[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 51 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10556-10557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6131]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice denies the petition by Darrin L. Johnson for the
issuance of a mandatory order requiring that all motor vehicles be
equipped with front stop lamps. NHTSA's analysis of the petition
concludes that requiring front stop lamps on all motor vehicles does
not further the cause of reducing the risk of motor vehicles related
fatalities, injuries and accidents. The denial notice concludes that
the likely consequence of implementing such a system will be higher
risk behavior by motorists and pedestrians.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth O. Hardie, Safety Performance
Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr.
Hardie's telephone number is (202) 366-6987.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated September 19, 1995, Darrin
L. Johnson of North Hollywood, California petitioned the NHTSA to issue
a rule that would mandate the equipping of all motor vehicles with
front ``brake lights.'' The petitioner stated that front ``brake
lights'' will save lives because it is necessary for other drivers and
pedestrians to know the intended maneuvers of a vehicle, from the front
of the vehicle as well as the rear. The petitioner stated that it is
important to know from the front if an approaching driver intends to
decrease his speed and/or is applying the brakes at certain crucial
periods. The petitioner would require the front ``brake lights'' to be
steady burning and red in color. The front ``brake lights'' would light
simultaneously with the rear stop lamps, when the brake is depressed
and/or applied. The petitioner estimates that the cost for the front
``brake light'' system to be as follows:
Production Cost--$35.00
Wholesale Cost--$70.00
Retail Price--$150.00
Analysis of Petition
The petition contains a number of scenarios that suggest that
forward-facing stop signals will reduce the risk of fatalities,
injuries and accidents by minimizing the amount of driver guesswork of
when to maneuver a vehicle into traffic. The petitioner's rationale for
mandating a rule requiring all motor vehicles to be equipped with front
stop lamps is these lamps would communicate an approaching driver's
intent to brake or decrease speed. Presumably, other drivers or
pedestrians would have information on the intent of the approaching
vehicle based upon whether the front stop lamps had been activated. The
observing individual could then act accordingly or maneuver onto
traffic.
The petitioner presents a number of scenarios to support a claim
that front stop lamps will result in a reduction of accidents involving
a vehicle that is attempting to enter traffic from a driveway, street,
or entrance road of a freeway. The petitioner claims that a motorist
would have additional safety information when attempting to enter
traffic by monitoring the front stop lamps of an approaching vehicle.
The petitioner claims that vehicles entering traffic would avoid a
higher percentage of collisions with oncoming vehicles because the
driver attempting to enter traffic would know whether the driver with
the right-of-way was giving up the right-of-way, thus, allowing him/her
to more safely enter traffic. The petitioner claims that this could be
done by observing if the approaching vehicle's front stop lamps were
illuminated, thus, indicating braking or stopping. The assumption of
the petitioner appears to be that an illuminated front stop lamp means
that the approaching driver has relinquished the right-of-way.
It is NHTSA's belief that forward-facing stop lamps might provide
some useful information to drivers, but that a front stop signal might
also produce ambiguity and could lead to dangerous driver or pedestrian
action if it is not interpreted by the viewer in an appropriate manner.
For example, a driver whose vehicle is not slowing down but who taps
the brake pedal as a precaution when approaching an intersection could
find a car pulling out dangerously close in front of him/her, because
the other drivers assumed that the vehicle would be making a turn or
[[Page 10557]]
relinquishing the right-of-way. There are a number of scenarios that
could be hypothesized which could cause false signals to be given to
other drivers. Drivers would need to determine which signals are true
and which are false. There is little time for such behavior during
normal driving. The front stop lamp could encourage drivers to violate
the right-of-way laws that exist in each state.
Consequently, NHTSA is concerned that illuminated front stop lamps
could lure drivers who are attempting to enter traffic into high risk
behavior. This is because the presence of an illuminated front stop
lamp is not assurance that an approaching driver has relinquished the
right-of-way to the merging or entering traffic. Making decisions
regarding when to merge or enter traffic based upon the illumination of
front stop lamps would be risky behavior. NHTSA does not believe that
there will be a net positive benefit from a rule that requires front
stop lamps on all motor vehicles.
In two scenarios involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian the
petitioner suggested that front stop lamps should be installed on all
motor vehicles because they would provide additional information to a
pedestrian who was preparing to cross the street. The petitioner
claimed that the potential for disaster would be minimized or
eliminated because the pedestrian would be able to determine if it were
safe to enter the street based upon the illumination status of the
front stop lamps. The agency has concluded that the same problem exists
with pedestrians as with motorists evaluating whether to enter traffic
based upon whether front stop lamps are illuminated. The pedestrian
should never presume that drivers of vehicles will respect the right-
of-way of pedestrians.
In accordance with CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review
of the petition. The agency has concluded that front stop lamps do not
have the promise of producing reductions in fatalities, injuries, or
accidents. The agency believes that the likely consequence of requiring
such a system will be higher risk behavior by motorists and
pedestrians. The agency has concluded that there is no reasonable
possibility that the amendment requested by the petitioner would be
issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly, it
denies the petition submitted by Darrin L. Johnson.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30111, 30162; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on March 11, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-6131 Filed 3-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P