come to the Federal Government and asked them to become involved, is that not true? Mr. PYLE. Well, no, not altogether, sir. We were very active in the development of the Roberts bill. Congress held hearings for the purpose of giving all of the elements involved an opportunity to participate. We certainly supported the Beamer resolution. The Highway Construction Act, the Driver Registry, and adequate research appropriations, we have not really had the climate to come and talk about this as we have today, which we appreciate very much, but I have no apology to make at all for the fact that the National Safety Council has consistently added its strength to programs of activity initiated within the framework of this Congress. Senator RIBICOFF. But how many programs have you really initiated? What concerns me is the great indifference to this problem. There has been a tamping down of concern on the Federal level until this year. Strange as it may seem, the first real interest that was generated was when I advocated the use of the excise tax holdback against the automobile industry. That's when the automobile industry really seemed to get interested in automobile safety. Mr. PYLE. Senator, the Congress holds the ultimate weapon, the threat of regulations. We do not hold this kind of a weapon. Thus, the minute, by your direction, or by the direction of Congressman Roberts or other leaders, that the Congress does take a positive approach to this thing, you immediately get the kind of results that you have had with respect to many aspects of what has happened since you came into this picture. We could not be more excited about what you are doing here or more gratified by some of the results you have already achieved. Senator RIBICOFF. On page 19 you cite a 1951 speech by an assistant to the president of the National Safety Council regarding auto design. Now in 1958 your magazine, "Traffic Safety," talked about a Ford prototype safe car. Can you cite any articles on the subject of vehicle design critical of the automakers in your publication during the last 10 years? Mr. PYLE. I think we can, sir, if you will give us just a moment. Senator RIBICOFF. Yes, for the record. We do not expect you to pull them out for 10 years unless you happen to have them. Mr. JOHNSON. I think there were 25 research reports, if I remember the number correctly. We will get you the number. In addition there were 24 articles on motor vehicle design in the published "Transactions" of the council's annual meetings. Senator RIBICOFF. Will you supply those for the record? EXHIBIT 85 ARTICLES ON MOTOR VEHICLE DESIGN IN TRAFFIC SAFETY AND RESEARCH REVIEW SUPPLEMENT (MAGAZINES OF NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL) 1950 DeHaven, Hugh. Cushion That Impact! Public Safety, May, 1950, 8. 1951 Hickerson, L. D. Study Hoosier Crashes. Public Safety, April, 1951, 17. 23. Williams, Sidney J. Traffic Safety and the World We Live In. Beecroft Memorial Lecture-Part I. Public Safety, Jan., 1951, 4–6, 28-29, 40. 1952 DeHaven, Hugh. Crash Study Can Reduce Chances of Injury. Public Safety, June, 1952, 8-9, 28-29. 1955 Progress Report on SAE Committee on Seat Belts. Public Safety, Nov., 1955, 10, 40. Safety Features in Your Car. Public Safety, Sept., 1955, 4–5, 37. 1956 Baker, Howard M. Passenger Accidents and Vehicle Design. Public Safety, Oct., 1956, 14. 1957 Sutro, P. J. Windshield Visibility Clearance. Traffic Safety (Research Review, June, 1957, 15-28). Safety Features of 1957; Cars. Public Safety, Jan., 1957, 10-12, 27. 1958 Horner, Jack. 1958, 8. What's All the Talk About Glass? Traffic Safety, Oct., Safety for Tomorrow's Cars. Traffic Safety, Aug., 1958, 11. 1959 Roberts Committee Hears NSC Views on Federal Leadership in Safety Device Use. Traffic Safety, Sept., 1959, 19, 48. 1960 Safety Devices and Federal Vehicles. Traffic Safety, Sept., 1960, 21. 1961 Survival Car II, Latest Advances in Passenger Packaging. Traffic Safety, June, 1961, 14-16, 48-49. 1962 Amber Lights for Front Turn Signals. Traffic Safety, March, 1962, 17, 46. Door Latch Study. Traffic Safety, April, 1962, 41. Forves, T. W. A Study of Accident Hazards in Relation to Fenders and Windguards for Motor Vehicles. Traffic Safety (Research Review, March, 1962, 16-19). Haeusler, Roy C. Safety and the Car of the Future. Traffic Safety, May, 1962, 6-9, 37-40. Public Buys More Safety Equipment. Traffic Safety, Jan., 1962, 50. Ryan, James J. Mechanical Reduction of Impact Forces by Automotive Design. Traffic Safety (Research Review, June, 1962, 3–14). 