RALPH HOAR
IN MEMORIAM

Raging Hoar Moans
Survey Provides Another Piece
of the Inertial Release Puzzle

Despite buckle releases in government and industry crash tests, dozens of patents on buckle designs to prevent inertial release and persistent reports of seriously injured people who were wearing their belts, NHTSA, car companies and many safety advocates insist that the phenomenon does not occur. Their position is almost as believable as Bill Clinton's argument that "eatin' ain't cheatin'." 

Nonetheless, you can almost write the script for the responses of the auto industry and its apologists on this issue. Their statements have taken on the predictability of a mantra: These are nothing more than parlor tricks conjured up by greedy contingency fee trial lawyers. (In fact, "greedy contingency fee trial lawyers" has become so hackneyed that whatever spin artist coined the phrase could retire comfortably if he could collect royalties on its use.)

Having found differences in buckle design, the sponsors of the survey have done a series of tests to show that the design differences play a significant role in performance. The tests confirm that the designs with the "lock for the latch" feature are vastly superior to those without it. This new piece of the puzzle will make the mantra ring even more hollow, though it is unlikely to silence it. There's too much at stake.

So what's gonna happen, assuming that it is unacceptable for an enormous number of vehicles to remain on the road with belt buckles likely to fail in common sorts of crashes? The automakers will voluntarily recall and replace the buckles? See the last sentence of the first paragraph. NHTSA will force a recall? Same answer. A contingent of contingency fee trial lawyers will file a class action suit to force their replacement? You got a better answer than "yes"? I, for one, am thankful that, at least for the time being, we still have recourse to litigation to protect our interests.

OPTSF389

5/31/98