

Bradford County Court in the News
Athens lawyer attends conference
Workers compensation claim filed against Sayre Borough
Athens attorney Maureen T. Beirne nominated by governor for county judgeship
Press Release: Carrie Carroll Awarded Honor
CraftMaster offering buyouts to its salaried employees in Towanda, Pa
Bradford County launches victim notification system
Bradford County Court House In The News
CNN: What To Do After A Car Accident
Here is a direct except from testimony the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety given before a congressional committee in June. They state that the occupant compartment must stay intact for lap/shoulder belts and airbags to provide protection. Excessive intrusion of the roof compromises the vehicle restraint system. This authoritative testimony can be used to counter arguments about defective restraint systems or head excursion through adjacent windows.
Excerpts from Testimony of Stephen Oesch
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201
June 4, 2008
Principles of vehicle crashworthiness
A key to protecting occupants in front, side, rear, or rollover crashes is ensuring that compartments, or "safety cages," surrounding the occupants remain intact so lap/shoulder belts and airbags can provide protection during the crashes.
If an occupant compartment allows excessive intrusion of the door, instrument panel, footwell, roof, or other vehicle structure, it compromises the ability of vehicle restraint systems to protect the occupants. This is demonstrated by comparing 2 vehicles IIHS evaluated in 40 mph frontal offset crash tests. The occupant compartment in the 1997 Pontiac Transport was compromised, thus increasing the potential for occupant injury. In sharp contrast is the occupant compartment in the 2005 Chevrolet Uplander, which with stood the forces of the frontal impact and remained intact, allowing the lap/shoulder belt and airbag to provide good occupant protection. Prior to our recent research on roof strength, several studies had reported no relationship between roof strength and injury risk in rollover crashes. These earlier findings defy logic because, as I just explained, in every other crash configuration - whether front, side, or rear - the basic principles of occupant protection dictate that the compartment be designed to resist intrusion so lap/shoulder safety belts and airbags can provide protection to occupants. There is no logical reason to assume that in a rollover crash, you would design a vehicle to permit excessive intrusion. This is the reason NASCAR vehicles are equipped with roll bars to prevent roof crush in violent rollover crashes such as the one experienced by Michael McDowell at the Texas Motor Speedway in 2008. He walked away from this crash uninjured.
1997 Transport

2005 Uplander
Findings of IIHS's study of SUV roof strength
Our study, described in the attached documents, is a 2-part analysis involving vehicle testing and examination of the outcomes of real-world rollover crashes. Eleven midsize 4-door SUV roof designs were subjected to a test similar to the one conducted by automakers to comply with federal roof strength requirements. Researchers applied force to the roofs until crush reached 10 inches, measuring the peak force required for 2 inches of crush, 5 inches of crush, and 10 inches. There was a range of performance among the SUVs tested, and 2 demonstration tests illustrate the differences. These photographs show what happened when the 2000 Nissan Xterra, the SUV with the strongest roof in IIHS tests, and the 2000 Ford Explorer, which has one of the weakest roofs, were subjected to a force of up to 10,000 pounds. The Xterra resisted a force of 10,000 pounds after only 2 inches of crush, while the Explorer crushed all the way to 10 inches without reaching this level of resistance. Such a striking difference in the amount of roof crush illustrates why higher injury risk would be expected in SUVs with weaker roofs.

Xterra
Explorer
Proposed federal roof crush standard
IIHS's study clearly shows the relationship between increased roof strength and reduced injury risk in rollover crashes. We support the continued use of the current roof crush procedures set forth in the existing federal standard on roof crush resistance. However, our study supports requiring vehicles to have a strength-to-weight ratio of at least 3.0. We estimate that a 1-unit increase in peak strength-to-weight ratio - for example, from 1.5 times vehicle weight, as specified in the existing federal standard, to 2.5 times, as proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - would reduce the risk of serious or fatal injury in a rollover crash by 28 percent. Increasing roof strength requirements beyond 2.5 times vehicle weight would reduce injury risk even further.
Attachments/references
1. Brumbelow, M.L.; Teoh, E.R.; Zuby, D.S.; and McCartt, A.T. 2008. Roof strength and injury risk in rollover crashes. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
2. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 2008. Comment to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in response to comments by Padmanaban and Moffatt on the Institute's study, "Roof Strength and Injury Risk in Rollover Crashes," May 13. Arlington, VA.
3. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 2008. Strength of roofs on SUVs influences risk of occupant injury in rollover crashes, new Institute study finds. Status Report 43:1. Arlington, VA.
For the complete Testimony, go to: http://www.iihs.org/laws/testimony/pdf/testimony_2008-06-04.pdf