1963 Haeusler, Roy C. May, 1963, 21. Automotive Design-New Horizons. Traffic Safety, 1964 Severy, D. M., and others. Automobile Side-Impact Collisions. Series II. Traffic Safety (Research Review, Dec., 1964, 99–105; table, 106–107). 1965 How Safe Are Studded Tires? Traffic Safety, Aug., 1965, 28, 40. Patrick, L. M., and Daniel, R. P. Comparison of Standard and Experimental Windshields. Traffic Safety (Research Review, Dec., 1965, 98). Swearingen, John J. Tolerances of the Human Face to Crash Impact. Traffic Safety (Research Review, Dec., 1965, 99). ARTICLES IN NATIONAL SAFETY CONGRESS TRANSACTIONS ON MOTOR VEHICLE DESIGN 1952 DeHaven, Hugh. The Auto Crash Injury Research Program at Cornell University. 31: 65-66. O'Neal, Robert. The Indiana Auto Crash Injury Research Program. 31: 66-70. 1953 McEvoy, A. S. Safety in Vehicle Design. 33: 16–20. 1954 Mathewson, J. H. and Severy, D. M. Automobile Impact Research, 28: 93-101. 1955 Moore, John O. Automotive Crash Injury Research. 27: 19–22. Wagner, Gordon J. Case History of Accident Analysis by Make and Model of Equipment. 28: 12-15. Gandelot, Howard K.; Haeusler, Roy; Platt, Fletcher C. Design Factors in Automotive Safety (Panel Discussion). 27: 22-28. 1956 Another look at auto seat belts. 13: 14-19. (a) Jessup, Frank A. The Indiana Auto Crash Injury Research Program. 13: 14-15. (b) Dye, Edward R. The Development of Auto Seat Belts. 13: 1618. (c) Bradley, Holley P. Their Effectiveness. 13: 18-19. 1957 Dye, Edward R. Automobile Crash Safety Research. 27: 50-51. Roberts, Hon. Kenneth. A Congressman Looks at Traffic Safety. 27: 5-7. Mathewson, J. H. and Severy, D. M. Motor Vehicle Safety Measures and Devices-What Can the Safety Engineer Support and Recommend? 14:14-21. Brown, W. F. What Is the Industrial Safety Engineer's Responsibility for Motor Vehicle Safety Equipment? 14: 10-13. 1958 Richards, Karl M. What Are We Doing To Engineers Safety Into Our Motor Vehicles? 28: 22-26. 1959 Mattson, J. O.; Tallamy, Bertram D.; Isbrandt, Ralph H.; Hester, Adin; Groth, William. Controlling the Vehicle and Roadway (Panel Discussion). 25: 23-25. Haugh, James C. Safety and Transit Vehicle Design. 26: 19-22. Isbrandt, R. H. 1961 Wolf, Robert A. 24: 28-36. The Effectiveness and Use of Seat Belts in the U.S. Rothe, Victor E. Lessons Learned From Aviation Crash Injury Research. 6: 51-54. Wade, Dr. Preston. Surgeons and Safety-The Joint Action Program. 6: 13-14. 1963 Hurd, Fred W. Current Research in Traffic Safety. 24: 29–31. Haeusler, Roy C. Seat Belts and School Buses. 17: 77-84. 1964 Severy, D. M. Application of Collision Research Findings to School Bus Passenger Safety. 17: 78-81. SAFETY RESEARCH AWARDS Senator RIBICOFF. You give safety awards in the field of safety research. You give safety awards in all various fields as I recall, and we were proud when I was Governor in Connecticut to receive those awards from the National Safety Council for our work. Now, how many individuals have been awarded prizes for vehicle design studies or vehicle design innovations by the National Safety Council? Mr. PYLE. May I consult with our research director? Could you respond to that question, Dr. Blumenthal? Dr. BLUMENTHAL. Yes, sir; we have awarded in 1964 the award of honor, the Metropolitan Life Award for Research in Accident Prevention, and $1,000 to D. M. Severy and his staff for his study of automobile side impact collisions. The 1965 awards went to John J. Swearingen. He was awarded $1,000 for his research on tolerances of the human face to crash impact. The award of merit and $500 went to L. M. Patrick and R. P. Daniel for their comparison of standard and experimental windshields. EXHIBIT 86 RECIPIENTS OF THE METROPOLITAN LIFE AWARDS FOR RESEARCH IN ACCIDENT PREVENTION AWARD OF HONOR: "TOLERANCES OF THE HUMAN FACE TO CRASH IMPACT" (By John J. Swearingen) (John J. Swearingen received his B.S. degree in 1936 from Purdue University. He received his M.S. degree from the same university in 1937. (From 1937 to 1943 Swearingen was a high school teacher of mathematics and science. From 1943 to 1948 he served as a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, working as an aviation physiologist. In 1948 he became Chief of the Civil Aeronautic Authority's Medical Research Laboratories, where he remained until 1950. At present he is Chief, Protection and Survival Laboratory, Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, Federal Aviation Agency. (Swearingen is a member of the Human Factors, Executive Council; the Aerospace Medical Association, Subcommittee for Aviation