Carl F. Thelin

Hypocrisy

            Let me warn you now – this is an example of a long and boring report that I would prepare for a lawyer who has a major case against one of the big domestic car makers. In this case, it is a collection of references found in material provided by General Motors. I would sit alone, in a room with a photocopier and boxes of reports and memoranda from GM. I would read and make copies of some pages while going through all of it. These are summaries of some useful quotes from that material.

            The background for such a task is this: The lawyers for the plaintiffs had to overcome many layers of objections posed by the lawyers for GM before the judge insisted that GM had to produce some requested documents. When lawyers prepare for a major case, they ask the other side what they have to present as evidence. The defendant auto company wants to know about the driver and all the circumstances about injuries that he claims to be result of defects in his motor vehicle. They need to know about his behavior and the condition of the involved vehicle.

            The plaintiff, seeking compensation for his injuries, claims that his injuries are results of defects in the vehicle. A sample defect is one deficiency found in the particular case vehicle, and perhaps a few others like it. It could be the result of a few errors in assembly of the vehicle. This sort of liability case is not a big deal because the consequence to the car makers is limited. That case does not warrant this level of scrutiny.

            A design defect is a more serious matter – it is a deficiency found in all vehicles of a specified design – hundreds, thousands or millions. The plaintiff lawyer seeks to know the circumstances of the design, testing and manufacturing of the vehicle. He wants to show that this defect exists in all similar models because of negligent case in design. Actually, the plaintiff lawyer     would want to get evidence to show that the manufacturer was aware of the defect but willingly chose to sell the vehicles with it, rather than redesign the vehicle. The plaintiff’s expert witness is going to testify and show evidence that the defect was present in the subject vehicle. Making a bad, dangerous product by careless design and inadequate testing is negligence. Knowingly producing and selling a dangerous product is not negligence – it is greed. The real reason for getting the internal documents is to make the claim for punitive damages.

            THESE ARE SOME OF THE FINDINGS:

            CF001003-1005 (These are the reference numbers stamped on each page of documents.) A letter dated November 3, 1976 from E. H. Mertz, Chief Engineer of the “A” Project Center to Mr. N., with carbon copy to 18 other individuals including most of the people responsible for automotive safety at GM.

            He has evaluated the Production Single Retractor System.  Among other complaints he said,

“If, after I “buckle up” I raise myself off the seat to adjust my coat tails or overcoat under me, the shoulder restraint has considerable slack. This, when noticed requires that I reset by pulling the webbing out a considerable amount, allowing it to retract in contact with the chest and resetting the windows shade relief.

On numerous occasions during the driving process, I glance down to find the shoulder belt with excessive slack. This happens both with and without the C.B. equipped cars.

Occasionally, during “normal” driving I will find the belt tight against my chest after having “set” it previously. On two occasions, I had to pull it out considerably and let it retract to my chest before the window shade feature would engage.

In all, I find the mechanism “tricky” and don’t have confidence in what it’s going to do next.

Later:

“I have had a number of uninitiated front seat passengers since S.O.P. (Start of Production) - all of which needed supervision in donning the belt system after trying to do it themselves.

            1) Excessive slack is the result of misuse.

            Mertz is not misusing the system when he notices considerable slack.

           

2) That it would be obvious.

            Mertz is an experienced test car driver who sees it only when he glances down. He says “when noticed”. Note that Mertz is evaluating experimental and prototype cars soon after the Chevette and Cadillac versions of the window shade retractor were introduced to the market. Long before the 1989 Cavalier was designed, the safety people had read (and probably heard) these words.

            CF(C) 1616-1645 Automotive Restraint Systems

            Safety Belt Comfort Mechanisms     June 1988

This was GM’s position paper to justify the continued use of the tension relief device when it became obvious that there was there might be legislative or regulatory action to discourage their use.

            Executive summary:

            ...

GM Safety belts equipped with comfort features provide a proper and essential balance between occupant comfort and crash performance when such features are used properly.

This was the trade off argument, and the claim that more than one inch of slack (which will seriously reduce crash performance) is a result of misuse.

            ...

