the highway loss reduction

Status ReportJuly 26, 1977

Adams Mandates Automatic Protection

Shuster, Griffin ~Would Reverse Adams;

Pro-Passive Coalition Forms

Seven minutes after Transportation Sec­retary Brock Adams ended his June 30 press con­ference announcing his decision to mandate passiverestraints, Rep. E. G. "Bud" Shuster (R.-Pa.)introduced a bill in the House to overturn theAdams decision.. Later that day, Sen. RobertGriffin (R.-Mich.) introduced a similar bill in theSenate. The quick action was occasioned byCongress' self-imposed deadline for reviewing theSecretary's decision. (See article on page 5.)

Sept. 1, 1983 - All new cars.

Sept. 1, 1982 - New cars with 10 I-inchwheelbase or greater,

Sept. 1, 1981 - New cars with lIS-inchwheelbase or greater,

After almost eight years of delay, the Department of Transportation has taken action that willeventually lead to the installation of automatic restraints in all new cars. DOT estimated that its action willsave 9,000 lives and prevent thousands of crippling injuries each year once all cars are equipped withautomatic restraints.

Secretary of Transportation Brock Adamsannounced that the current occupant protectionstandard (FMVSS 208) has been amended torequire tllat automatic - i.e., passive - crash pro­tection be provided for front seat occupants in 30mile-per-hour crashes on the following schedule:

Under the terms of the DOT action, automakers will be required to substantially reduce theforces that reach front seat occupants in severefrontal crashes. Each manufacturer may meet thisperformance requirement by using any designapproach it chooses - including passive belts orair bags - that meets the crash-force-reductionrequirement.

Adams estimated that approximately twoand a half million cars would be affected in thefirst phase, an additional five million in the secondphase and another two and a half million in thethird phase.

DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

Adams asked auto makers to continue theirparticipation in the passive restraint demonstration

rCont'd on page 2)

The House Subcommittee on ConsumerProtection and Finance has scheduled hearings onthe bill for September 14 and 15. The SenateConsumer Subcommittee has scheduled its hearingsfor September 8 and 9.

Shuster said he objects to the Adams rulebecause, among other things, he said, air bags are"unproven" and safety belts are "a proven alterna­tive to the air bag. "

Shuster made no mention of the extensiveamount of data developed by the National High­way Traffic Safety Administration which supportsthe Secretary's decision. In addition, his statementsconsistently refer to Adams' "air bag order,"despite the fact that auto makers may meet thestandard with air bags, passive belts or any other

rCont'd on page 3)

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent, nonprofit, scientific and educational organization. It is dedicated to reducing thelosses-deaths, injuries and property damage-resulting from crashes on the nation's highways. The Institute is supported by the AmericanInsurance Highway Safety Association, the American Insurers Highway Safety Alliance, the National Association of Independent InsurersSafety Association and several individual insurance companies.

2

program (developed by former Secretary of Transportation, William Coleman, Jr.,2, Feb. 1977), several auto makers agreed to produce a limited number

_-"- ....' ............ _ cars during the 1980 and 1981 model years.

answer to Adams' request, Volkswagen said plans to continue to produce its passive belt-,";~""A-.'.'.I",'"'' Rabbits; Ford has cancelled its participation in program, and Volvo and General Motors havenot yet indicated whether they will participate in the program. (Toyota previously announced that it"hopes" to offer a driver-side only air bag in one of its 1980 model cars.)

At the press conference announcing the decision, Adams was sharply questioned over why isallowing small less crashworthy cars more time than larger cars to meet the passive restraint rule.

Adams "Our problem was that we did not feel that the technology that was moving forwardfor the smaller vehicle lent itself as well to the air bag. why we have them more time. But we

be making every effort to them to come in and produce under voluntary program earlier."

was also asked why installation of passive restraints will not take place until the I 1984model -years.

have phased it in with the auto standards and the design changes necessary with thetechnology that exists now," answered, 4'SO that it's an orderly process of moving from zero to ]0million vehicles, and that's the reason why we have put it in by stages, rather than having anything gowrong or challenge be made that this was a foolish requirement that couldn't be met."

Adams was criticized the Center for Auto Safety and Ralph Nader, who maintained that automakers have capability of installing passive restraints at an earlier date. Both and Nader, however,joined forces with others opposed to Congressional repeal of the Adams decision. (See article on page I.)

Affected By Rule

Top-of-the-line standard-sized cars will be the first models to be affected by the newpassive restraint requirements.

Because auto sizes are being scaled down under fuel-economy pressures, it isuncertain what 1982 models will remain with a wheelbase of 115 inches or longer. Butamong today's models the requirement would apply to cars such as the Chevrolet Impalaand Monte Carlo, the Pontiac Catalina and Bonneville, Ford's and Custom 500,Plymouth's Fury, the Dodge Monaco, the Mercury Marquis and the American Motors'four-door Matador.

By 1983, passive restraints will be required on intermediate and compact modelssuch as today's Plymouth Volare, Oldsmobile Omega, Mercury Monarch, American Motor'sHornet, Ford Maverick and Apollo.

