l \..... _--...New 1996 Ford Taurus Tops Competition in Crashworthiness Evaluation

It may not appear from the extensivecrash damage that this car won anythingat all. But it did. Ford's completely re­designed 1996 Taurus leads the way in theInstitute's crashworthlness evaluationprogram. 11 tops 14 other popular four·door midsize cars as well as the previousTaurus design.

Toyota's new Avalon, on the otherhand, ranks in the middle 01 the group(see comparisons, p.3). It failed to best

the Taurus in anyone of nine performanceevaluation categories. Overall, its crash­worthiness evaluation is marginal.

"Crashworthiness" refers 10 how well acar can protect people in a crash, and theInstitute has compared important crash­worthiness aspects of anumber of midsizelour-<loor cars. The major component ofthe comparisons is a40 mph frontal offsetcrash test of each car. In this test, slightlyless than half of the width of the front end

•

hits a defonnable barrier made of energy­absorbing honeycomb aluminum.

Frontal offset tests are included in Aus­tralia's crashworthiness assessment pr~

gram and are being adopted as regulatorytests in Europe. (See Status Report, Vol. 30,No.7, Aug. 12, 1995.) These tests are dif­ferent from the one used in the federalNew Car Assessment Program, in whichthe full width 01 a car's front end hils arigid barrier. (See Status Report, Vol. 30,

o. I, Jan. 14, 1995.) The two crash tests complementeach other. The lul~width one is especially demanding01 restraint systems but not so much so of car structure,especially the lront-end crush zone and safety cage, oroccupant compartment. The reverse is true in an offsettest, which is more demanding of vehicle structure bulless so of restraints.

The Institute's offset test is used to assess three as­pects of performance: how well the crush zone and safe­ty cage manage crash energy (structure); how well thesafety belt and air bag perform and interact with thesteering column, driver seat, and other car parts to con­trol dummy movement (restraints/dummy kinematics);and risk 01 injury measured with a 50th percentile maleHybrid III dummy in the driver seat (injury measures).

These three aspects are evaluated separately be­cause each is important, and a good result lor anyoneof the three in a single test isn't sufficienl by itself to re­liably indicate good crashworthiness performance. Forexample, although poor injury measures by themselvesare strong indicators of poor performance, good injurymeasures along with poor structural performanceand/or poor control of dummy kinematics aren't suffj·cientto indicate good crashworthiness performance.

In addition to offset test performance. the overallcrashworthiness evaluation 01 each car includes anassessment of front-seat head restraint design andbumper performance. The basis of the first is whether ahead restraint can be positioned behind, and closeenough to, the back 01 an average-size male's head so itcan Iimil rearward head movement in rear-end colli­sions, which can cause very common Mwhiplash" in­juries. (See Slalus Report, Vol. 30, No.8, Sept. 16, 1995.)Bumper performance is evaluated in four crash tests at5 mph - front- and rear-into-full-width-barrier, front­into-angle-barrier, and rear-into-pole.

Earlier this year. the Insli!ute evaluated the crash­worthiness 0114 other midsize four-door cars, all 1995models. The 1996 Taurus and Avalon evaluations repre­sent acontinuation of this program.

Taurus Performance: The occupant compartmentmaintained its integrity very welt in the offset test. Intru­sion in the driver lootwell area was less than in most oth­er midsize four-door cars the Institute tested. The dum­my's face contacted the driver air bag before full inflation,which can result in minor facial injuries. During rebound,the dummy's head hit the B-pillar and head restraint.Otherwise. kinematlcs were reasonably well controlled.

Head, neck, chest, and leg injury measures in the 011­sel test were much lower than published thresholds indi­cating that, in this test, likelihood of significant injury tothese body regions was low. Head acceleration from theB-piJIar/head restraint impact during rebound was 10'10'-

21 gs. However, the Taurus' head restraint design is poor.In the ·down~ position, iI's too far below the lOp of thehead of an average-size male for effective protection in arear-end collision. At full vertical adjustment. it's still toofar below the top of the head, and the distance from theback of the head to the front of the restraint also is toogreat, so even this position is inadequate for an average­size male. Plus, the head restraint doesn't lock in this p0­

sition, so it could be pushed down in a collision, furthercompromising protection.

