Vol. 45, No. 8, Aug.

21, 2010

So big and relentless is the toll from motor vehicle crashes — upward of 100 deaths per day and
many more injuries on US roads alone — that the solutions need to be big, too. Think vehicle
designs that control crash energy and keep it from harming occupants. Think front and side
airbags for cushioning and safety belts plus enough enforcement to boost buckle-up rates.
These solutions collectively save tens of thousands of lives.
Developing new ways to reduce crashes and protect large numbers of people is the
essential work in the field of highway safety. Yet too often this work gets

SIDETRACKED
by one or another issue du jour. Vehicle defects,
for example, have to be addressed, but it’s
counterproductive to confuse indi-
vidual defects with bigger
2 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 8, Aug. 21, 2010
highway safety problems that cause thou-
sands of deaths each year.
Recent issues du jour include the Toyota
safety defects that alarmed millions of driv-
ers. Another issue that’s still usurping public
attention is phoning while driving. These are
real problems that have to be addressed. But
you’d think from the media coverage, con-
gressional hearings, and the US Department
of Transportation’s focus in recent months
that separating drivers from their phones
would all but solve the public heath problem
of crash deaths and injuries. It won’t.
“The hypervisibility of these issues di-
verts attention from initiatives that have far
greater potential to save lives,” Institute presi-
dent Adrian Lund points out. “We need to
look for the next big idea like airbags and get
it done.”
Toyota sidetrack: Earlier this year the me-
dia were reporting case after case of un-
intended acceleration and loss of control.
To the motorists involved in these events,
the problems were terrifying. To anyone with
a Toyota identified as subject to the prob-
lem, it was worrisome. This is why the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-
tion’s (NHTSA) Office of Defects Investigation
launched several inquiries.
“Toyota owners are fortunate that federal
procedures to address defects are well estab-
lished and generally lead to solutions,” Lund
says. “NHTSA may need additional resources
to address some of the advanced electronics
in newer vehicles, but let’s keep some per-
spective. Defects aren’t rare — NHTSA listed
about 70 new ones in the month of June alone
— and federal investigators handle them rou-
tinely. Meanwhile, huge highway safety prob-
lems fail to attract the same degree of public
interest or concern that Toyota does.”
For example, nobody’s clamoring for low-
er speed limits or for speed cameras to en-
force whatever limits are posted, even though
going fast contributes to something like one-
third of all deaths in crashes. Study after
study conducted on US roads and elsewhere
confirms the safety benefits of posting lower
limits (see Status Report, Nov. 22, 2003; on the
web at iihs.org). Motorists respond by slow-
ing down. The result is a saving of lives.
Yet policymakers are going the other way,
raising speed limits to 70, 75, and even 80
mph (see Status Report, Jan. 31, 2008; on the
web at iihs.org). The predictable result is the
loss of exponentially more lives than a defect
would cause.
Another way to save lives is to use red
light cameras. More than 750 people die ev-
ery year and an estimated 137,000 are
injured in crashes that involve running sig-
nal lights (see Status Report, May 12, 2007; on
the web at iihs.org). These losses aren’t rais-
ing public concern, however, and the media
mainly cover the issue when signal violators
caught on camera complain about invasion
of their privacy.
Roundabouts would solve red light run-
ning at many intersections by removing sig-
nal lights altogether (see Status Report, June
9, 2008; on the web at iihs.org). Some US com-
munities embrace this approach, but round-
abouts aren’t being adopted at many locations
where they could make a difference in terms
of traffic flow, fuel consumption, and safety.
“There’s nothing rational about the way
we set highway safety priorities,” Lund ob-
serves. “We know from studies which poli-
cies make a big difference, but the media
don’t cover them and public interest is ho-
hum. Contrast this with response to Toyota
defects. It’s as if there has to be a villain in a
black hat to drum up enough support to get
anything done. It’s an irrational way to go
about highway safety policy.”
Cellphone sidetrack: The risk of phoning
while driving is substantial (see Status Re-
port, July 16, 2005; on the web at iihs.org),
and it’s likely that texting represents a similar
hazard. Policymakers are right to address
these issues, but they’ve gone off on a side-
track by focusing solely on laws prohibiting
phone use. Such laws reduce phoning (see
Status Report, Feb. 27, 2010; on the web at
iihs.org), but there’s no effect on crashes. In
jurisdictions where driver use of hand-held
phones has been banned, crash patterns have
held steady.
“Reducing crashes and saving lives is
what highway safety is all about,” Lund
notes, “and by this essential measure the
benefits of hand-held cellphone bans are nil.”
Policymakers aren’t listening. In state af-
ter state they’re enacting new bans, and no
less than the US Department of Transporta-
tion says it’s “irresponsible to suggest” that
these bans “have zero effect on the number
of crashes.”
Lund counters that “we’re not suggesting
anything. This is a data-driven finding, and
the data show the same thing across every
state we’ve studied — no reductions in crash-
es after banning driver phone use.”
Elsewhere in the government, policymak-
ers heed data-driven findings. The Food and
Drug Administration, for example, requires
drug manufacturers to prove the effective-
ness of their products before doctors can
prescribe them and consumers can take
them. Traffic safety laws can’t be subjected
to similar testing before enactment, but
when evidence indicates that laws like phone
bans don’t work it makes sense to look for
another prescription.
Finding that bans don’t cut crashes
isn’t the same as finding no risk as-
sociated with phone use while
driving. The risk is well estab-
lished. It’s just that banning
this practice doesn’t
reduce crash risk. It
doesn’t recognize
that using a cell-
phone is one
 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 8, Aug. 21, 2010 3

