Statement of John D. Graham, Professor of Policy and Decision Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health,
Before the National Transportation Safety Board, Supplemental Restraint Panel, on March 17, 1997

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here today. I have devoted a substantial amount of my career to studying the science, economics, and politics of automobile airbags. I have also been a vocal advocate of the airbag, though recent field experience has tempered my enthusiasm for this technology.

Today, I would like to make separate comments on the driver-side and passenger-side systems.

Overall, the driver-side airbag has proven to be a useful safety device with a cost-effectiveness ratio that is comparable to other well-accepted measures in preventive medicine. I will discuss cost-effectiveness in more detail on Wednesday. However, I must confess that the evidence has shown that we oversold the benefits of the driver-side airbag. We predicted that driver-side airbags would reduce fatality risk to unbelted occupants by 30%, when in fact, it appears, based on the best available data, they are reducing them by only 13%. (For belted drivers, our estimate of a 10 percent fatality reduction was about right.) We have also learned that the driver-side airbag is not as effective in preventing injuries as we expected, and that airbags cause many more injuries to drivers than we anticipated. For almost half the crashes where airbags deploy (low speed crashes), a case can be made that they are actually causing more injuries to belted drivers than they are preventing. Obviously, we need to work hard to enhance the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the driver-side airbag, taking into account the special needs of belted drivers, women, our elderly citizens, and all Americans of short stature.

Let me comment now on the passenger-side airbag. In my opinion, the United States needs a fundamental reexamination of its approach to passenger-side protection. We are perhaps the only nation in the world that is so committed to passenger-side airbags, yet the available data do not warrant such enthusiasm about them. We now know that we overstated by a factor of three the safety benefits of passenger bags. We have also been stunned and appalled by the harm they have inflicted upon young children. They appear to kill more children than they save, with the best estimate being a net 33% increase in death risk to children. Even among children who are properly restrained, we cannot say with confidence that airbags save more of these children than they kill. For America's children, the current passenger-side airbag is a big loser. Taking into account risk, cost, and benefit, my own opinion is that the current passenger-side airbag is not acceptable. We need to either change human behavior, improve the technology, and/or both. The status quo is not acceptable!

This morning the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis is releasing a national survey of 1,000 Americans regarding their opinions about airbags. This survey demonstrates that we, in the safety community, have created a falsely positive image of the airbag in the public's mind. Consider the following misconceptions:

• 59% of Americans believe that airbags save more lives of children than they kill. This belief is wrong.
• 74% of Americans believe it is safe for children under age 12 to ride in the front seat This belief is also wrong.
• 78% of Americans believe that a driver's risk of injury from an airbag is minimal if the drivers wear a safety belt. This belief is also wrong.

With the exception of one-third of American women, who are developing less favorable attitudes toward airbags, the vast majority of Americans have an unqualified enthusiasm about this technology that is not supported by the scientific evidence.

We can take some comfort in the massive public education campaign that is now underway, urging parents to buckle kids up in the back seat. But education is not enough. When interest in education winds down and the media craze subsides, 30 million cars with passenger-side airbags will still be there, resold to millions of lower-income, less educated, and minority owners, who, we (in the safety community) know are less aware of the safety issue and tend to be less safety conscious. We know that these parents take fewer safety precautions than do buyers of new cars. Unless America's safety culture changes quickly, we can expect millions of children to be riding in the front seats of cm with passenger-side airbags -- many without proper restraint.

In conclusion, integrity in safety policy means not just taking credit for success, but accepting responsibility for problems. We can be proud of the modest success of the driver-side airbag, even though it will not save as many lives as we predicted. However, we should not be proud of the passenger-side airbag and we can do better. We should be mature enough to reexamine what we have done and work hard to clean up the mess we have created. I look forward to an honest discussion about what we will do, not just about new cars, but about those 30 million-plus cars with passenger-side airbags already in use. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today.

Links to Related Documents

RiskWorld news article titled "Harvard’s John Graham Releases Results of Cost-Benefit Analysis of Air Bag Safety"

Full text of John Graham’s March 19 testimony before the National Transportation Safety Board’s Effectiveness Panel

Go to:

Copyright © 1997 by Tec-Com Inc.