Page images
PDF
EPUB

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19638

Mr. HARVEY.

Mr. Chairman, many of these workers fect directly the lives and the earnings have written to me, as have the automo- of 1 out of every 7 Americans in bile executives themselves. I believe the 50 States of America. some of this concern from those in the auto industry comes about because of the very vast discretion that is turned over to the Secretary in this particular bill.

In my district, I am sure that not only one out of seven but the majority of the people are either directly or indirectly dependent upon the auto industry. So it is very vital to them.

But, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the chairman that this House in supporting this legislation has to be mindful of the fact that no matter whom we have

Mr. Chairman, this is something that I cannot think of any way to get around. We must empower him with the authority to get out these particular standards. Whether the Secretary truly understands when we talk of the model year-whether in the position of Secretary, I believe we he truly understands when we talk of the leadtime necessary in new model production and comprehends these things are tremendously important, not only to the Mr. Chairman, having these things in automobile industry but to all of our mind and in view of these consideracountry. What the Secretary does and tions, I expect to support the legislation. what he says in these regulations will af

must assume that this person is going to
act reasonably and that he is going to
act wisely.

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19653 and 19654

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 will provide for the first time a coordinated national program to reduce traffic accidents. For the first time, national safety standards will be set for both new and used cars.

The motoring public will be able to look forward to the day when motor vehicle safety standards will be taken for granted. We have long known that sharp knobs and other projections inside a car can be lethal to occupants in a collision. We have long known that poor visibility is a cause of accidents. We have long known that tire failure may result in loss of control and head-on crashes. Now, at last, we will be taking positive action toward eliminating these causal factors in our tragic traffic toll by passing this bill.

Surely we must take all possible pre-
ventive steps to reduce the unconscion-
able slaughter on our streets and high-
ways. Since 1960 there has been a 28.5-
percent increase in tramc fatalities. This
is more than double the rate of our popu- 19654
lation increase, and it occurred during a

period when our highways were being
steadily improved.

Studies have shown that the National

System of Interstate and Defense High-
ways is saving many lives through its en-
gineering standards. But these superior
highways are not enough. We must com-
plement improved highway standards
with improved vehicle standards. This
legislation does just that, and I urge its
immediate passage.

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19654

Mr. TENZER.

It is obvious that human error plays a great role in the alarming statistics relating to highway deaths but that does not absolve Congress from its responsibility of establishing safety standards at the manufacturer level. A sharp instrument with a useful purpose can be a deadly weapon in the hands of some individuals. Human error does not excuse us from our responsibility to save lives where possible. Other legislation may be necessary at the State and National level to deal with the human factor on our highways.

I am particularly pleased that the House Commerce Committee has strengthened the administration bill by adopting amendments which makes it mandatory rather than discretionary for the Secretary of Commerce to set safety standards for automobiles. This will accelerate the process of establishing, ap

proving and implementing the regulations.

We must not compromise with safety. The American driver should have the safest car in the world. Nothing less will do. The automobile industry will not suffer economic harm by congressional direction to cause the setting of safety standards. The industry told the committee and Members of Congress that they are ready to manufacture safer cars voluntarily and that legislation will have an adverse impact on automobile sales. Neither argument is valid, especially when weighed against the purpose of the legislation-the saving of human lives. In addition they have had ample time to act voluntarily-but have not done so.

Congressional Record-House
August 17, 1966, 19665 and 19666

Mr. CRALEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CRALEY: On page 34, after line 11, insert the following new subsection:

"(1) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards requiring that every motor vehicle used or to be used as a schoolbus shall be equipped at each passenger seat location with a seat belt."

Mr. CRALEY. Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a few minutes on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that this amendment is a justifiable one.

Mr. Chairman, there has been much expert testimony and statistics which have been offered to prove that seat belts have been a factor in safety in private vehicles, in Government vehicles, and in any other vehicle.

I think it is foolish for us to write a piece of legislation providing for national safety and not protect the welfare of our children who, in my opinion, are our most important and valuable assets.