Subcompacts and minicars join the safety-equipped fleet in the fall of 1983 withintroduction of 1984 models. At that time, all of the approximately 10 million new carsmust be equipped with air bags, passive belts or any other system devised by manufacturersthat will meet the crash force reduction requirements of the restraint standard.

Status Report July 26, 1977

3

BACK SEAT PROTECTION

At the press conference, Adams also said he is "terribly concerned" about back seat occupants.Increased protection for the back seat "will be one of the jobs that Miss Claybrook, the new head ofNHTSA, will have to address next because the testimony that we've had on this ... people come out of theback seat like projectiles and have caused injuries by hitting people in the front seat - the air bag will give asignificant amount of protection there, but I am not at all saying it is adequate. So I think we should beaddressing that pro blem next."

Adams also pledged to closely monitor the price increase caused by the passive protection devices"so that people don't just say that all the additional cost of the automobile is because of this one factor."

An NHrrSA official told Status Report that not only would the agency be monitoring prices, but itwould also be monitoring the auto makers' progress in meeting the standard so that there will be no delaysin the scheduled inlplementation.

Adams also made the following points at his press conference:

• Congressional Review: He expects Congress to support the rule and "} will certainly go to theHill and fight for it." (See article on page 5.)

• Maximum Speed: The Adams rule requires protection in 30 mph crashes into a barrier, butAdams said that this speed might be raised in the future.

" Car Sales: "} don't think it [the rule] will have any effect on car sales, if the auton10bilemanufacturers go out and promote this like they do automatic transmissions, air conditioning, vinyl roofsand the rest. I believe the American public has arrived at a point where they want fuel efficiency and theywant safety in their automobiles, and that is an attractive thing to sell to the people."

• Reliability of Safety Systems: " ... we've had no problem with [auto] companies saying theycan repair other things on cars, and 'buy my car' because it's easily repaired. When you talk abou t somethingthat involves safety, they seem to question whether or not they can do the same thing they can in otherareas. They can do this as well as they can repair your transmission, repair your carburetion systems, or anyother parts of the automobile, and in the same fashion."

Pro-Passive Coalition Forms (Cont'd from page 1)

type of equipment they might develop to meet the crash-force reduction requirements issued by the

Secretary.

NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Shortly after Shuster and Griffin announced their repeal measures, several public interest groups,medical and insurance organizations and others fonned an organization to fight the Congressional repealmeasures and support tl1e Adams decision. This coalition is the National Committee for Automobile CrashProtection. Counsel for the organization is S. Lynn Sutcliffe, fonner counsel to the Senate CommerceCon1mittee. The executive director is Ralph Hoar, formerly with the Insurance Institute for HighwayS~fety.

(Cont'd on page 4)

Status Report July 26, 1977

4

At a press conference announcing the formation of the committee, representatives explained that"although members of the committee may differ over aspects of the Adams decision, there is unanimity inthe conviction that Congress must sustain that decision ... its members will attack the canards that havebeen raised about passive restraints, such as air bags."

Membership in the committee includes:

Aetna Life and Casualty Insurance CompanyAllstate Insurance CompaniesAlliance of American InsurersAmerican Academy of PediatricsAmerican Congress of Rehabilitation MedicineAmerican Insurance AssociationAmerican Nurses AssociationAu tomobile Club of MissouriSusan P. Baker, Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins

School of Hygiene and Public HealthCenter for Auto SafetyCenter for Concerned EngineeringConsumer Action NowEpilepsy Foundation of America

Ralph Nader, Attorney

National Association of Independent InsurersNational Association of Mutual Insurance

CompaniesNational Conference of Governors' Highway

Safety RepresentativesNationwide Insurance CompaniesPhysicians National Housestaff AssociationPrudential Property and Casualty Insurance

CompanySafeco Insurance Company of AmericaState Farm Insurance CompaniesTravelers Insurance CompaniesUnited Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural

Implement Workers of America (UAW)

Triple A. Supports Passive Rule

In addition to the members of the National Committee for Automobile CrashProtection, support for the Adams decision also came from the American AutomobileAssociation which had, in the past, failed to support any automatic ("passive") restraintstandard. The AAA said "the important ingredient in Adams' plan is that the auto buyingpublic will now have a choice of crash-protection systems, either automatic safety belts orair bags ... the staggered phase-in proposed by Adams will encourage manufacturers todevelop more fully the relatively new and less expensive automatic safety belt and also allowthem to solve the problem of the subcompact for which air bags are not yet available."

The triple A had only one objection to Adams' plan: "if possible, we would like tosee passive restraint systems installed in models sooner."

Status Report July 26, 1977

5

How Congress Is Reviewing The Rule

In 1974, Congress passed a law outlawing the buzzer interlock safety belt system. Inthat law, Congress also reserved right to review and subsequently disapprove any"occupant restraint system" standard that the Department of Transportation might issuethe future. (See Status Report, VoL 9, No. 19, Oct. 29,1974.)

The passive rule announced by DOT Secretary Adams on June 30 fallsunder this category and is now being reviewed by Congress.