among many driver distractions.

If one source of distraction is IT’S AS IF THERE
banned and drivers re-
spond by picking up on
another, equally risky
HAS TO BE A VILLAIN
distraction, then
crashes won’t go IN A BLACK HAT TO
(continues
on p. 4) DRUM UP ENOUGH
SUPPORT TO GET
ANYTHING DONE.
IT’S AN IRRATIONAL
WAY TO GO ABOUT
MAKING HIGHWAY
SAFETY POLICY.
4 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 8, Aug. 21, 2010
(continued from p. 3) down. This could be
why bans reduce phoning but not collisions.
A better prescription for distracted driv-
ing might be crash avoidance features. These
don’t care whether motorists get distracted
by phone use, radio dials, roadside signs, or
something else. The features have the poten-
tial to help all drivers avoid crashes in all
sorts of situations (see Status Report, May 20,
2010; on the web at iihs.org).
“Why isn’t the US Department of Transpor-
tation holding summits about crash avoidance
features? Or about speeding or red light run-
ning?” Lund asks. “Instead the department
held a summit last year on phone use while
driving and is preparing to convene another
one next month. The purpose seems to be to
agree that driver phone use is bad and should
be banned. But why not focus on measures
like crash avoidance features, with the poten-
tial to save more lives in more situations? This
is what the department should be doing in-
stead of summiting on phones.”
Sidetracking isn’t new: Phone use isn’t
the first issue to sidetrack highway
safety policymakers.
Nor are
Toyota defects. Remember the brouhaha a
decade or so ago about Firestone tire fail-
ures on Ford vehicles, particularly Explor-
ers? The fear was that tire tread separation
increases the risk of rolling over.
“Once again, there was a villain, or two in
this case, the automaker and the tire manu-
facturer,” Lund says, “so a frenzy took over.
Instead of simply allowing NHTSA to inves-
tigate this problem and come up with a fix,
it morphed into a scandal.”
While NHTSA and most of the public was
focusing on the perceived scandal, resources
were diverted from bigger highway safety
problems. These included elevated rates of
rollover crash deaths in SUVs, not just Ford
Explorers, regardless of their tires.
“NHTSA needed to be focusing on stronger
vehicle roofs and occupant protection in roll-
over crashes more than on tire reliability,”
Lund adds. He concedes that “it’s easy to get
diverted from these big issues when there’s a
ready villain, and the media hammer away at
it. This happens over and over again.”
Getting back on track: Deaths occur in
such a wide range of crashes from pedestrian
impacts to collisions with tractor-trailers
that no single policy or program can have a
defining effect. It takes a range of solutions,
not a single answer to a single issue.
“Priority belongs to measures that address
the biggest highway safety issues and
promise to save the most lives,” Lund
concludes. “This doesn’t mean ig-
noring problems like specific
defects in specific models. It
means fixing those defects
via established channels
without mistaking the
fixes for meaningful
answers to the over-
all problem of crash
deaths and injuries.
Making a dent in a
problem as big as
this one calls for
bigger ideas that
take a lot of our
time and our re-
sources plus a
steady focus.”
 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 8, Aug. 21, 2010 5

