Magazine’s Safety Advice Assailed

It is April again, the month when romance blooms, Daylight Saving Time begins and the Consumer Reports automobile issue appears on news stands.

For many buyers, Consumer Reports’ ratings are the most authoritative source of information on car reliability, quality and safety.

The magazine has always generated some controversy because of its continued endorsements of imported cars. But this year Consumer Reports is also under attack on another issue.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a trade group, has charged that Consumer Reports committed “sloppy” reporting that poses a safety risk to motorists who heed its advice.

This month’s Consumer Reports asserts that “all other things being equal, safety-conscious design can fully protect the small car’s occupants. . . .” The institute profoundly disagrees.

“If readers purchase small cars based on such misinformation, they’ll be increasing their risk of death or serious injury in the event of a crash,” said institute president Brian O’Neill.

A Consumer Reports spokesman called the allegations “wrong and misguided.” The magazine advocates that auto makers offer safe small cars and not compel consumers to buy expensive large cars for adequate safety.

The magazine’s ratings are based on a safety index, called “head injury criterion,” which is widely quoted in many publications.

Each year, the Department of Transportation runs tests in which different models of cars are crashed into a concrete barrier at 35 m.p.h. Electronically monitored dummies are used to determine the severity of injuries that would result in a real crash. Then, through a complicated formula, an index is created, in which a number above 1,000 would indicate a likelihood of severe injury.

The shortcomings of this safety rating system should seem obvious, since it deals only with direct head-on crashes and says little about potential injury to other parts of the body.

For this reason, the insurance institute conducted its own test, pitting a subcompact Geostorm, which has a good safety rating, against a large Buick Park Avenue, which has a similar rating. Instead of a direct head-on crash, the two cars were crashed at a slight angle, better simulating real-world conditions.

Although the index ratings looked good for the Geo, the results showed that the dashboard and pedals of the car were rammed backward 10 inches and the steering wheel, seven inches. The Buick was left with little or no deformation in the passenger compartment.

Although the air bag in the Geostorm deployed, the passenger compartment deformities would have allowed the driver’s head to slide off the air bag and outside the window of the car.

The death rate from actual highway accidents involving 1988 models was nearly three times higher for small cars than for large cars. Specifically, the death rate for cars with wheelbases longer than 114 inches was 1.1 deaths per 10,000 registered cars, compared to 3.1 for cars of less than 95 inches wheelbase.

As small cars have become safer through the years, big cars have also improved. According to the safety institute, the death rate for 1976 car models was 4.3 per small cars versus 1.9 for big cars.

Central to the issue are manufacturers’ efforts to reduce weight to meet government-mandated fuel-economy standards. There is growing concern that these standards, which do not apply to heavy trucks or buses that also use public roads, are leading to more Americans buying light, relatively less safe cars.

Consumer Reports says: “The most meaningful comparison (for safety) is within size categories,” implying that consumers should not consider the safety advantages of buying a larger car.

Aside from the safety issue, this would appear to be yet another blow to one of the key competitive advantages that cars by Detroit’s Big Three would offer consumers.