Another one

[MAD-3R]

http://www.blueovalnews.com/2003/crownvictoria_safety/mo_newton052303.htm

Have to wonder how fast the truck was moving.

[gja]

That is just horrible. Another death-by-carelessness.
I have seen far too many truck drivers who think they Mario-friggin-Andretti. All the while driving a vehicle that needs a LOT of space to stop from normal speed, let alone high-speed. I hope they throw the book at this horses-backside.

[rurumon]

Another victim of after axle gas tank. This is getting rediculous, and there is nothing anyone can do to pin the blame on them, they are masters of courtroom politics. Eventually, someone important in a mustang or CV is going to get killed, they they will feel the heat.

[MAD-3R]

Uhm.. rurumon. THe gas tank on the panther platform is not after the axel, it's above it. And the tests conducted by independent researchers, AND the goverment, proved that the tanks on the CV/GM are better then needed. They servived a 45-50 MPH rearender with NO leakedge. The issue really is that almost nothing will survive a 70+MPH crash. Physics and Newton are agenst them.

The Mustangs, on the other hand are an issue, but because Police officers don't use them for patrol cars, and have them stopped on the side of interstates, non of them have gone BOOM.

It rally boils down to what happens when you smash 1/3 of something into the other 2/3. Add into a volitail substance like Gasoline, you get BOOM.

[rurumon]

sorry dude, I think you are wrong

location (http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.c om/images/CVcrushzone.jpg)

havent you heard of all the PD's purchasing that giant steel barrier to prevent their rear crumple zones from puncturing the gas tank? Lots of officers have died because of this, just read the myriad of articles at blue oval news. The CV's problem is just as big as the mustang problem.

article on reinforcing (http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=96&did=519)

[MAD-3R]

Ok, point conceded on the tank placement. I thought it was above the axel, not next to it.

But on the artical, the center is just a group of blood sucking lawyers (no offence to the wonderful baristers we have here) out to make a buck.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0303/04/d01-99194.htm

THe part of relevance is



Johnson said a shield-protected tank leaked 40 ounces of fuel in a company crash test, according to a Ford official deposed in a city lawsuit over police cruiser safety. Federal rules allow fuel tanks to leak up to 1 ounce in crash tests, Johnson said.

But Kinley said the 75-mph crash test Ford conducted was designed to measure only whether the tank would suffer a puncture, and it did not.

[gja]

rurumon,
You need to get your facts/statistics straight. The percentage of similar collisions in OTHER vehicles (including PD caprices) is at, or higher, than the panther platform. Sorry, but the hard,cold fact is ramming a vehicle in the back at very high speed will kill people. How far do we take engineering a car to withstand a colloision? Do you really want a car so heavy/slow/expensive that it can take a rearender at 80 and not even get hurt. Come on, lets get real. So the gas tanks won't leak, you still die from the horrific trauma of having your internal organs subjected to accelereation/deceleration cycles so severe they hemmorahge. What's the point of worrying at that juncture?

[MAD-3R]

This is from

http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirg3_20030303.htm



At a legislative hearing in New York last week, state Republican Sen. Dale Volker said most people who talk about protecting policemen from the kind of high-speed crash that killed Ambrose don't understand the issue.

Volker, who said he investigated many fatal auto accidents as an Erie County sheriff's deputy, asked McMahon, "Did you ever remember an accident when a car was hit at 90 mph and someone survived?"

"It's not often," McMahon, a 37-year veteran of the State Police, replied.

"That's the problem with this kind of issue," Volker said. "Any car hit at 90 mph, and you're in it, the chance of survival is nil."

[rurumon]

Originally posted by gja
rurumon,
You need to get your facts/statistics straight. The percentage of similar collisions in OTHER vehicles (including PD caprices) is at, or higher, than the panther platform. Sorry, but the hard,cold fact is ramming a vehicle in the back at very high speed will kill people. How far do we take engineering a car to withstand a colloision? Do you really want a car so heavy/slow/expensive that it can take a rearender at 80 and not even get hurt. Come on, lets get real. So the gas tanks won't leak, you still die from the horrific trauma of having your internal organs subjected to accelereation/deceleration cycles so severe they hemmorahge. What's the point of worrying at that juncture?

ok ok guys, im not flaming anyone here. But still, do you have any facts to back up what you said? I havent seen the numbers for the panther, but i can only assume they are quite similar to the numbers i HAVE seen for the mustang since their tank placement is so similar. And the facts for those numbers are startling, their tanks dont maintain integrity for any crash above 30 MPH, check BON.com, its true. and that IS a problem, I should be able to walk away from a crash at that speed, or be injured in some minor way. I agree with your point on crashes exceeding 65MPH, its very hard to get crumple without causing some sort of catastrophic failure, but I think that there should be some magnitude of survivability here, and from what I have read you are pretty much screwed.

