SAE tackles air bag and antilock brake problems February 24, 1997 JANET L. FIX
Free Press Washington Staff WASHINGTON -- Never before have heralded auto safety advances disappointed so many. To be sure, scores of devices designed by auto engineers have made today's cars and trucks the safest in history. But two of the most publicized advances ever -- air bags and antilock brakes -- have disappointed: Air bags have killed 36 children and 20 adults, most of them unbuckled or improperly belted. Most drivers can't seem to figure out how to make antilock brakes work. Automakers and safety officials agree that early assessments of the effectiveness and benefits of air bags and antilock brakes were wildly overstated. And with auto safety now a hot topic in Congress and in the national press, it's also a major focus for 47,000 engineers and auto executives gathering this week for the Society of Automotive Engineers convention at Cobo Hall. Automakers are cooking up all sorts of high-tech safety solutions. Side-impact air bags. Crash-sensing systems that would turn the driving over to a computer if a driver can't cope. Intelligent chassis systems that improve vehicle stability. And smart bags, or advanced air bag systems, that engineers hope will deploy only when needed and with just enough force to protect -- rather than injure or kill -- the occupant. Consumers wary But before automakers and the Society of Automotive Engineers can convince consumers to embrace these new technologies, they need to rebuild the trust of consumers whose faith has been stretched -- if not broken -- by real-world experiences with air bags and antilock brakes. "I'm not sure air bags were a good idea at all," says Mary Jo Hammill, a Newport resident who owns a 1993 car that does not have an air bag. "We need to buy a new car, but I won't buy one with an air bag." As for smart bags that auto companies and air bag suppliers hope to replace existing air bags with, the mother of three says: "I'd be suspicious. I'm willing to check out new things but they'd have to do a lot to convince me they're safe for me and my family." Hammill, who is just under 5 feet tall, won't be at Cobo Hall this week, but maybe she should be. She and other short women afraid of air bags have written the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) demanding that automakers consider the needs of women and children when designing air bags. They are outraged that air bags are designed to protect large unbelted males, and that short women and children sitting close to the air bag when it deploys may be hurt or killed by the bag's 200-m.p.h. blow. "What are we, chopped liver? That's what we could end up as, when we currently ride in our 'safe' automobiles," writes Anita Glass Lindsey, a 4-foot-11-inch driver from Yardley, Pa. "It is unconscionable for you to limit your research using only an average-sized male." Defensive engineers Automotive engineers vehemently defend what they have designed -- including existing antilock brakes and air bags. They say consumers forget that air bags have also saved 1,700 lives. "These technologies are extremely valuable," says J.C. Battenburg, president of Delphi Automotive Systems. "The overriding concern I have as an engineer is that we don't confuse the facts and the actual safety benefits of these systems with the government and political policies driving them." He adds: "There's still a tremendous amount of consumer interest in safety. And there's a lot of invention going on, because safety still sells." But not like it did a few years ago. A study by the National Dealers Association suggests that fewer consumers buying a new car this year want air bags and antilock brakes, compared with shoppers a year ago. And a survey by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows erosion in consumer support for air bags. But engineers insist the problem is with how people use safety systems -- not with the systems they've made. With antilock brakes, for example, some drivers still pump the brake pedal. What they need to do is keep their foot firmly on the brake so the system can keep their wheels from locking up and allow them to steer when skidding. Air bags provide the best protection when people buckle up. "We have to better educate people on how to use safety systems properly," says Claude Verbal, president of the Society of Automotive Engineers. "The worst thing you can do is produce something that can save humanity but that won't be used because of fear," says Verbal, who runs General Motors' Lansing service parts plant. But others concede that the industry needs to factor in human behavior more when designing safety systems. "The more complex technologies become, I think the greater the potential for having a potential mismatch between what people understand about their use and what technology can deliver," says Robert Lange, engineering director for General Motors. "It's up to auto manufacturers to integrate safety systems into a car in a consumer-friendly manner," Lange says. "Sometimes we do a pretty good job. Other times, the result isn't so hot." To their credit, automakers have in recent years improved both air bags and antilock brakes. Newer versions of driver-side air bags have better venting, tethers, bag folds, and less hazardous deployment doors. The result, NHTSA says, is that driver air bags in newer cars may be less deadly -- a contention that automakers say can't be guaranteed. NHTSA is aware of only one woman, who was 5 feet 2 inches and died in a post-1992 model. The other 18 drivers killed by air bags were in older cars. What automakers would love to change but can't is this: Currently, air bags must past tests requiring them to protect a 160-pound male who is not wearing a seat belt. Pointing fingers It is the federal government -- not automakers -- that can be blamed for regulations based on "bad science," says David Cole, director of the Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation at the University of Michigan. "The government has a ways to go, too, to show it deserves the consumers' trust," Cole says. "Once you have trust broken between the consumer, government and the auto industry, you have to work hard to rebuild it. And the real burden is on government because the government very simply screwed up with air bags by adopting regulations driven by emotion, not data." Automakers can be blamed for "strongly overstating that air bags are this ultimate safety feature," Cole says. If there is an ultimate safety feature, he says, it is the seat belt. But the history of seat belts is not unlike that of air bags and antilock brakes. It took more than a decade for automakers to dump lap belts and refine the perfect seat belt -- one with a lap belt and shoulder harness. It took longer, almost three decades, to convince 67 percent of Americans to always buckle those belts. Buckling up can "virtually eliminate the danger air bags pose to most people," says Brian O'Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. But other safety advocates blame automakers for not warning consumers about the risks in new technologies. "Antilock brakes and air bags were introduced without much explanation to consumers," says Joan Claybrook, an industry critic who headed NHTSA under President Jimmy Carter. Cole and automakers blame Claywbrook for ignoring automaker warnings that suggested air bags could kill children, and fear that the government could force smart bags into cars before they're perfected. Claybrook remains confident in smart bags. "People are concerned, but hopefully we will get to the point where improved air bag technologies and public education will get us over that hump," she says. But Robert Sanders, whose daughter was killed by an air bag in 1995, puts the responsibility for educating consumers on automakers. "If they can't eliminate a known danger in a safety device, they should warn the public of the danger," he says. "They didn't do that with air bags and should have." | 
