The 6 Things To Know About Star Safety Ratings
While you might be perfectly happy with a two-star hotel or restaurant choice, you shouldn't ever settle for anything but five stars in a vehicle.
As before, you'll find federal star ratings printed on the window sticker of all new vehicles. But this year, they're different. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has revamped its New-Car Assessment Program (NCAP) for 2011—and now those star ratings are more likely to show, at a glance, the differences in protection from one model to another.
That was the intent, at least, with a new system that rates vehicles based on three stars as average, versus the star ratings corresponding to actual likelihood of injury. Already, there have been plenty of three-star ratings, and some two-star results, dealt out in a field that, last year, was packed with five-star results.
Yet there haven't been as many one- and two-star ratings as you might think.
"It's a good step forward," says Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the other organization that crash-tests and rates U.S.-market vehicles for safety. "But it's not resulting in as much differentiation as NHTSA anticipated earlier."
The IIHS rates vehicles on a good/acceptable/marginal/poor scale, with vehicles that rate 'good' in all categories and include electronic stability control given Top Safety Pick status. At this point there are about 75 Top Safety Picks for 2011.
Crash tests and safety ratings have made cars much safer, especially over the past ten to fifteen years while we've had two active testing organizations ramping up requirements. Yet the IIHS's Rader concedes that there are still people being killed in vehicles that perform well by all existing crash-test ratings, and it's up for his organization and the federal government to raise the bar, not by introducing tougher versions of existing frontal and side impact tests, but with new tests that will target those scenarios—including crash structures that don't match.
How do you choose the safest vehicle possible? For starters, look at IIHS ratings in addition to these new federal star ratings.
And read on for how to best keep your family the safest and get the most out of these ratings.
Graduated Teen Licensing To Become Federally Mandated?
The days of unrestricted driver's licenses at age 16 are, for the most part, long gone. Yet not all states have acted to reel in teen drivers and help keep them safe.
Now, the federal government is poised to step on what, some would argue, is each state's domain. A bill introduced to Congress this week could set mandatory federal standards for licensing—and restricting—teen drivers.
The Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection Act (STANDUP), introduced in the Senate would set minimum standards in all states for graduated driver licensing (GDL) programs, which has been proven to reduce deaths and injuries among the least experienced drivers.
If states fail to comply with the new standard, the federal government could withhold a specific amount of federal highway money each year.
Although most states now have graduated licensing rules, they vary significantly from state to state and several don't even require supervised driving at the learning stage. Most have nighttime restrictions, but some place restrictions on teen passengers.
According to the bill's sponsors, Senators Gillibrand and Klobuchar, and Congressmen Tim Bishop and Chris Van Hollen, those with strong GDL rules have seen up to a 40-percent reduction in teen-driver crashes.
In 2009 alone, more than 5,600 people were killed in accidents involving drivers age 15 to 20; and the annual cost of teen-driving crashes has been estimated at more than $30 billion.
Under the bill, teen drivers in all states would have a minimum of six months at the learner's permit stage, followed by at least six months with a restricted license; unrestricted licenses would be the domain of those 18 or older. That would be a major change for a number of states, as in some of them full, unrestricted licenses are granted to those under 18 after a restricted period.
[Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; CNN]
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
Feds Wants Rearview Cameras Standard by 2014
Rearview cameras could become standard equipment by 2014, if a new proposal by the Department of Transportation makes its way into law.
The DOT is expected to require that all vehicles make available to drivers, an unobstructed 180-degree rear view of their car's surroundings when the car is in reverse gear. Given the hard points of today's vehicles, the rule would essentially require standard rearview cameras like those embedded in rearview mirrors (above) or those that display inside a navigation unit screen.
The DOT's vehicle-safety agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), says that nearly 300 people die each year as a result of back-up accidents. The NHTSA also attributes 18,000 injuries to the scenario, pointing out that children and elderly pedestrians are in the highest-risk group for back-up accidents.