[LincMercLover]

Hmm... I didn't hear about this... I wonder what exit he was at?

[MAD-3R]

I agree that there is a HUGE issue with the Mustangs. The tank is RIGHT next to the bumper, Our's at least have the trunk in between. And the biggest problem is all the stuff the LEO need to carry in the trunk slicing through to the tank. I will do some searching and find the test results for the crash testing done by the goverment.

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by rurumon
ok ok guys, im not flaming anyone here. But still, do you have any facts to back up what you said? I agree with your point on crashes exceeding 65MPH, its very hard to get crumple without causing some sort of catastrophic failure, but I think that there should be some magnitude of survivability here, and from what I have read you are pretty much screwed.

Here are my facts, but I will state out front, I haven't followed this trail in a few months, so, I may be off a number or two.

My last count was 13 police officers died from rear end collisions that also involved fire, and panther platform cruisers. 13 over the last 20 years. I'll be the first to say one is too many, however, we must be reasonable. Police work is inherently dangerous, the risk and odds do not match that of an ordinary motorist. You would be wise to consider additional elements before drawing a conclusion.

Ford produces 80 percent of the police cruiser market, therefore, any accidental death of cop has an 80 percent chance of involving a Ford. This surely makes any Ford appear a dangerous car, yes?

20 years of 24/7/365 use nationwide, what's the exposure to this "stopped on the shoulder" hazard? How many motorists are likewise exposed on such a routine basis?

How many collisions in these 20 years did not result in death, or involve fire?

Any collisions and fires with non-FMC products?

The last collision I saw was here in Chicago, and it was taped by a news crew filming another story. Driver and passenger took a 70 MPH whack, both left the hospital under their own power, a few hours later.

What kind of junk is carried in the trunk of a police car that contributes to gas tank puncture? Everything! Jeeze, Louise! A cop car trunk is like that one drawer in every kitchen in America...Everything not otherwise stored lands here.

Two more cops I know of were killed in one police car, but it didn't burn, you can add them or not.

Not every officer's cause of death is reported as "by fire," some were dead already.

Like is has been so eloquently stated here. When you drive 2/3rds of a car into the remaining 1/3rd, people will die and things blow up. The gas tank could be filed with 20 gallons of water, but with this kind of velocity, impact and compression, water explodes, and hydrostatic shock is lethal.

This whole issue has been about politicans taking on the giant FMC, and with the media's help. The dead cops are the least of their concerns.

[MAD-3R's Wife]

This whole issue has been about politicans taking on the giant FMC, and with the media's help. The dead cops are the least of their concerns.

Amen to that Sarge.

[RCSignals]

rurumon

Both those sites are trial lawyer sites under the guise of "autosafety" sites

[RCSignals]

Not only do we have to ask what speed the truck was traveling, but why was it driving on the shoulder and not in the driving lane?

A recent fire in Texas turned out to be an item in the trunk that was pushed into and pierced through he trunk and gas tank, after a high speed, high energy rear collision.

If you lookup the Missouri NEWS report you will see a video where they show all the items that are carried in the trunks of patrol cars, all of which are potential problems for puncturing the gas tanks.

[V10_P70]

Here is something that you might find interesting reading:

FirePanel (http://www.firepanelllc.com/frameset.html)

[merc406]

The way that police cars are positioned behind a stopped vehicle also plays into the mix and may contribute to more accidents, I know they say it's to protect the officer at the stopped car, but with the lights going in the windows or on top, maybe that distracts drivers from seeing the police car's angled on the roadside.
Michigan now has a law that say's you must do everything you can to get in the next lane away from lane next to the police car.

[gja]

Originally posted by rurumon
ok ok guys, im not flaming anyone here. But still, do you have any facts to back up what you said? I havent seen the numbers for the panther, but i can only assume they are quite similar to the numbers i HAVE seen for the mustang since their tank placement is so similar. And the facts for those numbers are startling, their tanks dont maintain integrity for any crash above 30 MPH, check BON.com, its true. and that IS a problem, I should be able to walk away from a crash at that speed, or be injured in some minor way. I agree with your point on crashes exceeding 65MPH, its very hard to get crumple without causing some sort of catastrophic failure, but I think that there should be some magnitude of survivability here, and from what I have read you are pretty much screwed.

