Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    New U.S. Highway Bill Brings Much Needed Money To NHTSA

    Sign in to follow this  

      Larger Budget on defect investigations and a increased maximum fine are some of the changes in store.

    The U.S. Congress is voting on a new highway bill that if passed, would bring some much needed money and changes for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

     

    Automotive News reports the new bill, called Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act would be the first long-term highway plan in a decade. If passed, the bill would provide roughly $300 billion for roads, bridges, and mass-transit projects. The bill would also increase NHTSA's budget for defect investigations from $10 million a year to $30 million. But for NHTSA to get the increase in the budget, they would need to implement a number of reforms outlined by Transportation Department’s inspector general.

     

    Along with the increase in the defect investigation budget, FAST would some much-needed changes in how recalls and defects are dealt with.

    • The maximum fine for safety violations will increase from $35 million to $105 million
    • Employees who report on potentially dangerous safety violations will be rewarded
    • If there is a financial penalty put on an automaker or supplier, a whistleblower could get up to 30 percent of the penalty
    • Automakers will need to keep safety data for 10 years (up from the current 5) and provide part numbers for defective parts to NHTSA
    • Dealers will be required to notify customers of an open recall
    • Rental car companies will not be allowed to rent out vehicles that have an open recall
    • States would be given funds to notify owners who renew their vehicle registration that a recall is due


    Currently, the bill has bipartisan support and the White House announced that President Obama would sign the bill if passed.

     

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    I am excited by this, but sadly it is also still just a half ass measure as the current highway infrastructure work needed is estimated at $400 Billion. So while this will help, it will not really address replacing the old worn out bridges and roads nor will it really address the need for better mass transit and freeway expansion to deal with congestion.

     

    Cut a third of the 1800 military bases around the world and use that money on rebuilding America.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am excited by this, but sadly it is also still just a half ass measure as the current highway infrastructure work needed is estimated at $400 Billion. So while this will help, it will not really address replacing the old worn out bridges and roads nor will it really address the need for better mass transit and freeway expansion to deal with congestion.

     

    Cut a third of the 1800 military bases around the world and use that money on rebuilding America.

    Bill Clinton did that in the 90's and we still did not get better roads.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I am excited by this, but sadly it is also still just a half ass measure as the current highway infrastructure work needed is estimated at $400 Billion. So while this will help, it will not really address replacing the old worn out bridges and roads nor will it really address the need for better mass transit and freeway expansion to deal with congestion.

     

    Cut a third of the 1800 military bases around the world and use that money on rebuilding America.

    Bill Clinton did that in the 90's and we still did not get better roads.

     

    Then Shrub spent Trillions on his personal war and we still did not win.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    I am excited by this, but sadly it is also still just a half ass measure as the current highway infrastructure work needed is estimated at $400 Billion. So while this will help, it will not really address replacing the old worn out bridges and roads nor will it really address the need for better mass transit and freeway expansion to deal with congestion.

     

    Cut a third of the 1800 military bases around the world and use that money on rebuilding America.

    Bill Clinton did that in the 90's and we still did not get better roads.

     

    Then Shrub spent Trillions on his personal war and we still did not win.

     

    Wasn't my point dfelt but in my only defense of Bush Jr. he also had to use a military that was cut in half by the Clinton administration during the 90's. There is a direct cause and effect link there but I don't want to talk politics here. It never gets anyone anywhere here.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

     

    I am excited by this, but sadly it is also still just a half ass measure as the current highway infrastructure work needed is estimated at $400 Billion. So while this will help, it will not really address replacing the old worn out bridges and roads nor will it really address the need for better mass transit and freeway expansion to deal with congestion.

     

    Cut a third of the 1800 military bases around the world and use that money on rebuilding America.

    Bill Clinton did that in the 90's and we still did not get better roads.

     

    Then Shrub spent Trillions on his personal war and we still did not win.

