To the "thread,"
From this morning's Wall Street Journal. Please particularly note the last paragraph, an indication that the entire subject of "side-impact, head protection" is starting to "heat up" at the Big Three:
DETROIT -- The first government crash tests involving light trucks running into cars show that larger vehicles don't cause much more injury than other cars do. The results could raise questions about calls for redesigning popular trucks and sport-utility vehicles to make them less lethal.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted the tests after pressure from consumer and insurance groups, which argued that light trucks are far more deadly than cars when they strike cars. These groups called for design changes.
NHTSA will release the crash test results publicly Tuesday, ahead of an international meeting Friday on car-truck safety in Windsor, Ontario. The agency has briefed auto makers on the test results, but Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Corp. wouldn't comment. The test results were first reported by the Detroit Free Press.
People familiar with the data said, however, that the tests showed no major difference in the injuries sustained by a dummy in the driver's seat of a Honda Accord when it was struck in the side by light trucks than when it was hit by a Chevrolet Lumina, a popular full-size GM car. NHTSA tested a Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck, a Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle and a Dodge Caravan minivan.
The tests showed the Explorer caused somewhat more severe injuries than the other vehicles, although not lethal ones.
Safety advocates have argued that light trucks' higher and stiffer frames, combined with their greater weight, mean they are far more likely to cause severe injury when they hit cars. The risk is particularly great when cars are hit from the side, where they offer occupants the least protection.
Brian O'Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said NHTSA's crash tests didn't allay his concerns that light trucks are more lethal than cars. "We're dealing with the limitations of the test," he said. "The real-world data show there's a problem with these vehicles."
Mr. O'Neill noted that in NHTSA's tests, the light trucks were rammed at 30 miles per hour into Honda Motor Co.'s Accord at an exact right angle, striking both the doors and the much-stronger structural pillars to which the doors are attached.
"They just pushed the car out of the way," he said. Mr. O'Neill said he is familiar with the way NHTSA did the tests, but hasn't seen the full results.
"In many real-world crashes, you would miss one or both of those pillars," he said. The deep intrusion into the passenger compartment that would result "is one of the worst events that can happen."
Side impacts account for about a quarter of all injuries and deaths from auto accidents.
Data from the insurance-industry-funded institute show that people in cars struck from the side by another car are six times more likely to die than those in the car that hits them. That risk jumps to 25 times when the car is struck by a pickup or sport-utility vehicle.
Mr. O'Neill said more analysis and testing needs to be done to figure out just what about light trucks accounts for the dangerous results in so many crashes with cars. He notes that additional regulation might not be the answer because the range of possible crashes is so wide.
U.S. auto makers have rejected safety advocates' calls to make SUVs lighter, and their metal frames lower and less stiff, arguing that the changes would make the vehicles more dangerous to their occupants. At the same time, the Big Three U.S. auto makers have said they are looking at making future light trucks lower to the ground and reducing weight to meet consumer preferences.
Auto makers also have sought more research into ways to protect those in vehicles struck in the side, including technologies such as side air bags and inflatable curtains, which would drop down over the window to protect people in a crash.
__________________________________________________________________
That is the second major news "event" in as many days, with Business Week carrying a like article over the weekend. Side impact is becoming a very big issue, and though the final paragraph above discusses "inflatable curtains", it is obvious to this reader that the Simula ITS is included *in* that category for the purpose of the above discussion.
Detroit has been slow to move, but it appears that competitive pressures will lead the entire industry in the direction of providing head protection. While Simula won't get all the business, it is obvious that the company will have its ITS installed on sufficient platforms to generate considerable revenue over the next few years.
While it is trying on the patience, the entire industry is moving in our direction.
Have a good evening. |