1.The numbers ARE linked here and on other sites. do a search for the government data.(no 3rd party with an agenda)

2. Marauder and Mustang tanks layouts are NOT the same, they are significantly different. So the numbers are VERY different.

3. BON is a site with a moderator whose motives are markedly ulterior, hence it worry all daa placed on that site is tainted/slanted.

4. At 50+ MPH into a stationary vehicle a like-mass vehicle will generate a STUNNING amount of energy, I won't do the calulations but it is frightening. I give a person less than 1 chance in 15 to live without being so disabled they hate life.

[RCSignals]

I just received a very interesting letter from Ford on this issue.
Some of it may be found at http://www.cvpi.com and the "blue Panel" links.

The CVPI even surpasses the new Government mandated rear impact and fuel spillage tests for 2006.


That said, the Government findings said the Caprice was just as likely, if not more so, to suffer fire in a high speed rear impact. Ever looked to see where the fuel tank is on a Caprice or Impala SS?

[RF Overlord]

Originally posted by RCSignals
If you lookup the Missouri NEWS report you will see a video where they show all the items that are carried in the trunks of patrol cars, all of which are potential problems for puncturing the gas tanks.

And don't forget the potential of ignition from things like FLARES, perhaps...or extra AMMO?

[Fourth Horseman]

Originally posted by RF Overlord
And don't forget the potential of ignition from things like FLARES, perhaps...or extra AMMO?

I would think it quite unlikely that a collision would set off any ammo carried in the trunk. More likely a resulting fire would cause the ammo to cook off. I've seen all kinds of abuse to metal cartridges, cases split open, powder spilling out and all, and no ignition.

Ammunition is really very stable, especially if it's being carried in the box it came in from the factory.

[RF Overlord]

Originally posted by Fourth Horseman
I've seen all kinds of abuse to metal cartridges, cases split open, powder spilling out and all, and no ignition.

Ammunition is really very stable, especially if it's being carried in the box it came in from the factory.

O-kay-y-y-y-y-y...

Now we know which member has the most knowledge of GUNS!! :eek:

J/K, Fourth... :lol:

[Fourth Horseman]

You talking to me? I don't see anybody else here, so you must be talking to me!

:lol:

Nah, I'm sure Sarge and any other LEOs we have in our community here at mm.net would have me beat by a long shot. They get to mess with firearms for a living, I'm just a part time gun nut^H^H^H enthusiast. :D

[cruzer]

I don't understand why FMC is the boogy-man----if the police departments want 75 mph safety--just pay for and install your own NASCAR tanks---200+ mph rear into the wall is a pretty good endoresment------just another case of "the manufacturer is supposed to be a clairvoyant and I'M not responsible for protecting my own personnel". Did FMC ever offer the police departments the option of installing NASCAR tanks ???????????????????

[RCSignals]

Why should it be FMCs responsibility to offer NASCAR style tanks? They don't offer sirens, light bars, push bumpers, prisoner cages, etc.

Another question could be, if there is a real problem, why haven't Governments done more to protect Policemen in Patrol cars? They buy vests, helmets, etc.

[RCSignals]

Here is that MO NEWS story link for any one interested

http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=1290154&nav=1PuZFyfs

[cruzer]

RC , that was my point, it is the local or state governments that are putting a price on an officer's life, not FMC--Did they specifically require in their negotiated (penny-pinching) contract that the CVPI had to survive a 75 mph rear-end crash---I don't think so !!!!!

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by RCSignals
Here is that MO NEWS story link for any one interested

http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=1290154&nav=1PuZFyfs

Thanks RC, this is the first time I've seen the real facts get printed in whole by the media.


Originally posted by cruzer
RC , that was my point, it is the local or state governments that are putting a price on an officer's life, not FMC--Did they specifically require in their negotiated (penny-pinching) contract that the CVPI had to survive a 75 mph rear-end crash---I don't think so !!!!!

I'll agree with you in part cruzer, the agencies buying the CVPI have standards that have to be met, and Ford has the car that meets those standards. Why is Ford in court and not the agencies? Well, Ford is the "weak link" in a manner of speaking, and several other parties who may share blame, have identified themselves as victims of Ford too. In some cases, they have pushed for prosecuting Ford, all hoping to dodge the bullet themselves by laying responsibility on the only link in the chain that has 250 million dollars to sue for. The AZ Attorney general pushed for criminal charges against Ford, until it was learned that Ford met, or exceeded every standard required by the AZ State Police. That being the case, the State Police standard could become the defendant, and AZ has been unusually quiet on the matter for a while now.