GM is continuing to evaluate various comfort feature design concepts that may reduce the potential for occupant misuse. For instance - the two tension system as proposed by Europeans. Or a system with separate retractors for the lap and shoulder straps.

            ...

GM urges that no legislative or regulatory actions be taken to discourage the continued use of tension relief devices on safety belt designs.

This is a continuation of the effort to avoid the rule making to mandate air bags. GM recalls that the ignition interlock was banned by Congress. They wish that the increase in observed usage of seatbelts would be sufficient to persuade NHTSA to not rule for standard air bags.

           

CF(C)1619

             B. Tension Relief History

            1. Technological Development

The window shade comfort feature can be misused. An occupant can set the device with excess webbing extended from the retractor. But the presence of excess webbing is an obvious condition that be removed easily by a simple tug on the belt as explained in the owner’s manual.

GM does not want to use the word “slack”. The slack shoulder belt can be seen if you are looking down at it. That is not the point. If the comfort feature creates any slack, the tension is removed. Once the belt tension has disappeared from consciousness, one would not be aware that is has continued to increase with more motion of the user’s upper torso.  This is particularly relevant for the passenger who may turn sideways to see and converse with the driver or a person in the rear seat.

When I was working at CU, I also became the chairman of the SAE Owners Manual Consumer Information Subcommittee of the Safety Committee. CU and several manufacturers conducted surveys to determine who actually read the owners manual and for what purpose. Even among owners and drivers, the proportion was low. It would be even lower for a passenger.

            On page CF(C)1620

            2. Rule making history

In 1979, NHTSA proposed restrictions on seat belt routing and chest pressure in lie of continued provisions allowing the use of “slack inducing” tension relief devices. This was opposed by all domestic manufacturers. In its response, GM restated its belief as follows:

... tension relief devices can exert a positive influence on seat belt usage rates for occupants who are disposed to utilize restraint systems, but might not do so because of irritation caused by the pressure of the belt on the upper torso.

Again, the claim that the tension relief device would increase usage - perhaps enough to avoid the need for air bags.

            CF(C)1621

A final rule on comfort and convenience was promulgated in early 1981. It allowed the continued use of the “slack inducing” tension relief systems. However, the rule required that vehicles equipped with automatic restraints be tested dynamically [crash test] with the belt place, “... in any position to which it can be adjusted.”

            ... NHTSA rescinded the passive restraint requirements in 1981.

Thanks to the new administration that saved the industry from the air bag rule, until the Supreme Court ruled against that.

            CF(C) 1622

...One of the studies suggests that misuse that allows three inches of belt “slack” will lead to serious field injuries.

            CF(C)1623

...GM believes that the positive societal aspects of the feature outweigh any potential for misuse which can affect safety.

            CF(C) 1623

Some critics of comfort features point to the European market where the comfort features have not been used as evidence that the removal of comfort features has led to high belt use rates. GM questions this conclusion.

They went on to say that safety belt use laws caused the high rates of use. Whatever it was, we now have usage rates well above 60 percent without any Tension relief features. I think the new generations of drivers who have been exposed to the constant message that safety belts save lives (and lessen injuries) are more inclined to use safety belts.

            CF 1646-1681 (also SAE 896050)

INVESTIGATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED CONCEPTS

IN THREE POINT BELT COMFORT ENHANCEMENT DEVICES

David J. Biss

            Paper presented May 29 - June 1, 1989 in Goteborg, Sweden

           

His criticism of the tension relief (window shade) devices begins on page 1650:

The original design was pioneered by GM and introduced shortly after the 1974 requirements for the mandatory installation of three point belts.

When further comfort and convenience inspired Federal Rule making was initiated in late 1979, the (U.S.) Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association stated in their response “Experience shows such features as emergency locking retractors, tension relief devices, webbing guides and improvements in anchorage locations have not resulted in significant increased belt usage.”

Although a number of TRD designs were refined over the years in attempts to minimize the possibilities for excess slack, many were not. Currently there are still designs on the U.S. market which routinely introduce 18 inches of slack, or indeed any amount of available slack, during the same type of occupant movements as the ELR was originally designed to permit.