Underscoring the move, Consumer Reports today issued a report from its test of blind-spot zones on vehicles. By placing a toddler-height cone behind different vehicles, at different distances behind the vehicle, the publication found that blind spots on SUVs are particularly troubling, while those of small sportscars are better for preventing back-up accidents. The video below illustrates CR's study.
The NHTSA and DOT will likely phase in their new rules beginning in 2012, with all new vehicles sold after September 2014 held to the new standard-camera requirement.
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
Over 192,000 Chevrolet, GMC, Isuzu Pickups Recalled For Child Seat Anchor Issue
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today announced a recall of over 192,000 General Motors and Isuzu midsize pickups because the top child seat anchors aren't accessible and there are no instructions in the owner's manual on how to do so. Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon models from 2004-2011 are affected, along with 2006 model I-280 and I-350 pickups and 2007-2008 I-290 and I-370 pickups.
The inclusion of the Isuzus in the otherwise GM-only recall is because the Isuzu pickups were built by GM at its Shreveport, Louisiana plant.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225 is the regulation violated by the non-compliant child seat anchor system. The problem affects pickups with regular or extended cabs equipped with 60/40 split bench front seat and no rear seats.
GM's solution is to cut a hole into the back panel trim cover to allow access to the top child seat anchor. GM hasn't yet notified affected owners, but if you own one of the vehicles listed above, you can contact GM via its Owner Center website.
[NHTSA]
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco: Best Highway MPG Of Any Non-Hybrid
GM just dropped a very pleasant surprise for green-minded shoppers this morning. Up till now we've been anticipating that the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco will return a very respectable 40 mpg on the highway.
Turns out the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco is even greener than we were led to think: 42 mpg.
That makes the 2011 Cruze Eco the most fuel-efficient traditional gasoline-powered vehicle in the U.S.—excluding hybrids, diesels, and electrics, of course. Only a few VW and Audi diesels—the 2011 Volkswagen Jetta TDI, Jetta Sportwagen TDI, and 2011 Audi A3 TDI—match the 42 mpg highway rating. Admittedly, those diesels are slightly higher in the EPA city rating, at 30 mpg.
GM points out that the Cruze Eco is 23-percent more fuel-efficient on the highway than the Honda Civic, and that it's more fuel-stingy than the 2011 Ford Fusion Hybrid, Nissan Altima Hybrid, and Toyota Camry Hybrid on the highway.
The 2011 Cruze Eco starts at just $18,895, including destination charges, so it costs considerably less than those hybrids and diesels, too. For comparison, the 2011 Ford Fusion Hybrid starts at $27,950, and the others cost nearly that much.
Green without the sacrifices in comfort, refinement
As our companion site Green Car Reports has outlined, the 2011 Cruze Eco isn't just a Cruze slapped with uncomfortably tall gearing, no A/C, and a basic, chintzy interior—we saw some of those strategies in the 1980s with vehicles like the Dodge Omni Miser and Chevrolet Chevette Scooter, or the HF versions of some Hondas. GM says that aerodynamic improvements alone—through extensive wind-tunnel testing—contributed about six mpg to the Cruze Eco's highway fuel economy, while a rear spoiler, lowered ride height, and underbody panels, plus grille air shutters, helped optimize airflow. In all, the Cruze Eco has a coefficient of drag of just 0.298.
Weight is also a factor. The Cruze Eco tips the scales at just 3,009 pounds—more than 200 pounds lighter than the Cruze 1LT, thanks to weight savings in the suspension, thinner sheetmetal, and reduced weld flanges, along with lighter wheels and tires.
The Cruze Eco uses the same 1.4-liter, turbocharged Ecotec four-cylinder engine that's used in most other Cruze models (except for the base LS, which gets a non-turbo 1.8-liter). The engine makes just 138 hp, but over several drives, The Car Connection has found it to be quite smooth, torquey, and responsive; it also works well with the six-speed automatic transmission (26 mpg city, 37 highway as such).
