Unsafe at Any Speed

Photo Credit: Sicnag, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Common

When Ralph Nader’s book Unsafe at Any Speed – The Designed-in Dangers of the American automobile was published in 1965, it challenged the political consensus that the automotive manufacturers – Ford, GM and Chrysler – could be trusted to develop and market ‘safe products’, without any need for federal regulation.

By 1965, the steadily rising toll on American roads had reached 47,084 fatalities / year – which had become the socially accepted price of the freedom to travel and resultant economic prosperity.

Source: Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rates, 1899-2023

When asked, ‘industry experts’ argued that, – these deaths and associated injuries were the unfortunate and unavoidable result of poor highway design, inadequate driver training or lax law enforcement, or reflected the growing popularity of ‘affordable motoring’, – in fact anything that would deflect attention from the ‘inherent safety’ of their products.

So, the suggestion that cars should be designed to be ‘crash resistant’ to protect people – occupants or pedestrians – in the event of an accident was quickly dismissed because – the potential benefits were minimal, – it wasn’t technical feasible and the costs of implementation would be extortionate.

Besides, the industry already knew how to sell cars – and that certainly didn’t involve discussing safety in the showroom, – because customers who had been persuaded that the real problem was other people’s poor driving – were simply unwilling to pay for unnecessary ‘safety features’.

According to the industry, ‘Regulation’ was completely unnecessary – as it would stifle creative innovation, increase costs, and limit customer choice – all without benefiting consumers. So, they argued that regulation should be limited to the harmonization of the rules and regulations in different states, based on the minimum specification of products already in the market. Even attempts mandate the technical requirements – such as seat belts or collapsible steering columns – for vehicles owned and operated by Federal Agencies was, apparently, an example of ‘federal overreach’ into the affairs the individual states, threatening the US constitution.

So, drawing on his experience as a lawyer seeking compensation for accident victims, Ralph Nader explained how the industry was using it’s economic and political power to suppress information that consumers needed to assess the safety of new models, or select a ‘safer car’.

The Chevrolet Corvair introduced in 1960 was an interesting, but particularly controversial design. Developed to compete with lighter European vehicles, such as the VW Beetle, and expand the market for ‘family cars’ the Corvair had:-

• A unique air cooled, 2.2 Litre, horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine engine – known as a flat 6 – installed in the rear of the car, with the fuel tank in the front luggage compartment.
• A simple wishbone rear suspension, with a coil spring and damper on each side. So, the camber angle of the rear wheels would change as the load on the suspension varied, but during extreme cornering the outside rear wheel could ‘tuck under’ the body making, making the vehicle unstable.

From Chevy Corvair – The Weird, Quirky, Cheap and Yeah COOL Compact

• While Chevrolet recommended that the front tyre pressure should be reduced to 15 psi – (v 30 psi at the rear) – to reduce the risk of over-steer, they saw no need to warn drivers of the dangers of over-inflating the front tyres.

According Ralph Nader, the 1960 Corvair was inherently unsafe because –

• The vehicle could develop severe over-steer during normal driving, which many drivers would be unable to control.
• The rear suspension geometry could cause the Corvair to spontaneously roll-over during a fast lane change maneuvers or brisk cornering – when the outer rear wheel ‘tucked under the body’.

But, many of the design choices made by Chevrolet also increased the risk of death or injury in the event of a crash, for example –

• Seat belts and seat belt anchorages were not provided, or available as optional equipment.
• So, in a crash the unrestrained occupants would strike the the hard surfaces of the vehicle interior, which had protruding knobs and switches that could cause traumatic injuries.
• The steering column – a strait shaft – was connected to the steering box, mounted on the chassis in front the front wheels. So, in minor frontal impacts the column and steering wheel could be driven like a spear into the driver’s chest causing fatal injuries.
• The position of the fuel tank, in the front luggage compartment increased the risk of fuel leaks and fires in frontal impacts

Nader argued that the problems with Corvair were a symptoms of fundamental problem in an unregulated market economy, companies will sacrifice public safety to maximise their profits. But by, controlling consumers’ access to information and buying political influences, Ford, GM and Chrysler had also become unaccountable for that ‘trade-off’. So, the only just cure would be effective federal regulation of design standards with mandatory product recalls when vehicles were found to be unsafe.

For Corporate America this was an intolerable heresy, attacking very the foundations of their economic and political power. To them it it was obvious that federal regulation and enforcement would ‘destroy jobs’, ‘stifle innovation and investment’ and weaken the America’s global power. After all they had created employment for millions of people – and unlike this unpatriotic, socialist upstart, talking about social justice and right to life – they knew how the create wealth!

However, the book’s publication proved to a pivotal moment in the the history of automotive safety, leading to the introduction of the first Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVS) and a system of mandatory product recalls that has evolved into the TREAD ACT. But perhaps, the most significant changes may have been driven by public access to information about the safety of particular models – allowing customers to evaluate product safety when choosing a new car – creating market demand for safer products.

So, recent statistics shows the significant improvements in vehicle design – to make them ‘crash resistant’ and the the development of new technologies – such as stability control and anti-lock braking – have in fact reduced the fatality rate (deaths / million miles travelled) – but the this has been partially offset by increases in the population and total miles travelled since 1965.

Source Fatalities and Fatality Rates.pdf

But this raises the questions –

• Would any of these improvements in safety have been achieved without Federal Regulation?
• Or, does an unregulated free market give companies sufficient financial incentive to invest in public safety?
• And, what level of safety should we expect from fully autonomous vehicles?

In 2025, under the current US administration, Corporate America is once again asserting control of political and economic agenda, while regulations designed to hold them accountable are being rolled back, in the belief that ‘regulatory freedom’ will ‘Make America Great Again’. So, many of the arguments used in the past to block federal regulation of the automotive industry are now being revived, as we contemplate the application AI and other technologies.

If, Product Liability Law and Regulation are about striking the right balance between the rights of individuals and their suppliers who provide the the goods and services we rely on, – as consumers and employees and investors. In a democracy, who should have the political and economic influence to ‘control the narrative’ and set political priorities?

To Learn More…..

We deliver Product Liability Training for engineers and and engineering managers, that will explain the law and show how you can identify, control and mitigate product liability risks using a quality management system based on ISO 9001 and / or IATF 16949.

To arrange training for your team, please contact Phil Stunell

For a deeper understanding of the Corvair controversy, you can read Ralph Nader’s book and watch this video….