I could never figure out why liquor companies never get included in the damage suits, after all someone had to supply the drunk driver with the booze that contributted to the collision in the first place...Is not Seagrams as responsible as Ford here? If your answer is no, then you should agree that Ford is not responsible eiither.

[RCSignals]

Very true Mac.

Something that is interesting about the AZ accident involving Jason Schechterle, the Policeman who was burned and survived,
is the story of the driver who hit his Patrol car. The vehicle was a Taxi, reportedly traveling at over 100 mph at the time of impact. The Taxi driver was suffering an epileptic seizure, and it has been reported that it wasn't the first time he'd had an accident because if it. Despite previous accidents from having a seizure, he was allowed to keep his license and drive a Taxi!
I've yet to hear any accusations or lawsuits made against the AZ Dept of Motor vehicles in that regard. It's all Ford's fault

[RCSignals]

Here is a letter recently sent out by Ford


http://www.cvpi.com/pdfs/SafetyMessage.pdf

[jgc61sr2002]

The CVPI provides the safest enviornment for a Police Officer. Having been on patrol for 35 years with the NYCPD if felt the most secure in a CVPI. Many P.D.'s including NYPD use unibody cars. Over the years I've seen and investigated many accidents involving police vehicles. The best chance for survival in an accident is a vehicle with a full perimeter frame. IMHO the safest vehicle produced for police work is the CVPI. John

[RCSignals]

I saw a NEWS story on a local station, claimed the city of Dallas has announced due to Crown Victoria fires they aren't buying anymore CVPIs.
It was obviously a "NEWS release" clip with Dallas PD shots.
I suspect the sensationalist city attorney is behind it, but isn't this announcement coming after Dallas just bought a bunch of new CVPIs?

[RCSignals]

related story


May 28, 2003

N.Y. Senator Wants Crown Victoria Probe

By DEVLIN BARRETT

WASHINGTON (AP) - The recent death of a Missouri state trooper has prompted a New York senator to call on the federal government to reopen its investigation into Ford Motor Co.'s Crown Victoria, the most popular model police car.

Sen. Charles Schumer sent a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on Wednesday, urging the agency to look into the issue of deadly gas tank explosions on the Crown Victoria.

``We know that there's a problem, and now we need to figure out what we need to do to solve it,'' the New York Democrat said in a statement. ``If that means changing cars so that a different model is used, so be it. Time is of the essence.''

Police unions and some political leaders have complained about the safety record of the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. About 350,000 of the vehicles are on the nation's roads as patrol cars for approximately 80 percent of police departments.

Since 1983, 14 officers have died in crashes when their Crown Victoria's gas tank caught fire after being hit from behind.

The most recent occurred in western Missouri last week, when a 25-year-old trooper died in a fiery wreck while pulled over on an interstate. Last December, New York state trooper Robert Ambrose was killed on a Yonkers highway when his patrol car was struck from behind. Ambrose's family is suing Ford.

The automaker has denied the cars are dangerous, but initiated a program of retrofitting older models with plastic shields designed to better protect the gas tanks.

Ambrose's vehicle did not have the shield; the victim in the Missouri wreck, Trooper Michael Newton, did have a shield on his vehicle.

A 10-month probe by the NHTSA determined last November that vehicles with the Crown Victoria's fuel system involved in a rear crash caught fire 8 percent of the time, compared to 6.3 percent with the fuel system used in the comparable Chevrolet Caprice.

NHTSA said the car meets current federal standards that require a vehicle to withstand a rear crash at 30 miles per hour without leaking fuel. The agency also said the vehicle did not leak fuel during a test at 50 miles per hour, which the agency has proposed to be the new standard.

The agency said almost all of the fuel leaks occurred after a very high-speed crash.

What they have to do is realise it's a civilian vehicle with a Policepackage, not a special spec vehicle specific to Police service, as in a SMP military vehicle.
They need to realise it will be a long and hard search to find another sedan that is as safe, and that withstands the level of high energy rear impacts that the Crown victoria already does.

Then they need to realise that there are available solutions that they need to order to add to certain CVPIs, depending on duty assigned to the car. They, the elected and unelected officials need to take action with some or more of these options, not just for CVPIs, but every Police vehicle. Their talk is cheap, but does nothing to prevent these occurrences.

[SergntMac]

I think what is needed here, is a BIG Hollywood movie, with lots of famous stars, a plot that's all about a dark secret that's older than dirt, and hidden deep inside the car mogul family named Drof, and handed down through the ages. Maybe a secret so well kept, that a junior exec of the excommunicated strain of the Dorfs returns to Camelot, only to fall in love with his paternal spinster great aunt, and...Well, you get the point, eh? I think it's the ONLY way we could add anymore drama to this issue.