The procedure for review pennits introduction of "concurrent resolutions" boththe House and the to reverse the passive restraint rule. Congress then has 60 days of"continuous from the date of transmittal of the standard, broken only by anadjournment of more than three days, to consider such measures and reject or pass them.

Rep. "Bud" Shuster (R.-Pa.) introduced a House c9ncurrent resolution(H.Con.Res. 273) immediately after Secretary Adams' announcement. Shortly thereafter,Sen. Robert (R.-Mich.) placed an resolution (S.Con.Res. 31), in Senatehopper.

A much misunderstood fact about the meaning of "continuous session" as regardsconcurrent resolutions is that bo:th must be in session simultaneously to have thedays included in the total 60 days. Congress is now scheduled to meet for 57 of the 60 days.1.1V,,,,\..I.V\..I. before the end of the year. However, it is possible that three or more days of actualmeeting time may be added to this session. In that case, the may be resolved bymid-October.

The Committees of Congress having jurisdiction over the concurrent resolutions arethe Senate and House commerce committees, subcommittees ofwhich already have scheduledhearings on the Shuster and Griffin proposals. (See story, page 1.) Should either committeedecide against the concurrent resolution to the House or Senate floor for actionthis could kill the measure even before the 60 days elapse. In that event, CongressmanShuster has stated that are "other ways of overturning it" (the Adams standard)should Congress reject the resolutions.

Status Report July 26, 1977

6

The following editorial, "The Freedom to Choose Safety," by Colman McCarthy, isreprinted with permission from The Washington Post, July 10, 1977.

pic Hotet It was a gray CadUlae I~ldorado and was newtben. It no\v has about 49,000" m·jJes on it. It is no nlorc,both cars \\:ere totaled out, ..

"I was driving in a 40 nlpb speed zone with nlY cruisecontrol set at 39 mph. Only two ears were visibl.e to TIle,one conling towards nle and the one which I hit. It hadpUlled up to a boulevard stop sign and made whatlooked to be a legal stop.

"When I was about 50-75 feet from the intersection,the other car suddenly darted out, fast. I applied my bra..kes and swerved to the right but could not prevent theinlpact. I hit the right side of the other car head~on withmy brakes set and skidding to s\verve to the right:

l'After the impact, both cars were divert~d, mine tothe right and the other to the left. My car had a multipleimpact; it hit a telephone pole and sheared the pole offat the ground level.

"The sudden explosion and puff trom the inflator as­sembly was heard and the bag inflated before I felt theimpact and sudden stop of the vehicle. The inflation ofthis air bag was astonnding. I worked as an engineerduring the war and for many years with tools as an in­strument maker and I couldn't believe·the sensors fromthe bumper could actuate the inflators so fast.

"Normally, I wear seat belts, but this time I neglectedthem. This did not impair the air from performingtheir duty. The lap belt would have prevented me frOIDbeing thrown around in the front seat.

"The bag in the steering wheel was the nl0st effective;the passenger air cushion inflated and prevented mefrom being thrown to the floor on the passenger side. Infact, it shoved me back into an upright position behindthe wheel. I was protected by both bags . . .

"At no time was my vision impaired by any part of tho(air bag]. Rolling around with the 10\\7er part of nlY faeein the steering wheel bag, I knocked my glasses off andthey fell to t}1e floor but they were not broken and I putthem on before I got out of the car."

Similar testimollY has come from other survivors, in­cluding a movie stunt man. He told the Departlnent ofTransportation last year that "when you look at a 44-tonbrick wall and you know it is coming at you, you think ofa whole lot of things, but the least of which is how ulurhthis air bag costs you."

F OR ME, THESE voices are the Illost crediblf', andtherefore the most persuasive. But even then, a

judgment on air bags can be nlade in the area of the de­bate in which its opponents are most cornfortable, theso·called "individual freedonl H issue: The individual mo·torist must be free of the governnlent's excessive powerto restrict his liberty, even if government officials nleanto keep you fronl danger. A Pennsylvania congressnlan,Bud Shuster, says "this air bag edict is a very smallof a -heavy and dark blanket, gradually being lo\veredover a free people by their paternalistic government."

Put that way, the question becomes ever broader.Whom do we choose to trust and believe: Big Brot.her inWashington or Big Cousin in Detroit? Both relatives

As A LISTENER. to nearly every meaningful syllable" uttered in the current debate all air I have

yet to hear from the one citizen I've been waiting for: acrash victim saved by an air bag but who is against airbags. I have listened to other opponents, from those whosee the Department of Transportation's favorable rulingon passive restraint system as Big Brotherism on themarch to others who believe air bags are iIll­posed as unproven and costly gi.mmicks that representstill another· theft of· what one congresslllan ealls "ourindividual freedoms."

Many have been persuaded by these butfor myself nothing would be more convincing than thewords of a man who should be dead but who lives to de­nounce the federal government for denying him the in­dividuaJ freedom to be killed in his car. I would be per­suaded by a man who walked away from a head-on colli­sion livid that he had to pay $100 or even $200 to have hislife saved.