Safety; National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics, and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.) Abstract Evaluation of the injury potentials of various commercial airline seat structures, light aircraft instrument panels, and other structures that yield on impact requires data not only on forces which produce fractures and lacerations of dif ferent parts of the face but also forces necessary to produce unconsciousness when applied to different portions of the face. Unconscious commercial passengers, although not seriously injured, will die from asphyxiation from smoke or be burned to death in a few minutes. Data of facial tolerances of living human heads and forces required to produce unconsciousness were gathered by an intensive study of injuries in automobile accidents. These data were checked by making a series of 45 cadaver head impacts against structures that yield on impact. Blows as low as 30 g to 40 g for 10 to 40 milliseconds to the face will produce temporary unconsciousness. The studies described in this report show maximum forces that may be tolerated without fracture when the face is impacted against a surface that is designed to deform and conform with the contour of the facial bones. Briefly these forces are as follows: Nose; 30 g, single zygomatic; 50 g, teeth 3.6 square inches; 100 g, mandible; 40 g, forehead 1 square inch; 80 g, forehead 4 square inches; 150 g. One cadaver head was impacted against a full face molded block to determine if these tolerances were additive. The impact, the maximum attainable on our equipment (over 300 g), produced absolutely no fractures or lacerations. There is a needless loss of life and facial destruction in crash impacts with transportation vehicles. Man, in a vehicle, is surrounded by rigid tubes, angles, knobs, heavy door posts, sharp instruments and heavy metal of small radius of curvature, etc. The design of these is such that they impact the face and head on very small areas. This study has shown that if this environment were changed to a medium weight deformable metal (without heavy structure directly behind it) with a radius of curvature of 6 to 10 inches for energy attenuation and padded with 1 to 2 inches of slow return material to contour to the bones of the face and distribute the impact load over the available area of the face, it would be impossible to produce facial and forehead fractures in crash impacts. The limit of human tolerance would then be the forces necessary to produce brain lacerations without fracture. Airline seat and aircraft manufacturers should design all structures surrounding the passengers to deform with head impacts of 40 feet per second and not exceed this 30g figure. In addition, satisfactory padding should be provided to distribute the impact load over as much facial area as possible. Designers of other transportation vehicles should strive not to exceed 40 g since temporary unconsciousness is not such a major concern in escape. (Author's abstract.) AWARD OF MERIT: "COMPARISON OF STANDARD AND EXPERIMENTAL WINDSHIELDS" (By L. M. Patrick and R. P. Daniel) Abstract Numerous impact tests conducted during the past decade have indicated that the motion of the head through the windshield of a vehicle causes the most seriout types of head and neck injury. The purpose of this study was to corroborate the apparent increased safety of experimental laminated windshields using an improved loose bond between the glass and plastic interlayer. Such a construction pemits a considerable amount of plastic to stretch, thus reducing the likelihood of interlayer failure. The present research compared the injury potential of windshields of a type produced in past years with windshields made with an improved interlayer. The investigation was conducted on a horizontal impact sled, consisting of a main frame with a sled carrying a bucket seat that could be accelerated toward a model instrument panel and windshield. Both cadavers and dummies were placed as passengers in the bucket seat and moved toward the instrument panel and windshields at various speeds. When the sled was stopped at a point where the seat and floor were in a normal position to the instrument panel and windshield, the passenger continued on in a manner duplicating a barrier-type impact in which the vehicle is stopped before the passenger contacts it. Acceleration measurements were made by accelerometers mounted on both the passenger and the sled. Measures of impact were obtained by a pressure regulator and gage on the accumulator tank on the