We have required many safety features on schoolbuses, and I feel that it is proper and fitting to require in this legislation that schoolbuses be equipped and required to be equipped with seat belts.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRALEY. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman's amendment require all of these schoolbuses to be equipped with seat belts, or just newly manufactured schoolbuses?

Mr. CRALEY. The amendment requires that every motor vehicle used or to be used as a schoolbus be equipped with the seat belts. This would apply to not only new ones, but to those schoolbuses already in use.

Mr. DINGELL. May I ask the gentleman, then, because I can see that the interstate commerce powers of the Federal Government under the Constitution would afford appropriate authority for dealing with the question of these vehicles that are to be sold in interstate

19666

commerce in the future, but I would
like to know under what power can the
Congress constitutionally legislate the
use of seat belts on all schoolbuses, in-
cluding those which are not sold or oper-
ated in interstate commerce?

Mr. CRALEY. I would state to the
gentleman that I am not an attorney,
and I would have to bow to the gentle-
man on that question. My feeling is
that if the legislation is passed it will
be required, and would be mandatory
that in order for these motor vehicles
to operate, that they would have to have
seat belts.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I think that if the gentleman were to change his amendment to say that it would apply to motor vehicles sold in interstate commerce for service as schoolbuses, and they should be fully equipped with seat belts, that would be one thing. I think it would be constitutional and I personally would support the amend, ment. But I cannot support the amendment when we go back and deal much more broadly than I feel we should, and the amendment raises this particular problem, but here without that proviso in it there might very well be a broad constitutional question that I, as an attorney, cannot answer.

I

Mr. CRALEY. Mr. Chairman, would leave that to the opinion of the courts. My amendment would require this safety feature, and I will let it stand at that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I desire to speak briefly to the subject that is before us. The gentleman suggested an amendment dealing with safety belts in school buses, et cetera. I have been studying that subject for 2 years. Earlier this year I introduced a bill to do that. We discussed it in our committee. But we feel, and I think it is a fact, that the Interstate Commerce Commission has authority to provide safety devices on any vehicle under their jurisdiction, and that includes many schoolbuses, interstate buses, and forth. They have already announced that they plan, I believe, to go ahead and require that. With that information from the ICC, we did not take it up specifically in this legislation.

[ocr errors]

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia. Mr. STAGGERS. I understand the gentleman did not withdraw the amendment, and it is still before the House. I agree with the gentleman from Nebraska that we are giving the Secretary the right to put these in and to proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CRALEY]. The amendment was rejected.

House Committee Report

House Report 1776, Pages 10, 11, and 16

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Passengers riding in vehicles moving at speeds of 60 and 70 miles per hour or even higher speed need to be protected in the event that an accident does occur. The committee is satisfied that such protection can be afforded at least to a degree substantially greater than that which exists at present, if all reasonable steps are taken to minimize the impact which results after an accident occurs between two vehicles or a vehicle and a stationary object. In all cases where deaths and injuries occur, there are at least two collisions, not only the impact between the vehicles themselves, but the impact of the passengers with the interior of the vehicle, this latter impact has been characterized as the "second collision."

In the course of the hearings, the committee viewed slides and films. which demonstrated over and over again that there is vast room for improvement in the "second collision" area, and that the second

collision victim invariably comes up second best when he is thrust against a steering wheel, a dashboard, a windshield, or knobs and other protrusions in the interior of his vehicle.

Considerable improvement can be made by the use of safety belts 11 or other restraining devices. However, it is also clear that motor vehicles need not have as many potentially lethal appointments in their interior design as presently exist in many models.

Safety performance standards based on scientific and engineering research can lead to both a reduction of the incidence of accidents and to a reduction of the deaths and injuries which are associated with motor vehicle accidents. Not only is there general agreement that there is a need for Federal legislation at this time but also most of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, including the representatives of the automotive industry, support mandatory safety standards for new motor vehicles.

