Car Safety: Car Safety

The First Airbag

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQd9AvpCgoSB02IdCTf1KY3BQWzTH4m40HUrGY3Vvc-g_bjmc1usguaqFEU042k3oUqDNuPCWQ0HQCp7nHQ9UNJjd3lIkaRpApTsc1IR2t1eHk_lw5BK5u_xtpxi83pwUKV8d4kTKnM7Kl/s1600/acrs.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQd9AvpCgoSB02IdCTf1KY3BQWzTH4m40HUrGY3Vvc-g_bjmc1usguaqFEU042k3oUqDNuPCWQ0HQCp7nHQ9UNJjd3lIkaRpApTsc1IR2t1eHk_lw5BK5u_xtpxi83pwUKV8d4kTKnM7Kl/s320/acrs.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>Testing for the first ever airbag system to be put in a production vehicle.</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
In the early 1990s, we were bombarded with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SwAFoMxY-s">ads</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN6Z_gZTI2A"> touting</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHJOXhABpH4"> driver</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5gNZ88oj7A"> airbags</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT32cuoG9IM"> in</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqybR5NLvU0"> cars.</a> The airbag was touted as an innovation in car safety, and it was; widespread introduction of airbags began in the late 1980s. Like most safety technologies, luxury cars had them first. But while widespread airbag introduction didn't start until the late 1980s, cars were sold with them earlier - you could get a Mercedes Benz with a driver airbag in Europe as early as 1980! (The American market had to wait until 1983). </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The Mercedes Benz system was the first airbag designed as a Supplemental Restraint System (SRS), which is designed to work as an integral system with a three point seatbelt, and is the ideal that all airbags have followed since. Even the ones that don't say "SRS" are still designed to be used as a supplement to seatbelts. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
But this wasn't the first airbag system. It was General Motors that first put an airbag in a production vehicle, in 1973! This system was called the "Air Cushion Restraint System" (ACRS) and had <i>dual </i>airbags. The option cost $225 ($1,079 in 2015 dollars) and could be ordered as a standalone option on most Buick, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac models. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The ACRS system was initially marketed as a convenience feature as well as a safety feature. In the 1974 model year, there was a short-lived mandate that required cars to be featured with an "ignition interlock" system that prevented a car from being started unless seat belts were fastened. This was an effort to increase seat belt use, which was below 15 percent in the 1970s. Fitting of "passive restraints" could circumvent this requirement, but the ACRS system was the only system that ever did this. In fact, the ACRS-equipped cars were equipped with only lap belts, as opposed to the three point belts then required on cars without passive restraints. The system was marketed as a substitute for shoulder belts. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The passenger airbag on ACRS equipped vehicles was dual stage. It deployed with less force in more minor frontal impacts and more force in more severe frontal impact. This feature would not reappear in any other car until almost 25 years later. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Obviously, ACRS has some flaws when looked at by today's standards. The biggest flaw was the deletion of the shoulder seat belt (but this could be remedied by retrofitting one). The bags were also large by today's standards; the passenger airbag was large enough to hit the driver. But for an airbag system of over 40 years ago, it was very good and provided great benefit to the safety of cars it was fitted on. </div>

The First Airbag

Testing for the first ever airbag system to be put in a production vehicle. In the early 1990s, we were bombarded with ads touting ...

Knee Airbags: Are Their Safety Claims A Bunch Of Hot Air?