Why don't we just tell the cops to take their traffic stop to the next exit ramp...

[RCSignals]

Mac, you may have something there with that movie plot.....

[Paul T. Casey]

I'm still of the opinion that if you hit a tank at 80 mph it'll catch fire.

[FordNut]

Any studies done on the relation between parked position and rear collisions? What I'm getting at is the way I see most traffic stops done, the offender gets well out of the roadway, then the cruiser parks barely off the roadway, lots of times even leaving the rear of the car in the traffic lane. I realize this is supposed to provide a protective "shield" from traffic, but does it make sense to shield yourself with explosives? Just thinking about it from another angle.

[SergntMac]

Okay, that's another angle, FordNut, and here is even another.

When a drunk climbs behind the wheel, he's armed himself with a deadly weapon. Then he goes about randomly attacking and murdering law enforcement officers and innocent bystandards. Why not call it what it is, murder.

That's the real problem, and that is where the fix ought to be applied. Indict a few DDs for attempt murder BEFORE they ram a parked police car, and see what effect that has on the situation. Spend your tax money on increasing random DUI check points, and you won't be spending it on funerals, survivor's benefits and replacement vehicles.

Something wrong with placing blame where it belongs?

[rurumon]

I guess I stand corrected on a few things, I originally thought the CVPI fuel tank failed at a much lower speed, something similar to the mustang. Now that I know that it doesnt pose a hazard until it is hit at 50+ MPH I guess there is little ford can do to protect short of their shield modification and fortifying the frame with titanium. I guess there are inherent dangers with driving any car, and the fact that officers sit bum to the wind on highways with traffic zooming by just magnifies this danger, there is nothing they can do to improve the car, only something can be done to reduce the risk.

I am curious though, of all these rear ended CVs, even the ones that didnt catch fire, what cir***stances was the offender opertaing under. I mean, were most of them drunk, or just confused? I hear about alot of sober people accidentally ramming stopped interceptors for a whole rack of reasons. what are the statistics?

[Paul T. Casey]

SrgntMac, amen brother, you nailed it.

[jgc61sr2002]

Sgt. Your points are well taken. Taking the violator to the next exit ramp or rest stop is an excellent idea. Although in some areas of the country the next exit could be 20 miles or more. As for the alcohol industry, thats mega bucks and they have a lot of power. IMHO.

[RCSignals]

Interesting the effect of simply enforcing the law can have.

Great post Mac

[RCSignals]

rurumon
I don't know of any such statistics. They don't seem to keep the info on the high speed rear collisions that do not result in fire, but I understand there are many more in that category than fires.

Most of the reported stories I've read involve a drunk driver.
At least one involved an epileptic who had a seizure

[cyclone03]

Some great post above.
The angle that was brought up that I never thought of was thatt the Agentcies,City's and Counties,and for that matter the states too place a price on the PO's head.They purchase the LOWEST priced vehicle that meets the most of thier minimum standards.

If one of the standards was "completly servivable in a 100mph rear end colision by a 40,000 lb out of control,driven by a dopped up drunk truck driver,vehicle"Then it looks like these cars fail,but nobody ask for a vehicle that could do that.

IT has been said many time 70mph mass hitting 0mph mass is going to break something.

[looking97233]

Sarge-

You mean you actualy want to blame the people who have done wrong? Come on now, you know that is not how it works. Not in todays world anyway. I remember an article I read a few years ago. Southern California. A man breaks in to a woman's house, he is armed with a handgun. He attacks the woman in her kitchen, she luckly fatally stabs him with a knife. No criminal charges were brought against her. However in a civil case brought against her by the would be rober/murders family, a jury awared in favor of the family of the rober beacuse the woman had killed the primary wage earner in the family. My point is it seems as though everywhere you look or go today, everybody wants to blame someone or something else for anything that goes wrong. Remember the people who tried sueing Smith&Wesson for making the gun? On the other hand, the tobaco compinies took a hard hit, as if people have no choice in wheather or not they smoke.
I just think people should take responcability for thier actions. If they don't do it on thier own, force it down thier throats.
I could go on on this and related topics for ever, so I'll quit now.

[martyo]

Originally posted by looking97233
A man breaks in to a woman's house, he is armed with a handgun. He attacks the woman in her kitchen, she luckly fatally stabs him with a knife. No criminal charges were brought against her. However in a civil case brought against her by the would be rober/murders family, a jury awared in favor of the family of the rober beacuse the woman had killed the primary wage earner in the family.

