Ford's views on car safety

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32640, 23 June 1971, Page 10

Ford's views on car safety

The design and construction of motor vehicles is becoming increasingly regulated by legislation framed to ensure the occupants’ safety. Unfortunately, little of the legislation has been internationally agreed, with the result that vehicle safety standards vary widely from country to country throughout the world.

In cases where the legislation is similar the test procedures, which are necessary to enable the product to be marketed in a particular country, often vary.

For instance, from country to country the test methods for proving braking and seat belts vary, as do those for testing levels of exhaust noise. Up till now legislators have largely concerned themselves with regulating the behaviour of particular components steering columns, door locks and seat belts—rather than setting over-all safety standards for the design of a vehicle. "There are unrealised dangers in enshrining vehicle safety in legislation,” says Mr Ken Teesdale, Ford’s manager, of automotive safety planning. Mr Teesdale was bom in Tasmania, was brought

up in tne United Kingdom, served in the British Army and gained an Australian engineering degree after the war. He joined Ford’s project engineering department after returning to England from Australia in 1955. As engineer in charge of vehicle development, he co-ordinated the development of the design of the Mark I Cortina and also designed Ford’s Aeroflow heating and ventilation system. He has been intimately involved in vehicle safety for the past, six years, and has a rare facility for speaking his mind publicly. Mr Teesdale feels that once vehicle regulations reach statute books they tend to become fixtures, permanent barriers which can prevent manufacturers from incorporating technical advances or hew materials in vehicle construction. “We are now in phase one of the search for vehicle safety; the era of immediate legislation. This means that we tend to be locked to a standard for a particular component. Increasingly this is bothering manufacturers because we

find the standards impinge upon each other.” This problem has been exemplified recently with seat head-rests which when fitted—by regulation in the United States—fill a vast area of the rear view mirror, which by law must be of a certain size. Crushable and projection-free fascias also mean that switches often have to be fitted out of reach of seatbelted drivers. “The next step must be to get away from the bit-by-bit approach and strive for an over-all objective, then it won't matter which method an engineer uses to achieve a set safety standard.” There is a vital interrelationship between every aspect of design which is increasingly jeopardised by the isolated targets which are set for occupant safety. The problem is compounded by a proliferation of national standards. “Fortunately harmonisation of standards is beginning to look closer. I anticipate that by 1975 most European nations will share common vehicleconstruction regulations.” The setting of individual standards by different nations has resulted in manufacturers having to evaluate markets, not

merely by sales potential, but also by the safety regulations pertaining to the market. The planning factor being, “is it worth spending X amount to make vehicles comply with peculiar national standards?” "Will sales outweigh expenditure?” Already major manufacturers have withdrawn vehicles from certain markets where sales volumes would not balance the expenditure on modification, such as the Ford Zodiac Mk IV in Sweden. Many motorists feel that the increasing number of standards will force manufacturers to work within such rigid design perimeters that a standardlooking and acting type of vehicle will result. Mr Teesdale believes that certain types of regulations, such as setting a standard bumper size and height and creating fixed dimensions for headlamps, restrict design progress. “Vehicle designers are creative people. Moves towards fixed dimensional regulations confirm my view that broad safety

standards and more enlightened legislation, striving toward a set overall standard of safety, are essential. Such an approach would enable designers and safety experts to use their ingenuity and expertise to the full." Like all safety experts, Mr Teesdale is pro-safety belts. But more outspoken than many, he considers that a priority is to make their wearing compulsory by law, as has recently been done in the Australian state of Victoria. “The continued refusal of drivers to wear restraints is the largest single cause of injuries and fatalities. Seat belts offer the biggest single opportunity to reduce road deaths and injuries and at the lowest price.” Insurance companies, he feels could do a great deal to foster this proven method of safety. Increased premiums for those who refuse to wear belts, even spot rewards on certain days for drivers wearing belts, are just two of the methods he feels could be used. Although opposed to the current American proposals

, to incorporate air bags, which inflate on impact to provide a cushion for vehicle occupants, he feels that a suitable alternative passive restraint system can be developed within the next two to three years. “The air bag has too many limitations at present, but it indicates a path for future development towards a workable passive restraint system requiring no conscious effort by driver or passengers. “Manufacturers’ attempts to inbuild secondary safety —the protection of occupants in the event of an accident are reaching a point of diminishing returns. The point is near when the cost, weight, size and complexity of vehicles required to meet safety regulations will seriously compromise other aspects of vehicle design and ownership. Only a set over-all safety target will enable us to get more out of what we are doing by the mid-70s. “Whatever the manufacturer does to aid safety, the final factor is the driver. For every 20 accidents, 17 are caused by

driver error, two are the result of road conditions, while only one Is due to a vehicle failure. “Future safety research

must be directed more

towards driver behaviour, human reactions and physiology. Whilst the behaviour of complete vehicles, or single components under crash conditions has been exhaustively tested, we still know relatively little about the major causes of accidents." Mr Teesdale thinks that research in this area during the next four Years is going to have a drastic result upon the application of safety techniques to vehicle and traffic-system design. "Currently, manufacturers are spending a great deal of their time and resources in reacting to proposed legislation in incorporating the new standards into the design of vehicles and feeding back the manufacturers’ views to the proposers of safety legislation, in the hope that they may modify, alter or rationalise some of their extreme ideas. “But it is important that we are enabled to carry out this ‘reacting role’ alongside true development work into safety in the widest sense. This is why we feel that over-all international safety standards are important.’’