If we haven't heard from this person, assumptions canbe safely made, as our carsare not, that he doesn'texist. It is hard to imaginethe automobile industry ­the air bag's most stubbornopponent not searchingout, and then gleefully ex­ploiting, at least one nega­tive rea(~tion from the onegroup or motorists whoseknowledge of air- bags is ex­periential, not theoretical.

This group Is not largebut it is alive, well and has seen the gore in crashes fromMercer, Pa., to Needles, Calif. Although no air bag carsare currently on sale, about 12,000 vehicles so equipped-=- mostly General Motors cars froIn 1974 to 1976 havebeen on the highways. As of July 1, 153 crashes have oc­curred, involving 219 front-seat occupants.

Of the 219 crashers, 215 survived, and nearly all ofthose without nlajor injuries. From a sampling of thesurvivors' sentiments, an ardency for air bags is evident.

The most recent partisan is C. W. Beck, a state senatorfroDl Port Orchard, Wash. On June 18, he wrote a letterto his friend Brock Adams, the Secretary of Transporta­tion, who was then in the process of deciding favorablyon air bags and hoping his decision would not be vetoed

Congress. Beck reported the details of his crash:qOn Tuesday, June 7,1977, I was involved in a two~car

collision on a perfectly clear, warm, dry day at the int.er­~ection of two Kitsap County art.erials in which the lady\\Tho was driVing the other car was killed. I am able to be

.here. tod9y writing to you ,vithout a scratch,bruise, aehe·or pain because my car was eqUipped' withan ACRS [air cushion restraint systenl]. I'm sure I O'Nemy life to this device.

U'You nlay not-recall the car, but you rode in it abolltt\\·o years ago for a short distance in S~aft1e to th£' ()I,ynl-

Status Report July 1977

7Now it is 1983 before citizens can bags as stand-

ard aU cars. Tens of ·thousands.of men,women and children'will before then~ Few ofthese victims are havecal one way or ot11er airnloral of government or tovide theine Most assunle that whateveris in the has to safe else it wouldn't bethere. We have safety don't we? And isn't there

The emotional cost to be­"'·V\ilAA'-'J..I..lj;;;". Estimates of

costs are more figured: Nationwide Insurance saysair would mean an annual reduction of billionin insurance The care for citizens(,>T"lnnIOn in car crashes exceeds $1 billion a year.

Neither I nor anyone I know expects to be killed ormaimed in a car crash, either this year or this cen­tury.. But this is an expectaUon of the heart, not thehead, because somewhere in America more th3n 100

die every day in car crashes. The issue is le~s

wh€lther the should lovers of libertylike Rep. Shuster than 'Iv hat it should do about safetyof countless citizens. Cars have become lovedreanl as well as COlllman transporters, butwho the rare citizen them being po~

tential exterminators? The air is Inerely sys-tenl yet devised to an individual freedool to getin his car and drive off \\'ithollt 1hat he maybe kill~d. Such a freodom is worth 1'"1Y'C:I(;:OI"'I.71r110

have their nasty habits, but if I had a choice to disowneither, it would be Cousin~ Not only have automak­ers resisted safety innovations out haveraised the cost of cars by heavily those fea-tures of their that do at all proteftmotorists.

When pressed by the gory consequences, autotives their case with the argunlent of innocence:Don't blame us, we just the customer what he\\,'ants. If that's the case, the shOWr00111S of America are_1"".L.",lJ.&.Aj~""""'*' with customers clamoring for cars that are in-cessantly recalled for safety defects, thatthe air and can cost up to $686 in repairs for a front-endcrash at 10 nlph.

One who trusted Detroit more than the pro-air ad"visers in his own department was fornler TransportationSecretary William E. Coleman Jr. Last December,'when

decided not to decide on air bags, Colernan struck anagreement with GIvl, Ford and Mercedes to offer airas options on a small number of cars. The agreenlentwas a curious one, in light of earlier industry proD1ises:

In 1970, General Motors said, as in a recen t re-port from the Insurance Institute for Highvlay4~In the fall of 1974, the air cushion would be made stand­ard equipnlent on all 1975 G1\l passenger cars . . .Chrysler said, "We hope to be in a position topassive restraint systems in volume production by .Jan. 1,1975." Ford said in 1970 that "air bags for the frontand center occupants could be installed in all 1975 1110<1f'1

cars ..."

Washington State Sen. "Red" Beck with his airbag-equipped Cadillac shortly after the collision. Sen.Beck's letter describing his crash is reprinted on page 14.

Status Report July 26, 1977

8

Editorial Reaction To A.dams Decision

The following are excerpts from recent editorials concerning Secretary Adams' June30 passive restraint rule:

DETROIT NEWS (July 9, 1977)Adams is attempting to save lives. The highway death toll is an unnecessary waste. There can be no quarrelwith that objective. If a person is asked to choose whether he will live or die, life wins.

What we are all waiting for is some pleasant - and fair news from the auto industry on how it will installthis equipment at the lowest possible cost to the consumer - more particularly, how the cost impact can beheld to the minimum by pitching out unimportant frills now built into cars.

KANSAS CITY STAR (July 5,1977)Air bags give protection in front-end impacts only and certainly it is a startling, even traumatic experienceto be suddenly hit by one but not nearly so traumatic as to be hurled, helpless, against the interior of thecar in a crash. Considering the regrettable failure of seat belts to realize their potential for saving lives andreducing injuries, air bags are the next best alternative.

