HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content

Stuck in neutral: consumer safety panel faces constraints in its ability to force recalls of ATVs

In June, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued an unusual warning about a four-wheel all-terrain vehicle designed for children, calling it "defective and dangerous". "Children are at risk of injury or death due to multiple safety defects with this off-road vehicle", the agency said in a news release. That vehicle, the Kazuma Meerkat 50, was not recalled, however, which prompted consumer advocates to raise the question: If it was so dangerous, why did the CPSC allow it to remain on the market? The reason was simple but revealing. At the time, the CPSC did not have enough commissioners to approve a lawsuit to force a recall. Consumer Reports called the warning "a non-recall" and "a dangerous precedent for a hamstrung agency". "The problem with [a warning] is that it doesn’t get that much attention", said Pamela Gilbert, former CPSC executive director. "No one is going to put you . . . [Full text of this article]