     

    Wasn't my point dfelt but in my only defense of Bush Jr. he also had to use a military that was cut in half by the Clinton administration during the 90's. There is a direct cause and effect link there but I don't want to talk politics here. It never gets anyone anywhere here.

     

    True and I will also respect and stay away since this is not the political thread. My point is no matter who is in office, they waste money out of the country rather than taking care of the country first.

     

    Our infrastructure is pathetic and we need to build a modern electrical grid, natural gas, roads, etc. 

     

    I believe we can all agree we need to invest in America first before elsewhere.

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    when gas is 2.00 a gal like it is now, i really would have no prob spending another 50-75 cents a gal in tax to fund new roads (not trains, bike lanes,  or inefficient transit)

     

    but if you add a tax it never goes away.  And in states like here, it goes into the general fund and gets raped and never makes it to new roads.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    when gas is 2.00 a gal like it is now, i really would have no prob spending another 50-75 cents a gal in tax to fund new roads (not trains, bike lanes,  or inefficient transit)

     

    but if you add a tax it never goes away.  And in states like here, it goes into the general fund and gets raped and never makes it to new roads.

     

    If only the rest of America was so willing to embrace pragmatic taxes and strict, transparent uses for the proceeds!!

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      Back in 2017, the NHTSA released a report on the safety of Tesla's Autopilot system after the fatal crash of a Tesla owner in 2016. That report claimed that the use of Autopilot, or more precisely the lane-keeping function called Autosteer, reduced crash rates by 40%. 
      In that original crash, the owner repeatedly ignored warnings to resume manual control of the vehicle.  Critics questioned whether Autopilot was encouraging drivers to pay less attention to the road.  The NHTSA report appeared to put those concerns to rest.
      Later, when a second driver died in an Autopilot related accident, Tesla CEO Elon Musk pointed to the NHTSA study and the 40% increase in safety claim. Now, 2 years after the original report. According to a report by Arstechnica, a third party has analyzed the data and found the 40% claim to be bogus.
      Originally the NHTSA data on Autopilot crashes was not publically available when Quality Control Systems, a research and consulting firm, requested it under a Freedom of Information Act request. The NHTSA claimed the data from Tesla was confidential and would cause the company harm if released.  QCS sued the NHTSA and in September of last year, a federal judge granted the FOI request.
      What QCS found was that missing data and poor math caused the NHTSA report to be grossly inaccurate.  The period in question covered vehicle both before and after Autopilot was installed, however, a significant number of the vehicles in the data set provided by Telsa have large gaps between the last recorded mileage before Autopilot was installed and the first recorded mileage after installation.  The result is a gray area where it is unknown if Autopilot was active or not.  In spite of this deficiency, the NHTSA used the data anyway.
      In the data provided only 5,714 vehicles have no gap between the pre and post Autopilot mileage readings.  When QCS ran calculations again, they found that crashes per mile actually increased 59% after Autopilot was installed.
      Does that mean that a Tesla using Autopilot makes a crash 59% more likely?  The answer to that is no for a number of reasons.  First is that the sample size QCS had to work with is a very small percentage of Tesla’s total sales.  Secondly, the data is only representative of vehicles with version 1 of Tesla’s Autopilot, a version that Tesla hasn’t sold since 2016.
      Tesla stopped quoting the NHTSA report around May of 2018, possibly realizing something was fishy with the data. They have since taken to their own report stating that cars with Autopilot engaged have fewer accidents per mile than cars without it engaged.  This has some statistical fishiness to it as well.  Autopilot is only meant to be engaged on the highway and due to the higher rate of speed all vehicles have a lower rate of accidents per mile.
      We may just have to wait until more data is available to find out if Tesla Autopilot and systems similar to it make crashed that much less likely.

