Service Providers

Safety and freedom: The crux of side-by-side regulations

Gary Gustafson Blog 8-13Safety and freedom are the yin and yang of modern society. In a free nation, the debate over how best to balance these factors swings back and forth like the pendulum on a clock. However, when the discourse over safety and freedom ratchets in one direction with no chance of ever swinging back, it can cause unavoidable loss. Which brings us to the CPSC rulemaking on Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles — essentially UTVs outlined — at this web address: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Regulations-Laws–Standards/Voluntary-Standards/Recreational-Off-Highway-Vehicles/

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) plays a very important role in keeping the American public safe, and its scope is comprehensive. The 5 member commission is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The CPSC operates with manufacturers in a variety of ways from cooperating to develop voluntary design regulations, such as the original all terrain vehicle standards, to imposing a set of design standards aka “rulemaking,” such as is proposed for ROVs, to banning products altogether such as they initiated with 3-wheeled all-terrain cycles. UTV industry groups ROHVA and OPEI are offering voluntary standards for CPSC approval, but the CPSC is choosing to impose its own standards on manufacturers.

The CPSC has put a lot of work into its position and so have people in the industry. Here are the points of contention between the two sides:

  1. Sub-limit understeer: Sub-limit means that tires are maintaining their grip on the pavement used in the test, and understeer means that the wheels turn at an angle that is less than the angle that the steering wheel is turned. Some UTVs on the market today are designed with an understeer characteristic, and consumers have the freedom to choose it. However, numerous sport side-by-sides would require redesign to corner less sharply. The provision in the CPSC rulemaking essentially deems powersliding (referred to as “powered oversteer”) to be an unsafe stunt and presumes that ROVs should corner as predictably as a car. The general effect on sport-class off-road vehicles will be less responsive steering and handling, wider turn radius and less ability to avoid obstacles or successfully execute turns in tight trails when enjoying a little bit of acceleration, even well below the speed limit. Bottom line: Some trail riders will quit the sport if off-road vehicles no longer provide the off-road experience they are accustomed to.
  2. Dynamic stability test: The CPSC rulemaking discards the value of static tilt table tests in favor of a dynamic test. Industry groups agree that a dynamic stability test is needed, but they prefer an alternative to the CPSC version. ROHVA is volunteering a test in which a vehicle must keep all four tires on the pavement i.e. ground when a 110-degree steering input is made at 30 mph. 110-degree steering input is about all that can be done physiologically without removing a hand from the steering wheel and going hand-over-hand. ROHVA considers 30 mph a common sense speed for such a test. The CPSC wants to test every vehicle along the lines of a more expensive and resource-intensive automotive test, turning the wheels at a progressively sharper and sharper angle in run after run at 30 mph on a paved surface until the vehicle lifts sideways and the g-force is measured. Then the results of this test will be included on hangtags to begin creating a safety comparison like the 4 and 5-star safety ratings advertised for cars. While both industry and CPSC proposals run this test on pavement for consistent results, keep in mind that ROV tires aren’t designed for pavement, so borrowing this automotive industry approach is probably too simplistic. Nevertheless the effect of this CPSC rulemaking on vehicle design will be profound. Many OEMs will have to widen and lower the vehicles, which could eliminate most current sport UTVs from being trail legal and make it tougher to crawl over obstacles or get through mud. Tire designs may become skewed towards being stiffer to perform better on pavement but less capable in off-road and utility applications. Customers in northern states may no longer be able to buy a UTV with a robust OEM cab on it. Keep in mind, in some states once OEM equipment is limited in ways like this, the aftermarket is sometimes also limited. Envision a future with no UTV cab enclosures available except lightweight canvas or nylon versions! Many segments including ice fishermen and people that plow snow could be adversely affected because unbeknownst to them, they are not “safe.”
  3. Passive enclosure: The passive enclosure is essentially a big ol’ hunk of metal that forces hands, shoulders and feet to stay inside the vehicle.
  4. Mandatory passenger seatbelt switch(es). The issue here is that there would be a seat switch to sense passengers in seats, and then seatbelt switches that need to be activated for the vehicle to have full power. In the CPSC data, the CPSC frequently mentions automotive industry best practices, but with the seatbelt switch and passenger sensor, the CPSC is clearly doing more than even the automotive industry does. A passenger could immediately slow the vehicle to 15 mph by unhooking his or her safety belt. UTV riders sometimes carry loads in the cab while doing chores, and the seat sensor will complicate this. The ability to upgrade to 4- and 5-point harnesses might be lost because of incompatibility with vehicle electronics. In addition, this standard could ban aftermarket seats nationwide.

A lot of the CPSC data seems to be based upon problems that existed in the decade of the 2000s. More consideration should be given to advancements we see today. The OEMs continue to push for safety while offering freedom to enjoy the benefits of UTVs. Many of the people I work with ride these products themselves and are well in tune with the consequences of unsafe conditions. The yin of desire for safety need not overwhelm the yang of freedom to responsibly explore and have fun. I recommend visiting www.stoptherovmandate.com to learn, then take five minutes via that website or on your own to contact your United States Senate and House representatives. Tell them to urge the CPSC to cooperate with the industry on implementing self-governing ROV standards just as was done with ATVs historically. In this case, a healthy and reasonable debate is preferable to a mandate that can never be reversed. 

Gary Gustafson is President of G-Force Consulting Inc, a company that provides supply chain solutions to OEMs and market research and OEM account sales to component manufacturers. Visit www.gforceconsulting.com to learn more.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button