virsight hearing - Motor Vehicle Hazard Archive Project

Mrr Cou-rNs Mr. Dewey.
100
sTA'l'HMENT Ol'IrOltH,RT 1,. t)EWEY, Vl: tCt,E SAI.'ETY STAI'F,
cDNTt.)rr ]'oR AtiTo SA]'ETY
Mr. Drwty- Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on automobile rear
seat shoulder and lapbelt safety. The C;enter for Auto Safety [CAF]
is a nonprofit organization founded by C,onsumer's Union and
Ralph Nader in l9?0, CAS hus been independent since 1972.
The subcommittee's oversight into the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's INHTSA's] inadequate efforts to encourage
rear seat shoulder/lap belts is especially needed at this time. A
1986 report by the National Transportation Safety Board INTSB]
focused national attention on a real and all too common irony.
seatbelts, which have so much potential and are relied upon to pro
vide life-saving protection, can in some accidents themselves be the
primary cause of death and serious injury. This is because in
higher speed frontal collisions, which account for a substantial percentage
of all crashes, wearing a lapbelt only concentrates the re
straint effect in the lower abdominal region.
In these crashes, occupants restrained by lapbelts can suffer abdominal
trauma and internal injuries which sometimes cause
death. The NTSB report was and is important because of the
timing of its release and the substance of its recommendations to
NHTSA. While there have long been reports of lapbelt injuries, low
belt usage rates have kept the number of such cases small. This allowed
the problem to go uncorrected by NHTSA and virtually unnoticed
by the American public. Today however, more Americans
than evei before are wearing seatbelts-including rear seat lap
belts.
The NTSB report not only identified a growing safety problem, it
contained two 'simple buf crucial recoirmendlations tb NH'ISA
about actions that would reduce the number of lapbelt- induced in-
- iuries and make safetv belts safer.
First, NTSB recommended NHTSA immediately initiate rulemakine
to require automakers to provide shoulder/lap belts instead
oJ lap-only belts in all new cars. The Board also recommended
NHTSA encourage automakers to offer retrofit kits and enable
consumers to convert lapbelts converted into the shoulder/lap
desien. lt is NHTSA's response to these recommendations that I
wisli to discuss jn the remainder of my testimony.
Todav. nearlv 2 vears after NTSB's recommendations, NHTSA
has stifi not foimaliy proposed let alone adopted a rear seat shoulder/lap
belt mandate. Further, NHTSA has done little to encouraee
-Followine t hi availabilitv of retrofits.
NTSB's report, NHTSA delayed nearly 10 months
before issuing.a prelimiirary
.notice of proposed rulemaking Even
worse. the notice ex pressed skepticism about the need for a shoulder/lap
belt requirement. lnst{iad of concentrating on the safety
benefiis, NHTSA's notice emphasized the cost of a shoulder/lap
belt requirement. CAS believes NHTSA's application of cost-benef-rt
analysii is of limited value in this instance and as applied, is fun'
damlntally flawed. NHTSA's analysis fails to even mention that
i !"
{