The air bag has been the center of a nation-wide controversy for several decades. It’s high-powered potential for saving thousands of lives has made it one of the most effective safety devices of our time. However, as with any man-made technological device, the bag has it’s drawbacks. Its high-speed deployment can be potentially fatal to young children and small people. However, in our society, there is no such thing as a flawless technology. The air bag has already saved over four thousand lives to date.
The seat belt has also proven itself to be extremely effective in high speed crashes, however, it is still susceptible to breakage. The legislation that has followed the installment of the air bag fails to bring about a solution from governmental regulation agencies, car manufacturers, and consumer advocate groups. A compromise that devises a solution addressing the faults of the air bag is needed from these organizations. It’s shortcomings can not be resolved when these companies and organizations are as uncompromising as they have been in the past.
There are various motives that govern the companies and the individual safety organizations. These motives have governed the positons that they have taken in the past, as well as the legislation they choose to accept or decline, specifically the mandatory air bag installation. The car manufacturers are fully aware and, as a result, are not pleased with the yearly costs that the air bag adds to their yearly expenditures. The auto industry is proficient in their marketing skills, as they have made the car industry one of the most wealthy and successful industries in the world.
These car manufacturers are well aware that safety, in many cases, does not sell. The auto industry would prefer to commercialize the high-speed horsepower offered in their car than the automatic seat belt and the air bag. Speed is a more profitable attribute in a car than an air bag. The high speed horsepower will bring in more profit for them, as it has done so in the past. An air bag profit will come when these companies devise a “smart air” bag that will combat it’s drawbacks and in turn, make it a more marketable product.
A smart air bag would gauge a person’s height, weight and distance from the bag. The bag would then adjust to these conditions accordingly to improve the safety of the situation. The smartest air bag will meet all the needs different people bring to the car. The bag can do this in a safe and cost-efficient manner. The air bag idea first came about by a single man in Newport, Rhode Island. In 1952, John W. Hetrick could have never imagined that his invention would save so many lives, and at the same time be one of the most hated inventions of all time.
Hetrick invented what he called a “safety cushion assembly for automotive vehicles” to reduce the likelihood of serious injuries during emergency braking and frontal collisions. Hetrick’s safety cushion is the true prototype of the air bags now gaining wide acceptance around the world. It is his air bag that served as the original model for those bags that are installed in today’s cars (Sherman 1). Hetrick expains how he was inspired: In the spring of 1952, my wife, my 7-year old daughter, Joan and I were out for a Sunday drive in our Chrysler Windsor. About three miles outside of Newport, we were watching for deer.
Suddenly, there was a big rock in the road, just past the crest of the hill. I remember veering the car and quickly applying the brakes. We went into a ditch, but avoided hitting both a tree and a wooden fence. As I applied the brakes, my wife and I both threw our hands up to keep our daughter from hitting the dashboard (Sherman 2). In the aftermath of the accident, Hetrick could not stop thinking about the protection his outstretched arms served during the course of the events. Hetrick’s trauma was his source of inspiration for a revolutionary safety device.
Hetrick immediately returned home to develop sketches resembling the devise he saw in his mind. While he was creating the ketches he saw, one event in particular stuck out in his memory. .Hetrick had previously worked in a repair shop. In 1944, he witnessed the inflation of a canvas over a Navy Torpedo undergoing repair. Hetrick recalled, “When compressed air from that Torpedo was accidentally released, the canvas bag blew up and shot to the ceiling as quick as the blink of the eye. ” This is what his safety device would do. Hetrick wanted to obtain a patent from the U.
S Government, and waited a full year for the document to be issued. Immediately after the air bag patent was issued, a New Jersey auto company wrote saying they wanted some. Hetrick proceeded to write to all the major auto companies. However, not one major company responded. He did not have the funding to pursue his idea (Sherman 2). Hetrick believed that his dream of a revolutionary safety device would never come true. He knew his idea could work with the proper equipment and funding, however, it seemed that the auto companies had no interest in what Hetrick had to say.
Hetrick did not believe his idea had been taken seriously by the Auto Manufacturing Industry. However, during the late 1950’s General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company both conducted laboratory tests to evaluate inflatable restraints. They used crash test dummies and a ameature version of the air bag. The findings were kept secret from the scientific community as well as the consumer. During the same time, Congress was passing new legislation regarding seat belt mandates. The car companies kept their findings about the inflatable device secret from the U.
S Government in fear that the government would mandate new effective standards that were costly to the companies (English 1). The 1966 National Traffic and Motor Act was a dramatic attempt by the Government in car safety. It was a new beginning that now allowed the actions of automakers to be carefully monitored under the watchful eye of scientifically sophisticated federal regulators. The car manufacturing industry, until this specific act, was almost a completely nonregulated industry (Samuels 8). The 1960’s brought about an upward spiral of effective safety standard legislation in the automobile.
