Monday, February 14, 2000  by  Eric Peters

THOSE NOT-SO-SMART AIR BAGS

If you or I make an error on our federal tax returns, we'll be held to account. But when Washington regulators make a mistake, not only do they rarely admit the error - they typically do all in their power to cover it up. And they are almost never held responsible - even when their edicts directly result in people being killed.

The ongoing air bag fiasco is just such a case in point. Instead of conceding that air bags are flawed technology that can actually make cars more dangerous, not less, for children and small-statured adults in particular - the agency is preparing to issue a new slew of regulations mandating so-called "smart" air bags that would supposedly reduce the chances of your child, wife or elderly parent being murdered by an air bag deployment.

The new, "improved" air bag regulations are scheduled to be announced March 1 - but all they will do is make air bags more complex - via sensors to detect the presence of a child or unbuckled occupant, etc. - and therefore arguably more likely to fail or perform improperly at some point during the average vehicle's 8-12 year lifespan.

Meanwhile, an embarrassing photo of "safety expert" Ralph Nader has surfaced. The July 5, 1977, photo shows Mr. Nader demonstrating an air bag simulator -with an unbuckled 3-year-old child. This is precisely the type of situation where air bags are the most lethal - a dreary fact attested to by the 146 deaths so far attributed to air bag deployments. At least 86 of those fatalities were small children slain by a passenger-side air bag of exactly the kind depicted in the photo. (To see it for yourself, click here).

No other federally required safety device has accumulated such a bloody record of failure. In fact, no known automotive defect has resulted in so much human tragedy. If air bags were optional equipment installed by automakers absent a federal requirement, there would have been a recall (and lawsuits) of massive proportions. But since they are government-approved and required, neither recalls nor lawsuits are likely to happen.

Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, pointed out that "the claim that air bags protect kids was pushed by Nader and even NHTSA itself, which actually advised the public that it didn't have to wear seat belts in order to be protected by air bags."

Former NHTSA Administrator Joan Claybrook - a protege of Mr. Nader's - dismissed warnings given by the real safety experts -engineers working on air bags for the automakers, not lawyer/ agitators such as Mr. Nader - that the devices were not without risk. But she has moved on to greener pastures; it's not her problem anymore.

NHTSA itself refused to acknowledge the existence of a problem for years and in fact continues to tout the benefits of air bags, most recently during a hearing in D.C. attended by parents of children slain by air bags who pleaded with the agency to keep the strongly worded warning labels that come on air bag-equipped cars in place.

NHTSA is considering new language for the labels that would omit the word "warning," or the phrase, "death can occur" to children riding in the front seat of an air bag equipped vehicle.

Mr. Kazman and other critics of NHTSA argue that the agency's impending rule regarding "smart" air bags is even worse than watering down the warning labels. He says these new generation air bags are likely to repeat the disasters of the past because they will be put into cars without extensive real world testing beforehand.

"If NHTSA had bothered to do real-world testing the first time around," says Mr. Kazman, "the dangers and weaknesses of air bags would have been known beforehand. Instead, the agency relied on laboratory simulations. Now the agency is about to mandate far more complex air bags, once again without real-world data."

Mr. Kazman adds: "There may well be `smart' air bags, but the only smart air bag mandate is no mandate at all."

Given the appalling record of air bags to date, NHTSA might consider reviewing its position. As embarrassing as admitting its mistake might be, it would likely save lives - especially the lives of children. Isn't that what it's supposed to be all about?

Eric Peters is an editorial writer for The Washington Times and a nationally syndicated automotive columnist