"Urban Legend."

Not to takeanything away from the posts here, it's just so you know.

[FordNut]

Sarge, Looking...

I wasn't thinking about blame when I posted my comments. That won't solve anything. The question in my mind is "What can realistically be done to reduce the problem?"

It's already illegal to drink and drive, it's illegal to get hyped up on meth and drive, it's illegal to drive when impaired period. We can't stop it no matter what the legal system does.

As for the car, it's probably the best there is. Imagine what would happen to a unibody car in the kind of crashes we're talking about. The comparisons to the Caprice are not really valid because it's been out of production for 7 years and the speeds were not nearly as high then as they are now. Besides the comparison should be made on a current production car which is really an option.

A law suit won't help anything, but could be counterproductive especially if Ford decides it is not cost-effective to bid on the PI contracts due to the risk of suits.

One thing that LEOs do have control over is minimizing the risk by using caution when parking. I realize how dangerous it is to park on the shoulder and I get as far over as possible if stopped for a breakdown or citation. It just seems to be an unnecessary risk to leave the rear end of the cruiser in or nearly in the traffic lane. This simple idea could possibly save lives and I think that is the most important issue here.

[RCSignals]

more on the latest Dallas thing


Dallas boycotts Crown Vics

City to conduct own crash test for safety of police cruisers

By Jeff Plungis / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Image

Crown Victoria police cruiser

WASHINGTON -- In another setback for Ford Motor Co., the city of Dallas is suspending future purchases of Crown Victoria police cruisers because of safety concerns and called on other cities to do the same.

Dallas city attorney Madeline Johnson said the city would conduct its own crash tests to test the safety of the police cruisers. A recent city investigation raised questions about the validity of previous Ford testing. In a letter to Ford CEO William Clay Ford Jr., Johnson invited Ford to participate in the new crash tests.

"The city of Dallas appeals to you personally, as CEO of Ford Motor Co., to join with us to take immediate and effective action to end the continuing tragedy of police officer deaths in Crown Victoria fires."

Ford maintains the car is safe and exceeds all federal fuel system safety standards. In September 2002, responding to police concerns, the company began offering repair kits that include plastic shields placed around the fuel tank to reduce the likelihood of a puncture. Ford controls 85 percent of the police cruiser market.

"No design can eliminate all risk in high speed, high-energy rear-impact collisions," the company said Thursday. "For every story of a post-collision fire, there are many more where the CVPI performed beyond a reasonable expectation."

Dallas has been investigating the safety of the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor since the Oct. 23 death of a city police officer. On Wednesday, the City Council approved the ban on Crown Vic purchases following a May 18 police car fire in which no one was injured.

Johnson also is asking the National Highway Safety Administration to reopen its Crown Victoria investigation. NHTSA closed the probe last year without finding a defect.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote NHTSA Wednesday to press for a new defect investigation. Schumer cited the May 22 fire-related death of a Missouri state trooper. A New York state trooper died in a Crown Victoria fire on Dec. 19, prompting a hearing on police cruiser safety in the state Senate.

Dallas Mayor Linda Miller said Wednesday she will urge other cities to drop the Crown Victoria at a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors next week.

You can reach Jeff Plungis at (202) 662-7378 or at jplungis@detnews.com.

[RCSignals]

Illinois preparing for class-action lawsuit over Crown Vics

By Associated Press

BELLEVILLE, Ill. -- Plaintiffs lawyers suing the Ford Motor Co. over what they claim is a design flaw in the fuel tank of Crown Victoria police cars appeared in court Friday, about a week after a Missouri state trooper burned to death when his Crown Victoria was rammed from behind.

The lawyers want to force Ford to produce more do***ents in what they hope will be an Illinois class-action lawsuit against the company. However, they postponed arguing that motion because the issue is before an Ohio federal judge hearing a similar case, plaintiffs lawyer Trisha Murphy said after the hearing.

"We don't want to pit one judge against the other," she said.

Murphy is preparing to ask St. Clair County Judge Lloyd Cueto next month to certify all Illinois law-enforcement agencies as a single group of plaintiffs in the lawsuit because the Crown Victoria is the state's most common police car, she said.

Crown Victoria Police Interceptors patrol the nation's roads in 80 percent of U.S. police departments, including in St. Clair County and Centreville, the two plaintiffs Murphy represents.

"We think something needs to be done with the design of these cars," said Greg Sullivan, executive director of the Illinois Sheriffs' Association, which supports Murphy's claims.

