Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. Response to Plaintiff
Attorneys' Report
Christine Karbowiak, Vice President Public Affairs
NASHVILLE, Tenn.-Feb. 7, 2001-
Last August, Firestone committed to the American public that it would
leave no stone unturned to find what caused a small percentage of our
tires to experience a higher rate of tread separation claims, and we
stood by our word.
A team of Firestone engineers conducted a four-month,
intensive scientific analysis of all factors that may have contributed
to this phenomenon. In addition, Dr. Sanjay Govindjee, an associate
professor of civil engineering at the University of California - Berkeley
conducted his own independent, five-month mechanical and materials engineering
analysis of the recalled tires.
The scientific answer is not a simple one, but the
research and facts are clear: In extreme cases, several factors acting
in combination - including factors related to tire design, manufacturing
and external circumstances - could cause an increased rate of tread
separations. In addition, the recall was more than broad enough to capture
the small number of tires that were affected; other Firestone tires
continue to show excellent performance.
In contrast to these other studies, the report released
today is not based on scientific analysis, but on anecdotes and unsupported
theories that have been raised and rejected many times before. Trial
lawyers and their allies are certainly entitled to speculate, but where
public safety is concerned it is irresponsible to disguise speculation
as fact.
The responsibility for determining the appropriateness
of the recall rests with NHTSA. As NHTSA's examination continues, we
look forward to sharing information and working with the agency as we
have throughout this process.
Firestone has a commitment to public safety,
one that we share with many other organizations, such as NHTSA. As part
of that commitment, we will continue to
base our conclusions on hard data and facts, and we urge other organizations
to do the same.
