[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 27, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                RETURN TO STRONGER 5 MPH BUMPER STANDARD

                                 ______


                       HON. ANTHONY C. BEILENSON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 27, 1995
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation I 
have proposed before to restore automobile bumper protection standards 
to the 5-mile-per-hour requirement that was in force when the Reagan 
administration took office in 1981.
  Beginning in 1978, new cars were equipped with bumpers capable of 
withstanding any damage in accidents occurring at 5 miles per hour or 
less. That action was taken in accordance with the Motor Vehicle 
Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, which requires the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] to set a bumper standard 
that ``seek(s) to obtain the maximum feasible reduction of cost to the 
public and to the consumer.''
  As part of the Reagan administration's effort to ease what it called 
the regulatory burden on the automobile industry, NHTSA reduced the 
standard to 2.5 miles per hour in 1982, claiming that weaker bumpers 
would be lighter, and would therefore cost less to install and replace, 
and would provide better fuel economy. This supposedly meant a consumer 
would save money over the life of a car, since the lower purchase and 
fuel costs should outweigh the occasionally higher cost of any 
accident. The administration promised at the time to provide bumper 
data to consumers, so that car buyers could make informed choices about 
the amount they wished to spend for extra bumper protection.
  This experiment has been a total failure. None of the anticipated 
benefits of a weaker bumper standard has materialized. Crash tests 
conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [IIHS] have 
shown year after year that bumper performance has little or nothing to 
do with bumper weight or car price. Lighter bumpers seem to perform 
just as well as heavier ones in accidents, and bumpers on inexpensive 
autos perform just as well as or better than the bumpers on expensive 
autos. In fact, some of the heaviest and most expensive bumpers serve 
no energy-absorbing purpose at all. Adding insult to injury, NHTSA has 
virtually ignored its promise to make adequate crash safety and damage 
information available to consumers.
  What has happened is that consumers are spending hundreds of millions 
of dollars in extra repair costs and higher insurance premiums because 
of the extra damage incurred in low-speed accidents. In IIHS's latest 
series of 5-mile-per-hour crash tests, all but 1 of the 14 1995 midsize 
four-door models tested sustained damage that ranged up to $1,056 in 
the two crash
 tests this legislation would restore as a standard. That is a Federal 
standard that cars were required to withstand without any damage at 
all. Worse yet, the lowest total damage repair cost for IIHS's four 
crash tests--all at 5 miles per hour was $1,433; and 3 of the 14 cars 
ended up with more than $3,000 damage in those 4 tests at 5 miles per 
hour. That a consumer would be faced with this amount of damage after 
an accident occurring at 5 miles per hour is both offensive and totally 
unnecessary.

  There is no doubt that consumers overwhelmingly favor a stricter 
bumper standard, a survey conducted in 1992 by the Insurance Research 
Council found that almost 70 percent of respondents said cars should 
have bumpers that provide protection in low speed collisions, and over 
80 percent said they would choose protective bumpers over stylish 
bumpers. Surely no one buying a new car would prefer the extra 
inconvenience and cost associated with damage sustained in low-speed 
accidents with weaker bumpers to the virtually negligible additional 
cost, if any, of stronger bumpers.
  Both Consumers Union, which has petitioned NHTSA unsuccessfully to 
rescind the change, and the Center for Auto Safety strongly support 
Federal legislation requiring a return to the 5-miles-per-hour bumper 
standard. The insurance industry also strongly believes rolling back 
the bumper standard was an irresponsible move, and supports a stronger 
standard as a way of controlling auto insurance costs.
  Mr. Speaker, the Reagan administration made a serious, costly mistake 
when it rolled back the bumper standard. It has cost consumers many 
hundreds of millions of dollars, with no offsetting benefit at all. 
Some manufacturers have continued voluntarily to supply the stronger 
bumpers. But car buyers, who cannot look at a bumper system and judge 
how it would perform, have no easy way of knowing whether cars have the 
stronger or weaker bumpers.
  Restablishing the 5-miles-per-hour bumper standard would be the most 
effective and easiest measure Congress could approve this year to 
reduce excessive automobile insurance costs. We can save consumers 
hundreds of millions of dollars by a re-instating a proven regulation 
that worked well in actual practice. We cannot allow rhetoric about the 
burden of Government regulation and the advantages of free market 
economics to blind us to the reality of the unnecessary costs of minor 
automobile accidents. It is long past time to restore rationality to 
automobile bumper protection standards.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
proposal to restore the 5-mile-per-hour bumper standard.


                          ____________________