Federal Role in Traffic Safety

automobiles, so that when individual safety characteristics of such conventional automobiles are tested their grade levels can be compared to the levels met by the safety car;

2.5 Recommended combination of graded performance levels which can characterize the safety level of the entire vehicle. Such combinations would ordinarily be chosen to provide discrete levels of economic cost or convenience. For example, a change in vehicle structural material at higher first cost might allow increased performance of a whole group of structural crash tests, or a vehicle might be designed to reach certain levels of performance under the condition that restraints not be in use and other levels when restraints are used. Such combinations could be the basis for generally understood labels which will guide the buying public in identifying the levels of individual safety characteristics of the vehicle he is purchasing;

2.6 Complete technical production description of the prototype safety car in terms of design drawings, constructional specifications, and know-how, together with the tooling necessary for limited mass production which will have been created and the network of suppliers that will have been identified, these descriptions being requisites for production of the safety car;

2.7 Estimates of operating costs, accident insurance costs, overall savings from safety gains, and possible savings from nonuse of the year-model system. It is potentially possible to obtain a number of gains in economic vehicle function by stabilizing many of the vehicle's design characteristics over a longer period of production. These include reduced-error maintenance in the unit-replacement system, amortization of higher cost materials over a longer vehicle life, probably straight-line depreciation rather than high first-year depreciation, manufacture of replacement components to a stable demand and stocking situation, employment of well-developed widely available components, avoidance of unnecessary special parts such as unique curved glass windshields, and detail design decisions to make maintenance less sensitive to large scale parts supply organization. In addition, lower fuel costs may be attainable through avoiding unnecessary low drive-train efficiency, and conservative octane requirement. These possible savings are secondary to the safety purpose, but are a definable part of the vehicle's performance, either as an individual vehicle or as part of least overall cost techniques of vehicle usage and management.

3.0 Feasibility study and report (task of prime contractor)

In the light of the above-stated program goals, the prime contractor is to study the feasibility of the program, report upon the degree of feasibility of its various elements and deliver, in a well-illustrated two-stage report (see schedule), at least the material in following paragraphs.

3.1 Recommendations of types of performance tests and other descriptions of safety capability which could be used to define safety characteristics of a prototype safety car, such recommendations to constitute an overall structuring of methods of controlling safety in a prototype safety car design. In preparing these recommendations the following general classes of safety are to be considered:

3.1.1 Accident prevention, including controllability of the vehicle, reception of external signals and cues by the driver, signaling between vehicles and between road elements and vehicles, the street, road, highway, and weather environment of the vehicle and anticipated limits of environmental human factors engineering, the driving task and spectrum of driver capabilities, and vehicle failure including consequences of failure and maintenance factors.

3.1.2 Crash injury prevention, including packaging the passenger in a noninjurious vehicle interior, crash restraint of the passenger, structural strength and shielding ability of the protecting vehicle structure, cushioning of the vehicle package as a whole to reduce its crash acceleration, deflection or other accommodation of the vehicle to other roadside objects or other vehicles.

3.1.4 Pedestrian injury prevention, including design to mitigate crash injury impact forces and accelerations, to prevent high velocity trajectory of the pedestrian after impact, to reduce the incidence of runover by the vehicle wheels.

3.1.4 Rescue and other postcrash safety, including prevention of fire or fire effects both with and without crash impact, escape or removal of passengers after crash impact, flotation in water, first aid equipment, and accident site traffic warning equipment.

3.1.5 Nonoperating and maintenance safety, prevention of such safety problems as crushing fingers in door or lids, carbon monoxide poisoning, unwanted control action by children, car slipped off jack, burns in servicing radiator, hand in engine fan blade, accidental falling from moving car, gasoline overflow.

3.1.6 Instructional and warning safety, including criteria for owner's manual, driver instruction and visible placards designed to inform adequately and to fully explain without euphemism the margins of intended usage of vehicle, the consequences of not following instructions, and organized for easy reference according to operational situations.

3.2 Recommendations, to the degree possible without proceeding beyond conceptual design, of levels of safety performance considered attainable in a feasible prototype safety car, such levels being related to the performance tests and other descriptions and overall structuring of safety design control developed in 3.1, above. This portion of the report shall include statements and recommendations of the intended travel utility characteristics of the vehicle, such as number of passengers, maximum speed attainable, road environment contemplated, luggage or cargo capability, comfort characteristics. For each recommendation the basis for predicting the level as attainable shall be explained, and comparison with safety performance of known vehicles shall be made. The recommendations shall be based upon adult passengers, and shall include accommodation of children and babies, if necessary by temporarily installed equipment.

