Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, November 13, 1994 TAG: 9411110080
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: F-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAVID AND LOUISE HOLLYER SPECIAL TO ROANOKE TIMES & WORLD-NEWS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Then, dead silence.
The vehicles' drivers were wearing seat belts, so their injuries were not life-threatening. But they wouldn't walk away from this accident, having suffered rib injuries and debilitating and expensive fractures of the leg, ankle and foot, the result of part of the car's footwell jutting into the passenger compartment.
The accident was not a typical highway collision; it was staged in September as a scientific experiment to study the real thing. The "drivers" in this crash were "intelligent" dummies, wired with sensors to collect data about the crash's impacts.
The smashup was part of an ongoing series of two-car frontal offset crash tests at the 2-year-old Vehicle Research Center in Ruckersville, about 15 miles north of Charlottesville.
The research center is the testing facility of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a 25-year-old research and publicity organization based in Arlington. About 100 property and casualty insurance companies provide its $11 million annual budget.
The organization takes credit for initial tests with seat belts, prodding auto makers to install air bags and leading to safer placement of fuel tanks. The organization also draws mixed reaction from manufacturers, who contend that some of the institute's recommendations have merely made cars and trucks more expensive.
The institute investigates every year about 500 crashes in a seven-county area around Charlottesville - a total of about 2,500 since 1987.
On display in the lobby of the research center are a pair of cars involved in a 1990 accident in Culpeper. It was the first known crash of two cars both equipped with air bags. Both air bags were deployed and the drivers walked away virtually uninjured.
According to the institute, highway safety experts saw the outcome of that crash as a vindication of their 20-year battle with the auto industry over whether the government should require air bags. Federal law now requires that virtually all cars sold in the United States, beginning with 1990 models, have driver's side air bags or have automatic seat belts for both front seat occupants.
"It's one of the great success stories, but it took 20 years," said Joan Claybrook when manufacturers agreed to install air bags in new cars.
Claybrook was head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Carter.
"There is some benefit in being stubborn!" said institute vice president Chuck Hurkey.
Current research and testing concerns strengthening the front passenger compartments of cars on the theory that it would reduce lower body injuries.
Also, the institute is researching proposals to strengthen doors and vehicle body structures against rollovers, improving vehicle construction and use of side impact bags to help reduce injuries when cars are hit from the side.
In a continuing debate from auto makers, the institute wants to improve bumpers, now rated at 2.5 mph to withstand impacts of 5 mph to reduce the high cost of minor bumper collisions.
And, studies are continuing in the debate about where to set federal fuel economy requirements, which raise questions about the effect of car size on protection of occupants during a crash.
The insurance institute contends that if automobiles were made smaller to conserve gasoline, the result would be more passenger deaths and injuries in crashes. It has conducted head-on crashes of subcompact and full-sized cars since 1971.
Crash tests before federal highway safety standards were enacted were quite primitive by comparison with the Vehicle Research Center's methods. Sometimes just an auto was dropped on its front end from a crane, or a test driver actually crashed into barriers.
This crude method of testing is a far cry from the present system, which utilizes solid-state instruments in the chest cavities of dummies, post-crash sophisticated computer analysis and high-speed motion photography, said institute president Brian O'Neill.
Getting improvements in cars implemented, however, takes considerable time because both the automobile industry and the government are involved.
But progress has definitely been made. Before 1969, there were no federal motor vehicles standards and consumers weren't demanding safer cars.
Today, that has changed. In 1969, there were 53,543 highway deaths. By 1990, there were only 39,850 deaths. The motor vehicle death rate per 100,000 people went from 26.6 in 1969 to 15.4 in 1993.
Consumers are demanding safer cars, and auto makers are using safety advertisements to market them. Detroit has finally become convinced of what the insurance institute has been saying all along: Safety does sell.
For some years, Detroit seemed to ignore safety as a marketing tool. Lee Iacocca, former Chrysler Corp. chairman and chief executive initially opposed requiring air bags. But in 1990 after the crash in Culpeper involving two Chrysler LeBarons, Iacocca openly supported the use of air bags.
First as an option, then later as a standard item, air bags appeared in new cars. The public had become more safety conscious and TV automobile ads now dramatize air bags and safety features.
But, does safety really sell in the automobile showrooms as the insurance institute contends? Local dealers suggest it does, provided the features don't add significantly to the price of a car.
"Buyers don't ask about safety features in general," said William Pinkerton, owner of Pinkerton Chevrolet Geo Inc. in Salem. "The primary thing they ask about 95 percent of the time is air bags.
"If it doesn't have dual air bags, that doesn't seem to be a pivotal point in the buying decision. If it doesn't have a driver's side air bag, that can be a pivotal point," he said.
