Steven W. Crowell
P.O. Box 303
Eastham, MA 02642-0303
bestpartition@verizon.net
508-255-1 480
Mr. Otto Matheke,
Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20590.
NCC-20,
Thursday, May 12,2005
Consider the following;
Since the USDOT understands that police cruisers and taxis are “subject to further
modifications after they are purchased and before they are put into service.”, and those
modifications, typically, include the “installation of a partition or barrier between the
front and rear seats”, and the “installation of a barrier between the front and rear seats
may reduce space in the rear seat”, and “the steel safety cage used to separate the front
and rear seats in police vehicles”, “place an unyielding surface between the front and rear
seats” where “an occupant moving forward is likely to contact the hard and stiff barrier
between the front and rear seat”. . . (docket # NHTSA 97-3 19 1)
and FMVSS 20 1 requires impact protection for that area of the back of the front seat for
the benefit of rear seat occupants in the event of a collision, might there be a conflict in
cruiser partition performance with requirements of CFR 49, existing FMVSS’s and other
requirements of CFR 49 part 571 such as 0 108(a)(2)(A)?
I
It is my understanding that CFR 49 part 571 includes some restrictions on vehicle
modifications after the first sale to a consumer.
Under 6 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, may a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle
repair business “render inoperative’’ any device or element of design installed in
accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard?
Is modification of a vehicle by introduction of the steel safety cage used to separate the
front and rear seats in police vehicles placing an unyielding surface between the front and
rear seats, where an occupant moving forward, is likely to contact the hard and stiff
barrier between the front and rear seat, be considered rendering that safety feature
inoperative?
Are not Federal safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment introduced into commerce in the United States?
Is it true that types of vehicles, such as taxicabs, police cruisers, and utility vans, are
within the Act’s definition of “motor vehicle” (91 02(3)), and being so, subject to all
applicable safety standards?
The restrictions in CFR 49 part 571 on subsequent vehicle modifications §108(a)(2)(A),
would apply also, would they not?
If this is true, can you resolve the apparent inconsistency in a previously stated position
of a USDOT MVSCE director that - because of the controversial trade-off of occupant
safety for the safety of the vehicle operator fiom assailants - there seemed to be no need
to look into the possible risks associated with the use of partitions in police cruisers or
taxis or to look into the possible Title 49 S301 violations by the manufacturers of those
partitions.
Considering the resources dedicated to the matter of Docket No. NHTSA-97-3191 and
the previously held position regarding auto partitions - (that proof of a violation of the
others standards or requirements would require testing by the government and that
because of the limited testing budget, the number of vehicles involved, and the
controversial trade-off of occupant safety for the safety of the vehicle operator from
assailants, there were no plans to test the involved vehicles for violations of other
FMVSS) can you explain why belt re-coil mechanisms merit so much attention and
partition impact risks seem to merit so little attention?
This policy of dismissal regarding partition safety is particularly surprising considering
the number of officers who were not as lucky as Sgt. Greg Abbott of the Cobb County,
Ga., Police Department, who was knocked unconscious briefly in a July, 2002 crash, and
awoke to fI ames roaring behind him. The driver's door was jammed, but he was able to
kick out the passenger-side window and wriggle out.
Many have not regained consciousness in time to avoid being incinerated. The Rhode
Island State Police (Rhode Island State Police Sgt. Arnold Buxton (401-444-
1 o 4 8 ) have, over the last 2 and a half years, had 7 cruisers, without partitions - rearended
at high speeds (high enough to cause the car to be appraised as totaled)- with
officers inside the vehicle. None sustained any injury more serious than a bruise or two,
yet, at least thirty officers have been killed when they failed to exit a burning cruiser that
was using a partition. The number of officers, other cruiser occupants and taxi occupants
who have been injured less seriously than 'fatally' must be considerable. As an
example.. . "Massachusetts Trooper Clings To Life After Crash - Boston Herald - A venerated state trooper lay
near death last night, the victim of an alleged teenage drunk who told police he was asleep at the
wheel when he rear-ended her parked cruiser at more than 90 mph. ' ' It's bad. It's real bad. There
was a lot of head trauma," state police Maj. John 1. Kelley said last night of trooper Ellen
Engelhardt, 50, of Marion who had not regained consciousness since yesterday's early morning
crash, 50 minutes before her shift was to end. ' ' She's been in and out of surgery," Kelley said.
"Colonel (Thomas) Foley of the state police has asked that everyone remember trooper Engelhardt
in their thoughts and their prayers."
There is also the matter of 'warning', which should be immediately referred to the DOJ.
- I have a Plexiglas cage, yes a CAGE in my patrol car and I refuse
to drive a car without it. It has caused me great pleasure on
many occasions when an unruly drunk sits spitting in the back and
that damn family of deer decides to trot across the road causing
me to act swiftly and stomp on the brakes to avoid a collision.
Too bad dopey in the back wouldn't listen to me when I said to
quit the crap. I am sure there have been situations in the past
where Officers were injured or killed by them, but I have
confidence in my equipment.
- on-line user name amadcOl
Or
"I have 1 rule: Be cool w/me and I'll be cool w/you or get jiggy w/me
and you'll have to go by the hospital before we get to the jail."
On-line user name - Rad Diver
Or
on the internet.
This message was available for anybody in the world to read.
Tim Ray - a police officer of Monee, Illinois - wrote the following message to me
"HERE'S SOMETHING I LIKE TO Do WHEN YOU GET AN UNFRIENDLY PASSENGER IN YOUR CAR
WHO LIKES TO RUN HIS MOUTH, PUT HIM ON THE PASSENGER SIDE WHERE THE WIRE SCREEN IS,
AND WHILE HE IS RJJNNING HIS MOUTH TELL HIM THAT YOU CAN'T HEAR HIM SO HE GETS RIGHT
UP TO IT, AND WHEN HIS FACE GETS RIGHT THERE. SLAM ON YOUR BRAKES, I GUARANTEE IT
SHUTS THEM Up EVERY TME. "
Please help me understand how cruiser and taxi partition manufacturers have been able to
'fly under the radar', regarding federal motor vehicle safety law, for the last 30 years.
Sincerely,
Steve Crowell
No comments:
Post a Comment