Bumpers on the new Taurus show considerable im­provement compared with last year's version of this car.No damage was sustained in front- and rear-into-Iull­width-barrier crash tests at 5 mph. In the front-into­angle-barrier and rear-into-pole impacts, there wassome damage but less than to most cars tested.

Overall, Ford's 1996 Taurus rates as a "best pick. ft Itsperformance in the frontal offset test was very good.Bumpers are improved. The only identified weakness isthe poor design of the head restraints.

Photo ComparisonsTaurus and Avalon:

Page 4

Avalon Performance: The occupant compartmentsustained moderate deformation in the offset test. Thewidth of the driver door opening was shortened morethan in most cars tested, and buckling caused separa­lion of the roof from its rail. The driver floor also sepa­rated from the door sill. During rebound, the dummy'shead hit the B-pillar, but the head acceleration from thisimpact was low - 16 gs. Dummy kinematics were con­trolled reasonably well.

Head, neck, and chest injury measures were low, asin the Taurus and most other cars the Institute tested.The tibia index and lower tibia bending moment on theleft leg indicated high risk of injury not only to the weak­er ankle/loot but also to the large bones in the lower leg.The actual peak bending moment on the lower left tibiawas even higher than recorded because one of the datachannels reached the maximum reading. The right tibia­femur displacement indicated the possibility of signifi­cant knee ligament injury.

The Avalon's head restraints are nearly as poor asthose in the Taurus. Unlike the Taurus, bumpers arepoor, too. Though this car sustained no (cont'd on pA)

0000

• I I

.0~J.-.Io

Evaluationsz Frontal Offset Crash Test Performance

::Ie Ristralatl"'~ & 0.",..,&"'

Midsize w= SllKtIre Kllltmatks I.ill,., MUSlIrIS>~ H... """w0;::: '''' ...,4-Door Cars w - ....... RutrlkIt Per1llf1UACe

... ClIal lIfl lUtM Design 1-.ell)

" ~ ~ ~ ~~~~otO:< FORD TAURUS • ~ptC 1996 Models

:.., CHEVROLET LUMINA~ @] ~ ~@]@]@j • M"ICtt 1995·96 Models,.

FORD TAURUS @] ~ ~ A@]@]~ • MeJsl 1992·95 ModelsPIC

'" VOLVO 850 @] A @] ~@]~~ ~ Mo~" 1993·96 Models

TOYOTA CAMRY A A ~ 0~ A~ M M1992·96 Models

SUBARU LEGACY A @J ~~ G M A1995-96 Models

HONDA ACCORD A A @] @]~ A1994-96 Models

MAZDA MILLENIA A M ~ ~@.,.~ M1995-96 Models

TOYOTA AVALON M M ~ @]@]1995-96 Models

SAAB900 M M @]@]@] A A A1995-96 Models

FORD CONTOUR • M ~ @]@] M1995·96 Models

VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT M @]@] ~ M1995·96 Models

CHEVROLET CAVALIER~~ ~ A

1995-96 Models

MITSUBI$HI GALANT@]@]1994·96 Models

CHRYSLER CIRRUS M @]~•• M1995-96 Models

NISSAM MAXIMA A M@] M •1995-96 Models

LEGEND ~.ooo

~ACCEPTA.U:Nole on bumper performance evaluations:Aulomakers may have implemented de-

M MARGINALsign and parts price changes during themodel years shown for these 16 vehicles,

• POORand such changes could affect bumper re-pair costs.

4 Status Report, Val. 30, Na. 10, December 2, 1995

1996 Ford Taurus 1996 Toyota AvalonGOOD STRUCTURE MARGINAL

(conl'd from p.2) damage in the rear-into­luJl-width-barrier test at 5 mph, it sustainedsubstantial damage in the other three tests.It was the worst performer among midsizefour-door cars in the angle-barrier lest.

Overall, the Avalon's performance in theoffset test was mixed. There was only moder­ate intrusion in the footwell area but seriousstructural damage in both roof and door sillareas. Injury measures on the left leg/loot

were poor, and measures on the right leg in­dicated the possibility of significant injury.Restraints controlled dummy movement, butthe head restraint design is poor, and thebumpers are among the worst on cars tested.