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Back in 2017, the NHTSA released a report on the safety of Tesla's Autopilot system after the fatal crash of a Tesla owner in 2016. That report claimed that the use of Autopilot, or more precisely the lane-keeping function called Autosteer, reduced crash rates by 40%. 
      In that original crash, the owner repeatedly ignored warnings to resume manual control of the vehicle.  Critics questioned whether Autopilot was encouraging drivers to pay less attention to the road.  The NHTSA report appeared to put those concerns to rest.
      Later, when a second driver died in an Autopilot related accident, Tesla CEO Elon Musk pointed to the NHTSA study and the 40% increase in safety claim. Now, 2 years after the original report. According to a report by Arstechnica, a third party has analyzed the data and found the 40% claim to be bogus.
      Originally the NHTSA data on Autopilot crashes was not publically available when Quality Control Systems, a research and consulting firm, requested it under a Freedom of Information Act request. The NHTSA claimed the data from Tesla was confidential and would cause the company harm if released.  QCS sued the NHTSA and in September of last year, a federal judge granted the FOI request.
      What QCS found was that missing data and poor math caused the NHTSA report to be grossly inaccurate.  The period in question covered vehicle both before and after Autopilot was installed, however, a significant number of the vehicles in the data set provided by Telsa have large gaps between the last recorded mileage before Autopilot was installed and the first recorded mileage after installation.  The result is a gray area where it is unknown if Autopilot was active or not.  In spite of this deficiency, the NHTSA used the data anyway.
      In the data provided only 5,714 vehicles have no gap between the pre and post Autopilot mileage readings.  When QCS ran calculations again, they found that crashes per mile actually increased 59% after Autopilot was installed.
      Does that mean that a Tesla using Autopilot makes a crash 59% more likely?  The answer to that is no for a number of reasons.  First is that the sample size QCS had to work with is a very small percentage of Tesla’s total sales.  Secondly, the data is only representative of vehicles with version 1 of Tesla’s Autopilot, a version that Tesla hasn’t sold since 2016.
      Tesla stopped quoting the NHTSA report around May of 2018, possibly realizing something was fishy with the data. They have since taken to their own report stating that cars with Autopilot engaged have fewer accidents per mile than cars without it engaged.  This has some statistical fishiness to it as well.  Autopilot is only meant to be engaged on the highway and due to the higher rate of speed all vehicles have a lower rate of accidents per mile.
      We may just have to wait until more data is available to find out if Tesla Autopilot and systems similar to it make crashed that much less likely.
    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg
    • By William Maley
      A new audit released by the U.S. Transportation Department’s Office of Inspector General rips the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over its handling of the Takata airbag recall.
      In the report, the Inspector General says NHTSA's recall monitoring process "does not ensure that remedies are reported completely and in a timely manner," nor does it "verify recall completion rates, although it has the authority to do so." Other issues the audit found included the long time it took the agency to determine the scope of the Takata recall and missing documents due to limited monitoring and inadequate procedures.
      "In June 2014, RMD [NHTSA's Recall Management Division] received a recall notification for Takata airbag inflators in over 140,000 vehicles. The notification stated that the manufacturer planned to tell owners to take their vehicles to dealerships for repairs in February 2015. However, as of February 2018, RMD had not received the manufacturer's remedy documents, and [the Office of Defects Investigation's] recall recordkeeping system does not indicate that RMD staff requested those documents," the report said.
      The Inspector General makes six recommendations including better training for staff, creating a system to handle missing documents and communications, and documenting various lessons from the Takata recall.
      NHTSA in a letter said it "did not endorse all of the report’s findings," but did agree to some of the recommendations.
      The agency has come under fire for a number of years due to its poor handling of various auto safety issues, including Toyota's unattended acceleration crisis and GM's ignition switch mess. This latest audit is fourth since 2011 by the inspector general. The last audit done in 2015 said NTHSA failed to investigate safety issues carefully, hold automakers accountable, and adequately train their staff which resulted in “significant safety concerns being overlooked.”
      Source: Reuters
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dennis Faulkner
      Dennis Faulkner
      (57 years old)
    2. Rwoods
      Rwoods
      (47 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...