Bill Overview
Title: STOP Frontovers Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Transportation (DOT) to promulgate a federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires vehicles to be equipped with technology that enables drivers to detect and respond to objects in front of their vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from frontovers or low-speed forward-moving vehicle incidents. DOT must also update the Non-Traffic Surveillance (NTS) System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to include an element for frontovers and backovers in the data maintained and summary reports published from such data.
Sponsors: Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Target Audience
Population: People vulnerable to frontover incidents, especially young children and pedestrians
Estimated Size: 340000000
- Frontovers can involve pedestrians of all ages, particularly children, who are at a height where they are less visible from the driver's seat.
- Given that this technology can be applied to all cars, any pedestrian could potentially benefit from this legislation.
- Parents and guardians will be indirectly impacted by increased pedestrian safety standards for children.
- Drivers themselves who invest in vehicles with such technology will also be directly impacted due to the potential reduction in accidents they might be involved in.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to mandate safety standards in vehicles to prevent frontover incidents, benefiting both pedestrians and drivers.
- The population most directly impacted is significant, with 340 million Americans potentially benefiting from improved safety.
- The budget limits suggest a staggered or partial roll-out, as retrofitting or manufacturing adjustments on such scale will need to be phased.
- Given statistical frontover incidents data, the policy holds the potential to avert many accidents annually, improving well-being among pedestrians and guardians.
- Interviews involve a mix of people directly affected (e.g., young families) and those indirectly or slightly affected (e.g., older individuals or people in low-traffic areas).
Simulated Interviews
School Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am glad about this policy because it means safer streets for my kids.
- As someone who walks my children to school, this gives me peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Plano, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good this tech is being mandated, but it might be costly for owners of older cars like myself.
- I'm considering upgrading my vehicle because of this policy's benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Graphic Designer (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy reassures me that commuting in the city is becoming safer for pedestrians.
- I think long term it's a smart move for pedestrian safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Truck Driver (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how this will affect the costs in the trucking industry.
- Safety is important, but the details of implementation are crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel better knowing there will be fewer accidents in parking areas where I take my grandchildren.
- This policy will likely prevent many tragic accidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm supportive of anything that makes our roads safer.
- I hope this will also encourage more people to cycle without fear.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation could drive innovation.
- I'm excited to see how this can bring new business to tech-focused firms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Construction Worker (Baton Rouge, LA)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Making construction zones safer is crucial, and this could help.
- On the job sites, we appreciate any increase in safety standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Healthcare Professional (Denver, CO)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a positive step towards preventing needless accidents.
- As a parent and healthcare professional, I know firsthand the impact of preventable injuries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Delivery Driver (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Making vehicles safer means fewer close calls with pedestrians for me.
- I'm in favor of this policy even if it means recalibrating my driving habits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- The economic scale of implementation across a wide range of vehicle manufacturers, potentially leading to variance in compliance costs.
- Public awareness and understanding of the new standards and technology might affect the efficiency of policy goals.
- The rate of technological advancement in automotive safety and its integration into standard vehicle production.