Three years ago, the RMA was busy crafting and politicking a federal
bill on tire fuel efficiency that eventually became part of the 2007
Energy Bill.
Back in 2005, you’ll recall, gas prices were going
through the roof. $2.20, then $2.45, then $2.60. Tires, as always,
became the focal point, with consumers looking for ways to save money
with “better” rubber.
A number of states considered laws to
control the fuel efficiency of replacement tires sold within their
borders. These consumerist bills, including one actually enacted in
California, presumed that OE tires were more fuel-efficient than
replacement units.
Anyone could see what an absolute
you-know-what this would have turned into if each state had its own
law. Thousands of SKUs and 50 divergent state laws would have killed
the industry at every level.
Despite the lack of an execution plan, everyone agreed with RMA that one law, indeed, was better than 50.
There
wasn’t any science attached to RMA’s bill or any state offering. Even a
National Academy of Sciences study offered no technical basis for
proposed laws, only finding that tires represented a wee 4% of a
typical vehicle’s fuel consumption. Despite that fact, the Academy
still felt compelled to think out loud that tire rolling resistance
could be improved by 10%.
Interestingly, since the Energy Bill
of 2007 was signed into law, nary a peep about tire fuel efficiency has
been heard – even in the dark days of $4.50 a gallon gas in 2008.
Finally, some 18 months after the Energy Bill was signed, we have
NHTSA’s first pass at a fuel efficiency testing, grading and consumer
education scheme. But that’s another story.
So, to recap:
• Low-level PR issue: Consumers thought “better” tires would save gas
• States proposed varied laws, directly impacting tiremakers
• No scientific evidence or even testing plan
• One new national law – proposed by tiremakers – solves problem!
Now,
hit the reverse button to 2003 – even before all of this fuel
efficiency folderol. That’s when we first heard the name Sean Kane of
plaintiff attorney-helping Strategic Safety, as he began pounding the
industry about old tires going bad.
Over the past six years,
countless lawsuits have been filed against tiremakers and tire dealers
alike, alleging that older tires – six years or more in chronological
age – failed and maimed or killed people. Each Kane-led attack –
including last year’s epic ABC-TV “investigative report” beat down –
has left the industry bruised and battered. Mostly the tire retailers.
Meanwhile,
across the oceans blue, various rules, regulations and recommended
practices have been enacted about “old tires” by various vehicle OEMs,
tire manufacturers and their associations, tire dealer groups, and tire
safety organizations.
But on these shining shores, we have heard
nothing but the droning refrain: “There is no scientific evidence…”,
leaving tire dealers to placate angry, confused consumers.
Thanks
to Kane and ABC’s primetime drubbing, California, Hawaii and New York
have been considering laws aimed at aged tires. California just set
aside a bill that would fine tire retailers for not providing a written
disclosure of the precise age of any tire sold. Hawaii would make it
illegal to sell any tire older than six years. New York demands a clear
born-on date stamped on the side of each tire. See a pattern here?
While
firmly against the proposed state laws, RMA has otherwise only issued a
“statement” regarding tire service life – back in March 2006. That
missive says, in part: “Since service and storage conditions vary
widely, accurately predicting the serviceable life of any specific tire
based on simple calendar age is not possible. RMA is not aware of
scientific or technical data that establishes or identifies a specific
minimum or maximum service life for passenger and light truck tires.”
Let’s recap:
• High-level PR crisis: Six years of being dragged through the muck, including national and local TV bashfests
• Numerous lawsuits citing deaths and injuries
• States proposing varied laws, directly impacting retailers
• One 588-word “statement” by tiremakers fails to solve the problem!
To borrow from Paul Simon, “Where have you gone, RMA? A nation’s dealers turn their lonely eyes to you.”
Certainly,
we don’t need one state law, let alone 50. But where RMA once leapt
into the legislative pool without the aid of science, it won’t budge on
the tire age issue because there is no science – on either side.
The
result, I’m afraid, will be a you-know-what of 50 different state laws,
all laced with steep penalties and extra work for tire retailers – and
virtually none for the manufacturers.
Silence, I guess, is really golden.