The Big Four auto makers have been the target of the nation's press in the last few years because of what many self-appointed critics claim is the industry's lack of foresight in offering to the American consumer what these critics believe is the safest car available.

In the past, and we can see no reason to hope for much of a change in the future, the press has been quick to publicize the rantings of Ralph Nader, the auto industry's severest critic, and just as quick to print any material that casts unfavorable, light upon the manufacturers.

It is not my intention to say that some of this criticism has not been warranted. I have always maintained that Detroit's safety efforts got a real push from Nader-rightly or wrongly. Industry supporters are quick to retort that much was done in the way of safety before Nader.

My answer always has been this: List the safety features on cars be­fore Nader and then compare this list with the safety features incorp­orated on cars alter Nader came upon the scene. There is no deny­ing that the quest for safer cars has been speeded up either because of or in spite of Nader.

On the other side of the coin is the amount of space given by the nation's press to the safety achievements out of Detroit. General Motors' side-impact steel beam and Ford's anti-skid system are two such achievements. It's true that both received notice in the press, but I wonder if they achieved the same headlines as did Nader when he accused many American cars of being unsafe.

Having spent 12 years in the daily newspaper field, I cannot argue the basic newspaper premise that nothing sells as well as sensationalism. There would be no point in my crying "unfair" and hoping this might change. One might have an easier time trying to sell Vince Lombard] on the idea that losing builds character. I would like, however, to see the nation's communications media reporting on Detroit's achievements with as much fervor that it uses in taking the auto makers to task.

It has been said many times, and I echo the sentiment, that dollar for dollar, today's automobile is the best buy that the American consumer makes.

Getting back to the press, there appeal's a recent bit of information that has practically escaped most of the country's Fourth Estate. At the recent annual convention of the Society of Automotive Engineers, Dr. Robert Brenner, the deputy director of the National Highway Safety Bureau, suggested that the NHSB is not equipped to regulate design in the auto industry as Congress wanted it to do. In essence what he is saying is this: You should leave auto design to the auto makers.

Brenner further suggested that the auto industry and NHSB establish a partnership in so far as further auto safety research is concerned. Brenner cited the bureau lack of personnel and said that "even more scarce is the availability of proper research and test facilities without which any kind of systematic work is almost an impossibility."

The first question that comes to mind must be this: Why didn't NHSB think of these things before the federal government stretched its tenacles into the auto industry?

We hope that Brenner's suggestion might be the first step toward what we believe would be a logical safety program ... a program that would put the emphasis on the driver and not the car. You can have the safest car in the world, but put a "nut" behind the wheel and you have a car that is a potential killer looking for an accident to happen.

If the federal government put as much emphasis on the teaching of people to drive safely as it puts on telling Detroit what features the auto makers will and will not puton their cars and what extra costs the consumer is being forced to pay for "safety," we would have, in the opinion of this column, much safer highways.