Could Prevent Injuries Like the Ones in These CrashesHead Impact ProtectionStandard for 1999 Models

II was aserious crash thaI occurred ona Virginia road early one June morning.Two of the three people in a Buick Centu­ry died when their car hit a guardrail onthe left side of the road, veered across twolanes of traffic, and came to rest in shrubson the other side of the road. The driverand a rear passenger died - the passen­ger from head injuries sustained when shestruck the dome light, rool, windshieldheader, and windshield.

Injuries ranging from mild concussionsto falal ones like Ihis occur from headcontacts with vehicle interiors in crashes.

The whole injury range is addressed bythe ational Highway Traffic Safety Ad­ministration's (NHTSA) new head injuryprotection standard.

The rule, which replaces 27-year-old re­quirements, was issued in August, thedeadline Congress gave the agency toinitiate and complete rulemaking on headinjury protection in passenger cars. Re­quirements call for added protection forfronl and rear occupants' heads .....henthey hit upper interior vehicle compo­nents including pillars, side rails, headers.and roofs in a crash.

The standard amends Federal MolorVehicle Safety Standard No. 201, whichhas been in effect since (cont'd on p.6)

New Door Latch RuleDoesn't Go Far Enough

There's finally going to be a federalrule requiring the rear door latches on sta­tion wagons, sport utility vehicles, andpassenger vans to be as strong as cars'side door latches. But this isn't all that'sneeded. All door latches should be testedunder loads like those in real crashes ­and they should be tested along with thestructures 10 which they're attached.

'We need both,· says Institute Presi­dent Brian O'NeilL "In 1990, we asked theNational Highway Traffic Safety Adminis·tration to upgrade and extend the stan­dard to aJllatches. We (cont'd on p.7)

6 Status Report, Vol. 30, No, 10, December 2, 1995

Two young drivers sustained moderate concussionswhen their heads hit B-pillars in crashes (top andmiddle photos). In a much more serious crash (thirdphoto above), a 27-year-old woman died when herhead struck the dome light, roof, windshield header,and windshield. This whole range of head injuries ­from moderate ones to those that cause death ­are the focus of a standard issued earlier this yearby the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra­tion. When the new rule is implemented beginningwith 1999 models, the agency estimates it will pre­vent more than 1,500 deaths and injuries per year.

Head Impact Protection(cont'd fromp.5) 1968 for cars and 1981 for trucks and passengervans. NHTSA proposed force-distributing materials on door pillars,roof interiors, and windshield headers in 1970 but terminated actionnine years later, citing lack of resources. In the mid-1980s, the agencyinitiated a research program to support upgrading the standard, andthe new rule is based on this research.

The new standard applies to passenger cars and light trucks on afive-year phase-in schedule. NHTSA anticipates manufacturers addingenergy-absorbing materials to vehicle interiors to meet the standard,expected to prevent 873 to 1,192 deaths per year and an additional675 to 975 nonfatal head injuries.

Some European car manufacturers say the rule could conflict withthe use of alternative head impact protection systems including airbags. They're asking NHTSA to allow an alternative means of compli­ance to accommodate such systems. In a petition for reconsiderationon the new requirements, BMW says its ability to incorporate side im­pact air bags may be restricted. The air bag design it plans to use maynot be deployable through the padding that may be needed to com­ply with the standard at15 mph, the test speed NHTSA set for compli­ance. BMW is asking the agency to lower the compliance speed ataffected points to 12 ml)h in vehicles with deployable head impactprotection systems and retain the 15 mph test speed for vehicleswithout such systems.

Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Volkswagen, and Audi note the same can·cern and request either exemption from compliance tests for vehicleswith advanced head impact energy absorption systems or, alterna­tively, the same reduction in impact speed as BMW suggests,

~This issue is worth taking a look at," says Institute President BrianO'Neill. ~NHTSA certainly doesn't want the rule to inhibit designs withthe potential to prevent even more injuries than would be preventedsimply by adding energy-absorbing materials. [f necessary, NHTSAshould amend its rule so it doesn't discourage innovative approaches."

