Paul Vitrano, Executive Vice-President of the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, presented this at CPSC's ATV Safety Summit Oct. 12. ATV manufacturers strive to constantly improve and innovate their vehicles. The pursuit of innovation, however, must be balanced against the imperative to only introduce proven technologies that will not lead to unintended consequences. Innovations also must be considered in the context of longstanding standards, now mandatory, that have been developed through collaboration among industry, government and other stakeholders. The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) is the American National Standards Institute accredited standards developing organization for the four-wheel ATV standard. SVIA’s Executive Vice President, Paul Vitrano, will discuss innovations that have and have not been implemented, including features in the areas of handling, braking, drivetrain and lighting.

1. Vehicle Technology:
Roll-Over Protection
Paul C. Vitrano
Executive Vice President
Specialty Vehicle Institute of America
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
ATV Safety Summit
October 12, 2012

2. Serious Concerns With Possible
Addition of ROPS/CPDs
• CPSC and others repeatedly have concluded
that ROPS/CPDs are inappropriate for ATVs
• Benefits of ROPS/CPDs have not been
scientifically proven
• ROPS/CPDs likely would cause many
unintended consequences, including new
safety risks
• ROPS are appropriate for alternative side-by-
side vehicles

3. CPSC Conclusions Against ROPS
• 1990 Letter to Congress
– “inherent limitations that a roll cage with harness or other
restraint would impose on the movement required for ATV
riding”
– “adverse influence on the stability of the ATV due to the
increased center-of-gravity height”
– “size restrictions needed for use in a narrow environment
(e.g., a forest path)”
“Commission engineers have not advocated a roll
cage as a solution”
* Letter from Edward Harrill to Rep. Doug Barnard, Jr., Sept. 21, 1990, at 2

4. CPSC Conclusions Against ROPS
1991 Federal Register Notice • “*P+resently-available data
• “The rider . . . must be able to move do not allow an estimate of
forward and back and side to side*.+” how many riders would use
the restraint system.”
• “Thus, the restraint would have to allow
for such movement, and the roll cage • “*P+resently-available data
would have to extend far enough outward do no allow an estimate of
and upward to prevent the loosely- how many injures could be
restrained operator from contacting the prevented by roll cages*.+”
ground*.+” • “*O+r how many injuries
• “The resulting roll cage would likely might be caused by new
greatly extend the width and height of the hazards introduced by
ATV. . . . [T]his increased size might these devices.”
significantly adversely affect ATV utility
and may increase the likelihood of
collision*.+”
“There is no support for a conclusion that the benefits of such
devices bear a reasonable relationship to their cost.”
* 56 Fed. Reg. 47,166, 47,172 (Sept. 18, 1991).

5. CPSC Conclusions Against ROPS
• 1998 Expiration of Consent Decrees
– CPSC staff meetings with manufacturer engineers and
outside engineers
– New exposure and injury surveys to determine hazard and
usage patterns
– “Forum on All-Terrain Vehicles” – “to discuss what
measures, if any, could reasonably be taken . . . to further
reduce deaths and injuries”
Commission Did Not Recommend Any Further
Design Changes

6. CPSC Conclusions Against ROPS
• 2003 Public Forums on ATV Safety
– Overwhelming number of written and oral submissions
focused on the need to address vehicle misuse through
parental supervision, state legislation and enforcement
– Some presenters mentioned ROPS
Commission Demonstrated No Interest in Pursuing ROPS

7. Others Have Raised Concerns About
ROPS/CPDs
• Rechnitzer (Monash) (2003)
– “Simply put, the two types of protective structures modeled *U-bar and T-bar]
are totally inappropriate and do not form an effective Rollover Protective
System for ATVs irrespective of whether restraints would have been fitted or
not. The report [Van Auken (1996)] and analyses conducted convincingly
demonstrate that a poorly designed Rollover Protection System is probably
worse than not having a ROPS.”
• Grzebieta (2007)
– “*The Quadbar appears to be an increased risk in frontal rollovers as the Quad-
bar may come into contact with the rider when the full weight of the ATV is
behind it.”
• Zellner (2012b)
– *With a helmeted operator,+ “*t+he Quadbar would cause approximately as
many injuries and fatalities as it would prevent.”
– *With an unhelmeted operator, the device+ “would cause statistically
significantly more injuries and fatalities than *it+ would prevent.”

8. Benefits of ROPS/CPDs Have Not Been
Scientifically Proven
• No comprehensive, scientifically based, peer
reviewed research supporting net benefits of
ROPS/CPDs
• No evidence that ROPS/CPDs will prevent
more injuries than they will cause to such a
degree as to warrant their addition
(risk/benefit)

9. Unintended Consequences/Risks
• Raised structure/device on/at rear of ATV
– Alters center-of-gravity, reduces stability
– Impedes ability to dismount to the rear
– Potentially impedes ability to remove ATV from
top of rider
– Potentially interacts with vegetation and other
terrain features
• Causing crash
• Reducing mobility
• Reducing utility

10. Unintended Consequences/Risks
• Creates additional hazard during crash
– Impact with rider’s body parts, including head and torso
• Significant additional risk to un-helmeted riders
• Even greater risk with larger ROPS, if belt does not sufficiently
retract or if rider is un-belted
– Alters and makes unpredictable/different path of ATV
during roll and/or potentially more violent roll
• May reduce rider’s ability to avoid ATV
• May cause contact between ATV and rider where it would not
otherwise occur
• May increase impacts and/or forces between rider and ATV and/or
ground

11. Unintended Consequences/Risks
• For belted ROPS
– Compromise rider-activity
• Reducing ability to control ATV
• Reducing mobility of ATV
• Reducing utility of ATV

12. ROPS Are Appropriate for Alternative
Side-by-Side Vehicles
• Many SVIA members and others already manufacture other side-by-side
vehicles with comparable performance that have ROPS which have low
risk in comparison to their benefits when properly used
• These vehicles provide an alternative for users who prefer non-rider-active
models with ROPS

13. Questions?
Paul C. Vitrano
Executive Vice President
Specialty Vehicle Institute of America
2 Jenner, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618
949-727-3727 x3119
pvitrano@svia.org