SPEED LIMITERS IN TRUCKS

WOULD SERVE 2 PURPOSES
President Obama’s push to improve the fuel efficiency of large trucks could give new
life to a safety initiative that has been stuck in the federal bureaucracy for nearly 4
years. In 2006, the American Trucking Associations and Road Safe America sepa-
rately petitioned federal regulators to require speed limiters in trucks with gross
weights exceeding 26,000 pounds. The petitions call for the devices, also known as
speed governors, to be set at a maximum of 68 mph.
“This was a good idea 4 years ago, and it’s arguably an even better idea today
amid heightened concern about fuel efficiency,” says Anne McCartt, Institute senior
vice president for research. “With the technology widely available, this is an easy
way to achieve safer truck speeds and reduce fuel consumption.”
In May, Obama directed his administration to create a national policy to both
improve the fuel efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty trucks and reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions. This put the idea of speed limiters
in a new light because every 1 mph reduction in large truck speed
is estimated to yield fuel savings approaching 1 percent.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration solicited com-
ments on the speed limiter petitions in January 2007. The Insti-
tute was one of many organizations voicing support (see
Status Report, June 15, 2007; on the web at iihs.org), believing
limiters set to 68 mph would improve safety though a great-
er benefit could be reaped with an even lower setting.
Why they’re needed: More than 4,000 people died in
large truck crashes in 2008. Only about 15 percent of them
were truck occupants, and the rest were occupants of pas-
senger vehicles, motorcyclists, or pedestrians.
High travel speeds increase truck stopping distances,
which already are much longer than those of cars. For exam-
ple, a large truck going 75 mph takes approximately one-third
longer to stop compared with one going 65. Speed also exacerbates
the size and weight differences between large trucks and passenger
vehicles, leading to more severe crashes.
The European Union, Australia, and Japan, among other countries, already re-
quire speed governors in large trucks. So do the Canadian provinces of Ontario and
Quebec. Despite the strong safety argument for requiring governors in trucks on US
roads, too, the government so far has failed to act. NHTSA says it’s still analyzing this
issue after drawing more than 3,800 public comments.
Among US drivers, the concept has broad support. A 2007 Institute survey found
64 percent in favor of a truck speed governor requirement. Three of 4 in favor said
they want the devices set at a maximum speed that’s slower than 70 mph. But not all
of the trucking industry embraces limiters. The Owner-Operator Independent Driv-
ers Association, for example, has been among the most vocal opponents.
Some companies already use speed limiters: Most trucks have the basic tech-
nology. Since the mid-1990s, electronic control modules that, among other func-
tions, can be programmed to limit speed have been standard equipment in trucks.
Typically, the top speed is programmed in the factory according to buyer specifica-
tions, and many trucking companies already are programming (continues on p.7)
6 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 8, Aug. 21, 2010

ROOF STRENGTH UPDATE Acura RL

Audi A3
large car
midsize car
M
G
Automakers are working fast to earn good Audi A4 midsize car G
ratings for occupant protection in rollover Audi A6 large car A
crashes. When the Institute launched roof Audi Q5 midsize SUV G
strength evaluations in 2009 to compare BMW 5 series large car G
vehicle crashworthiness in rollovers, only Buick LaCrosse large car G
one-third of the SUVs that were tested Buick Regal large car G
earned good ratings (see Status Report, Cadillac CTS large car G
March 24, 2009; on the web at iihs.org). Cadillac SRX midsize SUV G
Since then about 100 vehicles have Chevrolet Aveo 4dr minicar M
been tested, and most are rated good. Chevrolet Colorado crew small pickup M
Chevrolet Equinox midsize SUV G
Chevrolet Malibu midsize car G
Chrysler Sebring midsize car G
Dodge Avenger midsize car G
 Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 8, Aug. 21, 2010 7