                                                            This paper has sample photos showing the dummy positions during the sled tests with slack set at 0, 1, 3, 5.3, and 8 inches.

            Petitions to remove the window shade device:

            CF 1736-7 Goodson Engineering Inc.

            CF 1738 -174 IIHS (good quotes)

RESTRAINT SYSTEM USAGE IN THE TRAFFIC POPULATION

 1987 Annual Report

            DOT HS 807 342   August 1988

            NHTSA study performed by Goodell-Grivas

            CF1741 - 1905

            Observations

Driver’s safety belt usage increased to 42.3 percent during 1987.

Female usage consistently higher than male.

I thought they were the ones that GM said complained of irritation by the shoulder strap.

            Drivers of imports 54.1 % vs. domestic 38.9%

            Approx 3 percent of drivers misused seat belts.

            More women put the belt under the arm - 1.3%

            More drivers of domestic vehicles wore shoulder belt with excessive slack. 2.5% vs. 0.6 for imports

            CF2087-2170 is the same report for the year 1985.  It says essentially the same things.

CF1906

AN ANALYSIS OF THE SAFETY RELATED IMPACT OF “COMFORT FEATURE” INTRODUCTION IN GM VEHICLES

            Dr. Roger McCarthy, P.E. of Failure Analysis Associates

A well-known group that handles only the defense side of litigation. GM loves to quote this “independent” report, but not all of it, as you will see.

Examination of the accident injury data revealed no detectable change in the effectiveness of the front outboard occupant-restraint system, so the observed increase in restraint usage translates into a national estimate of more than a thousand serious and fatal injuries being prevented annually through increased restraint use in the comfort feature-equipped GM vehicles.

The accident data was from 1982 -1985. The cars compared, without and with the comfort feature were 1970 vs. 1977, 1977 vs. 1978, and two models 1978 vs. 1979.

Consumer Reports, January 1970, page 48, said of the 1970 model Skylark and Malibu: Both cars still have Detroit’s typical spaghetti tangle of separate seat-belt and shoulder-belt straps, and arrangement that discourages use of the belts.

            In the April 1970 issue, page 234,

CU has complained loud, long and often about the inconvenience of the shoulder belts in US cars, doubtless an important reason for their neglect by a great majority of drivers. For 1970 Ford Motor Co. cars have a combined three point lap-and-shoulder belt system, something like those in various imports.

They went on to describe and praise the European system that Ford had then adopted.

So, now we know why FaAA and GM chose to make the comparison to show the increased usage from 1970 to 1977. The 1970 model GM cars had awful seatbelts.

FaAA goes on to concede

The introduction of mandatory usage laws increased the restraint-use rates of the population significantly. So now we find that it was not just the adoption of the comfort feature that caused the increase.]

             CF001918-1933

THE INFLUENCE OF THE SEAT BELT TENSION RELIEVER FEATURE ON THE SEAT BELT USAGE AND INJURY SEVERITY SAE 901752

Leonard L Baker, P.E. of Leonard L Baker & Associates, and Charles P. Compton of University of Michigan TRI.

Len is a Chrysler guy who was “retired” so he could pose as an independent investigator. The UMTRI was well funded by the domestic auto industry, and was also known to lean heavily in favor of any thing they did.

On page CF1923, is a quote GM loves:

The cars equipped with the unibelt and the tension relief show a 100% increase in seat belt usage in most age groups.

This is not so, it is not 100 percent use, but a 100 percent increase narrowly defined. They saw 126 persons without the seat belt in cars without the tension relief. There were 192 persons in cars using the seatbelt in cars with the tension relief. These numbers came from a population of 2517 vehicles.

Len also makes other comparisons of usage and injury rate comparing the older cars with horrible belt system with those of the late eighties, for the same reason that the FaAA report did.

            CF2806-2811

American Safety, an outside supplier of seat belt systems to the industry, wrote to Dr. James Gregory, Administrator of the NHTSA March 25, 1976 to offer their Comfort Zone retractor to overcome the objections that lead to the use of comfort clips and the window shade belt tension reliever which could be misused (careful not to offend GM, there). That system is a lot like those available today - it offered two levels of tension on the belt. When worn, the tension was low. When not worn, the tension was high enough to pull the belt out of the door way. It worked like the tension relief, but it does not cause slack.