And as we found in a preview drive of a pre-production prototype of the 2011 Cruze Eco early this year, the Eco's manual transmission and taller ratios aren't much if anything of a handicap; it still feels like a very enjoyable, drivable powertrain even if it's not as quick as the other Cruze versions with the automatic.
We'll bring you more up-close impressions of what it's like to live with the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco as soon as we can line up a longer drive.
[General Motors]
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
Crash-Test Dummies Go To The Smithsonian
The crash-test dummies have taken up residence at the Smithsonian. No, not those Crash Test Dummies. You know—Vince and Larry, the guys who have been features in public service announcements going back to 1985.
It's become one of the most successful safety campaigns in U.S. history, so they rightly deserve a spot at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, in Washington, D.C.
From the mid-1980s through 1998, TV and radio spots as well as magazine ads featured a more slaptick approach, as well as a little comedy—with lines like "it's a great job...they may have to pry me away from it"--to help us understand the importance of buckling up and saving lives.
Altogether, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 84 percent of Americans now buckle up, and NHTSA administrator David Strickland, at a presentation, pointed to the Vince and Larry characters as "tremendously helpful in building public awareness of seat belt use."
Check out one of the classics below, and remember to buckle up this weekend.
[NHTSA]
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
Feds Clear Toyota On Throttle Issues; Steering Issue Remains?
Toyota—and Toyota owners—can breathe a little easier with a finding from the federal government released today.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said, in a preliminary finding, that it could find no evidence of a problem with electronic throttle controls or electronic failure in Toyota Motor Corp. (Toyota, Lexus, or Scion) vehicles, and suggested that driver error had been to blame in many of those cases.
NHTSA found that the brakes hadn't been applied in at least 35 of the 58 crashes that had been attributed to unintended acceleration.
More Toyota owners mistook the brake for the accelerator?
The finding is yet another argument in favor of Toyota's assertion—that there aren't any safety-critical flaws in its 'by-wire' throttle systems or in its engine controls, and that drivers simply pressed the accelerator instead of the brake.
However, last year Consumer Reports found that, through its own analysis of safety complaints, that Toyota vehicles had a disproportionately high number of unintended-acceleration reports. While the automaker held a 16-percent U.S. market share, 41 percent of all such complaints involved Toyotas.
The new announcement, largely exonerating Toyota from broader issues with its electronic throttles, shouldn't be confused with the automaker's two broad safety recalls from this past year—one relating to accelerators becoming stuck in floor mats, and the other relating to a potentially sticky pedal mechanism. Beyond those mechanical issues, the probe was looking into accusations that the automaker may have issues with interference issues with its electronic throttles, which have been used for most of a decade on most of its vehicles.
Toyota renews commitment to safety, quality
Curiously, the announcement comes just after a twitter chat and blog post from Toyota chief quality officer Steve St. Angelo, who explained that it's part of his job to maintain a direct line on quality to global president Akio Toyoda.
"We're listening closely to our customers and taking quick, decisive actions to enasure that their vehicles are safe," he said. St. Angelo pointed out that for the automaker, recalls are "an integral part of our commitment to standing by our products and being responsive to our customers."
Angelo says that Toyota already has two of many new field quality offices open at this point, with the remainder of them set to open over the next 12 months.
This year, Toyota has deployed so-called Swift Market Analysis Response Team (SMART) members to look at individual cases of unintended acceleration and other potential recall issues. And it's gotten back to basics with a re-emphasis of the Toyota Production System, allowing a worker to stop the production line for an issue.
"If we determine that there's even the slightest safety concern with our cars on the road, we're not hesitating to address it—sometimes on the basis of just a handful of complaints."
St. Angelo also cited Detroit News figures, projecting that the industry is on track to recall more than 20 million vehicles this year, with 300 recall campaigns announced just in the first six months of the year (among all automakers).
Steering recall looms?
