The Great Air-Bag Debate

Each year, about 54,000 Americans die in auto accidents, and another 2,000,000 suffer disabling injuries. Safety belts and shoulder harnesses would help reduce the carnage, if motorists wore them. According to Government surveys, only 30% of riders buckle into the belts, and a mere 5% use the harnesses. To protect people more effectively, the Department of Transportation has ordered that all 1974 model cars be equipped with some kind of passive restraint, which in effect means "air bags": huge porous plastic bags that must pop out like balloons between motorist and instrument panel. They must inflate within forty-thousandths of a second after automatic sensors detect a collision, and then quickly deflate. In theory, at least, such a system could save at least 40% of the lives now lost in head-on crashes.

Last week officers of Ford, Chrysler and American Motors, plus a group of foreign manufacturers, unanimously insisted that the theory needs revision. They asked a federal district court in Cincinnati to set aside the 1974 standard on the grounds that it is ill-conceived, inadequately researched and unrealistic. The biggest problem is time. The automakers contend that since air bags are not yet perfected, they cannot be installed by the deadline. Reflecting this, production lines for 1974 models have already been prepared--minus air bags.

Chance of Accident. Leading the opposition are the executives of Ford, who say that they have a better idea, a system whereby a car would not start unless seat belts were fastened. Ford has taken ads to denounce, among other things, an outright danger for children sitting on their parents' laps or kneeling on the floor. Ford cites Government-sponsored tests at Wayne State University in which baboons simulating such positions were more often than not injured by the force of the air bags' sudden inflation. Says a Ford safety expert: "The moment an accident materializes, a person usually panics and hits the brakes. This throws him against the exploding air bag, which knocks hell out of the guy."

The automakers argue that the air cushions might be as dangerous as actual crashes. American Motors officials fear that the giant pillows might inflate unpredictably in the driver's face, perhaps because of defective sensors. Ernst Fiala, Volkswagen's worldwide research director, worries about changes in air pressure and the shock factor inside small cars after the bags suddenly expand. "When you're firing four large air bags, you can reasonably expect that the car will be a wreck," he warns. "The scheme is safety overkill." Moreover, Government tests show that when air bags explode into shape, the noise (170 decibels) could permanently deafen some motorists. Chrysler officials, going farthest of all, have bluntly informed Douglas Toms, director of the Transportation Department's enforcement agency, that they will simply not install the bags but instead will "pursue our suit in federal court."

More Time. Toms, smoldering at the rebellion, points out that "the air bags are two or three times better than anything else." Adds a high Transportation Department official: "The industry can meet the 1974 model deadline if it really wants to. Money really seems to be the problem." The bags will add an estimated $150 to the price of a car.

General Motors has mainly stayed out of the debate. In Washington, G.M.'s present silence is taken to indicate a tacit acceptance of the air-bag scheme. Nonetheless, last week's court action will probably serve as a safety cushion between the other recalcitrant automakers and the insistent Transportation Department. The automakers will eventually install air bags, which seem to be the most sensible safety device yet proposed, but they clearly need more time to perfect the bags. Twice before, the deadlines for installing air bags in cars have been postponed. Another delay now seems likely.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.