The rule requires protection for occupants in both front and rearseats. Some automakers argued that the A-pillar and front headercomponents should be excluded, saying occupants' heads don't con­tact these in cars with air bags. But NHTSA disagreed, noting that airbags cannot eliminate all head injuries caused by contacts with A­pillar/front header components. The agency also rejected manufac­turers' concerns that extra padding on the A-pillar would decreasedrivers' visibility, saying ways could be found around this given theextended lead time for compliance with the new requirements.

Automakers widely opposed an implementation date earlier thanSeptember 1, 1998. Starting on this date, 10 percent of each manufac­turer's vehicles must comply. Twenty-five percent must comply begin­ning in 1999,40 percent beginning in 2000, 70 percent in 2001, and 100percent on or after September J, 2002. NHTSA estimates the rule willadd $33 to the cost of new passenger cars and $51 to the cost of newtrucks and utility vehicles.

On June 21, 1995, this Nissan Altima XE was traveling about 60 mph in theleft lane of a four-lane divided highway when its left wheels went off theroad. The driver apparently overcorrected, and the car then went off theroad on the right. It spun sideways and struck a pole at the left rear door.The latch on the driver door remained engaged on the striker, but the doorstructure broke. The latch was completely torn out of the door's end panel(above). This is good example of why the federal rule covering door locksand components should require testing of entire latch systems includingstrikers and the structures to which they're attached. If only the latch holdsand the structure fails, as in this case, meeting the standard becomesmeaningless. Latch systems also should be tested under the complex load­ing situations that occur in real, on-the-road crashes.

Door Latches(conl'd from p.5) gotthe extension to reardoors, hut we stillneed the upgrade."

Following a three­year study releasedin 1990, the Institutepetitioned NHTSA toamend Federal Mo­tor Vehicle SafetyStandard 206 to re­quire better doorlatches and hingeson side and reardoors and 10 updatecompliance test pro­cedures to simulatewhat really happensin crashes.

NHTSA deniedthe Institute's peti­tion, saying a suffi­cient safety need tojustify rulemakingdidn't exist and ex­tending side doorrequirements to reardoors wouldn't bethe most effectivemeans of reducingback door ejections.Last year, the agency reversed its positionafter finding that the problem was largerthan it thought. Now NHTSA estimatesthat 147 people died and 189 were serious­ly injured in crashes each year from 1988to 1992 because they were ejectedthrough vehicle hatches, tailgates, andother back doors.

NHTSA's investigation of the tailgatelatch failures of Chrysler minivansbrought renewed focus to the problemearlier this year.

"We're glad to see NHTSA require reardoors to meet the same standards as sidedoors, but we're disappointed that theagency didn't upgrade Standard 206," saysAdrian Lund, an Inslilute senior vice presi­dent for research. "Even if door latches

are strong, their effectiveness can be un­dercut by weak door or vehicle structuresthat fail when the lock is exposed to stressin a crash.~

NHTSA's standard allows door latchesto be tested all the vehicle, so body com­ponents on which latch assemblies andhinges are mounted aren't tested to see ifthey're strong enough to work with thelatch to keep doors shut in crashes. Locksand latches are subjected to twistingforces that can rip them all their mount­ings while still remaining latched. Federalrequirements don't consider the complexloading conditions to which vehicle latch­es are subjected in real crashes.

Lund notes that the Institute's ongOingstudy of crashes in a seven-county area

near Charlottesville,Virginia has docu­mented numerouscollisions in whichdoors opened. Twocollisions in particu­lar illustrate how thedoor latch environ­ment affects dooropenings in crashes;

The driver of a1994 Chevrolet Ca­mara hatchback lostcontrol on a curve,and the car rolledover several times.The rear hatch of theCamara opened inthe crash becausethe fiberglass struc­ture surrounding thedoor latch fractured.The outer panel ofthe driver door alsoseparated from thedoor and activatedthe door latch which,in turn, opened thecar's door.

In another casethat has been inves-tigated, a 1995 Nis­

san Altima XE sedan spun across twolanes of traffic, and its left rear door strucka telephone pole. The driver was ejectedfrom the car thraugh the open driver door.This door's latch was completely torn outof the door panel and was still engaged onthe striker.

