Sport utility vehicles, vans and pickups: orphans of auto safety.

Not long ago, station wagons were an important part of suburban family life. Popular models like the Ford Country Squire and Chevy Estate Wagon carried everything from kids to groceries.

But as the 1980s rolled around and station wagon sales stalled, car makers sought to transform family transportation. By 1989, minivans (such as Plymouth Voyagers, Chevy Astrovans, and Ford Aerostars) and sport utility vehicles (such as Ford Broncos, Chevy Blazers, and Jeep Cherokees) accounted for one-third of all vehicles sold in the United States.(1) These are known collectively as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs).

Manufacturers touted these vehicles' excitement and versatility, presenting them in advertisements as the younger, more fashionable sibling of cars in vogue in the 1960s. Showing split-second images of their off-road capabilities and boasting of their carpooling capacity and their manueverability in tight parking spaces, the advertisements struck a nerve with baby boomers. Sales took off, fattening industry profits and rejuvenating companies.

Although ads laud MPVS as perfect for the whole family, they are, in fact, the orphans of auto safety. They not only look different from their older siblings, they also are built differently, drive differently, and, tragically, are governed by inferior crash standards. Pickup trucks and full-size vans are also exempt from many federal safety standards.

Unlike station wagons, which were designed and built on car chassis, MPVs are built on truck chassis. One unfortunate consequence of this is that they have higher centers of gravity. Rollovers occur all too frequently - with disastrous consequences.

The death rate for small pickups in single-vehicle crashes is twice the average rate for passenger cars, and 39 percent of these deaths result from rollovers. The death rate in small sport utility vehicles is also twice the average rate for passenger cars, and 65 percent of these deaths result from rollovers.(2)

Hazards

Behind the flashy ads selling vehicle strength and thrills lies the deadly vulnerability of MPVs, which share many of the hazards that plague full-size vans and pickup trucks.

Minivans. There are no latching and closure requirements for minivan liftgates. The federal government recently initiated action against Chrysler after numerous reports of liftgate failure and doors opening as a result of collisions.(3) Also hazardous are the liftgates on the Ford Aerostar, which are made of SMC (sheet molding compound) plastic, known to carpenters and body shop workers as "bondo." For some time, the problem of SMC liftgates shattering, fracturing, and falling off was a well-kept secret. Finally, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is investigating this problem.(4)

Sliding doors also pose a significant danger. Although anti-intrusion beams have been a safety feature mandated on cars for two decades to protect occupants in side-impact collisions, most pickup trucks, vans, and MPVs were not required to have this protection until after September 1, 1994. In addition, these vehicles are not required to meet the dynamic performance standards to prevent accidental door openings during collisions that all cars must meet by September 1, 1996.(5)

Sliding doors on minivans are not even required to have safety latches to keep the doors closed. Sliding doors on Aerostar minivans made from 1985 to 1993 had no safety device on the forward edge of the door. But in 1994, after numerous lawsuits over sliding doors opening and falling off, Ford quietly added a simple retention device to correct the problem. Countless motorists are still at risk, though, because the company refuses to retrofit the hundreds of thousands of pre-1994 Aerostars still on the road.

Driver and front passenger seats also present a hazard. Auto manufacturers' own tests show that in most minivans, these seats collapse or fold backward in moderate-speed rear-end collisions (30 to 50 mph), with catastrophic results.(6) The driver often is unable to steer and loses control of the vehicle. Front-seat occupants are at risk for neck and spinal cord injuries ranging from whiplash to quadriplegia.

The industry and government know about these hazards, yet they refuse to take action. The performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 207 on seating systems has not been upgraded since 1968.(7)

Unknown to the vast majority of consumers, minivans handle differently than cars. Most motorists are accustomed to driving cars with low centers of gravity, a fair measure of understeer, and no unusual yaw. (Understeer is the vehicle's underresponse to steering; yaw is its tendency to move about its axis when in motion.)

But some minivans have high centers of gravity and both understeer and oversteer, depending on the direction the steering wheel is turned. Those problems are compounded by yaw and inertial characteristics unfamiliar to passenger-car drivers. The problems are apparently severe enough that Value Rent-a-Car Co. now cautions its renters by placing a warning sticker on the dashboard of its Ford Aerostar minivans.

In some minivans, manufacturers have even discovered a perceived roll propensity. This occurs when the driver, seated just above the roll axis, senses that the minivan will roll over during a sharp turn. In reality, the problem is perception. The van is not in danger of tipping over, but because the driver thinks is, the driver overreacts, and perception becomes reality.(8)

Pickups. Historically, pickups have had no headrests. It was not until September 1, 1991, that FMVSS 202 calling for headrests applied to pickups, vans, and MVPs.(9) This was 22 years after the standard applied to passenger cars.