BALTIMORE NEWS AMERICAN (July 11,1977)The effectiveness of the expensive and cumbersome automatic restraints has not been proven in practice.What has been proven in fact is that the public, in general, is at the very least unenthusiastic about them.Indeed, it has been shown in no uncertain fashion that a likely majority of motorists is indignantlyopposed.

DETROIT FREE PRESS (July 5,1977)People who are convinced that air bags are 1" :ecessary, dangerous or over?y expensive will be able to optfor a less costly [passive] seat belt that wilt :>irve the same function as the type in cars today, except forlatching without the passenger having to make the effort.

PHILADELPHIA INQI lRER (July 5,1977)Mr. Adams made the ._ decision. Detroit may, under threat of compulsion, 'volunteer'for safety, but ithas never shown any zeal for it. There is no reason to expect it to go all out to persuade the public towelcome safety devices which Detroit itselfhas been too reluctant to install.

BALTIMORE SUN (July 5,1977)The evidence is strong that the more expensive air bags do a much better job than seat belts, because theyspread the force of an impact over a much larger area. And we fail to understand the reasoning behindphasing in the passive restraints starting with luxury cars instead of with smaller cars - which are moredangerous in accidents. Finally, we believe it would be technologically possible to phase in the passiverestraints more quickly. Because of these objections, we give Mr. Adams a grade of 'B' on his passiverestraint proposal.

WASHINGTON STAR (July 5,1977)We suppose that Mr. Adams and Mr. Nader will win on the airbag issue, if not this year then some otheryear. Consumer protection, after all, seems to be a good political issue, even when consumers aren't surethey want to be protected.

THE SCRANTON TIMES (July 13, 1977)... highway safety is not something that can be left to a voluntary basis, as has been shown by bothmanufacturers and the motoring public. With air bags and automatic seat restraints elevated to equipmentrequired by law, the devices will be there when needed. The timetable setting deadlines of the 1982 modelyear for larger cars and 1984 for all cars is a reasonable transition period for car manufacturers and thepublic to get used to the idea.

Sta tus R epart July 26,1977

9

Air Bag Suppliers Ready To Go

Several manufacturers of air bags and air bag components have indicated that they are ready formass production earlier than the 1982 model year specified in Transportation Secretary Brock Adams'mandate.

In meetings with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration prior to the Adams announce­ment, Allied Chemical, Rocket Research, Eaton Corp. and Talley Industries recommended a phase-in of airbags starting as early as 1980. (Secretary Adams' mandate will require passive restraints starting with largeand luxury cars in the 1982 model year.)

Allied Chemical, which has supplied air bags to General Motors and Ford and reports a capacity forhandling 30 percent of a total mandated passive restraint market, stated that it requires only a 24-monthlead time, which could feasibly be reduced to 18 months if there is an adequate supply of propellant.Rocket Research said it could meet production requirements with only a two-year lead time, and EatonCorp. assured NHTSA that it could meet a 1980 partial mandate.

Talley Industries, the largest manufacturer of solid propellant gas generators in the United Statesand largest manufacturer of pyrotechnic air bag inflators for production cars, told NHTSA that it wasprepared to meet production standards necessitated by a passive restraint mandate for the 1981 model year.

In a subsequent statement congratulating Secretary Adan1s on his decision, the Eaton Corporationemphasized the reasonableness of a phase-in as opposed to a total mandate covering the entire market. Thecompany also applauded his decision to ask the auton10bile manufacturers to continue to participate in thevoluntary agreement established by former Secretary Coleman. (See Status Report, Vol. 12, No.2, Feb. 3,1977.)

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Product liability insurance questions have been resolved for at least two suppliers. In a submissionto DOT, the Amterican Insurance Association explained that Thiokol and Allied Chemical Corp. arecurrently insured against product liability losses by Aetna Life & Casualty and The Travelers, respectively.AlA said the insurers have pledged to continue this coverage. AlA told DOT that it understood that "themajor [auto] manufacturers [will] self-insure their liability exposure, and ... that this exposure isminimized through the use of 'hold harmless' agreements pursuant to which suppliers are required toindemnify the manufacturers in cases involving the suppliers' products. . .. it seems unlikely that thepromulgation of a passive restraint standard would significantly alter the product liability posture of motorvehicle manufacturers."

The companies who will be the major suppliers of air bag components are listed below; the majorityare major corporations listed in Fortune magazine's top 500 companies.

• Eaton Corp. (variety of air bag components),

• Thiokol (inflator units),

• Allied Chemical Corp. (air bag systems),

• Rocket Research (inflator units),

• Talley Industries (inflator units).

Status Report July 26, 1977

10

MOTORS:Should Congress uphold the decision of Secretary Adams, General Motors intends to do the best possiblejob to equip our cars with passive restraints in accordance with the regulations.

FORD MOTOR CO.:We are pleased that Secretary Adams has taken into account manufacturers' lead time problems. However,not having had a chance to examine all of the details of the ruling we cannot comment further at this time.