"Testing the environments that sup­port latch mechanisms and strikers couldidentify this type ollailure,~ Lund says."The rated strength of a door latch be­comes meaningless if the door structureto which it's attached breaks first."

NHTSA's new door latch standard takeseffect in September 1997. The agency esti­mates that stronger vehicle latches,hinges, and locks will prevent about 13crash deaths each year.

No Speed limits on Autobahns? Oh Yes, There Are.Death Rates Lower Than on U.S. Interstates? No, They're Not.

Deaths per 100 Million Miles,Interstates Versus Autobahns

high.....ays. In fact, rates were the same in1993 - 0.87 per million miles traveled.From 1975 to 1986, before speed limits onrural interstates in this country began be­ing raised from 55 to 65 mph, the deathrate on autobahns was higher than onU.S. interstates,

NoIe: Al.ItobaIln raleS are besedon former Wesl Ger!Mny~.

Among speed buBs, Germany's auto­bahns are the next best thing to heaven, aplace where you can drive fast withoutpaying a price in terms of safely. Auto­bahns don't have speed limits at all, thebuffs contend, and the death rale is lowerthan on U.s. interstate highways.

Wrong. Wrong again.Thirly-one percent of autobahns were

posted with permanent speed limits in1993, according to Aligemeiner DeutscherAutomobil Club (ADAC), which is Ger­many's eqUivalent of the American Auto­mobile Association.

ADAC studied about 6,900 autobahnmiles dUring 1993.10 addition 10 the 31 per­cent with permanent speed limits, another10 percent had temporary limits. Theseusually were posted because of road con­Slruction, heavy traffic volumes, or otherunsafe conditions.

"The very existence 01 these speed lim.its refutes the tired old claim that no limitsat all exist on autobahns," Institute Presi­dent Brian O'Neill points out. ~About oneout of every three kilometers are coveredby permanent speed limits."

Nor is it the case that death rates arelower on autobahns than on U.S. interstate

19751976,on19781979198019B1198219831984198519861987,...19B91990199119921993

U.S. Interstates1.2.1.381.551.541.511.511.481.281.201.221.121.101.111.17

I."1.040.930,850.87

Autobahns

2.752.242.'32.091.751.601.571.521.591.231.141.191.010.960.981.111.090.940.87

"What we would expect if high speedweren't a problem," O'Neill explains, ~is

lower death rates on autobahns. Belt userales are much higher in Germany than inthe United States. The minimum age lor adriver's license is 18. And large trudsaren't allowed on autobahns on week­ends." (See Status Report, Vol. 26, No.8,Sept. 14, 1991.) Yet during all but fouryears since 1975, the rate on the autobahnhas been higher than on U.S. interstates.

~lt's time for speed enthusiasts to putthis argument away. What they say aboutautobahns isn't true, and it never was"

Autobahn speed limits aren't uniform.As in the United States, they're set bystate governments, not federal authori·ties. On autobahn segments with perma­nently posted speed limits, almost half areposted at 100 kmh, or 62 mph. The highestspeed limits are 130 kmh, or 81 mph, on 16percent 01 autobahns with permanentspeed limits.

More autobahn kilometers in formerEast Germany are covered by permanentspeed limits, compared with West Ger­many, probably because road conditionsaren't as good and construction is moreapt to be under way.

Roadway Signs SpurRise in Belt Use in TwoNorth Carolina CitiesMotorists Likely to See SignsMany Times, Be Reminded ofSafety Belt Law Enforcement

Feedback signs that are changed fre­Quently to update local buckle-up rateshelped boost and maintain belt use lastsummer in two North Carolina communi­ties. Across the state, publicity and en­forcement already had raised belt use farabove the national average. (See Status Re­port, Vol. 29, No. 12, Oct. 29,1994.)

Driver belt use in Asheboro increasedfrom an average of 75 percent before thesigns to an average 0189 percent after thesigns were posted, with one period re­cording use as high as 92 percent.

Asheboro is relatively small - 18,000people - but gains also were recorded alurban sites in Greensboro (183,000 peo­ple). Driver belt use increased at thesesites from 80 to 86 percent, on average,with a high of 88 percent. Gains were main­tained during the entire followup period ofII weeks in Greensboro, 14 in Asheboro.