3.3 Two conceptual designs of prototype safety cars practical for limited mass production shall be presented, representing possible different technical approaches to meet the recommendations of 3.1 and 3.2 above. These conceptual designs shall include detailed discussion and illustration of the principal detailed features.

3.4 Report of limited mass production techniques which might be used to construct the car, with comparisons to conventional automobile design and production methods. This report shall indicate, as much as possible what the production breakdown of the vehicle might be according to major assembly, subassemblies, and components, and what types of production facilities might be usable for this production.

3.5 Estimates of the number of prototype vehicles, types of facilities, including test factilities, possible schedules, and cost estimates that would be necessary to carry through to the primary program goals described in 2.0, above. This portion of the report shall include any recommendations of changed goals based on feasibility.

3.6 Discussion of any necessary production facilities not found to be commercially available. Discussion of special materials and processes which may be used and proprietary or patent considerations. Discussion of outstanding areas of safety design in which uncertainties as to results are created by lack of adequate research.

4.0 Feasibility study level of effort

It is expected that the prime part of the feasibility study will require 4,800 man-hours of effort by engineering or other scientific personnel.

5.0 Considerations in feasibility study

The following considerations are to be regarded not as requirements, but as suggested factors in the conduct of the study:

5.1 Use of systems concepts in analysis: One of the needed improvements in vehicle safety analysis has been the need to consider all the elements of the operating system as a whole, as opposed to the minute consideration of the elements which results from many years of small changes. This has resulted in failure to understand or define the actual range of operation and anticipated environment. For example, the stopping system of a vehicle requires definitions beginning at the expected range of driver pedal pressure ability and extending to anticipated road surface, tire characteristics, vehicle loading, effect of running through a puddle, effects of combined braking and steering, and of replacement of brake lining. Similarly, the crash injury prevention system must extend from definition of the body characteristics to be handled through the types of crash impact objects to be covered and the velocities thereof. In the full program it is expected that the output recommendations can be questioned as to their relationship to the full system and answers will not be found lacking. The fact that basic knowledge is not available in some areas does not prohibit analysis

of the system, but will highlight weak areas so that realistic statements can be made.

5.2 Bases of safety judgment: In determining what performance requirements are to be controlled by performance tests or other descriptions, the general basis is the value of the safety contribution or safety coverage versus the cost of correction. In most cases it is not possible to make a full determination of either the value of the method or the cost of correction. The approach of defining various levels of safety which may be obtained thus allows the purchaser or user to do his own balancing of value versus cost. Nevertheless, it is necessary to make preliminary judgment of what is sufficiently important to be controlled by performance description.

In some modes of safety or hazard analysis a level of relative importance is known from statistical results. The Cornell ACIR reports of injury problems in existing vehicles are an example of this, though the classification of injury patterns may not be applicable to the configuration of the prototype car. For the most part, the relative value of safety methods must be based on analysis of the operational situation corrected and the relative effort of treating the problem in a design not yet rigidized by custom. Since the goal of the program is to considerably increase safety, it is necessary that (1) all safety questions be considered and required to be at least as safe as in present vehicles, and (2) all safety situations which can be considerably improved be so improved. It is believed that in addition to the well-known and outstanding problem areas of automobile safety, there are a number of other areas which have been less analyzed in which it is possible that features of the prototype safety car might unknowingly cause reduced safety. It is also known that many accidents occur in traffic situations that are regarded as "unusual," but are readily predictable.

For these reasons, comprehensiveness of consideration is a key element in studying a feasible safety car. A thorough and systematic study of operational traffic situations is one part of such comprehensiveness. In addition, the department of motor vehicles will furnish an automobile design safety checklist to the study contractor. This checklist is a compilation of known design safety problems classified along the lines of 3.1, above. The checklist will be purely advisory.

5.3 Role of styling design: There is no reason why a conceptional design safety car should not benefit from appearance design; however, in view of the fact that many of the safety issues to be treated in safety car design have their origin in styling, it is important that all functional safety features of the vehicle be determined by competent technical personnel and that the design carry no features in which styling has been allowed to compromise safety. The appearance of the prototype is of secondary importance from the governmental point of view since its safety performance characteristics are the primary necessary elements for the purposes set by law.