Since 1983, 14 officers have died in crashes when their Crown Victorias' tanks ignited after rear collisions, including Missouri trooper Micheal Newton on May 22, who had pulled over on Interstate 70 when a pickup crashed into his car.

Ford has denied the model is unsafe, citing government studies they say support their position.

But in September, the Dearborn-based company initiated a program of retrofitting older models with plastic shields designed to better protect the tanks.

Newton's car was fitted with the shield.

None of the Crown Victorias in St. Clair County or Centreville have been involved in such wrecks, Murphy said. Instead, her lawsuit seeks to force Ford to retrofit the cars to with special gear she says would make them more safe.

Ford lawyer Doug Lampe said the cars are fine now.

"They're asking for a vehicle that's never been designed by a car company anywhere in the world," he said after Friday's hearing.

If the Illinois case is certified a class action, it would be the first in the nation to reach such standing, Lampe said.

The several similar lawsuits filed against the company in other states have been combined into a single case in a Cleveland federal court. That case has not yet been certified a class either, Lampe said.

In October, an East St. Louis federal judge assigned Murphy's case to state court in Belleville, making it the only lawsuit outside the Cleveland case to go after Crown Victorias, Lampe said.

Note part in italics. They want all the available aftermarket fixes for FREE.

[RCSignals]

Dallas puts brakes on Crown Vic buys
Ford defends safety record

05/30/2003

By JASON TRAHAN / The Dallas Morning News

The city of Dallas will stop buying Crown Victoria police cars as part of an aggressive public campaign to pressure Ford Motor Co. to make changes to the model linked to officer deaths from rear-end collision fires.

City Attorney Madeleine Johnson declined to characterize the move as a boycott, but she urged other police departments around the country to join Dallas' plans to stop buying the cars. She also urged Ford to voluntarily recall the model.

"We want to reach out to other police departments and groups and ask for support to pressure Ford," Ms. Johnson said during a news conference Thursday. She declined to say what other models of police car the city might buy instead.

Also Online
Video: Brett Shipp reports

Ford officials reiterated Thursday that the Crown Victoria is safe, and they hope police agencies will continue purchasing the model.
"We've got good working relationship with police across the country," said Maria Sheler-Edwards, Ford safety communications manager. "The Crown Vic has a terrific safety record, which is why we have 85 percent of the market share. While these accidents are tragic, they are rare. In most of these cases, there is no safety system at all that could prevent these situations. You're talking about drunk drivers and high speeds."



KIM RITZENTHALER / DMN
Dallas urged Ford Motor Co. on Thursday to voluntarily recall the Crown Victoria police car.
The Dallas Police Department has about 750 Crown Victoria cars in service. About 200 vehicles remain in reserve.

Earlier this week, Dallas Police Chief Terrell Bolton appointed a committee to review whether officers should change the position in which they park patrol cars, particularly on freeways, to reduce the chance of a rear-end collision that could ignite the gasoline tank.

More than a dozen law enforcement officers nationwide have died from fuel tank fires in Crown Victoria rear-end collisions.

Dallas Officer Patrick Metzler, 31, died Oct. 23 after a speeding motorist struck his patrol car from behind on Central Expressway, causing it to erupt in flames.

Lawsuits

The city sued Ford over Officer Metzler's death. His parents also filed a lawsuit, accusing the company of negligence in their son's death and contending that he would have survived the crash if a protective shield had been installed on the car's gas tank.
Earlier this month, a Dallas patrol car exploded after an officer stopped to assist a stranded motorist on Interstate 30 near Hampton Road. The officer had just stepped out of the vehicle and was putting down flares when a pickup hit the squad car from behind. No one was injured.

The Police Department has installed protective shields on more than 700 cars since Officer Metzler's death.

The city also announced Thursday that it will perform its own tests to measure the effectiveness of gas-tank shields and a truck pack designed to hold jacks and other items that could puncture the gas tank during a rear-end collision. Ford recommended the trunk pack, but has yet to test it, Ms. Johnson said.Ms. Sheler-Edwards said that Ford would work with Dallas officials on the trunk pack testing.

In a seven-page letter, Ms. Johnson implored Ford CEO William Clay Ford Jr. to "personally make this issue a top priority.

Ensuring safety

"It is not a cliché to say that our officers put their lives on the line every minute of every day – it is true," she wrote. "They give us 100 percent of their effort to save lives and protect our citizens and communities. On this issue of life and death, we hope that you agree that Ford owes them 100 percent effort in working to ensure their safety while in the line of duty."
The city has also sent a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, asking that the agency's investigation into Crown Victoria fuel-tank safety be reopened. In October, the agency found that the car exceeds federal standards for fuel-system safety and that the rate of fires was not much greater than with Chevrolet Caprice police cars.