            GM-00165 – 195

The agenda and minutes for the General Technical Committee meeting for January 15, 1988. On page GM 171 there are three topics:

            E. The plan for GM passive (automatic door mounted) front seat belts

            F. Shoulder Belt Comfort feature.

            ... plan as it relates to the elimination of the mechanism ...

The weight of public opinion and lawsuits finally motivated them.

G. Passenger Inflatable Restraints. They wanted to call them SIRs: Supplemental Inflatable Restraints - not “air bags”.

GM00295-410

Agenda and minutes for the meeting of the GTC for November 11, 1988. On page 300: The plan specifies that the present tension relief mechanism will be phased out  . . .

Pages 403-410: Recommend plan for phasing out the current shoulder belt slack mechanism. Discusses alternatives such as adjustable D-rings and seat-integral designs.

GM411-518

Agenda and minutes for the meeting of the GTC for February 20, 1997

Page 419 Bob Sinke reviewed the history of the shoulder belt comfort features leading to the present “window shade” retractors. He also reviewed status of competitive use of comfort features and recent feedback regarding its use.

            His outline appears on pages 442-447.

            Under Competition he notes

            All domestic manufacturers use tension relief devices

            Most imports do not have Tension relief devices

            Europeans don’t use tension relief device

            Under Recent Usage Feedback he lists

            NTSB recommendations

            European reactions

            Public media articles

            GM internal comments

            Litigation activity

GM00553-620

            Marketing Overview

            Passive Restraint Regulation

            FMVSS 208

            February 1985

           

It shows that GM knew that the door-mounted automatic seat belts would hurt sales.

CF(C) 001448-1606

BELT RESTRAINT SYSTEMS DESIGN PROCEDURES AND PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS

            10-22-84

Page 1510 has two curves to show the increase in HIC (head injury criterion) when the sled test dummy is restraint with a shoulder belt having zero slack and 5 cm (2 inches) of slack. It also shows that the stopping distance (ride down) is significantly reduced, too.

The following page shows the increase in neck tension between zero slack and 5.

The curves on page 1512 show the increase of head excursion (forward movement).

Page 1526 begins a chapter on SLACK. It defines three kinds of slack: comfort slack, routing slack and slack payout before retractor lockup. It is followed by tables that say the same thing as pages 1510-1512.

Page 1539 has a set of curves comparing belt stretch and three levels of slack: 25, 50 and 75 mm (1, 2, and 3 inches).

GM knew that the danger rises sharply with increasing amounts of slack.

CF002398-2784

            AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING SEAT BELT US

            Prepared for General Motors by Market Opinion Research.  December 1977.

GM usually quotes this huge report to justify their stand that the tension relief would increase the usage of the seat belt system. This is a study of how people felt about the seat belt systems before the introduction of the tension relief device.

Beginning on page CF2693, the report discusses Comfort and convenience of seat belts. On page 2697 we see this:

“We have seen through this analysis, however, that the majority of non-users continually exhibit all the signs of the hard-core ‘believers’ in the danger, inconvenience, discomfort and lack of necessity in wearing seat belts. We see very little to indicate that, under foreseeable conditions, one can hope to do more than stimulate the 7 - 9 % mentioned above into occasional use.” 

Despite the claims made to NHTSA to justify the tension relief, GM knew that they might persuade 7 to 9 percent to become occasional users.  Others have said that when that amount of increase was observed after the introduction of the tension relief, the increase could have been caused by consumer education and by the growing number of state seat belt use laws.

GM defenders tried to persuade juries that these kinds of things were just the talking points that General Motors eventually decided not to pursue.       

           

I warned you at the beginning of this report that it is tedious and boring. It is really difficult for the lawyer and his staff and experts to pull out all of this kind of material. It is needed to convince the judge that our side was justified in demanding punitive damages. Only a small part will be presented to the jury to support their deliberations. I have seen a case where the plaintiff lawyer went too far and alienated the jury by overwhelming them with this stuff.

            Carl F Thelin