Standards, of course, cannot be set in a vacuum. They must be based on reliable information and research. One of the facts which was brought to the fore in the course of the committee's her rings was that it is virtually impossible to obtain specific information and data concerning the causes of traffic accidents and the performance of vehicles in accident situations. Much work in this area is being done but is is diffused. Under this bill this work can be augmented and channeled so that it will b more widely disseminated to all interested persons thus leading to improved motor vehicle safety performance with a consequent reduction in deaths and injuries.

This is a nationwide problem which requires forthright guidance and legislation at the national level. Congress and the Nation should accept the challenge to reduce this senseless bloodshed and death on our highways. The legislation which the committee now favorably reports is a needed step toward meeting this challenge.

ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS

Standards. Section 103(a) of the reported bill requires the Secretary to establish appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards are to be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms.

Under this subsection the committee has imposed a mandatory requirement upon the Secretary to establish motor vehicle safety standards. In the introduced bill the Secretary would have issued standards only to the extent that he determined it necessary to do so. In the reported bill this determination is statutorily made by Congress. In establishing standards the Secretary must conform to the requirement that the standard be practicable. This would require consideration of all relevant factors, including technological ability to achieve the goal of a particular standard as well as consideration of economic factors.

Motor vehicle safety is the paramount purpose of this bill and each standard must be related thereto.

In order to insure that the question of whether there is compliance with the standard can be answered by objective measurement and without recourse to any subjective determination, every standard must be stated in objective terms.

16

Senate Passed Act

Congressional Record-Senate
June 24, 1966, 14256

Interim Federal motor vehicle safety
standards

SEC. 102.

(c) In prescribing interim standards under this section, the Secretary shall—

(2) consider, in the light of available technical information, whether any such proposed standard reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and

Revised Federal motor vehicle safety standards

SEC. 103. .........

(c) In prescribing standards under this section, the Secretary shall—

(3) consider whether any such proposed standard is reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and

Senate Debate

Congressional Record-Senate
June 24, 1966, 14221-14230

Mr. MAGNUSON.

this legislation reflects the faith that the restrained and responsible exercise and I underline the word "responsible"exercise of Federal authority can channel the creative energies and vast technology of the automobile industry into a vigorous and competitive-and I underline the word "competitive"-effort to improve the safety of vehicles.

Moreover, the hearings produced evidence that the automobile industry has made commendable progress in many aspects of automotive safety. With respect to such critical components as lights, brakes, and suspension systems, the automobile of 1966 demonstrates marked improvement over its predeces

sors.

But the committee met with disturbing evidence of the automobile industry's chronic subordination of safe design to promotional styling and of an overriding stress on power, acceleration, speed, and "ride" to the relative neglect of safe performance or collision protection. The committee cannot judge the truth of the conviction that "safety doesn't sell," but it is a conviction widely held in industry which has plainly resulted in the inadequate allocation of resources to safety engineering.

Until the industry had been subjected to the prod of heightened public interest and governmental concern, new models

showed little improvement in safe design or in the incorporation of safety devices. Such elemental safe design features as safety door latches made their appearance as standard equipment only a decade after their desirability and feasibility had been established.

As late as 1959, in testimony before a committee of Congress, the chairman of the Automotive Manufacturer's Association's Engineering Advisory Committee was still resisting the suggestion that seat belt fittings be made standard equipment on all automobiles.

The committee hearings also documented past laxity in furnishing adequate notification to car owners of latent defects which had crept into the manufacturing process-defects frequently directly related to safety. Equally disturbing was evidence that the manufacturers have not always taken effective steps to insure the speedy and efficient repair of such defects. Although current industry defect-curing practices now appear to be improved, the committee concluded that Federal oversight of defect notification, and correction is essential.

For too many years, the public's proper concern over the safe driving habits and capacity of the driver-the "nut behind the wheel"-was permitted to overshadow the role of the car itself. The "second collision"-the impact of the individual

« PreviousContinue »