sled. Multiple high-speed camera coverage was also maintained. The results show that cadavers do not hit the glass at sled speeds below 8 miles per hour, and the glass breaks at sled speeds of about 10 miles per hour. Penetration occurs at sled speeds of about 13 miles per hour in windshields without the improved interlayer and at about 23 miles per hour with the windshields with the improved interlayer. At subpenetration impact speeds, the injuries are lacerations, abrasions, and gouges in soft tissue. When penetration occurs, the injuries become much more severe, including deep lacerations and facial bone fractures. Incomplete evaluation of the dummy for use in determining the injury from glass impact indicates that the penetration speed can probably be ascertained with the dummy, but the extent of injury will have to be inferred from the conditions of break rather than from actual injuries observable on the dummy. Lawrence M. Patrick, a registered engineer in the State of Michigan, received his B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from Wayne State University in 1942. He received a B.S. degree in aeronautical engineering from Wayne in 1943 and his M.S. degree in mechanical engineering from the same university in 1955. From 1946 to 1955 Patrick was director of research, Wayne Engineering Research Institute, Detroit, Mich. In 1955 he became chief engineer, Ryan Industries, where he remained until 1958. At present Patrick is associate professor, Department of Engineering Mechanics, College of Engineering, Wayne State University. He is also engaged part time as a consulting engineer. Patrick is a member of the American Society for Testing and Materials Committee F-4 on Surgical Implant Materials (performance subcommittee chairman); the Society of Automotive Engineers; the American Standards Association, and the Instrument Society of America. R. P. Daniels, a design engineer for Ford Motor Co., was coauthor of the study. CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION: "A FOLLOWUP STUDY OF SEAT BELT USAGE" (By Dean I. Manheimer, Glen D. Mellinger, and Helen M. Crossley) Abstract Personal interviews were conducted with 1,851 Oakland, Calif., motorists between July and October 1963. The study, carried out by the California State Department of Public Health under a grant from the U.S. Public Health Service, focused on ownership and usage of seat belts. Among other findings the study determined that: 1. About one-quarter of the cars driven are equipped with belts. However, the portion of older cars so equipped is much lower. 2. Most cars with seat belts are equipped with only two. Back seat passengers seldom have seat belt protection. 3. About two-thirds of seat belt owners wear them regularly for highway driving, but only half of this number use them regularly around town. 4. The safety value of seat belts is widely accepted, even by drivers who do not own seat belts and by those owners who use them infrequently. Infrequent users get significantly higher scores than others on general measures of risktaking and impulsiveness. 5. The data contradict the pessimistic view that seat belts are a novelty which will be used less and less frequently as time goes on. The majority of owners report that their use of seat belts has no changed since the acquisition of the belts, and those who report changes usually indicate increased use of seat belts over time. 6. Since regularity of seat belt use was found to be closely related to whether or not one participated in the decision to acquire them, the proportion of seat belt owners who use belts regularly will probably decline as a result of mandatory installation, but the absolute number of motorists using belts will increase. Dean I. Manheimer is director of the Family Research Unit, California Department of Public Health, Berkeley. As such, he plans and conducts surveys in the areas of health and safety. He was formerly vice president of International Research Associates in New York, where he conducted survey research for Government agencies and industry, primarily overseas. He has also directed research projects at the Columbia University Bureau of Applied Social Research, for the American Jewish Committee and for the U.S. Defense Department. Manheimer received his M.A. degree from New York University in 1939. He is a member of the American Statistical Association, American Sociological Association and the American Association for Public Opinion Research. He has given courses in social research methods at Columbia University and Fairleigh |