Editor's Report

 The Johnson Administration has just asked for an appropriation of tax dollars to study and design a “safe” automobile. Since the money has not yet been granted by Congress, the amount is unknown at this time. However, not too long ago Bobby Kennedy let both barrels go at the auto industry for only spending $8 million in 1965 for these same studies—to build a “safe” car. The Johnson request is going to fall considerably short of that figure and it will be interesting to see Mr. Kennedy’s reaction to his party leader’s evaluation of the cost involved in the project. Politically it would be unwise to continue his diatribes directed at the auto manufacturers when the Federal Government evaluates the solution at a lower figure than the industry is spending.

The astonishing truth is that the public doesn’t want a safe car because it isn’t a status symbol to be safe. Status symbols are the result of chrome, flash, speed and design—not safety. Why should an industry produce a product that the public won’t buy? Why should one company go out on a limb in this highly competitive business by cutting down on the very things that contribute to both sales and injury. After all, industry really shouldn’t be required to spend money on research that will result in loss of sales for their product.

Since the automobile is considered so dangerous—the culprit in our methodical statistic of death—perhaps we should listen it to another lethal product—the shotgun. It is designed not to fire into the user’s shoulder or to curve the projectiles back into his face, just as he automobile is designed not to run over the driver or explode him into the stratosphere during normal operation, but what of the REAL causes of highway accidents. What is being done about that?

Ralph Nader’s look calls the car Unsafe At Any Speed, and under certain isolated conditions this may be true, but what of the mixed up state highway laws that really need a universal code? Bobby Kennedy says that 10 percent of the fatalities are due to the product. Instead of attacking an industry on its fine products—acceptable to the public—why not go after alcohol which was a factor” in 50 percent of traffic accidents. At least we are trying to eliminate a 500 percent bigger problem. So why not be realistic? Why not eliminate 90 percent of the problem in one giant sweep and go after the real cause—stupid drivers.  Is it because these “stupid” drivers are voters? Taxpayers? In the majority?

I once remarked to an executive of a major manufacturer: “Why not require an I.Q. of at least 90 to get a driver’s license?” He replied: “You’re advocating going back to a million car year!” And that’s about the size of it.

But suppose a kill-proof car is invented. Think of the vicious circle that will result. In the new aura of safety behind the wheel, whole cities could be wiped out because, at least, drivers are protected from themselves and each other. It’s the pedestrian that’s in trouble