VOLKSWAGEN:While VW's position has been that active lap/shoulder belts, when worn, provide the most cost beneficialoccupant protection in auto crashes, we have never foreclosed the concept ofpassive restraints especially ascomfort and convenience items.

Our experience with some 65,000 passive restraint Rabbits indicates the system is effective, trouble free,and has a very high degree ofowner acceptance.

We appreciate Secretary Adams' concern for the health and safety of the motoring public and shouldCongress uphold the decision to make passive restraints mandatory, VW will abide by the law.

AMERICAN MOTORS:American Motors has long supported the concept of passive restraints. However, whatever is adopted mustbe based on data that clearly establish effectiveness and the costs to the consumers must be reasonable.

The Secretary's decision to mandate passive restraints without clear evidence of their life~saving

effectiveness under present built systems is a multi-billion dollar gamble with consumers' money. Wehaven't seen any facts yet that lead us to believe this is the way to go and we were hoping that the planneddemonstration program would provide the needed facts.

CHRYSLER:Secretary Adams' decision will force the American public to pay triple the cost for a second best safetysystem. Mr. Adams' ruling ignores his own agency's data which show that present belt systems will save 50%more lives than air bags. These lives could be saved right now with today's belts rather than waiting severalyears for air bags. We hope that Congress will look at the facts and overturn Mr. Adams' decision.

Passive Belts Lower Frequency Of Injury Claims

Volkswagen Rabbits equipped with passive belts have substantially lower injury claim frequenciesthan Rabbits with active belts, a Highway Loss Data Institute report shows.

HLDI findings, which are preliminary, provide "encouraging evidence that the use of passivebelts is substantially higher than active and as a result is producing substantial reductions in thefrequency of crash injuries to the occupants of the relatively small number of vehicles so equipped,"according to the report.

HLDI compared injury insurance claim frequencies (the number of claims per 1,000 insured vehicleyears), as well as the percentages of collision coverage claims with associated injury claims for 1975 and1 VW Rabbits with active and passive belts. The injury coverages used were medical payments coverage(Medpay) and Personal Injury Protection which is utilized in states with no-fault insurance).

Status Report July 26,1977

11

It found thatpercent (Medpay)associated injuryequipped vehicles. in thisthey are not based on large amounts of exposure and that more exposure willconclusions."

findings were". , announced his decision mandating 1"'\r}(:,\C'1'{,TO 1"'C'll(:'l"t"1r"<:l1111"t"C'

There are currently more than 60,000 n-:l(;:'C'H:rA '"_ ....''-''.&''' ..... on the

Copies of the A Preliminary '-/~"'"LJ'''''''

and Active Seat Belts, 1975 and 1976 ModelsData Institute, Watergate

Results from Volkswagen with PassiveA-8), can be by to the Highway Loss

20037.

Volkswagen equips some models of the VW Rabbit with automatic safety belts for the two front seats. As the door isclosed, the shoulder belt automatically goes across the occupant. The belt is connected to an inertia reel which allowsfreedom of movement but locks in the event of an emergency. A padded knee panel provides additional protection. (Sketchprovided by Volkswagen.)

Status Report

s EJuly 26,19

Haddon: Electric Vehicles Must Be Safe Too

Vehicle safety standards must not be ignored or deferred in the drive to produce alternativevehicles, William Haddon, Jr., president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration.

Speaking at an NHTSA public meeting on safety considerations for electric and hybrid vehicles,Haddon urged: "The promise must be that the socially responsible vehicle of tomorrow - whether poweredby electricity, hybrid systems, conventional internal combustion engines, or diesel motors - will meet orexceed not only energy conservation and air pollution standards applicable to all vehicles in its class, butpre-crash, crash and post-crash safety standards applicable to all such vehicles as welL"

Early experience with some electric cars indicates a need not only for meeting present standards,said Haddon, but also for additional crash standards to minimize hazards inherent in the new vehicles.

Citing an NHTSA contractor's report on crash tests performed on a CitiCar manufactured bySebring-Vanguard, Haddon told of extensive structural damage suffered in a 21-mile-per-hour barrier crash.The CitiCar was produced under safety-standard exemptions granted the manufacturer by NHTSA. "Itappears that NHTSA itself was a contributor to the placing of these unsafe vehicles in the hands ofconsumers," said Haddon. "Risk of life and limb was traded for the hope of reduced air pollution."

Haddon also warned that in assessing vehicle pollution the government should go beyondvehicle-source pollutants. "It is not sufficient to consider simply whether the pollution directly producedby such vehicles (electric cars) is less than that of their predecessors and competitors," he pointed out. "Forexample, the electric energy for charging such vehicles must be produced somewhere, and that productioncan also pollute. To the extent electr"ic vehicles became numerous, their charging would push increases innational electric power production, certainly by use of coal, and probably by nuclear means as well.Needless to say, each carries penalties."

Copies of Haddon's statement to the NHTSA meeting may be obtained by writing "Electric andHybrids," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Watergate Six Hundred, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Claybrook Asks Auto Makers For New 'Spirit'Joan Claybrook, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, went into

public forums for the first time this month to outline her views on safety measures that "may becritical ... to the continued use of private, motor vehicle transportation, as we know it today."

