Test may require more forceful air bags

A government-mandated crash test that would result in higher-power air bags is feeling the backlash of several auto-industry groups.
A resolution from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, expected to be announced March 1, would require automakers to return to using 30-mph crash tests to assess unbelted occupant protection. For the past two model years, the agency has not required the 30-mph test, and many automakers have installed air bags that deploy with less force.
Now, the agency says large unbelted adults could be at greater risk with the less forceful air bags in high-speed crashes.
The 30-mph crash test specifies that an auto air bag should inflate with enough force to cushion an unbelted adult male dummy as the car crashes into a wall at 30 mph. This crash test, into a wall, is the equivalent of a car traveling 60 mph crashing into the back of a similar parked car. The car would give to the force incurred as opposed to the stationary brick wall, according to information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The 25-mph crash test favored by many automakers is the equivalent of a car traveling at 50 mph crashing into the back of the car. Automakers and several other auto-industry groups, such as the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc., say the higher-power air bags mean higher risks of injury and death.
Lance Roberts, manager of communications for the Alliance headquarters in Washington, D.C., said the air-bag test regulations should not change.
“The automakers, including Alliance members and others, have concurred that going to a higher-speed test is the wrong way to go,” he said.
“Currently, we are very comfortable with the results of the 25-mph unbelted test. The auto industry’s concern is they’d have to re-power the air bags to meet the 30-mph test standard. And they’re concerned how it would affect children, people of small stature, and the elderly.”
The alliance represents 11 automakers including Ford, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota.
Roberts said other groups, such as The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, The American Trauma Society and the National Safety Council also support the 25-mph test for air bags. Safety, rather than any monetary costs involved with increasing the air-bag power, is driving automakers’ concerns, Roberts said.
“It’s not a huge cost issue. Automakers are concerned with too much force that would pose the same dangers as they had before,” he said.
“They started finding out in ’96 that certain individuals, children especially, were in danger of the more powerful air-bag systems.”
Automakers would like to use the 25-mph air bag tests until new technology can adequately protect all of a vehicle’s occupants safely, Roberts said.
Brian O’Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in Arlington, Va., said calls for a return to the 30-mph tests are unfounded.
O’Neill said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “has not provided a single documented case of a real-world frontal crash in which an occupant died because of insufficient protection offered by an air bag.”
However, air bags that inflate with more force than those tested in 25-mph crashes can kill passengers in higher-speed crashes, he said. The institute studied 59 crashes and found that in seven high-speed crashes the more powerful air bags caused passenger deaths.
In addition, even the most advanced air-bag technology cannot eliminate high-speed crash deaths when there is major intrusion into the occupant’s space, O’Neill said.
The largest single cause of death in high-speed crashes is the collapse of the passenger compartment, followed by the ejection of unbelted passengers from the vehicle, he said. A more forceful air bag would not have saved passengers in these cases, O’Neill said.
The institute, financed by automobile insurers, is a nonprofit research and communications group that identifies ways to reduce motor-vehicle crashes and crash losses.
Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in Washington, said the reason the pending regulation causes debate is because of “people not knowing what the regulation says.”
But Tyson said he could not talk about any changes the new regulation would make in air bags.
“I can’t talk about what the rule says, but it will do something to provide the best possible protection for people that have cars with air bags,” he said.
Tyson said he agrees that air bag-related deaths have dropped since 1997, when automakers were not required to use more forceful air bags. But he said there are many reasons for the decrease.
“The drop has a little to do with the design changes since the 1997-model year, but it also has a lot to do with education,” Tyson said. “Teaching people to put their child in the back, away from an air bag, and adults beginning to realize they need to wear a seat belt.”
Tyson said the crash tests used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration involved the whole vehicle and new safety standards will address more than just air bags.
Denny Emmer, sales manager for Tradition Oldsmobile, 4884 E. Broomfield Road, said he received many customer complaints about the more forceful air bags that were required before.
“But there’s either people who want the more forceful air bags or people who don’t,” Emmer said. “There’s also a lot of people who sit too close to the steering wheel, and we definitely have a problem there. People need to give more than 2 or 3 inches of space.”
Overall, Emmer said air bags have saved more lives than they’ve taken.
Sales Manager Jim Archey, of Dean Burger Pontiac Buick Cadillac GMC Inc., 116 N. Mission St., said he did not know enough about the resolution for the more forceful air bags and couldn’t comment. He said he has not received any complaints from customers regarding air bags.