5.4 Applicability of standards, regulations, and vehicle law: In general, legal requirements of safety produce safety results which are below the optimum, and considerably below what is intended in the safety car. Thus, no legal requirement or standard is to be allowed to limit the degree of safety to be produced. Obviously, the prototype safety car must meet legal requirements of the State of New York. If any such requirements are found to limit the degree of safety reachable, attention of the department should be called to the fact immediately.

The contractor may employ or evaluate for possible use parts of other standards as elements of the performance description of the prototype safety car. Some other standards are those of the General Service Administration for purchasing purposes or those under Public Law 88-515 and those of the Society of Automotive Engineers. It should be borne in mind, however, that the report calls for a rationale for the performance tests employed, and no rationale is available for these standards or for most SAE standards. Many such standards have been adopted under procedures which do not reflect the goals of the safety car program. In a number of cases, test methods may be partially satisfactory but the levels would be set higher.

Industry standards should be used where interchangeability or cost are involved and where convenient since adherence to standard thread sizes, etc., is less costly. It is not the intent, of course, to employ aerospace standards of quality in the details of hardware.

5.5 Role of research: This study is essentially a design problem. It is not contemplated that new basic research would be done. In the complete program it

is considered possible that some "research" might be necessary to organize other research results into a form useful for safety car decisions.

5.6 Performance tests versus design requirements: Although it is axiomatic that safety requirements should be set by performance test rather than design requirement, there are types of safety in which uniformity is important, such as in automatic transmission selector patterns or nighttime lighting patterns. The contractor should feel free to recommend uniform design where the rationale supports such a recommendation.

6.0 Consultative services

The following areas which must be considered in the feasibility study and also in later stages of the program have been separately defined as specialty areas. As described in the price breakdown sheets, these areas can be bid upon singly to the department, or may be part of a prime bid, in which case the prices are to be detailed by area within the prime bid. Where individual bids in these consultative services are accepted by the department, the consultation furnished the department will be in conjunction with the department's regular consultations with the prime contractor. The areas, with required number of engineering or scienctific man-hours, are:

6.1 Driver characteristics. Actual driver characteristics in terms of level of training, behavior, effect of driver disabilities, knowledge of vehicles, and methods of defining these as related to vehicle design (80 hours).

6.2 Existing and anticipated road, street, traffic, and driving situations, and other vehicle environments and definition thereof as related to both vehicle and driver (80 hours).

6.3 Crash injury problems of present-type vehicles and modes of performance test to control or partially control such problems (120 hours).

6.4 Vehicle handling, steering, traction and stopping, stability, vehicle ride and means of defining these characteristics (120 hours).

6.5 Mathematical simulation of vehicle crash dynamics. Possible methods of design optimization in structural crash dynamics through simulation or analytical techniques (50 hours).

6.6 Analysis of characteristics of past safety cars and relevance thereof. A survey of all known past exemplary safety cars (50 hours).

The capabilities and qualifications of persons or groups bidding on consultative services will be technically evaluated.

7.0 Required consultations between department and the feasibility study contractor

Periodic consultation between the department of motor vehicles and the feasibility study prime contractor will be required for transmittal of information, interpretation of guidelines, technical assistance in the form of bibliographies, loan of documents, and the automobile design safety check list, and for such consultative services in 6.0 as may be contracted by the department. Such consultations will not exceed five per month, except as may be agreed between the feasibility study contractor and the department. Such consultations will be held at the place of business of the feasibility study contractor.

SAFETY ASSURANCE IN A PUBLIC-RESPONSIBLE SAFETY CAR

(By Henry H. Wakeland and William I. Stieglitz, before American Association for Automotive Medicine, Rochester, Minn., October 22, 1965. Based on studies by the authors during 1964 for the Joint Legislative Committee on Motor Vehicles and Traffic Safety, New York State Legislature, Senator Edward J. Speno, then chairman.)

On July 15, 1965, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller signed a legislative bill appropriating $100,000 to study the feasibility of a New York State program to produce prototype safety cars. The program to be studied would not only result in the prototype cars, but also in safety definitions which could eventually be applied to all cars and could form the basis for minimum safety requirements. Significantly, the prototype safety car must also be suitable for "limited mass production." In legislative debate some legislators spoke directly of their hope of triggering a new industry to produce such cars.

Thus the prototype safety car study bill has initiated for the first time, a study and overall design analysis of automobile safety which is primarily