• Clean and Safe Transportation



• Power to Protect: Regulatory Policy



• Consumer Protections




• Take Action!

May 5, 2000

Why the Auto Industry Fought a 30 MPH Air Bag Standard: To Avoid SUV Redesign

White House Caves in to Industry Scare Tactics

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) on Friday issued a 25 mph crash test standard for air bags -- a grossly inadequate standard designed by the auto industry. DOT had proposed to issue a 30 mph unbelted crash test for air bags after a four-year phase-in period of a 25 mph crash test, but the White House Office of Management and Budget caved in to the auto industry and overruled DOT. Public Citizen, the Center for Auto Safety, Consumers Union, Parents for Safer Air Bags, the Consumer Federation of America and the Trauma Foundation are united in maintaining that a 25 mph test is inadequate and that a 30 mph crash test is needed.

Introduction

The auto industry has used scare tactics and extraneous arguments during the battle with consumer groups over whether the government should set a 25 mph or 30 mph unbelted occupant barrier crash test standard for air bags. What the industry hasn t said, though, explains the reason for the scare campaign and its motivation for pushing a 25 mph test.

Here s what the industry isn t saying: If the government were to set a 30 mph standard, manufacturers would have to redesign existing sports utility vehicles (SUVs).

What it has said, in launching a campaign of fear that the White House apparently fell for, is that 30 mph-compliant air bags could harm vehicle occupants -- a contention that is misleading and misinformed. The industry is capitalizing on well-publicized air bag-related deaths at low speeds, using these deaths as a shield to avoid having to redesign SUVs.

A 30 MPH Test Would Require SUV Redesign

SUVs, which are built on truck chassis, have stiffer front ends than cars. In a crash, the SUV s front end, as designed, does not absorb the impact as well as a car s front end, and much more of the crash energy is transferred to the SUV s occupants. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tests show that many SUVs perform poorly in crash tests and that their air bags often cannot meet a 30 mph test.

In fact, SUVs have never had to meet a driver- and passenger-side 30 mph air bag crash test. For SUVs, manufacturers had the option of equipping them with either passive restraint systems (i.e., seatbelts) or air bags until the fall of 1997, at which time SUVs were to be equipped with air bags that met a 30 mph test. Before the 30 mph air bag requirement took effect, however, the auto companies persuaded the government to give them the option to "depower" air bags because air bag-induced deaths were climbing. This was also misleading, because it was poor air bag design, not meeting the 30 mph test, that led to the deaths. Thus the air bags in SUVs must pass only a "sled" test, which is 46 percent less stringent than the 30 mph barrier crash test and doesn t even test the front structure of the SUV.

If the government had retained the 30 mph air bag standard in this pending rule, manufacturers would not have installed air bags powerful enough to make up for the deficiencies in the SUVs front ends because these air bags could be excessively powerful for SUV occupants. The only solution, then, would be to redesign the SUVs so their front ends absorb energy in a crash in the same way cars do.

Of course, the manufacturers don t want to redesign these cash cows because of the cost and the enormous popularity of the vehicles. That is a key reason why the industry so strongly opposes any standard higher than 25 mph. Consumers bought 3.2 million SUVs last year, representing nearly half of all new vehicle sales. SUVs are one of the industry s most profitable vehicles.

And don t be fooled by rhetoric from the auto industry, which has indicated it is planning to revise the structure of SUVs. The proposed changes have nothing to do with redesigning front ends to absorb more energy in a crash. Rather, the changes are small and concern height compatibility with cars, not how SUVs absorb energy.

More Auto Industry Subterfuge

Instead of discussing the real issue -- the matter of redesigning SUVs -- the industry is trotting out other arguments. However, it simultaneously has one argument for the public and a contradictory argument for the government.

For the public, the industry is arguing that air bags that meet a 30 mph crash test could injure smaller occupants in low-speed crashes. To bolster its stance, it cites the well-publicized, air bag-related deaths of 158 children and small adults in low-speed crashes.

In reality, this is a non-issue. The people who have been killed by air bags in low-speed crashes were killed by cut-rate air bags that manufacturers installed years ago to save money. Technology has existed for years to ensure that air bags do not injure smaller-statured people in low-speed crashes, but few manufacturers used it. But the industry is using fear generated by unnecessary air bag-related deaths to scare White House officials.

The industry, however, is talking out of both sides of its mouth. While it telling the public that the issue is protecting people in low-speed crashes, industry representatives are telling the government that the issue is all about air bags harming people in higher-speed crashes.

Documents show that in meetings with government officials, the industry has argued that a 30 mph standard for air bags could result in air bags that could injure children and smaller adults inhigher-speed crashes. Thirty mph-compliant air bags designed to protect a large, unbelted man in higher-speed crashes could injure a small female or child, the industry has said.

Most of the air bags in cars on the road today meet the 30 mph test, and there is no evidence that these air bags pose a danger to people in high-speed crashes.

Further, technology has existed for years to protect people of all sizes in crashes, most of it not used until the adverse public reaction to air bag-induced deaths. This technology includes such things as dual-inflation air bags (which inflate at lower intensities in low-speed crashes while inflating at higher intensities to protect occupants involved in high-speed crashes); top-mounted, vertically deploying air bags; telescoping steering columns; pedal extenders for shorter drivers; deep-dish steering columns that move the air bag away from the occupant; air bag suppression; tethers to control air bag extension; higher thresholds for deployment; and energy absorbing structures.

Additional Arguments for a 30 mph Test

* According to recent DOT crash tests, virtually all cars on the highway today pass the 30 mph unbelted male crash test, the most stringent air bag test. These air bags have been shown to be exceptionally effective in higher-speed crashes. In total, air bags have saved more than 5,000 lives. We have more than 12 years of experience with more than 80 million vehicles that have 30 mph-compliant air bags, and there is no evidence of problems in high-speed crashes. If these vehicles are really dangerous, as the industry claims, they should be recalled immediately.

* According to theDOT sown estimates, a 25 mph per hour standard -- rather than a 30 mph standard -- will lead to 200 to 400 additional deaths each year.

* As further evidence that it is possible to design an air bag that protects all occupants and meets the 30 mph test, consider that there have been no air bag-related deaths in the 8 million Honda vehicles with air bags on the road beginning in 1990.

* Fifty-five percent of the lives saved by air bags each year have been in crashes equivalent to a 25 mph barrier crash, and two-thirds of those occupants were unbelted. And more than 60 percent of fatalities today involve people who do not buckle up.

###

Statement of Joan Claybrook, Public Citizen President

News Release

Letter to Nancy McFadden, DOT General Counsel

Letter to DOT Secretary Rodney Slater

more resources

Because Public Citizen does not accept funds from corporations, professional associations or government agencies, we can remain independent and follow the truth wherever it may lead. But that means we depend on the generosity of concerned citizens like you for the resources to fight on behalf of the public interest. If you would like to help us in our fight, click here.