Carl F. Thelin

RULES FOR EVERYONE

While I was the Auto Safety Engineer at Consumers Union, publisher of CONSUMER REPORTS magazine, I was called to a high level editorial meeting and asked to justify my position about the use of seat belts. The issue was: Why did I not support Safety Belt Use Laws?

I said, “I consider all rules and regulations requiring proper behavior to be very difficult to define and enforce. Even the Biblical Ten Commandments are universally ignored by many.”

“Then, Carl, why have you gone around the country advocating Child Restraint Use Laws?”

I replied, “That’s simple. The infants and toddlers are unable to purchase, install and use those devices. Strong local advertising and enforcement will encourage parents to do their duty for their kids. Along those lines, that is a reason I also campaign for the mandatory installation of air bags. A person who fails to use his seat belt will still get some protection from injury by an airbag.”

Think about this. The proper name for the things we call speed limit signs is Speed Advisory Placards. There are few physical limits to the vehicle speed except for the threat of enforcement. Most of us drive faster than that but self-limit our speed out of concern for personal safety – except when under the influence.

Rules for ordinary people are difficult to define and enforce. Those rules might be called laws or even commandments. They are subjective and are typically ignored.

Rules for corporations may be more difficult to define, but easier to enforce. Those regulations or standards are objective – they involve performance numbers and dimension numbers. The NHTSA can say that a child restraint device must be shown capable of protecting a child test device (dummy) in a series of dynamic crash test simulations. Otherwise, it can’t be sold. Initially, NHTSA accepts the manufacturer’s assurance that the product does. However, the agency’s contractors randomly purchase samples and test them for compliance to the Federal Safety Standard. Significant failures will trigger an expensive recall. That penalizes the company for failure to meet the regulations. There is a human element at play here, too. The rule-breaking manufacturer may improve company profits by relaxing the quality control standards.

Rules for companies work well because there are relatively few manufacturers to be subjected to these objective regulations, compared with millions of parents who ignore their responsibility to care for their youngsters.

It is generally easy to establish that the rules requiring the use of seat belts and child car restraints are good. Collision statistics show fewer deaths and serious injuries occur in states where people are required to use them. The stats also say this is much better when the seat-belt-use and child-restraint-use requirements are enforced. 

            RULES THAT DO WORK

The rules that are genuinely effective are not the ones that apply to a person.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that it was easier and more effective to make rules for about a dozen car makers that sell cars in the US. These rules are enforceable, with very detailed, objective performance requirements. There are three groups of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

            FMVSS 100-series Crash Avoidance rules.

Statistics are hard to come by to show that better brakes, steering, tires and driver vision make driving safer. These things only reduce the severity of the collision that is caused by driver fault. For instance, I claim that the real benefit of anti lock brake systems is that they generally prevent a car from sliding sideways when the brakes are applied too quickly or firmly for conditions. The benefit is that the collision occurs on the front end rather than the side. Crash injury protection is much better then.    

            FMVSS 200-series Crash Force Survival rules.

Statistics are always available for crashes that result in injury or fatalities. Crashes resulting in personal injury are reported to and by the police. Crashes that cause serious injury of death are thoroughly investigated with diagrams, measurements and photographs. There are plenty of statistics upon which to base regulation performance requirements. 

The car-performance rules are defined but not so easy to meet. There are rules for occupant crash protection, and for vehicle structural resistance to collapse. The NHTSA does crash testing, or simulation, to determine the compliance by vehicle makers with these rules. In general, sophisticated instrumented crash-test dummies tell the story.

            FMVSS 300-series Post-crash Survival rules.

The reporting requirements are like those for the 200 series. These rules have to do with the injury caused by fire or toxic fumes or other post-crash effects. New fuel systems, electrical or with compressed gas, coming into play these days are complicating these new safety standards.

Consumers Union is divided into three staffs: technical, editorial and the overall administration. The technical engineers and scientists are generally conservative and support regulations for products. The editorial writers and editors support the government making rules for human behavior. So, the administration had to mediate the dispute with me about whether CU should advocate seat belt use laws.

As I said earlier, my response was that Regulations for Products are enforceable. Rules for People are generally unenforceable except in a totalitarian state. The exception that I did support was that parents of infants and small children should be required to purchase, install and use child car restraint devices (CRDs). Of course, CU supported me with significant expenditures for sled testing of CRDs at UofM and CALSPAN; and I traveled extensively promoting CRDs and the laws.

I reminded the writers that the auto industry had proposed this deal with the NHTSA -- If the observed use of seat belts rose to a large percent of the population, there would be no need to require the installation of automatic crash protection – air bags. At the time this proposal was made to the government, seat belts were difficult to put on and uncomfortable to wear. Thus began the implementation of one-piece lap-shoulder belts with retractors that would allow a certain amount of slack. Later we saw the adoption of automatic seat belts. The Toyota “Mouse Belt” was simple but not so effective without the use of the manual lap belt. The General Motors door-mounted automatic lap and shoulder belt system had the element of hypocrisy so clear that Congress demanded NHTSA to end negotiations and proceed with the mandate for air bags.

The usage rate for seat belts rose so slowly that the industry had to phase in air bags. Then they discovered that the public actually preferred cars that had them. Car makers began emphasizing car safety. Amazingly, then seat belt usage rates rose to acceptable levels.

My claim, during the CU negotiations, that air bags were “democratic” (good for everybody) proved to be useful. Despite the later rise in seat belt usage, some groups failed to comply. Nevertheless, air bags continue to protect drunks, teenagers and other people who just don’t want to be bothered.