the system in all vehicles and the proposal creates too many loopholes.
The auto industry also wants some changes to the proposal, including being given more time. National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator Nicole Nason said Monday she hopes to issue a final rule next year.
In September, NHTSA said it would require automakers to install stability control systems in all vehicles by the 2012 model year, calling it safety technology on par with seat belts and air bags.
The rule would be phased in over four years, requiring 30% of vehicles to have electronic stability control by the 2009 model year, 60% by 2010 and 90% by 2011.
About 29% of vehicles sold today have standard or optional electronic stability control. NHTSA estimates that automakers had planned to put them in 71% of their vehicles by the 2010 model year.
Three groups - the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Consumers Union and Public Citizen - say the technology offers too many benefits to wait until 2012 before it's mandatory.
Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, said NHTSA should force automakers to meet a 2010 deadline for equipping all vehicles. It also said it was concerned that NHTSA appeared to rely entirely on automakers for its research leading to the rule.
"It would have been beneficial and wise, we believe, for the government's auto safety agency to seek out other perspectives, including consumer perspectives, in developing this proposed rule," Consumer Reports said.
Public Citizen contends the rule defines electronic stability control so loosely that by the time the rule takes effect it will be obsolete.
"As the proposal now stands, it could be that the public is better protected with no new standard because this weak proposal as a final standard could encourage companies to cut back on the technologies they are now using," the group said.
In joint comments, the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers offer a bevy of technical concerns and say they will need the full phase-in period to meet some requirements.
They also warn that NHTSA's estimates of the benefits may be "overly optimistic" and based on limited data.
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Volvo_SUV_Rollover.jpgJustin Hyde - Detroit Free Press - Nov. 21, 2006
10,000 fatal crashes could be avoided annually if all vehicles were equipped with ESC. (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1522)
Auto safety groups want federal regulators to make sweeping changes to a proposed rule requiring electronic stability control in all vehicles, saying automakers could move faster to put the system in all vehicles and the proposal creates too many loopholes.
The auto industry also wants some changes to the proposal, including being given more time. National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator Nicole Nason said Monday she hopes to issue a final rule next year.
In September, NHTSA said it would require automakers to install stability control systems in all vehicles by the 2012 model year, calling it safety technology on par with seat belts and air bags.
The rule would be phased in over four years, requiring 30% of vehicles to have electronic stability control by the 2009 model year, 60% by 2010 and 90% by 2011.
About 29% of vehicles sold today have standard or optional electronic stability control. NHTSA estimates that automakers had planned to put them in 71% of their vehicles by the 2010 model year.
Three groups - the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Consumers Union and Public Citizen - say the technology offers too many benefits to wait until 2012 before it's mandatory.
Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, said NHTSA should force automakers to meet a 2010 deadline for equipping all vehicles. It also said it was concerned that NHTSA appeared to rely entirely on automakers for its research leading to the rule.
"It would have been beneficial and wise, we believe, for the government's auto safety agency to seek out other perspectives, including consumer perspectives, in developing this proposed rule," Consumer Reports said.
Public Citizen contends the rule defines electronic stability control so loosely that by the time the rule takes effect it will be obsolete.
"As the proposal now stands, it could be that the public is better protected with no new standard because this weak proposal as a final standard could encourage companies to cut back on the technologies they are now using," the group said.
In joint comments, the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers offer a bevy of technical concerns and say they will need the full phase-in period to meet some requirements.
They also warn that NHTSA's estimates of the benefits may be "overly optimistic" and based on limited data.