Monthly Archives: January 2017

U.S. groups want requirement for behind-the-wheel training

Four groups have petitioned the U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to reconsider provisions of the Final Rule for Entry-Level Driver requirements, which the agency issued on December 7.

The final rule does not include a requirement for 30 hours of behind-the-wheel training for new drivers. Last March, FCMSA had included in its proposed rule a minimum of 10 hours of training on a “driving range” as well as an unspecified amount of time driving on a public road. The final rule requires no behind-the-wheel standard for student drivers, instead deferring to skills tests administered by state licensing agencies. The petition notes that under the new rule, the determination of whether a student driver has the skill set required to operate safely on public roadways is “entirely in the hands of the instructor.”

The petition was filed by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), the Truck Safety Coalition and Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways on December 21. 

Read more here: U.S. groups want requirement for behind-the-wheel training

Unsafe Trucks

It only makes sense that we would want someone driving a large truck at 70 miles an hour on the road with much smaller vehicles to have adequate practice. Doesn’t it?

I’d hate to be the one to find out that GM’s Takata airbags really are defective.

GM has petitioned NHTSA for Inconsequential Non Compliance on Takata Air Bags: General Motors LLC, Receipt of Petition for Inconsequentiality and Decision Granting Request To File Out of Time and Request for Deferral of Determination as posted on the Federal Register, 11/28/2016

What does this mean?

AGENCY:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.

ACTION:
Notice of receipt of petition and decision granting partial relief.

SUMMARY:
 
On May 16, 2016, TK Holdings Inc. (Takata) filed a defect information report (DIR), in which it determined that a defect existed in certain passenger-side air bag inflators that it manufactured, including passenger inflators that it supplied to General Motors, LLC (GM) for use in certain GMT900 vehicles. GM has petitioned the Agency for a decision that, because of differences in inflator design and vehicle integration, the equipment defect determined to exist by Takata is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety in the GMT900 vehicles, and that GM should therefore be relieved of its notification and remedy obligations.

DATES:
The closing date for comments is September 14, 2017.

Takata Airbag Recall – Everything You Need to Know What this recall means to you and what actions you should take

I’d hate to be the one to find out that GM’s Takata airbags really are defective. Wouldn’t you?

1a85et