Final Inspection

Personal Responsibility Must Play Role in Auto Safety


Crash data show most deaths to motor-vehicle occupants are the result of drivers making mistakes or breaking the law, not defects, not Charles Manson cars, not evil automakers.

“If you put Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and Attila the Hun in a room and ask everybody sitting in this room: ‘Let’s compare these three guys and let’s decide who’s the best and who’s the worst,’ somebody’s going to be No.1 and somebody’s going to be No.2 and somebody’s going to be No.3.

“The question you have to ask yourself with regard to the sport-utility market is if you put the Explorer and the Suzuki Samurai and the Bronco II and the Isuzu Trooper and the Toyota 4Runner all in a room, somebody’s going to be the worst and somebody’s going to be the best out of that group.” – renowned plaintiff attorney Tab Turner

At the height of the Ford/Firestone tire crisis in 2000-2001, that’s how attorney Tab Turner responded to assertions – based on statistical analysis of crash reports – that the Ford Explorer was among the safest SUVs in the world.

Trial lawyers like Turner and hyperventilating journalists had Americans terrified their Manson-Gacy-Hun mobiles would flip over with the slightest wrong move. If a Ford Explorer blew a tire, disaster seemed inevitable because media reports linked the vehicles with new deaths almost daily, eventually connecting more than 270 fatalities to Explorer rollovers in the U.S., alone.

Despite tests by Car & Driver magazine (and others) that showed the SUV easily could be brought to a safe stop from 70 mph (113 km/h) after a catastrophic blowout, most media coverage of Explorer rollover deaths treated drivers as powerless to avoid their fate.

“We're convinced that if you experience a tire failure – on an Explorer or any other vehicle – and concentrate on keeping the vehicle rolling straight and on the pavement, you have an excellent chance of bringing it to a safe halt and ensuring that your tire failure remains an inconvenience rather than turning into a tragedy,” Car & Driver Editor Csabe Cere wrote in the January 2001 edition

Testifying Before Congress Common

CEO Jacques Nasser was called to appear before Congress, and Ford was painted as an incompetent, uncaring corporation that put profits ahead of safety and covered up defects for years. 

Only later was it confirmed even though Firestone tires were defective, there was nothing wrong with the Ford Explorer. It also came to light most rollover deaths could have been avoided if drivers had kept their tires properly inflated, worn a seatbelt and not panicked and violently jerked the steering wheel.

Federal crash data show most deaths to motor vehicle occupants are the result of drivers making mistakes or breaking the law, not defects, not Charles Manson cars, not evil automakers. Legislators, drivers and journalists need to understand this.

“Alcohol, speed, not paying attention and not wearing safety belts are the big factors,” says Insurance Institute for Highway Safety spokesman Russ Rader.

While there are few similarities between Ford’s tire crisis and GM’s current issue with malfunctioning ignition switches, a disturbing new trend is emerging: Penalties for making substandard parts and failing to recall them quickly are growing exponentially larger and more punitive while the bar for what constitutes a potentially deadly defect is getting low. The current maximum fine is $35 million. Safety activists say it should be $300 million.

This trend is forcing soaring recall rates as all automakers scramble to fix windshield wipers that may not operate after a jump start and every flickering taillight, fearing giant government fines and possible criminal charges if these “defects” somehow are linked to a fatality. Most importantly, driver error and the concept of personal responsibility are being ignored.

Congress Must Focus on Improvement, Not Penalties

As toxic and silly as the rhetoric surrounding the Ford/Firestone crisis became, lawmakers ultimately recognized driver error was the root cause of most SUV rollovers, and they enacted the Transportation, Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act on Nov. 1, 2000. Among other things, the act required all new vehicles be equipped with tire pressure monitoring systems by 2007 that alert drivers when a tire is dangerously underinflated.

Congress also required all new vehicles be equipped with electronic stability control systems by 2012. ESC now is widely regarded as the most important safety device since the seatbelt, capable of preventing more than 30% of all vehicle fatalities.

These legislative solutions recognize driver error usually is responsible for serious crashes. TPMS and ESC systems prevent these mistakes and already have saved thousands of lives and will save tens of thousands more.    

Working with GM, Congress and the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., must come up with real reforms, not just punitive fines, to prevent future issues such as GM’s faulty ignition switch fiasco. That could include working on new types of manufacturing design software that correlates the relationship of minor parts to the function of crucial safety systems. It could be a mandate to require keyless ignition systems in all vehicles in five years. Or it could require more detailed studies on how vehicles can be kept safer as they age.

What is not needed are more $1-billion fines and other measures designed to intimidate the auto industry and empower trial lawyers.

The Ford/Firestone crisis led to important changes that created safer vehicles for everyone. It would be nice if faulty GM ignition switches could lead to further safety improvements, and not just more shiny private jets for Tab Turner wannabes.

Discuss this Blog Entry 5

on Jun 10, 2014

Drew, I could not agree with you more. I owned both a 1994 and 1998 Explorer. I had a blow-out on the 1994 and a flat on the 1998. Both on the highway, and both times I brought the vehicles to a safe stop at the side of the road. No problem. It seems that the safer cars become, the more liable an auto maker is for not predicting a user's poor decision making or ineptitude.

on Jun 10, 2014

I would have to agree. It all comes down to your training behind the wheel and knowing what to do. We can put all the technology into the vehicle that we want, but we forget that the input for all that technology is being done by an imperfect person. Hands-free radio/climate control, automatic transmissions, all these things force the driver to do less and less with their vehicle.

Then, when something hits the fan, like a blown tire, dropping a trans or a blown engine while traveling 35mph+, the driver has no idea as they haven't truly been operating their vehicle. This is why I have always said that drivers training should teach students to drive manual transmissions, as it forces them to truly operate the vehicle, requires more attention (less to text if you have to shift!) and puts them more "in-touch" with the vehicle.

on Jun 10, 2014

When you get behind the wheel you must be in control of the vehicle at all times. If it were up to me, drivers would lose the right to participate in lawsuits if they were found to be intoxicated or not wearing a seatbelt during a crash.

on Jun 10, 2014

Like the people that filed lawsuits against the OEMs when they received a broken nose because they weren't wearing their seatbelts? And the OEMs basically settled out of court? I remember a lot of those. I would completely agree with your statement. They should treat DUI's/DWI's like they do across the pond. 1 and done.

on Jun 10, 2014

Thoughtful, long-term reforms vs. knee-jerk, short-term-thinking massive fines? Seems like a no-brainer to most people, except for bad politicians and attorneys on the make. That's not to say some politicians aren't good and some attorneys can't improve society by their work.

Please or Register to post comments.

What's Final Inspection?

WardsAuto editors share insights and observations on the global auto industry.


David E. Zoia

As Editorial Director, I oversee much of what goes into, enjoying a ringside seat that lets me observe up close just about every facet of the industry worldwide. I have covered the...

James M. Amend

James Amend is an associate editor at, covering day-to-day business and product news at General Motors. He also leads coverage of regulatory and environmental issues, as well as the...
Blog Archive
Follow Us

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×