Signs were posted on well-traveledroads in both cities to indicate the per­centage of motorists observed using beltsthe previous week and the highest per­centage of belt use ever observed in therespective cities. Signs were changedweekly from mid-May through August.

~The signs are likely to have been seenmany times by a large proportion of driv­ers, especially in the smaller city of Ashe­boro,~ says Allan Williams, an Institute se­nior vice president for research.

Williams adds that ~the information onthe signs and the changes in numbersfrom week to week remind motoristsabout belt use. They also indicate thatbell use is being regularly monitored,which implies a strong and constant en­forcement presence."

Status Report, Vol. 30, No. 10, December 2, 1995 9

10 Slatu5 Reporl, I'a!. 311, Na. 10, December 2, 1995

Technology Being Used to Help NabRed Ught Runners in Some CommunitiesNationwide Survey Reveals Strong Public Support for Red Light Cameras;47 Percenl of Those Surveyed in Northern Virginia Say Running LightsIs a Big Prohlem, and 63 Percenl Say They Favor Using the Cameras

Red light cameras are beginning to be used 10deter motorists on U.S. streets from running redlights, one althe most frequent causes of urbancrashes. (See Slaws Report, Vol. 28, No.2, feb. 6,1993.) In urban areas, about 30 percent of all occu­pant deaths in side-impact crashes last year oc·curred at inlerse<:tions with signals.

A 1994 Institute study conducted for one monthal a busy intersection in Arlington, Virginia, jusloutside Washington, D.C., found an average of 126violations per day, or one every 12 minutes. The avoerage number of violations on weekdays was 136.On weekends, it was 107.

The speed limit at the Arlington intersection is4S mph, but the average speed of red light runnerswas somewhat faster. Sixteen percent of them weregoing 55 mph or faster.

Institute researchers are helping U.S. law en­forcement officials implement technology - cam­eras that automatically photograph the rear licenseplates of vehicles that run red lights - to help re­duce thiS problem. Used in countries worldwide,red light cameras have been shown to reduce bothviolations and intersection crashes.

The purpose 01 such cameras is to identify vehi­cles with drivers who deliberately enter an inter­section after a signal has turned red, not motoristswho enter on yellow and then find themselves inthe intersection when the light changes to red.

The U.S. public strongly supports red light cam­eras, two new Institute surveys reveal. Sixty-six per­cent of 1,006 people surveyed across the nationsaid they favor using such cameras, compared with28 percent opposed. Asurvey of SOO northern Vir­ginia residents shows similar results. Sixty-threepercent interviewed said they favor red light cam­eras, compared with 3S percent opposed.

Virginia respondents also were asked to rate theextent to which red light running is a traffic safetyproblem in their communities. Forty-seven percent

said it's a big problem, 30 percent rated it medium,and 21 percent said it's not much of a problem.

Previous Institute research indicated that redlight runners are more likely than those who com­ply to be younger drivers and have multiple viola­tions on their driving re<ords. Violators also areless likely to be using their safety belts. (See StatusRepo", Val. 30, No. I, Jan. 14, 1995.)

Using traditional enforcement is difficult for pi)­

lice, who in most cases must follow a violating vehi­cle through a red light to stop il. This can endangermotorists and pedestrians as well as officers.

"One reason we have a problem with red lightrunning is that very few people gettickets,~ says In­stitute President Brian O'NeilL "This is the beauty ofcameras. When motorists know they're in use, theybecome a major deterrent 10 prevent the behavtar.-

When a motorist enters an intersection after asignal light has turned red, sensors in the pavementtrigger the camera which records the date, time ofday, and time elapsed since the beginning of the redsignal. Tickets typically are mailed to owners ofphotographed vehicles, based on review of phot~graphic evidence.