<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Bonus! A rudimentary history of the airbag. </b></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The idea of the airbag - a gas-inflated cushion to cushion the blow of major car accidents - is a great idea, by and large. Invented in 1952, technology was insufficient to make the airbag practical at the time. By the 1970s, the technology was there, and General Motors offered dual front, dual stage airbags from 1973-1976. Called ACRS, Air Cushion Restraint System, it was a great idea for the time, with a flaw - it was designed to work without, not with, seat belts. Then, in the early 1980s, Mercedes Benz came out with a system, called "SRS" for Supplemental Restraint System, that was designed to supplement the seat belt in a major crash. At first, it had only a driver airbag, but passenger airbags soon followed. Soon, luxury manufacturers began to adopt the bags, and news articles began to appear touting their safety benefits. Crash tests also proved the safety benefits of the airbags. By the early 1990s, airbags were irresistible. They were saving lives. By 1993, most new cars in the US had a driver airbag, and by 1995 most were equipped with dual airbag.</div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Side airbags followed shortly thereafter. Pioneered by Volvo in 1994, most luxury cars offered them as standard by 1998, and even economy cars such as the Toyota Corolla could be had with them by then. By 2008, they were ubiquitous on new cars. Curtain airbags - pioneered by BMW in 1997 - also saw quick adoption. A stringent new crash test which simulates an SUV or a pickup striking the side of a vehicle was launched by the IIHS in 2003, and test after test proved that some sort of head protection was needed to get even a halfway decent score in the test. <a href="http://www.iihs.org/news/2003/iihs_news_082603.pdf">Real world data</a> also proved the curtains' amazing benefit: 45 percent reduction in driver deaths in driver side impacts was observed in a 2003 IIHS study. Today's curtains are far better at cushioning heads and blocking debris than the late 1990s-early 2000s curtains seen in that study, so the fatality reduction would be expected to be even greater. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Almost all cars sold since about 2009 (and most from a few years before then) come with a set of <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20120904220853/http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/safety.aspx">6 airbags</a> standard. You get a driver front airbag, a passenger front airbag, a side airbag in each front seat, and side curtain airbags on each side. On top of this common set, knee airbags, rear seat side airbags, and even seat cushion airbags are cropping up in the race to cram more 'bags in our rides. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Knee airbags are the most common. A large percentage of cars, maybe half, have at least a driver knee airbag. Passenger knee airbags, fortunately, remain rare. While a driver knee airbag certainly doesn't hurt things, I've found that it offers limited benefits at best. </div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Wha?!?! An airbag that doesn't help much?</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Knee airbags are commonly touted to provide cushioning to the knees and legs, hence the term "knee airbag". The idea gives me a bit of heebie-jeebies, since I sit with next to no distance between my knees and the dash. (I'm 6' tall with fairly short legs for my height). But <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimmyyyy1992/sets/72157634537085099/">my car</a> doesn't have knee airbags - it has only the common six airbag system. So I wouldn't know the ergonomics of actually sitting behind a knee airbag. For all I know, they could have it set up so that it's more comfortable to sit with your knees farther back from the lower dash. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is the structure of the car that primarily determines what can happen to the legs and knees in a frontal crash, not the presence or absence of a knee airbag. The new IIHS small overlap is a gold mine for what can happen during structural collapse; there are a number of structural failures both with and without knee airbags. Some cars from Lexus, Toyota, Ford, GM, even Mercedes and BMW, equipped with knee airbags earned poor ratings for leg protection in the new test. That's not to say that all cars with knee airbags will crush your legs in a small overlap crash test - there were a few good performers equipped with them. And some cars did seem to show some benefit from the knee airbags, such as the 2012-present Toyota Camry, which suffered structural collapse but left the legs relatively uninjured.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, overall, knee airbags don't really help or hurt. And they generally don't make up for a bad structure. Six airbags are enough. </div>
</div>

Knee Airbags: Are Their Safety Claims A Bunch Of Hot Air?

Bonus! A rudimentary history of the airbag. The idea of the airbag - a gas-inflated cushion to cushion the blow of major car accid...

Next on Car Safety Dance

<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, a German magazine puts eight 1990 model family sedans to an offset crash test at just 34 mph. The results are horrifying.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Second, some other Germans put a 1974 Cadillac DeVille to the test into a wall at 35 mph. Don't call shotgun in this car!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Third, the cavalcade of horror continues! The NHTSA crashes two buses, two years apart, into a wall: first at 30 mph, then at 35 mph!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fourth: T-boned! You know you want your side airbags, but your front airbag decides to come along as well. How will it affect you?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fifth: Motorhomes get put to the test... and fail.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sixth: Why less is more when it comes to frontal airbags.</div>

Next on Car Safety Dance

First, a German magazine puts eight 1990 model family sedans to an offset crash test at just 34 mph. The results are horrifying. Second...

In A Side Impact, Do Frontal Airbags Help or Hurt?

