Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Barbara Holzer, Broadcast Manager
w. (202) 588-7716
bholzer@citizen.org

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779
kgower@citizen.org

Ben Somberg, Press Officer (regulatory matters)
w. (202) 588-7742
bsomberg@citizen.org, Twitter

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog
Facebook/publiccitizen

Follow us on Twitter

 

Dec. 3, 2003

Industry’s Admission of SUV Risks is Long Overdue; Voluntary Safety Program Will Not Ensure Safety

Statement by Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen

The automobile industry will announce on Thursday a voluntary program of safety tests they say would lead to increased vehicle compatibility and require that most vehicles, including sport utility vehicles, to be equipped with side-impact air bags by 2009. While we are pleased that the automakers are finally confronting the dangers of SUVs, the voluntary program is a diversionary tactic to stave off meaningful federal regulation and standards that consumers can rely on.

Automakers have known for years that SUVs lead to needless deaths, not only to their occupants in rollovers, but to other vehicle occupants harmed by the larger, more aggressive SUVs. Their estimate that these changes will reduce fatalities among occupants of cars that crash with SUVs by 28 percent is a testament to that. But they want to write protocols on their own terms, behind closed doors. Not only would the protocols be unenforceable, any company could abandon them at any time it chose without telling the public. For the public, this simply is not good enough.

We have been down the road of voluntary industry safety standards before, and it is a road paved with broken promises. General Motors pledged to install air bags in all vehicles by the mid-1970s; Ford, DaimlerChrysler and GM pledged in 2001 to improve fuel economy in their SUVs by 25 percent in 2005; and in 1999, the industry trade group promised to put side-impact air bags in their vehicles. Automakers backed off or fell short of all of those pledges, and there is nothing to suggest this latest promise will be any different.

In fact, their term "standard" is misleading. What the automakers will announce Thursday is merely a voluntary protocol developed in secret.

A federal standard would allow for public participation in its development, with government analysis of the tests and conditions so that everyone with a stake could have a say.

A federal standard would require conformance with specific published tests, informing the public about a vehicle’s safety performance. The automakers’ protocol puts consumers in an information vacuum. The public would have no way of knowing whether a vehicle met the voluntary protocol, or whether the protocol was protective enough.

A federal standard would require all vehicles sold in the United States to be certified for compliance by manufacturers. The automakers’ voluntary protocol would allow them to renege on their own promises because they would not be accountable to regulators or the public.

In announcing this program, automakers are at long last recognizing the devastating harm caused to consumers by their poorly designed SUVs. But if their commitment to safety is so strong, and their dedication to this new program is so sure, why are the companies fighting so hard against a federal standard that the public can help to develop and would merely hold them to their promises?

###

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.