WASHINGTON — Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC Tuesday endorsed the choice of full-stability technology by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the agency’s recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would require stability technology for commercial vehicles.
Fred Andersky, Bendix director of government and industry affairs, presented comments on the company’s behalf at NHTSA’s public hearing for the NPRM held at the Department of Transportation headquarters in here.
The NPRM, published on May 23, would require full-stability technology, known as Electronic Stability Control (ESC), on truck tractors and certain buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds).
In his presentation, Andersky compared the performance and effectiveness of ESC and roll-only – or Roll Stability Control (RSC) – stability systems.
Bendix develops and supplies full-stability systems, which it markets as Bendix ESP Electronic Stability Program, and roll-only systems to commercial vehicle manufacturers as part of a full suite of active and supportive safety technologies.
“As a business, our preference is to let the market decide technology choices. It is our position, however, that if a stability control regulation is forthcoming, ESC is the best technology choice,” Andersky said. “It is the one stability technology that, in our expert opinion, delivers and performance needed to help commercial vehicle drivers mitigate both rollover and loss-of-control situations.”
Andersky said two key factors – information and interventions – support the Bendix recommendation for ESC over RSC. He added, “Extensive research and development – along with over seven years of solid customer experience – reinforces our position.”
Stability systems use sensors to provide information about vehicle behavior and driver intent. Full-stability systems employ two more sensors than the typical roll-only system. These extra sensors, Andersky said, help the stability system assess a potential crash situation sooner, which can lead to an earlier intervention.
If an intervention is required, the ESC system can respond by providing more braking power than a typical RSC system. The additional braking power is critical for both roll and directional stability, Andersky said. Full-stability systems achieve more powerful brake interventions by involving the steer, drive, and trailer axles, whereas roll-only systems typically apply the brakes only on the drive and trailer axles.
WANTING TO FIND A NEW JOB? GOTRUCKERS.COM OFFERS HUNDREDS OF POSSIBILITIES. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.
Citing “Road Map for the Future: Making the Case for Full-Stability,” a white paper thatBendix published in 2008, Andersky said that slowing the vehicle quickly helps mitigate rollovers faster, while slowing and redirecting can help the driver maneuver in loss-of-control situations.
Both actions need support from the steer axle. He noted that with the recently enacted legislation requiring a 30 percent reduction in stopping distance, more braking power is now concentrated on the steer axle.
Andersky also addressed the effectiveness of ESC and roll-only systems. He pointed to NHTSA’s Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, which indicated a 6 to 7 percent higher overall effectiveness for ESC over roll-only systems. The agency’s conclusions were drawn from studies that reviewed crashes where stability technology might have helped mitigate the situation, relying significantly on cases from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) “Large Truck Crash Causation Study” (LTCCS) published in 2006.
“While we agree with the general conclusion drawn from the NHTSA studies – that ESC is more effective than RSC – we believe the results are actually conservative,” Andersky said.
The Trucker staff can be reached for comment at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Find more news and analysis from The Trucker, and share your thoughts, on Facebook.