She both chided the auto makers for failures of the past and enlisted their efforts for the future increating and producing a "socially responsible" vehicle. "I ask for a new spirit of 'can doism' by the autocompanies in safety and fuel and repair efficiency a spirit nourished by consumer information, productinnovation and inter-company competition. This spirit requires men and women in the auto industry whocrave to save lives at least as much as they crave to sell cars and who go home in the evening thinking aboutways to design their cars to save consumers money over the lifetime of the vehicle."

Making her first swing as a public speaker since assuming office, Claybrook first addressed the FifthInternational Congress on Automotive Safety at Cambridge, Mass.

Status Report July 26,1977

13

"The most serious general problem is one dictated by the fundamental laws of physics," she said."How do you protect a smaller object from the violence of a collision with a larger one?"

This problem is worst when the small object is a pedestrian and the large one an automobile, saidClaybrook, but it is evidenced also in the relationship of bicycles and motorcycles with automobiles,subcompacts with large cars, and cars with heavy trucks.

Claybrook ticked off several specific concerns that she said her agency will be addressing, including:

• Improving the "weak flanks" of passenger vehicles to make them safer against side impact.NHTSA tests, said Claybrook, have shown a 4,000-pound car will intrude from 17 to 23 inches into the sideof a smaller car when colliding at 25 to 30 miles per hour. However, she added, "Safety research conductedby NHTSA and others has demonstrated that there are relatively simple countermeasures that couldimprove side protection."

• Increasing standards for the growing numbers of vans and multipurpose vehicles.

• Continuing efforts to protect passenger vehicles in collisions with heavy trucks through bothtruck brake improvements and protection against cars underriding heavy trucks in rear-end crashes.

For the Detroit Auto Writers the next day, Claybrook had sharp criticism for the industry forfailing to pursue research aggressively. "If the auto industry even raised its research and developmentfunding to 5 percent," she said, "the difference could be dramatic for safer and more economical cars.Instead, it chooses to pour billions of dollars into redesigning and retooling for cosmetic changes in fenders,hood ornaments, fancy wheel covers, new headlight and taillight treatments and sporty paint jobs."

Claybrook pointed out that Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act wasenacted by Congress to provide comparative ratings of automobiles for crashworthiI1ess, damagesusceptibility and ease of diagnosis and repair of mechanical and electrical systems. "We intend to pursuethe purposes of Title II as vigorously as we can to see if it is possible to provide understandable and usefulratings to the buying public as quickly as possible, hopefully within two years."

To auto executives attending the A utomotive News World Congress in Detroit, Claybrook wasequally critical, and she called for new signs of "corporate statesmanship, not for tight-lipped corporateintransigence muttering tired anti-government slogans." She added that: "Yours is an unfinished technologywhich desperately needs what you can give it heavy infusions of engineering progress."

But progress sometimes can be an illusion, Claybrook pointed out, noting that: "Downsizing wouldnot have been necessary if cars were not upsized in previous years, not to give motorists more room, but toprovide greater overhangs as a way of proving the advent of a new model year with a bigger-than-evermodel. The auto companies have a way of recovering from some of their own indiscretions in the name of'progress.' That kind of 'progress' could have been avoided in the first place by common concern forconsumer justice. There is a lot of makeup activity that the auto companies owe consumers. The autoindustry should now become a growth industry to accomplish these unmet necessities."

True innovation has proceeded among domestic auto makers at a snail's pace, Claybrook said."Smaller foreign manufacturers have consistently out-innovated the U.S. car manufacturers in recentdecades. Whether in introducing three-point belts, radial tires, disc brakes or stratified charge engines intomass production, the smaller foreign manufacturers were first, and the domestic manufacturers followed,sometimes many years later. The NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome is still prevalent today."

Status Report July 26,1977

14

The Federal Highway Administration has a new highway design standard, Guideand for use on federal-aid streets and highways.

published by the Association of State Highway Transportation1I"'or""I"")/C"OC' the barrier standard in use since 1971.

Significantly, the new standard does not include the so-called "GM shape" concrete barrier,frequently used for bridge railings, median barriers, and roadside barriers since its introduction several yearsago. Noting that the design may in rollover an impacting - particularly of a smallvehicle which strikes barrier the standard recommends use of the other basic concrete "safety shape"barrier design, the so-called "New barrier. The FHWA has subsequently ordered its field offices to"phase out construction of the shape traffic in fu ture federal-aid projects.

The new standard addresses five aspects of barrier systems: how to detennine the need for a barrier,structural and strength characteristics of various barriers, maintenance characteristics, selection criteria, andplacement data. These criteria are summarized for each of four "basic traffic barrier types, namely, roadsidebarriers. .. median barriers, bridge rails, and crash cushions." A bibliography ou tlining the progression ofthe state-of-the-art in design and use since 1940 is contained in an appendix to the standard.