A rear-end collision considered minor in a passenger car can cause whiplash or quadriplegia in a pickup truck. With seats flush against the rear window and no headrests to stop the rearward motion of the head, a rider's head can crash through the rear window or hit the metal window frame. Major head and spinal injuries can result.

Most pickup trucks on the road today also have inadequate roof-crush protection. Most roofs in pickups are weak. In many rollovers, the crushed roof can cause severe injuries and death even when the crash was otherwise survivable.

All pickup trucks, vans, and MPVs manufactured before September 1, 1994, are exempt from the requirements of the federal roof-crush standard for cars, FMVSS 216. After September 1, 1994, vehicles over 6,000 pounds are still exempt.(10)

The dangers of gas tanks on General Motors pickup trucks are well documented. Mounted outside the frame rails, the tanks are vulnerable to rupture in side-impact collisions. Resulting fires have caused catastrophic burns and death.(11)

Sport utility vehicles. These vehicles suffer from the worst characteristics of both minivans and pickups. They appear strong, but their roofs are weak and their doors flimsy. They also have stability and handling problems and are at risk of rolling over. For example, after numerous injuries and deaths, public attention finally focused on the high rollover propensity of the Jeep CJ-5 and CJ-7 and the Suzuki Samurai.(12) Chevy Blazers and Ford Broncos share many of the same problems, although this is not as well known.(13)

Jeep Cherokees are still made with SMC plastic liftgates. The manufacturer's own crash tests establish that latches fail and the liftgates fracture and fall off in moderate-speed collisions.(14) But Jeep and other manufacturers still make them, and the government remains silent, leaving hundreds of thousands of motorists at risk.

Why Orphans?

Why have minivans, sport utility vehicles, pickups, and full-size vans been the orphans of auto safety, excluded from regulations mandated for their sister passenger cars? The historical reasons are clear but sad.

When the government was forced to begin regulating the auto industry in the late 1960s because of carnage on U.S. highways and the arrogant indifference of the industry to crash safety, the plan was to initially cover passenger cars, then cover pickups, vans, and MPVs later. At the time, the decision seemed sensible. Minivans and sport utility vehicles had yet to replace station wagons as the primary mode of family transportation.

When the market changed in the 1980s, the federal government was controlled by antiregulatory bureaucrats who masqueraded behind a facade of strengthening the auto industry by leaving safety regulation to the marketplace.(15) The government's original plan to regulate other vehicles over time was never implemented. The unsuspecting public was not told by Washington or Detroit that vans, pickups, and MPVs had been orphaned from safety regulations.

A brief review of significant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards illustrates the point:

* Headrests became mandatory equipment in cars on January 1, 1969. It was another 22 years before the same requirement was applied to pickup trucks, vans, and MPVs.(16)

* Collapsible steering columns have been required on passenger cars since January 1, 1968. The standard was extended to pickup trucks, vans, and MPVs with an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1991.(17)

* The requirements for seat belts ad air bags in cars will not apply fully to other vehicles until September 1, 1998.(18)

* The 1996 side-impact dynamic performance standards for passenger cars do not apply to MPVs, vans, and pickups. The only side-impact protection requirement for these vehicles became effective September 1, 1993. As of that date, new pickups, vans, and MPVs finally came under FMVSS 214, the standard that has applied to cars since January 1, 1973.(19) It is ironic to the point of perversity that when the inadequate 1973 requirements are finally on their way out for cars, they are just beginning to apply to other vehicles. This is the classic treatment of orphans. They always come last, and they usually get other people's castoffs.

* The federal standard for roof-crush resistance does not apply to pickups, vans, and MPVs manufactured before September 1, 1994.(20) Consumer Reports criticized sport utility vehicles for lack of adequate roof strength as early as 1972.(21) More than 20 years later, the issue is still unresolved. Federal regulation is advancing roof-crush safety at a snail's pace, if at all.(22)

Safety is now a top priority of U.S. consumers shopping for new automobiles.(23) It is time that pickup trucks, vans, and MPVs provide the same level of crashworthiness that passenger cars do.

Way back in 1978, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported to Congress that occupants of these vehicles had fared worse in crashes than occupants of passenger cars. The report recommended that the Department of Transportation should initiate expeditious research and rulemaking to improve these vehicles' safety and take steps to provide prospective buyers with information on the relative safety of the wide variety of vehicles offered for sale.(24)

Consumers should continue to press for improved crashworthiness of minivans, full-size vans, pickups, and sport utility vehicles. For too long, these orphans of safety have been ignored.