<div style="text-align: justify;">
Side airbags have been blowing off in frontal crashes for years now. While some vehicles take the principle overboard, many vehicles are deploying their driver side curtain airbags in the IIHS offset test, due to the side movement. Here's ten reasons that deploying this side's curtain airbags can be a good idea: <a href="http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1374&seriesid=459">1 </a><a href="http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=233&seriesid=385">2</a> <a href="http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1681&seriesid=750">3</a> <a href="http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1400&seriesid=710">4</a> <a href="http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=811&seriesid=354">5</a> <a href="http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1302&seriesid=427">6</a> <a href="http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1414&seriesid=513">7</a> <a href="http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1602&seriesid=623">8 </a><a href="http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1688&seriesid=322">9</a> <a href="http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1483">10</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm going to try to settle the question of whether frontal airbags are likely beneficial or detrimental in side impacts. The primary purpose of NHTSA's side impact (from 1994-2010) was to measure thorax injury, so I'm going to compare cars with side and curtain airbag deployments for my control group. I will average the Thoracic Trauma Index for all vehicles with frontal airbag deployment in addition to side airbag deployment, and average the Thoracic Trauma Index for all vehicles with just side and curtain airbag deployment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have a hunch that today's advanced airbags are not harmful to most occupants in side impacts, so I will also compare vehicles with no side airbags and frontal airbag deployment against vehicles with no airbag deployment altogether.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The side airbag test group will consist of 2008 models for the no front airbag group and 2007-2009 models for the front airbag group. This is to get a larger sample size for front airbag deployments, as they are in the minority.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The no side airbag test group will consist of 2002 models for the no front airbag group and 2001-2003 models for the front airbag group.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Individual cases will be used as well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For the side airbag (2008) test group:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Average TTI, no front airbag: <b>44.3 - </b>37 vehicles - Range 18 to 66 with an outlier of 86</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Average TTI, front airbag - <b>40.6 </b>- 14 vehicles - Range 17 to 70</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is clear that in recent vehicles with side airbags and advanced frontal airbags, front airbag deployment poses little risk and may actually be slightly beneficial. The torsos of all 14 driver dummies were not unduly loaded, and the faces were not hit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Front airbag deployment CAN be harmful to a small driver sitting far forward in a side impact, however advanced airbags can mitigate this risk.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is also worthy to note that 44.3 and 40.6 are very low TTIs corresponding to a ~1% risk of severe injury. The state of side impact crashworthiness was very good for most vehicles by 2008.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The no side airbag test group will be in a later post.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>

In A Side Impact, Do Frontal Airbags Help or Hurt?

Side airbags have been blowing off in frontal crashes for years now. While some vehicles take the principle overboard, many vehicles are de...

French Car Safety: 1980s vs Post-2000

<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since about 2000, French cars have been safe relative to most cars, as a general rule. Modern Citroens, Peugeots, and Renaults feature advanced safety features. Since these makes of car are no longer sold in the US (Citroen pulled out in 1974, Peugeot in 1991, and Renault in 1987), crash tests using EuroNCAP methods are used for the new models. </div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
New: Citroen C6 (2005) and C5 (2008)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://euroncap.com/tests/citroen_c6_2005/235.aspx</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://euroncap.com/tests/citroen_c5/312.aspx</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This pair of Citroen large cars show that drivers would walk away from severe front and side collisions. The five star ratings these cars achieved were above average for their class. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
New: Citroen C4 (2010)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://euroncap.com/results/citroen/c4/2010/405.aspx</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This midsize Citroen gave excellent protection to its occupants in front and side collision; the new pole collision, more severe than the other crash tests, was survivable unlike in many of its competitors.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Old: Citroen Xantia (1997)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://euroncap.com/tests/citroen_xantia_1997/16.aspx</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This 1997 crash test was based on a 1993 design, and it was not good. Side impacts would prove potentially fatal, and frontal crashes were little better, being survivable - with major driver injury. Overall, a below average - though not terrible - result for the time.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
New: Renault Megane (2008) and Laguna (2001)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://euroncap.com/tests/renault_megane_2008/337.aspx</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://euroncap.com/tests/renault_laguna_2001/90.aspx</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Megane's performance was simply beautiful. Front and side crash tests resulted in almost no potential injury to the driver and passenger, with possible minor chest injury to a more frail driver. The Laguna - a design now <b>11 </b>years old - showed only minor injury at worst in front and side crash tests. The Laguna was the first car to earn a 5 star Euro NCAP rating.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Old: Renault Alliance (1985), Sportwagon (1984), and Fuego (1982)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/occupantinfo.aspx?LJC=799 (Alliance)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/occupantinfo.aspx?LJC=711 (Sportwagon)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtabledetails.aspx?LJC=463 (Fuego)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These were 35 mph full frontal crash tests instead of 40 mph offsets, but the focus is on comparative safety to cars of its time. Most cars of this era (1982-1985) would result in a likelihood of moderate injury to both occupants. The Alliance showed severe driver and fatal passenger injury. Sportwagon - two fatally injured occupants. The Fuego - once again, two fatal injuries. All three of these cars were among the worst performers of the era.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
New: Peugeot 508 (2011)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://euroncap.com/results/peugeot/508/2011/433.aspx</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No or minor injury to both front occupants in the front test, and minor injury in the side impact. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Old: Peugeot 505 (1989) and 504 (1979)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/occupantinfo.aspx?LJC=1327</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/occupantinfo.aspx?LJC=219</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Both of these vehicles would have caused fatal injury to both occupants. Once again, 35 mph NHTSA test. The 504, however, did have head injury forces twice as high as the 505. That shows some improvement. </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The point is: French car safety is an interesting thing. Here is my recommendation. If you do get a French car, get a newer one - 2000 seems like a reasonable cutoff - or retrofit racing seatbelts to an older model, or use it only for special occasions such as car shows. </div>
</div>