Agency spokesman Tim Hurd said that the city's request would be considered.

"We always look for input from all sources," Mr. Hurd said. "... Any investigation can be reopened."

Dallas Police Association representatives said they favored the city's aggressive stance against Ford.

"Our primary concern is officer safety," said Ron Pinkston, the group's secretary-treasurer. "We'd like to have Ford step up to the plate and admit there is a problem."

Scott Cisney, administrative director of the association, said he hoped automakers would offer a rear-wheel alternative.

"Here you have a market aching for a new vehicle," he said. "I would think that many manufacturers would step in and give officers something else to drive."

E-mail jtrahan@dallasnews.com

[RCSignals]

The NHTSA Crown Victoria report (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/current/crownvic/index.htm)

[rct]

The entire issue is no more than the enormous amount of cash that Ford Motor Company, stock that I am very proud to have been a long time owner and grower of, sits upon. You can not produce the dividends they put out without having a really good sized chunk of money underneath you. THAT is why the "concern" for public safety is being so tearfully demonstrated by the legal profession.

[SergntMac]

Hey y'all, if this thread is going to continue to earn comments, please post a link to the story you wish us to read, and not the story itself.

[Heavy D.]

Thanks for the link to the NHTSA report, RCsignals. I finally had a chance to read it and based on their findings from both real and test crashes, there is no increased risk from fire over the Caprice.

Good ammo to combat the media hysteria.

[RCSignals]

http://www.fhp.state.fl.us/html/photogallery/PG041103.html

these cars are tough

[Marauder57]

My wife was just asking me tonight on the way to dinner how "safe" the car is....she said it is so fast and smooth...that they must have sacrificed something.....and I was like "Man this is a big hunk of metal...cops use these things....and guys on the MM board love their MM's but they also like the protection of a big car for their families....

I will be showing her this picture....

[RCSignals]

Ford letter to City of Dallas (http://www.autosafety.org/FordDallasResponse.pdf)

autosafety.org is a site set up by trial attorneys. Interesting they have the letter to post on the internet.

[FordNut]

That's a shame. As I stated in previous comments, what will they drive if Ford decides not to sell the CVPI? What is safer? I feel for the Dallas LEOs, as they will now be forced to use less safe alternatives.

[jgc61sr2002]

I don't think FMC will stop production of the CVPI in the near future. The contracts with most Police Departments in the US brings in big dollars . P.D.s are good customers and they don't complain about the hight of wiper blades or the quality of the paint, etc. The only time these cars go back to the dealer is for a recall or major warranty work. The CVPI is the safest car on the road today. IMHO.

[RCSignals]

another in NH. no fire

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=354&ArticleID=82210



http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/ArticlesImg/82210.jpg

[Bigdogjim]

well they all walked away. so that good.

[Jeff]

I was just reading on BlueOvalNews that the CV/Marquis/Marauder have double five star safety rating.

[Jeff]

But, of course, that's a head-on collision...

[RCSignals]

They actually have a quadruple five star rating (both front passenger and outer rear passengers. the shoulder belted center rear passenger improved that position as well.), as well as a 5 star roll over rating.

[nomad]

http://www.newsday.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=ny-bc-ny--crownvictoria0613jun13&section=%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fwire

[gja]

All of this controversy and subterfuge over something, that when examined, does no appear to hold up to scrutiny. I must say that I feel like someone is making a concerted effort to smear FoMoCo for whatever reason. The more facts come to light, the more it is evident this is a massively overblown collection of crap.
I think it is time for Ford to send in their nastiest, meanest researchers to find the root/starting point of this garbage and haul it up for all to inspect. My bullcrap detector has officially gone to full-on status.
What do the detractors of the CVPI want/expect? A four-door sedan that can run with a Ferrari and take a rear-ender from an M1A1 tank without a scratch??!!
What the heck gives? Time for a formal investigation on the sources of this nonsense. These folks sound just like that jackazz Ken Starr, who should have been shot for sport, but wasn't worth the cost of good ammo.
I tire of this discussion; it is an orchestrated witch-hunt being foisted on FoMoCo. I would like to see them try this crap with GM/Chevy, since they sell little or nothing to the PDs they would likely tell the media/lawyers to blow them.

[RCSignals]

a Tank may not be so safe either http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/May2002/a20020516hooddeath.html

[RCSignals]

One of the CVPI alternatives in the NEWS

http://www.newschannel5.com/news/investigates/brakes.htm