However, Toyota's recall worries don't altogether end with today's announcement. In addition to a recent recall of more than 400,000 vehicles in the U.S. for steering issues, Toyota has been widely criticized in recent weeks for not issuing a formal recall for another ongoing steering issue, being investigated with a federal defect probe, that affects Toyota Corolla and Matrix models. The automaker has so far called the problem a "customer satisfaction issue," yet it is offering free repairs for the issue.
Beginning last month, Toyota began offering a fix for the issue, which affects 749,685 Toyota Corolla and Matrix models, but it hasn't considered it a safety concern. The fix includes a new control unit that provides an "alternative steering feel."
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
Toyota Sudden Acceleration: Is It All Older Drivers’ Fault?
So-called "sudden acceleration" is an ugly mix of media frenzy, sophisticated engineering, and complex human-machine interaction.
But recent data on Toyota sudden-acceleration complaints seems to show--with some qualifiers--that the bulk of the incidents ending in fatalities have been reported by drivers aged 61 to 80.
Which leads to a very obvious question: Could it be that human error, not defective design, is at fault here?
Age clusters ...
This morning, our friends at Jalopnik posted a fascinating chart showing the age distribution of all the drivers in 56 deaths since 1992 that were linked by the Los Angeles Times to Toyota sudden acceleration.
And the chart is pretty revealing: The highest clusters are the 61-70 and 71-80 cohorts. The median age is 60, and just over half are 60 or older. That's against just 16 percent of drivers over 60 across all automotive fatalities.
They helpfully overlaid the average age distribution of deaths in all auto accidents, which peaks for drivers aged 22-30 and falls consistently thereafter. Death rates overall for drivers 61-80 are just one-third those of the 20-somethings.
... with caveats
There are several caveats. The data does not represent all incidents reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), because those reports do not specify the complainant's (or driver's) age.
Moreover, the age distribution of all sudden-acceleration complainants should be mapped against the age distribution of Toyota buyers overall, to ensure it's not representative. But we're pretty confident that the average Toyota purchaser is not between 60 and 80.
New York Times op-ed
But it's not just one of those durned auto blogs that suggests age plays a big role. Two media outlets have recently carried opinion pieces reinforcing the continuing belief among automotive engineers that driver error is largely to blame.
The op-ed page of The New York Times, carried a lengthy article last week by Richard Schmidt, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, noting that driver error is almost always at fault in supposed sudden acceleration cases.
Based on his work in the 1986 Audi sudden acceleration case, he writes, "The trouble, unbelievable as it may seem, is that sudden acceleration is very often caused by drivers who press the gas pedal when they intend to press the brake."
The Audi allegation
Toyota is likely haunted by the spectre of Audi's 1986 trials, when an inflammatory "60 Minutes" report led to scores of claims of so-called sudden acceleration. Audi's crisis management was a textbook case of what not to do--it clammed up, then it blamed drivers--but it was ultimately exonerated.
A long NHTSA investigation closed the books by saying the problem was "pedal misapplication," though it noted that Audi had spaced its pedal very closely together. By that time, Audi's sales had plummeted to numbers so low that the company almost pulled out of the U.S.
Audi subsequently installed an automatic shift lock, which prevents the car from being shifted into gear unless the brake pedal is pressed. Sudden acceleration incidents from standstill have plummeted in cars with shift locks, which Audi licensed to all carmakers.
[Overlawyered via Jalopnik; The New York Times; Los Angeles Times]
Texting Ban For Commercial Drivers A Bellwether For Full Ban?
Truck or bus drivers who text while driving a commercial vehicle could be fined up to $2,750 as part of civil or criminal penalties.
That's what U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced today, explicitly prohibiting texting for commercial vehicle drivers.
But it's not a new rule. "This is no new law, no new regulation," clarifies Gerald Donaldson, senior research director at Advocates for Highway Safety. "It's a regulatory interpretation of an existing provision."
Because commercial vehicles involve interstate commerce, the federal government has full jurisdiction—and as Donaldson puts it, "a stick here that they can't use for fifty individual state governments."
