This Sub-topic is for discussing the article listed above, which can be read here. Please add your thoughts and reactions to the article.

While I agree that we are a risk-taking species, the author is treading down a dangerous path.

Many of the tire failures were aggravated by overloaded SUV's, and the load ratings were too low for the basic function of the vehicle. This is a serious design flaw, most probably based on the logic that these 4,000 lb. behemoths usually only have one person on board. Many of them are beyond their rated capacity when the passenger capacity is reached. Luggage brings the vehicles into an overload situation. This is not limited to tires: braking and handling systems designed for "rated loads" may not take the actual loads into account, making stopping and evasive maneuvers excessively dangerous.

As for taking an interest in our own safety, I wonder if the author checks his own water supply for contaminants and does anything to ensure a minimum level of safety for himself and his relations.

Only through consumer diligence and government enforcement can we avoid the intentional lowering of standards to sell more product. I am not a fan of more government regulation, but I have seen first hand what happens when most industries attempt self-regulation or ignore safety precautions altogether. Just ask the residents of Bhopal, India...

And as for the "human element" that fails, it would be good to know that there are design elements that can help increase survival. Think of a person who has a heart attack while driving, as an example.

Gary Magwood, here: I actually do check my water twice a year!
Mr. Chenkin, Your second paragraph endorses my position. Not knowing when your vehicle is overloaded or what its rated load is illustrates how little we pay attention to our own well being.

I am reminded that it is said that in 1895, when there were only four petrol-engined cars in the whole of the USA, the only two in St Louis managed to crash into each other, injuring the occupants of both.

Safety is a complex issue. As Gary Magwood says, roads just lie there and soak up the sun (or at least they do for most of the year in most of Australia), but roadmakers can and do build into them characteristics that affect the consequences of a user making an error. Separating opposing traffic, evening out grades, widening curve radii and (importantly) providing wider paved shoulders and runoff areas are all features now built into many roads that result in the use of them being safer for people. Not having some or all of those and other characteristics can mean that the consequences of error are relatively worse.

You can say the same about restraint systems and passive occupant protection in cars. All this just illustrates that we are in a highly complex, dynamic system. And it seems to me that a good deal of the debate centres around the idea that we have become accustomed to looking for someone to blame for more and more esoteric and obscure failures of duty of care, rather than accepting the consequences of our own failure to take responsibility and due care for our own safety: properly loading the vehicle and not trying to push it beyond the limits of its design envelope, checking tyre (sorry, tire) inflation and so on.

Society certainly has a duty to provide clean water and effective reticulation services, and it has to accept reponsibility if the system becomes contaminated through some reasonably predictable failure of that duty. And people can reasonably expect to turn on a tap and drink a glass of water without having to boil it first, because there is no expectation that the consumer should exercise any element of control about water quality (there is the wider question about consumer responsibility in relation to pollution, but that is a separate issue).

I think the same would apply in relation to fairground equipment and the like, where the only control the consumer can exercise is whether or not to ride on the thing: you expect that it will be in working order and not break while you are on it.

But use of roads is not the same. As road users we can reasonably expect society to provide good roads and to maintain them in good order (the equivalent of providing and maintaining water quality). But we are in sufficient control as we use the roads to be able to exercise judgement and accept repsonsiblity for what we do. So if when we come upon a patch of cracked concrete or otherwise deteriorated road surface, we continue to drive along as if the bad patch wasn't there and crash, then we are being merely stupid. This is not to deny the responsibility of the highway authority to maintain the asset, and to undertake repairs in a reasonable period of time. But I think it unreasonable to expect to sue the highway authority for our own failure to exercise judgement and respect for our own skin.

Gary,
Great article. Do you know about the Car & Driver test of a Ford Explorer rigged to rapidly evacuate the air in the left rear tire and then measure the effect on stability. It was on their web site but now seems to be gone. The on-tape conclusion was what you and I know--nothing happens to the handling when a tire deflates suddenly--particularly a rear tire. I have a copy of the video and article on my hard drive if you'd like to have it.
The mystery is why has no one picked this up. We are experiencing another public sham sponsored by the trial lawyers. Keep up the good work.

David Thompson
Advanced Car Control Techniques

David, I would like to receive the article and video regarding the Firestone/Ford fiasco.gmagwood

Mmmmmmm, here's the latest on the Firestone vs Ford tire controversy, courtesy of a February 12 press release from NHTSA at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/pressdisplay.cfm?year=2002&filename=pr11-02.html

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced today that it has denied a request by Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. to open a safety defect investigation into the handling and control characteristics of the Ford Explorer sport utility vehicle (SUV) following a tread separation of a rear tire. The decision followed an extensive analysis of agency data and information provided by Firestone and Ford.

"The data does not support Firestone's contention that Explorers stand out from other SUVs with respect to its handling characteristics following a tread separation," said Dr. Jeffrey Runge, NHTSA Administrator......"

Stay tuned folks. The next step will be to "discover" that when the tire delaminates it does not effectively change the handling of the vehicle--at leasts as far as altering the path of the car is concerned. Eventually, the "experts will conclude that the noise of the delamination frightened the unexpecting, untrained driver into an abrupt jerk of the steering wheel, perhaps under ABS braking, the car veered off the hard surface onto the wet grass of a median strip and became uncontrollable. Bingo--driver-induced roll-over incident followed by fatal injuries to unbelted occupants.

Check with the AAA Foundation report on "Improper Steering" which calls for more driver training.

Meanwhile NHTSA is busy running additional tests on the Big Simulator in Iowa to determine "driver response to emergency situaions." Hmmmmm, indeed.

Tonight, February 21, PBS is airing a show called "Rollover: the hidden history of the SUV"

Drivers.com has an article about the issue and the Frontline show. How did a vehicle with such a serious safety problem become so popular? How much did automakers know about the SUV's rollover record? And why didn't the government do more to protect drivers? Check out the Drivers.com article.