The standard points out that "small variations in designs or in construction details can have adverseon the performance of barriers" and that "crash testing is definitely the recommended way

to evaluate the perfonnance of a traffic barrier." However, the standard notes, "there are numeroustraffic barrier systems on the roadways that have not been subjected to full-scale crash tests." Theand effectiveness of these barriers are therefore not evaluated in the standard.

of the standard may be obtained by sending $5.75 to North Capitol St.,N.W., Suite 225, Washington, D.C. 1. Copies of the FHWA directive on application of standard tothe federal-aid system can be obtained by writing for Notice N5 May 12, 1 FHWA, 400Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C.

June 18, 1977

The Honorable Brock AdamsSecretary of TransportationDepartment of TransportationWashington, D. C. 20590

Dear Brock:

... The news media has called to my attention that you soon will be making a recommendation tothe Congress on whether to make Air Cushion Restraint Systems (ACRS) available on new automobiles.For whatever it is worth, I feel compelled to make my personal experience with air bags known to you andask you to give it favorable consideration.

On Tuesday, June 7, 1at the intersection of two

Status Report

I was involved in a two-car collision on a perfectly clear, warm, dry dayCounty arterials in which the lady who was driving the other car was

July 26, 1977

15

killed. I am able to be sitting here today writing to you without a scratch, bruise, ache or pain because mycar was equipped with an ACRS. I'm sure lowe my life to this device.

You may not recall the car but you rode in it about two years ago for a short distance in Seattle tothe Olympic Hotel. It was a 1975 Gray Cadillac EI Dorado and was new then. It now has about 49,000miles on it. It is no more, both cars were totalled out.

My only reason for writing you is to give you firsthand information based upon my own personalexperience on the value of the so-called "air bags.

I was driving in a 40 mph speed zone with my cruise control set at 39 mph. Only two cars werevisible to me, one coming towards me and the one which I hit. It had pulled up to a boulevard stop sign andmade what looked to be a legal stop.

When I was about 50-75 feet from the intersection, the other car suddenly darted out, fast. Iapplied my brakes and swerved to the right but could not prevent the impact. hit the right side of theother car head-on with my brakes set and skidding trying to swerve to the right.

After the impact, both cars were diverted, mine to the right and the other to the left.multiple impact; it hit a telephone pole and sheered the pole off at the ground level.

car had a

The sudden explosion and puff from the (General Motors Air Cushion Restraint System) inflatorassembly was heard and the bag inflated before I felt the impact and sudden stop of the vehicles. Theinflation of this air bag was astounding. worked as an engineer during the war and for many years with thetools as an instrument maker and I couldn't believe the sensors from the bumper could actuate the inflatorsso fast.

Normally, I wear seat belts but this time neglected them. This did not impair the air bags fromperforming their duty. The lap belt would have prevented me from being thrown around in the front seat.

The bag in the steering wheel was the most effective; the passenger air cushion inflated andprevented nle from being thrown to the floor on the passenger side. In fact it shoved me back into anuprigh t position behind the wheel. I was protected by both bags.

The glass in the right door shattered and flew all over the car. I was shielded and protected from theflying glass by the passenger air bag.

At no time was my vision impaired by any of the ACRS. In rolling around with the lower partof my face in the steering wheel bag, I knocked my glasses off and they fell to the floor but they were notbroken and I put them on before I got out of the car. I did have a tendency to close my eyes when the bagsinflated but as soon as I opened them, I had perfect vision.

Brock, you have a most important position and will have to make many momentous decisions but itis my opinion you will go down in history as the one person who saved more lives than any other Americanif you will only order every new automobile sold in this country to be equipped with "air bags." Ourcountry has the technology and they can be made to work. I know from personal experience.

If there is any way that I can be of service to you in helping to make the value of this piece ofequipment known, please do not hesitate to calIon me.

Best of luck in your new position.

Very sincerely yours,

C. W. "Red" BeckState Senator

Status Report July 26,1977

16

In This Issue -------------------.

• Editorial By Colman McCarthyFrom The Washington Post ... Page 6

• Shuster, Griffin WouldReverse Adams; Pro-PassiveCoalition Forms ... Page 1

• Triple A SupportsPassive Rule

• Popular Car ModelsAffected By Rule

• Air Bag SuppliersReady To Go ... Page 9

• Auto MakerReaction ... Page 10

• Passive Belts Lower FrequencyOf Injury Claims · .. Page 10

• Haddon: Electric VehiclesMust Be Safe Too · .. Page 12

• Claybrook Asks AutoMakers For New 'Spirit' · .. Page 12

• FHWA Releases NewBarrier Standard · .. Page 14

• Quoted WithoutComment · .. Page 14

· .. Page 5

· .. Page 8

· .. Page 4

· .. Page 2

· .. Page 1

Editorial ReactionTo Adams Decision

Adams MandatesAutomatic Protection

• How Congress IsReviewing The Rule

•

•

(Contents may be republished whole, or in part with attribution.)

the highway loss reduction

Status ReportWatergate 600 • Washington, D.C. 20037 • 2021333-0770

Editor: Tim AyersWriters in this issue: Cindy Blakeslee, Paul Hood,

lynne SmithProduction: Mary Ann Braunstein, Diane Schwartz

Hazel Zuchelli

ISSN 0018-988X