French Car Safety: 1980s vs Post-2000

Since about 2000, French cars have been safe relative to most cars, as a general rule. Modern Citroens, Peugeots, and Renaults feature adva...

Safety while driving

<div style="text-align: justify;">
If I was in my car and I hit a wall at 35 mph, the car would come to a dead stop in 1/15 of a second. The front end would buckle. The windshield would crack. Anything not tied down - tightly - would go rocketing forward. But I would likely walk away without a scratch. Airbags would inflate from the steering wheel, seat, and over all four side windows. If there was a passenger (legally mandatory until I get a license in July), there would be a bag coming from the dashboard and passenger seat, too. They would also likely walk away without a scratch.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The most fortunate thing is, my car is very common. Lots of people drive 2008 Honda Accords and are in a car as safe as mine is.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="266" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7bGNsZAGnGs?feature=player_embedded" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cars have come a long way in this test. See my next post for information about the success of the NHTSA crash test program from 1979 to 2010.</div>

Safety while driving

If I was in my car and I hit a wall at 35 mph, the car would come to a dead stop in 1/15 of a second. The front end would buckle. The winds...

1970's Car Safety: NHTSA's First Round of Crash Tests, 1978-1979

<div style="text-align: justify;">
Between March 16, 1978 and May 15, 1979, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration crash tested 35 1978 model year vehicles head on into a flat wall at just under 30 mph. This was an experimental crash test program - the results were unpublished, and the tests carried no legal weight. This crash test was identical to the one that every vehicle had to pass between the 1982 and 1997 model years to be legal for sale in the US. Vehicles ranged from cars to trucks to vans to SUVs. They were American, European, and Japanese - a fine cross-section of the vehicles available to American consumers in 1978.</div>
<br />
Conclusions drawn from NHTSA's 1978 crash test program:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
-Of the 35 tests, 27 were conducted after the start of the 1979 model year (Sept. 1, 1978). 19 were conducted in the 1979 calendar year. The average date of the tests was December 14, 1978. By modern standards, the tests were conducted very belatedly and would be of virtually no use to new car buyers.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Three driver results and four passenger results were not available due to faults in the testing equipment. That is a 10 percent failure rate - unacceptable by modern standards.</div>
<br />
-Average speed was 47.7 kph (29.64 mph), with a range of 46.7 - 48.3 kph (29.02 - 30.01 mph).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
-A head injury criterion of 1000 or up and/or a chest deceleration of 60 or more G's indicates a likelihood of serious injury. A head injury criterion above 1800 or chest deceleration above 90 G's would likely be fatal.</div>
<br />
-Average head injury criteria were 923 for the driver and 1009 for the passenger.<br />
<br />
-Range of head injury criteria was 447 to 2300 for the drivers and 349 to 2223 for the passengers.<br />
<br />
-Average chest decelerations were 47.4 G's for the driver and 43.0 G's for the passenger.<br />
<br />
-Range of chest decelerations were 31 to 62 G's for the drivers and 26 to 71 G's for the passengers.<br />
<br />
-Drivers would have been likely to suffer serious injury in 41% of the vehicles and to be killed in 3%.<br />
<br />
-Passengers would have been likely to suffer serious injury in 28% of the vehicles and to be killed in 6%.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This crash test program was very mild by today's standards but was groundbreaking for its time. A majority of vehicles failed this test, but the introduction of consumer-use crash testing in 1979 and the mandate that all vehicles pass this 30 mph test by 1982 spurred on a rapid improvement in car safety. Today, the 30 mph test into a flat wall is a piece of cake for cars to pass with flying colors, and is no longer used.</div>
<br />

1970's Car Safety: NHTSA's First Round of Crash Tests, 1978-1979

Between March 16, 1978 and May 15, 1979, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration crash tested 35 1978 model year vehicles head o...