~It's important to understand that Ihis technol~

gy isn'l intended 10 catch motorists who inadver­tently find themselves in an intersection becausethey entered on a yellow light or were caught wait­ing to turn," O'Neill notes. ~This technology is in­tended to catch motorists who deliberately enteran intersection well after the signal has turned red.Ideally, cameras would become such a deterrentthat deliberate red light running would no longer bea problem:

Red light cameras are used for law enforcementin New York City and Los Angeles. They're beingevaluated in other communities including FortMeade, Florida and Arlington and Fairfax City, Vir­ginia, where authorities in some cases have usedthe cameras to issue warnings to vehicle owners.

Status Repon, Val. 30. No. lO,lJecember 2, /995 /I

NHTSA, NTSB WarnParents of Air BagDanger to Children

Unbelted or improperly belted childrenand infants in rear-facing sa/ely seats maybe seriously injured if struck by adeploy­ing passenger air bag. The National High­way Trallie Safety Administration (NIffSA)and National Transportation Safely Boardare warning parents of this and urgingthem 10 restrain their children properly inthe back seal.

NIITSA is investigating eight reports ofair bag-related deaths of young childrenand infants. Many 01 these were in low­severity crashes in which it's probableIhat no injury, or only minor ones, other·wise would have occurred. This actionbroadens previous warnings 10 includeolder children as well as adults who maybe riding unrestrained or silting very dose10 the steering wheel or instrument panel.

Air bags are proven lifesavers, but theycan cause injuries - mostly minor but oc­casionally serious or fatal ones - whenthey contact people during deployment.Especially vulnerable are people who, be­cause of short stature, sit close to thesteering wheel. This particularly includeselderly people who are more fragile, Alsoof concern are infants in rear-facing safetyseats and unbelted or improperly beltedoccupants - eSpe<':ially children - whomay move forward early in a crash or duroing precrash braking.

~The combination of a lap/shoulderbelt and air bag provides optimum protec­tion in all types of cra.shes,~ says InstitutePresident Brian O'Neill. "Drivers and pas­sengers should always use belts and sit asfar away from the steering wheel and in­strument panel as possible. Infants in rear­facing restraints must be placed in theback seat of vehicles with passenger airbags. If an older child has to ride in front,make sure the child is secured in a safetyseat or properly restrained with a lap/shoulder belt and the passenger seat ismoved as lar rearward as it will go.·

Vol. 30, No. 10, December 2,1995

In This IssueRedesigned Taurus for 1996 wins tophonors for crashworthiness p.l

Crashworthiness evaluations of popularmidsize lour~oor cars p.3

Two Dew NHTSA standards, one to pro­tect people's heads and the other to ex·tend latch standards to rear doors .......p.S

Autobahns do have speed limits, despitewidespread myth, and death rates aren'tlower than on U.s. interstates p.8

Buckle-up signs increase belt use in twoNorth Carolina communities p.9

Red light cameras attract public support,Institute surveys reveaL p.lO

Air bag injuries to children: warningscome from two federal agencies p.l I

STATUS~~REPORT1005 NclTth Glebe RoadArlington, VA 22201(703) 247·1 500 fAX (703) 247·1678

Director 01 PublkallonsfEdi10r: Arme flemingWrilel'l: Marla Kaulmann. KIm Lancaster,

and Sharon J, RasmussenEditorial Assistant: Carlene HughesArt Director: .Ioytt ThQm]l5Ol1Graphic Designer: Ltslit OUey

The lnsurilllCt Insll1ute lor Highway Salety Is In lndtpen­dent. nonpfOlil, stitnllflc and educallonal organiza1ion.1tis dediCaled 10 ledUCing tht Iotsa - dealhs. injuries. iIldpropelty~gt- rtSUllln, IrOlll crashes OlIlhe nalion'shighways. The InsUlute Is supported by llie Amtrican 10­5Ul1OCt Highway Safety AssodItlon, the ArnericllllnsurtrSHighway Safety Alliaoce. the National AMociItion olinde­pendent1nsurels Safety AMociIl/CIl, iIld a lIumber 01_\iduillnslwantt COIIlplllltl

CooltllU may lit ItpItJIisIwd whole, or il part. with a1lfUlu.lioo•• you art IlOl now Itttl\ing StoM Repon but wouldlib' to. COfIU(Itht Communicalloll5 Oqlutll)ftl\ This puboIiatioIl is pnnled 00 ItC)'ded~