The revolutionary Motor Vehicle Act of 1966 also ordered the Department of Transportation to mandate seat belts on all new cars beginning with the 1968 model (Brand 1). However, it was not until 1969 that the air bag actually came up in Congress. The auto industry who previously conducted tests, insisted the technology was expensive, immature, and unwanted by consumers (Marshaw 213). However, the new technology had shown overwhelmingly high results in crash tests, and was projected to save thousands of lives with it’s installment in cars. The purpose of the air bag is to secure passengers in a frontal impact crash.
These are the types of crashes that account for more than half of all passenger deaths. They do not replace the protection a seat belt provides. The bag can be installed on either the driver’s side, passenger’s side or both. The inflated cloth stops the driver from hitting the dashboard, steering wheel or window. The air bag system is made up of two major parts, the sensors, and the bag. The sensors under the hood react when the car decelerates at a high speed. That triggers an electrical signal that causes a chemical reaction in the inflator module at the end of the bag.
The cloth bag then inflates with Nitrogen gas (Miller 2). The critical disadvantage of air bags at the time of it’s inception by the U. S government was the added cost to manufactures. Some estimates put the price of 3,000 extra per car. At the time, soaring gas prices were also a factor as this caused Americans to turn increasingly to cheaper cars that had no air bags. The bag was an added cost manufacturers did not want to deal with (Marshaw 219). The 20th century brought about a plethora of inventions meant to improve the society in which American’s lived.
There was never a halt put on an important technological advance. There was now a cap placed on a new technology because it would cause a slight cut in salary to manufacturers in the auto industry (Marshaw 220). The profiteers of the auto industry were now placing their annual income over the safety and the protection of their consumers. However, the issue simply was not simply money. The car companies indeed were against any cut in their profit they would experience due to the bag, but they were equally concerned about the safety regarding children and these bags (Ellistern 3).
The crash tests showed decapitation and fatality risks to children in the scenerio’s during which the air bag deployed. The high speed at which the air bag deployed, and the strength of the bag are a deadly combination to a child. A child whose head barely reaches the dashboard faces the bag straight on as it deploys. Decapitation is a serious possibility once the bag deploys. The tests had extremely different outcomes when they were done on adult size crash test dummies. The tests revealed that an adult would have his or her life saved by the inflation of this device, in any high speed frontal crash (Peltzman).
The Government eventually became more assertive in the development and encouragement of the air bag. In 1971, the NHTSA stated that if air bags could be made to work, they would save thousands of lives. However, the bag was still not widely publized by General Motors and the Chrysler Corporation (Jacoby 1) A Buyer, John Hetrick, could have purchased a GM vehicle without the knowledge that he could have chosen a vehicle equipped with an air bag. He would not have been aware of a safety device that could have saved his life.
Hetrick’s patent eventually expired in 1970, making his invention public domain-available to anyone, with no royalties due to the inventor. Because his idea was a year too early, Hetrick never earned a nickel for inventing the bag. The 1970’s brought about a new social awareness concerning safety. The media began to publicize crashes and the danger that exists when seat belts aren’t used. There was public outrage concerning the Ford Pinto’s propensity to catch fire in rear end collisions (Marshaw 154).
The public was unhappy with the National Highway Transportion and Safety Association’s pace regarding the matter. After the deaths of innocent victims from the unfortunate Pinto incidents, the public wanted a change in the Government’s regulation of safety standards. However, the air bag still was not a top choice for protection by automobile manufacturers. As of 1973, GM studied 706 fatal crashes that concluded that the three point combination lap and shoulder belts offered better protecton with less risk and lower cost than air bags.
In 1979, GM also wrote a strongly worded letter to Jimmy Carter’s chief of the National Highway Safety Administration, General Motors Corporation warned: “Our studies suggested that due to the effect of pre-impact braking on restrained children, or because they might not be seated properly at the time of deployment, they might be exposed to inflation forces capable of producing significant injury. “The CEO of Chrysler also stated, “Air bags are one of those areas where the solution may be worse than the problem (Marshaw 280). However, hardly any opinion remained the same when the public’s interest turned toward safety in the late 1970’s. The same CEO four years later announced that air bags would be standard equipment in all U. S-built Chrysler cars by 1990 (Brand 1). The NHTSA responded to GM and Chrysler’s arguments. They stated in 1974, “We are committed to air bags and are working to improve them. We have identified unacceptable problems and are taking action to resolve them” (Brand 2). This back and forth activity would continue throughout the 1980’s.
