any detail because of pending litigation, we talked to several Washington, D. C., GM dealers who both sell and service the Corvair to find out what tire pressures they were recommending and what they could tell us about stabilizing equipment.

The first dealer said tire pressure should be 24 pounds front and rear; or 26 pounds front and rear depending on the weight in the auto. (This, of course, contradicted the owner's manual.) When it came to discussing safety aspects of the car's independent suspension system, he became vague but did say there were some sort of special sway bars one could buy to make the car into a hot rod. A second dealer, however, answered all questions in detail. He said it was absolutely imperative to follow tire pressure recommendations in the owner's manual, and went on to describe how a sway bar had been added to the '64 model to steady the rear wheels. (We got down on the ground and he pointed it out.) He said that under certain adverse conditions previous model Coroairs, unequipped with the antisway equipment could turn over because the rear wheel rims might catch the pavement and flip the car. When we discussed the possibility of purchasing a '63 model and adding stabilizing equipment he said this might cost more than $125, and we would be advised to forget it and buy a new car. But he added, if we were intent on buying a used model, there really was little danger. He had one himself and had been driving it hard, never experiencing any difficulties with the rear end being unsteady.

A third GM dealer looked at us in disbelief when we asked about sway problems in the Corvair. He had never heard about such a thing, but took us over to the service department chief. The chief said flatly there was no problem with the Corvair, there was no sway bar or any other stabilizing equipment on the '64 model, that indeed, there was absolutely no difference whatever between the '63 and '64 model in this respect. But we persisted, and finally he did admit there was a bar of some kind running across the car between the rear

wheels on 1964 models. He was sure it had nothing to do with stabilizing the vehicle, but on the other hand, neither did he know precisely what it did do. When we asked about tire pressure, he said to forget the owner's manual; it was all wrong. Carry 24 pounds in the front tires and 26 pounds in the rear. Then he added, "Cars are like women. They're all different."

Calls to half a dozen other GM garages resulted in blank answers to questions about stabilizing equipment. Each had a different idea about the tire pressure.

Finally we made a call to the Tire and Rim Association, a technical group that sets standards for tire sizes and safe loads. An official said the association's recommendations for 1963 and 1964 model Corvair cars were 24 pounds pressure for each tire.

This poses some interesting questions. Does GM I instruct its dealers and its service personnel so that at the least they are familiar with the different parts of the car? If so, why can't they provide a few simple and reliable answers to customers' questions? Should the design of this automobile prove faulty, does the company have any responsibility for fixing the cars that already are on the road? And quite aside from the confusion about Corvair, shouldn't there be some independent organization to tell car owners what is known about safety design?

Right now there is no such organization to tell a customer how safe a car is, and under what conditions; there isn't even a pamphlet to give you an idea of what to look for in terms of a cars safety-design features. The federal government requires safety specifications in airplanes and ships, and keeps a sharp eye on buses and trucks operating in interstate commerce, but has no authority to check on autos. New York persuaded manufacturers to put seat belt attachment points in cars; but this year New York State Senator Edward J. Speno's efforts to pass legislation establishing safety standards for tires were beaten down by auto and tire interests. In Massachusetts a bill was introduced in the state legislature this year to set up a commission to

1

determine standards of safe design. But it was tabled *' after the legislative committee which was considering t made a visit to Detroit, all expenses paid by the auto <`makers, to view their research work into car safety.

3

Now Speno wants federal and state governments to join in spending $3 million to design a really safe car. Legislation would follow to compel manufacturers to incorporate its safety features in all cars.

Three agencies of the federal government have some slight interest in automobile design. One of them is the Division of Accident Prevention of the US Public Health Service. Between fiscal 1962 and 1963 it administered a $2.7 million study into why accidents happen. # Only $134,000 went for research into automobile safety design. Dr. Paul V. Joliet, division chief, says if he had more money and enough staff he would be willing to put out a report on car design similar to the Surgeon General's report on cigarette smoking. However, Dr. Leon Goldstein, head of the division's research operation, says that while he is anxious to see research into car designs he doubts that the man in the street needs to know much about it or about safety design in general. The consumer should put his faith in government agencies which are there to protect him. And he feels there is fruitful coordination between government sponsored researchers and manufacturers now and that it should not be upset. He doesn't want to start an unfair scare on any one model car.

One recipient of the Public Health Service's research grants is the Automotive Crash Injury Research project of Cornell University. Dr. Horace E. Campbell, a leading specialist in the automobile accident field, said recently that this unit "knows what the chief defects of cars are, and which makes in actual experience on the road are the more dangerous. It is presumed that we are not told the facts that would allow us to buy in a discriminating way because a large portion of the project's support comes from the automobile manufacturers." Since some of the money comes from the government, Dr. Campbell asks why the taxpayer shouldn't be furnished with the data that would "warn him away from the most dangerous cars."

The Bureau of Roads of the Department of Commerce put out a report in 1959 calling for greater safety in auto design However, it spends most of its time getting better roads built. It will begin to get into the regulating business slightly when it administers standards that Congress recently set for manufacturers of brake fluid The General Services Administration is more likely to push the government into vehicle safety design. It was recently instructed by Congress to set safety standards to be met by manufacturers who sell vehicles to the government.

The most curious of all the government programs, and one at first might suspect the one most closely

identified with the consumer, is the President's Committee for Traffic Safety. It has an annual budget of about $200,000. Of the total, $150,000 comes from federal funds; the other $50,000 is a gift from the insurance and automotive industries which appear to dictate its activities. The salaries of the executive director and two assistants come out of the industry funds, and they take their cues from an advisory council which primarily is made up of representatives of private organizations. Although the President's Committee seal is used on the group's literature, the White House has little to do with the committee's activities. For instance, a pamphlet entitled "The Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact" has the President's Committee's shield on its cover, which might seem to imply the backing of both the Committee and the President. Actually the pamphlet is an attack on federal participation in highway safety. It was printed and disseminated by the Automobile Manufacturers Association, without approval of the President's Committee.

"What Motorists Really Think About Traffic Safety" is another pamphlet. On the inside cover is a letter from the executive secretary of the President's Committee praising the Pure Oil Co., the publisher. This seems to be contrary to another Committee policy, for one of its officials, Dr. Richard Tossell, said recently, "The Committee doesn't endorse or sponsor views of any other organization." As Dr. Tossell described the Committee's work, it relies on the advisory council to bring matters to its attention, and then it tries to "stimulate" some sort of program. To put it more bluntly, the Committee is Detroit's public relations annex at the White House.

When we told Dr. Tossell of our inquiries into the Corvair business he said the best thing to do was to go straight to Corvair; they would surely put us straight. And he added: "The interests of industry are in progress."

The government programs concentrate largely on "human failure," to which is commonly attributed 90 percent of all car accidents. But experts have said that a safely designed car could save tens of thousands of lives a year, not to mention preventing hundreds of thousands of injuries.

By the end of July, 25,630 people had died since the first of the year in automobile accidents - an all-time high, and 11 percent above last July's total, which then was a record. Each year the federal government spends millions in aircraft accident prevention research and up to $100,000 per victim to find the causes of airplane accidents. The design of every airplane down to every nut and bolt is checked for safety by the government. When it comes to automobiles, the government spends less than a nickel per casualty to find safer designs for automobiles, and there is no regulation whatever.