A FEW DOLLARS SHORT, A FEW YEARS LATE: Why auto collisions are no accident.

By Edward M. Ricci, Esq.
Robert V. Pautsch, P.E.

Introduction

If you believe auto industry advertising, passenger car safety has finally arrived. The 35-year battle for occupant safety is over. We even have a consumer bill of rights that guarantees our right to a safe car.

Although that may be the perception, a closer look reveals a much different and shocking reality.

The auto industry's Madison Avenue perception of the safe car is an insidious distortion of fact. The battle for occupant safety is far from over and is just now including light trucks and utility vehicles. Injuries and deaths continue to mount and, worse yet, the American public may be losing the war.

The fact is, since safety first became a national concern, the auto industry, like a reluctant bridegroom, has been dragged kicking and screaming to the altar of accountability. The auto industry's record of addressing safety issues is marked by incredulous denials, false please of innocence and misleading claims of ignorance about critical safety information and issues.

We will attempt to lift the cloak of deception that the auto industry has cast upon the issue of occupant safety. Our message is simple and clear: the issue of safety is not dead, but deadly; most importantly, the battle to ensure the American consumer's right to a safe car rages on.
Back to top

AUTO SAFETY: A BRIEF HISTORY

1960s

While the concern for passenger car safety has been discussed by the auto industry and government since the birth of the automobile, the public debate did not begin until the mid 1960s. It was Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed, the Silent Spring of auto safety, that first catapulted safety to the forefront of public attention.

In Unsafe at Any Speed, the public at-large learned for the first time of the auto industry's total disregard for the issue of safety in the design of the popular - but lethal - General Motors Chevrolet Corvair.

As Ralph Nader brought auto safety issues into the public's consciousness, Congress began highly publicized hearings on auto safety. These hearings eventually led to the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Highway Safety Act of 1966.

For the first time, these two laws called for the regulation of the transportation industry and the development and enforcement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

One of the act's key provisions was the establishment of the National Highway Safety Bureau, now known as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which was charged with the task of developing and enforcing auto safety standards.

During its early years, NHTSA concentrated on the development of three distinct groups of vehicle safety regulations:

1. Equipment Standards: For equipment such as tires, brakes and steering that assist the driver in avoiding a collision (crash avoidance).

2. Interior Component and Impact Performance Standards: For instrument panels, steering wheels, front seat belts, head restraints and doors designed to protect occupants during a collision (crashworthiness).

3. Post-impact Performance Standards: For fuel system integrity and material flammability, for example, intended to protect occupants following a collision (crashworthiness).

The transportation industry has responded reasonably well to crash avoidance standards. It developed radial-ply tires, disk brakes and improved steering. But its record of developing crashworthiness standards is atrocious.

The industry resisted minimum performance standards proposed by the government, effectively delaying their implementation. Standards that were finally adopted reflected political compromises instead of state-of-the-art design and engineering concepts. By threatening long and costly legal challenges, the industry pressured the government to lower performance levels.