In 1983, in a congressional testimony, American Motors Corporation characterized the air bag as “one of the most dangerously misunderstood devices ever offered to the consumer”. Toyota cited air bag problems with children as a principal reason the company terminated development of air bags. The problems regarded the speed and force of deployment. But NHTSA’s administrator, Joan Claybrook, a former activist in Ralph Nader’s anti-automobile coalition dismissed the car manufacturer’s evidence as “fragmentary and speculative” (Clyde 1).
The automobile companies continue to fight the air bag, and the positive things it could offer to the consumer. In March of 1985, a controversial bill was at the center of attention in California. This bill was named after the man who presented it to Congress. His name was Joseph Brown. It introduced a revolutionary mandatation of passive restraints. Brown’s bill was supported by large segments of the insurance industry, and would require Californians to buckle up and require air bags on all cars sold in California.
General Motors abandoned the air bag idea because Brown said, “they don’t make much profit. It’s terrible to think there might be some instrument that would save my life or keep my brains from being scrambled in these deadly pieces of equipment that we call automobiles and somebody would say, “I don’t want to put in there because it’s too expensive, ” he said. “It ought to be mandated. It ought to be just like bumpers. ” Brown was in a widely reported collision with a bicyclist and understands the importance of an air bag (Clyde 3)
The bag did not become mandated until many years later. However, there were many attempts made by the NHTSA and the Federal Government to settle the disturbing facts surrounding the air bag and its deployment. A major break through came when manufactures presented the on-off switch to the Federal Government and then to the consumers. It had been the first break through in air bag technology in many years. The on-off switch deactivates the air bag. It was seen as an acceptable response to air bag fears regarding children.
It was a step in the right direction. The National Highway and Transportation Safety Association approved the switch. It can be used for a risk group which contains people who have no option but to transport children age 12 and under in the front passenger seat. Also, it can be used in situations where the air bag poses special risk, due to medical conditions, that outweighs the risk of hitting their head and neck. Beginning on January 19, 1998, the final rule from the NHTSA allows repair shops and dealers to install an on-off switch.
Dealers and repair shops cannot perform this work without filling out a request form developed by the NHTSA and sending it to the agency (NTHSA 1). An air bag on-off switch is an excellent way for passengers to avoid almost every single injury or fatality caused by the bag. The common factor linking the fatalities due to air bags is the proximity to the bag at the time of the deployment. When a person sits too close to the air bag, they put themselves at serious risk of injury due to the force of the bag expulsion from it’s capsule.
The most direct behavioral solution to the problem of child fatalities from air bags is for children to be properly belted and placed in the back seat whenever possible, while the most behavioral solution for adults is to use seat belts and move the driver seat back as far as possible. The most direct technical solution to the problem is to require that motor vehicle manufactures install advanced air bags that protect occupants from the adverse effects that can occur from being too close to a deploying air bag (NHTSA 1). The NHTSA proposed a “smart air bag” for the 1999 models, however, the legislation has not been passed yet.
The characteristics of the “smart air bag” combats it’s downfalls. It attempts to address the high risk group concerns. This smart bag wouldn’t deploy if the passenger seat were empty or occupied by a child, and it would inflate with varying force depending on the speed of the crash. The inflation pressure would also be reduced by 20 to 30%. Some former NHTSA administrators argue that less aggressive air bags can “provide optimum protection for the great majority of properly belted passengers, with far less risk to children. But safety experts caution that even a depowered air bag could deploy with enough force to severely injure an unrestrained child (NHTSA 2). A “smart air bag” could be a serious attempt to better auto safety if car safety experts, and car manufactures came together and compromised on a plan to build the safest air bag. The smartest air bag will come when a car can accurately measure the size and weight of an individual and deploy or not deploy accordingly. Human beings also have to simply be more careful when they enter an automobile.
They have to be aware that it is a high-speed machine that has the ability to kill. People cannot blame their driving carelessness on the imperfections of a manmade safety device. Also, if each driver or passenger who suffered an air bag injury had read the warning label, each injury could have been avoided. Parents are also seriously responsible if their child is injured from an air bag. A child who is under 12 or under the height requirements should not be placed in the front seat, even for a short drive.
The car companies, as well, need to recognize the expenditures for safety are surely worth it, because, in the end, they will be paying millions in law suits if they don’t do what they know is best for the consumer. America’s obsession with perfection, which ranges from it’s scrutiny of physical appearances to the soaring expectations placed on American Presidents, has diminished the positive aspects of the device by the intense publication of it’s shortcomings. Americans must once again realize that the air bag is the best car safety advance available in the 21st century.