While the federal government's jurisdiction over texting for passenger-vehicle drivers on a national level is still uncertain, it's "using the commercial area as an exemplar," Donaldson says, and an extension to all drivers might not be so far away.
Danger, danger
"He is taking a specific device and behavior that has been shown to be dangerous" and making a move to enforce it, explained Donaldson. "Handheld texting has been shown to be a manual, visual, and cognitive diversion."
According to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) research, drivers who text while driving take their eyes off the road for 4.6 seconds out of every six seconds while texting, which at 55 mph ends up being the length of a football field. And according to research from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, the risk of a crash or near-crash while driving a truck is more than 23 times higher when texting than when not.
Nearly 6,000 people were killed—and more than 500,000 injured—in crashes in 2008 alone due to a distracted or inattentive driver, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations already prevent any activities in the cab—while driving—that jeopardize the safety of other motorists. And on December 30, 2009, a federal ban went into effect banning all federal employees from texting while driving government-owned vehicles or equipment.
Donaldson said his organization considers the announcement a positive step toward making the roadways safer, describing LaHood's action as "just, firm, and vigorous."
NY Times: NHTSA Suppressed Cellphone Distraction Research
You've likely purchased some sort of hands-free device, like a Bluetooth headset, over the past several years—if you don't already have one built into your late-model car.
Now that you don't have to press buttons, flip a phone, or deal with a keyboard, no worries, right? Sadly, no; the evidence continues to build up against calling and driving in any form. And a story published yesterday in the New York Times suggests that some information from U.S. researchers was intentionally withheld by the feds.
Six years ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) "covered up hundreds of pages of research and warnings" about distraction due to cellphone use while driving because, according to the New York Times, "because of concerns about angering Congress."
That NHTSA might have put politics before safety is one of several points in the first-rate story, by Matt Richtel, which brings a comprehensive internal NHTSA report into light. The federal report included new data—from a long-term study of 10,000 drivers—and findings that might have allowed some states to pass restrictions on cellphone use while driving years earlier, possibly averting thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of accidents.
The researchers then came to the conclusion that other researchers wouldn't arrive to, convincingly, until several years later: that it's the conversation, not the action of holding the phone that causes the more significant distraction.
In the suppressed report, researchers estimated that cell-phone-related distraction had caused 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents in 2002 alone. In a letter to then Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta—another item that was withheld and never sent—the researchers warned that hands-free laws might not be enough.
Dr. Jeffrey Runge, who was then NHTSA's head decided not to publish the information or the policy recommendation at that time due to "larger political considerations," reported the Times, because the data was judged incomplete and Congress had warned the agency against using its research to lobby states.
At the time, the data was also suppressed because of the potential risk of angering voters who talked while driving, and the cellphone industry.
Through a freedom of information request, the New York Times has obtained the document, via the Center for Automotive Safety and Public Citizen, and has made it available with its story. The document is well organized, like a preliminary paper, and includes the following General Conclusion:
"The experimental data indicated that, with the exception of the consequences of manipulating a wireless communications device, there are negligible differences in safety relevant behavior and performance between using hand-held and hands-free communications devices while driving from the standpoint of cognitive distraction. Specifically, the experimental data reveal observable degradations in driver behavior and performance and changes in risk-taking and decision-making behaviors when using both hand-held and hands-free mobiles [sp] phones, and the nature of those degradations and changes are symptomatic of potential safety-related problems."
The lengthy but very accessible internal report that follows combines a slideshow-type summary of existing research along with the 2002 conservative risk-level crash estimates and proposed policy. For anyone concerned about the issue for themselves or a loved one, it's definitely worth the time to page through—and its provokes some thought about how differently we would have addressed the issue by now in state legislatures if there had been some more conclusive research such as this to present.
What sort of action should be taken against this level of suppression, which could have saved potentially hundreds of lives? Let us know, then write Congress.
This story originally appeared at The Car Connection
