Battle of the Bumpers

Automakers and insurers clash on crash standards

Simplicity is a virtue shared by few government regulations. Yet the concept of crash standards for car bumpers has seemed like sweet reason itself. If sheet metal crumples on impact, why not require automakers to build tougher bumpers? That was the thinking behind Congress's directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 1972 to order stronger bumpers on U.S. cars. Now the NHTSA wonders whether its standards are too costly to manufacturers and car owners and is mulling whether to roll them back. This has set consumer and insurance groups to howling while Detroit is cheering.

The standards now in force require both front and rear bumpers to be able to tolerate a 5-m.p.h. thud without damage to the car body and with only minor dings in the bumper. Safety is not affected much one way or the other at such low speeds, but car owners say that the better bumpers lead to fewer, and smaller, repair bills. Insurance companies argue that as a result, collision coverage rates for drivers are as much as 20% lower than they would otherwise be. The NHTSA itself evaluated the cost effectiveness of its standard twice under the Carter Administration and each time came up with different findings, with net saving to consumers ranging from $11 to $39 during the life of the car.

Even so, the Reagan Administration, as part of its drive to reduce the regulatory burden on the U.S. auto industry, asked the agency to take another look at the calculations. In April the NHTSA reversed itself and declared that the current regulations might not actually save consumers any money at all. Reason: new data from a household survey convinced the NHTSA that drivers are in fact involved in fewer low-speed crashes than had initially been assumed, and thus have been paying for improved bumpers that most do not really need.

Last week the NHTSA held the first of two public hearings on nine different alternative proposals that the agency has now put forward to relax or eliminate its impact standards, and insurance groups are incensed at all of them. Says Brian O'Neill, head of research for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: "Rescinding this regulation would cost the public a lot of money. This is an example of cost-benefit analysis producing any answer you want." Adds Wayne Sorenson, research vice president of State Farm Insurance: "The current standard is working. We are worried that cost considerations and competition may force manufacturers to begin putting fragile, cosmetic bumpers on cars all over again."

On the other hand, automakers are pleased. The companies have long maintained that impact-resistant bumpers are not only costly to make, but so heavy that the extra weight takes miles off a car's fuel economy. General Motors contends that cutting the current standard in half, to 2.5 m.p.h. for both front and rear bumpers, would reduce the sticker price by $40 as well as save $50 to $60 in gasoline bills over the life of the car. Automakers were also cheered last week when the Administration took another deregulatory step that they have urged, and scrapped the requirement that 1983-model cars come equipped with either automatic seat belts or so-called passive restraint airbags that inflate upon impact and protect passengers in crashes.

The safety agency denies that its bumper move constitutes buckling under to Detroit. But, concedes Associate Administrator Barry Felrice, "the timing is awful. No matter where we come out, we will be raked over the coals for being anti-consumer." Whatever action the NHTSA does decide upon, the auto industry will still not be able to retool completely for new and cheaper bumpers until at least the 1985-model year. -

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.