Rick Klotzer, a salesmen at Saturn of Roanoke Valley in Salem, said he always points out the General Motors Corp. car's safety features, such as its sturdy "space frame" construction and its survival history in many rollover highway crashes. Young families with children are impressed with that and the dual air bags and front and rear energy absorbing "crumple zones."
What surprises Klotzer is that the families often refuse to buy anti-lock brakes because of the added cost, approximately $780 on a car with a list price of $14,500, he said.
On the other hand, Jack Hobbs, sales manager at the local Saab dealer, Precision Acura in Roanoke, said customers often pick the Saab for its safety features and reputation of sturdy construction.
"I would say that in our Saab line of cars, their safety history would be at least 50 percent of the buying consideration. In the last two or three years, people are more safety conscious," Hobbs said.
Neither sales manager Joe McDaniel nor salesman Richard Long of Roanoke's Volvo dealer, West Motor Sales, had any doubts about their customers' preoccupations with safety.
"Generally, that's where our customers are coming from," Long said. "Safety is the number one feature and reliability is number two."
In addition to its beefed-up body construction, the Volvo is the only car available with side impact air bags, he added.
Because insurance companies reimburse car owners for their losses in crashes, they accumulate volumes of information on the frequency of claims and their costs. In 1972, the insurance institute's affiliate, the Highway Loss Data Institute, was formed to create a database of loss information categorized by the make and model of cars involved in accidents.
The data institute was the first organization to make comparative loss information available to consumers. Since September 1993 its "Injury, Collision and Theft Losses by Make and Model" publication has been distributed to more than 20 million motorists.
The insurance institute's publication on 1995 models "Shopping for a Safer Car" lists safety features available by each make and model of car. (Copies of these brochures, are available from the insurance institute's communications department at 1005 N. Glebe Road, Arlington 22201.)
While the insurance institute's agenda is considerably different from that of the automobile industry, the relationship between them is not necessarily adversarial, O'Neill said.
"They certainly respect our capabilities. We are openly discussing our ongoing research programs with them," he said. "They know what we're doing. On some issues, like bumpers, we fight. On other issues, we cooperate."
Automobile manufacturers' spokesmen were reluctant to discuss their company's relationship with the institute. Both Ford and GM stressed their own long-term testing programs. GM said it has just completed its lO,OOOth crash test. But the GM spokesman was unwilling to characterize the insurance institute.
Ed Lewis of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association also straddled the fence. He would only confirm that there were areas where they agreed and others where they disagreed.
"There's a lot of good that comes out of it," said Chris Preuss, manager of technical programs at Chrysler Corp.'s technical center.
But Preuss said manufacturers were frustrated that organizations such as the insurance and data institutes were given so much credibility, especially in their public relations media activity.
"We all want safer cars," he said. "Understand, from the manufacturers' side, there's a huge liability issue. That's a great incentive for us to be as safe as we can. And all of us drive the cars with our families.
"But we have to balance that with cost," Preuss said. "If a [safer] car is so high priced that somebody can't afford it, then they're going to have to drive a less-safe car."
AUTO SAFETY MEASURES
Here are auto products and practices that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says it has influenced or promoted over the past 25 years:
Air bags: Crash testing, publicity and films kept subject alive.
Safety belts: Testing and publicity to public and government.
Child restraints: Scientific observation, and publicity led to laws in 50 states.
Safer placement of gas tanks: Crash tests and fire demonstrations led to vehicle redesign for safer placement.
Vehicle size: Despite fuel economy considerations, tests proved "bigger is safer" just as compact cars entered market. Led to defeat of proposed downsizing.
Alcohol purchasing age laws: Statistical proof led to raising minimum purchasing age to 21.
Administrative license suspension: Statistics provided helped get Federal incentives for states to enact license suspension laws.
Helmet use laws: Evaluation and statistics helped to get federal incentives for laws to be enacted in all states to mandate helmet use for motorcycle drivers.
Travel speeds: Monitored and documented the adverse effect of higher speed laws. Helped Maryland governor veto 65 mph speed limit.
Radar detectors: Efforts helped coalition to get laws enacted prohibiting use of radar detectors in commercial vehicles engaged in interstate commerce.
Large trucks: Work led to federal law prohibiting disconnecting front brakes and permitting overlong driving hours. Influenced consideration for a Federal drug testing program.
Yellow traffic signal lights: Research led to resetting yellow signal time intervals.
Red traffic signal lights: Research proved that right turn on red increased highway crashes and pedestrian deaths. Led to some cities restricting use.
Low speed crashes: Crash tests and research uniquely performed by the institute showed damage inflicted by low speed bumper crashes. The institute is still trying, against opposition, to raise standards for bumpers from 2.5 mph to 5 mph.
Daytime running lights: Tests proved their value and led to labs permitting them and several manufacturers adopting them in new cars.
by CNB