3 comments to “Safety Agency Nixes Tracking Deaths Involving ROVs”

  1. Louis V. Lombardo

    Thanks to Fair Warning and Myron Levin for continued great reporting on important matters of life or death or disability issues and government failures to protect people in favor of protecting corporations.

    Myron wrote:

    “The Consumer Product Safety Commission began collecting data for the ATV report back in the 1980s, as you can see from the tables here: https://bit.ly/2CSI02S.”

    Readers should examine that link carefully. as it contains a 2016 government report with an approval stamp for publication. The CPSC approval stamp dated 12/26//17 notes: “NO MFRS/PRVTLBLRS OR PRODUCTS IDENTIFIED”

    Government of, by, and for the corporations.

  2. Myron Levin

    Thanks for your comment, Matthew. This is Myron Levin, editor of FairWarning. You asked if ROV incidents are lumped into a broader category in the ATV report, and the answer is no. ROV casualties aren’t counted in this annual compilation of ATV injuries and deaths.

    The Consumer Product Safety Commission began collecting data for the ATV report back in the 1980s, as you can see from the tables here: https://bit.ly/2CSI02S.

    ROVs, which are different in design and appearance from ATVs, did not hit the market until the early 2000s, and the ATV report has not been expanded to include annual casualty figures for this newer model of off-road machine.

  3. Matthew Mabey

    This article left me with a big question. Are ROV incidents currently counted, but just lumped into the broad category of ATVs? Or are the incidents truly going uncounted? There is a big difference between those two scenarios.
    If the ROVs are excluded from the definition of ATV, I would be interested in the history of how that exclusive came about. It seems to me that ROVs are very clearly “all-terrain vehicles” to the same degree that a straddled, handle-barred vehicle is. A definition that excludes them seems contrived and counter productive.
    Regulations should be written so that when something “new” comes along, the new thing automatically falls under an existing definition until a new rule carves out a separate category or definition. This idea that every “new” thing exists in a no-man’s land is ludicrous. A consumer product should have to be truly novel and revolutionary to fall outside the purview of existing regulations. ROVs are neither novel nor revolutionary. They should have been embraced by the definition of an ATV from the very beginning.

Leave a comment