Dodge Dakota crew small pickup M Mazda Tribute hybrid small SUV P (continued from p. 5) to 68 mph or slower.
Dodge Journey midsize SUV G Mazda Tribute small SUV M ABF Freight System Inc. is one. It estimates
Dodge Nitro midsize SUV G except hybrid that at a maximum speed of 62 mph, each
Ford Edge midsize SUV A Mercedes C class midsize car G truck emits 33.5 fewer tons of carbon dioxide
Ford Escape hybrid small SUV P Mercedes E class large car G annually, compared with an identical truck
Ford Escape except hybrid small SUV M Mercury Mariner hybrid small SUV P going 68 mph. The company also credits
Ford Fiesta small car G Mercury Mariner small SUV M slower speeds with strengthening safety per-
except hybrid
Ford Flex midsize SUV G formance, though the exact benefit is impos-
Mercury Milan midsize car G
Ford Fusion midsize car G sible to calculate.
Mini Cooper minicar A
Ford Ranger extended small pickup A
Mitsubishi Endeavor midsize SUV M
If speed limiters were mandatory, some
Ford Taurus large car G steps would be needed to prevent truck own-
Mitsubishi Galant midsize car A
GMC Canyon crew small pickup M ers from making unauthorized modifications
Mitsubishi Lancer small car G
GMC Terrain midsize SUV G to the control modules. To calculate speeds,
Mitsubishi Outlander small SUV A
Honda Civic 4dr small car G the modules rely on fixed information such
Nissan Altima 4dr midsize car A
Honda CRV small SUV M as tire size and transmission and rear axle
Nissan Cube small car G
Honda Accord 4dr midsize car A gear ratios. Currently, owners can enter
Nissan Frontier crew small pickup G
Honda Accord Crosstour midsize SUV M changes if they modify these parts of the
Nissan Maxima midsize car A
Honda Element small SUV G truck, according to the Truck Manufacturers
Nissan Murano midsize SUV M
Honda Fit minicar A Association. This group has provided NHTSA
Nissan Pathfinder midsize SUV M
Honda Pilot midsize SUV M with information on possible ways to resolve
Nissan Rogue small SUV A
Hyundai Accent 4dr minicar A the issue.
Nissan Xterra midsize SUV A
Hyundai Genesis large car G Easy way to conserve fuel: When it comes
Scion xB small car G
Hyundai Sonata midsize car G to improving fuel efficiency, requiring speed
Smart Fortwo microcar G
Hyundai Tucson small SUV G limiters is “low-hanging fruit,” Tom Hodgson,
Subaru Forester small SUV G
Infiniti M37/M56 large car G executive director of Road Safe America,
Subaru Impreza small car G
Jeep Grand Cherokee midsize SUV G recently told NHTSA. The agency has been
Subaru Legacy midsize car G
Jeep Liberty midsize SUV G tasked with developing efficiency and emis-
Subaru Outback midsize car G
Jeep Patriot small SUV G sions standards for trucks beginning with the
Subaru Tribeca midsize SUV G
Kia Forte small car G 2014 model year.
Suzuki Equator crew small pickup G
Kia Rio 4dr minicar A
Suzuki Grand Vitara small SUV A “The original rationale behind the peti-
Kia Sorento midsize SUV G
Suzuki Kizashi midsize car A tion was safety, but if fuel economy and pol-
Kia Soul small car G
Toyota 4Runner midsize SUV A lution abatement are deemed as more
Kia Sportage small SUV G
Toyota Avalon large car G important and can get this petition approved,
Lexus GS large car A
Toyota Camry midsize car G so be it,” Hodgson said in a comment filed
Lexus HS 250h midsize car A
Toyota Corolla small car G with NHTSA on June 23.
Lexus RX midsize SUV G
Toyota FJ Cruiser midsize SUV A This wouldn’t be the first time fuel econo-
Lincoln MKS large car G
Toyota Highlander midsize SUV G my considerations led to slower travel speeds
Lincoln MKT midsize SUV G
Toyota RAV4 small SUV A and associated safety benefits. The 55 mph
Lincoln MKX midsize SUV A
Toyota Sienna minivan G national maximum speed limit, enacted in
Lincoln MKZ midsize car G
Toyota Tacoma crew small pickup M 1974, was a response to oil shortages. A de-
Mazda 6 midsize car A
Toyota Venza midsize SUV G cade later, the National Research Council
Mazda CX-7 midsize SUV M
Toyota Yaris 4dr minicar A found that this law, which required states to
Volkswagen Golf 4dr small car G adopt 55 as a condition for receiving federal
Volkswagen Jetta midsize car G highway funds, was saving 2,000 to 4,000
Volkswagen Passat midsize car G lives per year (see Status Report, December
Volkswagen Tiguan small SUV G 22, 1984; on the web at iihs.org). But after
RATINGS Volvo C30 midsize car G concerns about oil prices faded, Congress in
GOOD G Volvo S40 midsize car A 1987 allowed states to increase posted limits
ACCEPTABLE A Volvo S80 large car G on rural interstates to 65 mph. Complete con-
MARGINAL M Volvo XC60 midsize SUV G trol over speed limits was returned to the
POOR P Volvo XC90 midsize SUV G states in 1995.
1005 N. Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA 22201
Phone 703/247-1500 Fax 247-1588
Internet: www.iihs.org
Vol. 45, No. 8, Aug. 21, 2010