Notes

(1) Senate Acts on DOT Safety Bill, IMPACT (Ctr. for Auto Safety), May-June 1989, at 1; Laurie McGinley & Gregory A. Patterson, Government Will Require Headrests in Light Trucks, Weighs Other Features, WALL ST. J., Sept. 22, 1989, at C9. (2) Roof Strength, STATUS REP. (Ins. Inst. for Highway Safety), Apr. 7, 1990, at 7. (3) ODI Intensifies Probe of Chrysler Van Liftgate Latch Failure, HIGHWAY & VEHICLE SAFETY REP., Mar. 21, 1994, at 2; NHTSA Upgrades Investigation of Chrysler Minivan Latches, AP, Mar. 4, 1994, available in PRODIGY, Dow Jones/News Retrieval, Company News. (4) Center for Auto Safety, Citing Four National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Investigations, CAS Urges Ford to Recall and Redesign Aerostar Minivan (press release June 10, 1988). (5) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side-Impact Protection, 40 C.F.R. [section] 571.214 (1992). (6) FORD MOTOR CO., REAR MOVING BARRIER & STATIC ROLLOVER TESTS NO. 5379, 5719, 5947, 6035, 6468; REAR MOVING BARRIER TEST NO. 5501; CAR TO VAN LEFT REAR OFFSET TEST NO. 6433. (7) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, 49 C.F.R. [section] 571.207. (8) M.C. O'Leary & K.P. Snodgrass, 1986 Aerostar Roll Characteristics, FORD PROGRAM REP., Dec. 16, 1985. (9) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, 49 C.F.R. [section] 571.202. (10) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof-Crush Resistance, 49 C.F.R. [section] 571.216. (11) See General Motors Corp. v. Moseley, 1994 WL 392574 (Ga. Ct. App. June 13, 1994); letter from William A. Boehly, Associate Administrator for Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to E.E. Connor, Products Investigations Manager, General Motors Corp., requesting voluntary recall (Apr. 9, 1993) (on file with author). (12) R. Ben Hogan III, Utility Vehicle Rollover Cases, TRIAL, June 1992, at 52; NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEP'T OF TRANSP., UTILITY VEHICLES, CONSUMER INFO. (1987). For technical articles, depositions, trial transcripts, pleadings, and manufacturer documents on vehicle rollovers, contact the Attorneys Information (13) Id. (14) JEEP CHEROKEE FRONTAL BARRIER TEST NO. 1682. (15) JOAN CLAYBROOK, RETREAT FROM SAFETY 180-83 (1984); PUBLIC CITIZEN, WHO'S PROTECTING CONSUMERS: FEDERAL NEGLECT OF CONSUMER PROTECTION 1 (1992); PUBLIC CITIZEN, RISKING AMERICA'S HEALTH AND SAFETY: GEORGE BUSH AND THE TASK FORCE ON REGULATORY RELIEF 3-6 (1988); RALPH NADER, UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED xvi-xxi (25th anniversary ed. 1991). (16) 49 C.F.R. [section] 571.202; McGinley & Patterson, supra note 1. (17) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 49 C.F.R. [section] 571.204. (18) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 49 C.F.R. [section] 571.208. (19) 49 C.F.R. [section] 214. (20) 49 C.F.R. [section] 571.216; see also Diana T. Kuryiko, NHTSA Issues Roof-Crush Rule for Trucks, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, Apr. 15, 1991. (21) 4-Wheel-Drive Utility Vehicles, CONSUMER REP., Sept. 1972, at 598-99. (22) NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEP'T OF TRANSP., ROLL-OVER PREVENTION AND ROOF CRUSH, REPORT TO CONGRESS 28-29 (1992); NHTSA Urged to Adopt Unstable Vehicles, PROD. SAFETY & LIAB. REP. (BNA), Apr. 10, 1992. (23) Can't Get Too Much Safety, STATUS REP. (Ins. Inst. for Highway Safety), May 23, 1992, at 1. (24) U.S. COMPTROLLER GENERAL, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, PUB. NO. HS-024-125, UNWARRANTED DELAYS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO IMPROVE LIGHT TRUCK SAFETY, REPORT TO CONGRESS 1 (1978); see also NATIONAL, HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., U.S. DEP'T OF TRANSP., PUB. NO. HS-807-564, SAFETY PROGRAMS FOR LIGHT TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES (1990).