Hot-button issues often drive highway

safety policy, draining time and atten-
tion from initiatives with greater poten-
tial to save lives .....................................1
Require speed limiters in big trucks
for safety as well as fuel economy .......5
Roof strength ratings for more than
100 passenger vehicles, most of which
earn top mark of good ............................6

Contents may be republished with attribution.

This publication is printed on recycled paper.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a Farm Bureau Insurance of Michigan Norfolk & Dedham Group
nonprofit scientific and educational organization Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries, and property Farmers Insurance Group of Companies Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
damage from crashes on the nation’s highways. Farmers Mutual of Nebraska Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance
The Institute is wholly supported by auto insurers:
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company OneBeacon Insurance
First Acceptance Corporation Oregon Mutual Insurance
AAA Mid-Atlantic Insurance Group Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Palisades Insurance
AAA Northern California, Nevada, and Utah Frankenmuth Insurance Pekin Insurance
ACE USA Gainsco Insurance PEMCO Insurance
Affirmative Insurance GEICO Group Progressive Corporation
Agency Insurance Company of Maryland Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Rockingham Group
Alfa Alliance Insurance Corporation GMAC Personal Lines Insurance Safeco Insurance
Alfa Insurance Grange Insurance Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Company
Allstate Insurance Group Hanover Insurance Group SECURA Insurance
American Family Mutual Insurance The Hartford Sentry Insurance
American National Property and Casualty Company Haulers Insurance Company, Inc. Shelter Insurance
Ameriprise Auto & Home High Point Insurance Group Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America
Amica Mutual Insurance Company Homeowners of America Insurance Company South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
Auto Club Enterprises ICW Group Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company
Auto Club Group Kemper, A Unitrin Business State Auto Insurance Companies
Auto Club South Insurance Company Kentucky Farm Bureau Insurance State Farm
Bituminous Insurance Companies Liberty Mutual Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company
Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Tokio Marine Nichido
California Casualty Markel Corporation The Travelers Companies
Capital Insurance Group Mercury Insurance Group United Educators
Chubb & Son MetLife Auto & Home Unitrin
Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual insurance Company Michigan Insurance Company USAA
Concord Group Insurance Companies MiddleOak Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
Cotton States Insurance Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company West Bend Mutual Insurance Company
COUNTRY Financial MMG Insurance Zurich North America
Direct General Corporation Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company
Discovery Insurance Company Nationwide FUNDING ASSOCIATIONS
Erie Insurance Group New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company American Insurance Association
Esurance NLC Insurance Companies, Inc. National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Farm Bureau Financial Services Nodak Mutual Insurance Company Property Casualty Insurers Association of America