29-year-old Brooke Melton was killed in a 2009 crash involving her 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt.
In the nearly 70 years that I have covered the auto industry, I don’t recall a major story that has been so poorly reported as the controversy about GM’s ignition switches.
I attribute this to my belief that, unfortunately, relatively few journalists and editors – not to mention politicians –have ever studied statistics, though they may sometimes handily cherry-pick stats to make a point.
Let’s start with the gross, or “box car” numbers, as I like to call them. There are an estimated nearly 300 million passenger vehicles on US roads today, a number that increases by four to eight million every year. This number includes light trucks and SUVs.
Over the last 20 years, nearly 540,000 vehicle occupants have been fatally injured in vehicle crashes, an average of about 27,000 a year. This number actually has been decreasing in recent years: in the last couple of years, only about 21,000 occupants have died annually in auto and light truck crashes. (Not included are pedestrians, motorcycle riders, and others not classified as vehicle “occupants.”)
It has been repeatedly reported that GM and NHTSA have identified 13 fatalities in crashes involving the GM cars listed as being recalled to replace the potentially faulty ignition switches.
(Data doesn’t back $10 billion GM class-action lawsuit. Click Here for the investigative report.)
It shouldn’t take a doctorate in mathematics to see that identifying the specific vehicles involved in those crashes has been a monumental, if not nearly impossible, task for both NHTSA and GM—a true “looking for the needle in a haystack” effort.
So that’s 13 out of the 3.4 million vehicles GM has announced recalling to fix the ignition switch problem, and 13 out of the 300 million vehicles on the road that NHTSA must monitor.
(Internal study finds “pattern of incompetence and neglect” led to GM’s recall woes. Click Here for the full story.)
But, as the late-night TV advertisers like to shout, “Wait, There’s More.” My analysis of the details about each fatal crash, as reported last week by the trade paper Automotive News, reveals the following facts about the incidents:
- Of the 13 fatally injured, four were occupants of cars being driven at excessive speeds—in one case, a hard-to-believe 79 mph in a 40 mph zone, incredible because that’s supposedly with the ignition turned off. In another four cases, the “Black Box” event data recorder did not register the speed.
- Substance abuse – alcohol or drugs were found in the blood of four drivers of the fatal cars.
- Seat belts were not fastened by five of the front seat occupants. (Rear belt use is not recorded by the Black Boxes.) However, airbags are installed as safety supplements for belted occupants, not magic bullets alone.
- In two of the cases, it was unknown, post-crash, if the ignition switch was in the “on” or “off” position because the Black Boxes in Saturn Ions were not programmed to record ignition position. In only five cases was it known that the switch was in “accessory” position, possibly disabling airbag deployment—with perhaps no way of knowing whether that switch position occurred before or du ring the crash. Indeed, in two cases the Black Boxes indicated the switch was in the “run” position.
This analysis suggests that GM may not be totally or solely at fault in fatal injuries supposedly resulting from flawed ignition switches. No doubt this may play a role in how the outside compensation czar that GM has appointed may calculate possible indemnity payments for victims.
(GM CEO Mary Barra takes heat during return visit to Capitol Hill. Click Here for the latest.)
My experience in some five years serving on another auto company’s “campaign review committee” to go over the facts presented by service and engineering personnel tells me that many recalls involve solving incredible mystery stories. To begin with, not all product deficiencies can be considered “safety related.” Some are obviously so but others, like the ignition switch issue, are very subtle and may require some extension of imagination to “connect the dots” between two of the thousands of parts in a modern car or truck.
Another problem is how safety issues can come to the attention of either NHTSA or auto company personnel. Most company actions originate with reports from dealer service departments, routinely forwarded to auto company service or engineering departments. Others are discovered by an auto company’s own routine continuous testing. Only very rarely is a news media report the first an auto manufacturer learns about a product failure alleged to cause a crash or injury.
Reports by customers – except for fleet accounts—are unreliable both because they lack data and the human propensity to exaggerate. However, such reports may be what NHTSA watchdogs must work with, as well as the delayed accounts from FARS data mostly from state police agencies. (FARS stands for Fatal Accident Reporting System.). It was a truly a rare circumstance that an investigator hired by a plaintiff law firm has been credited in news reports as the first to “connect the dots” between GM’s ignition switch weakness and the puzzling failure of airbags to deploy in a fatal accident.
And always, the questions which must be answered by investigators are: is the flaw as reported true, is it what could be considered a “safety defect” and is it a one-of-a-kind freak incident or is it widespread — and if the latter, how far widespread? For a manufacturer, it may even be necessary to run time-consuming, race-against-the-clock tests to determine the cause of a safety defect and its fix.
In any event, auto companies must notify NHTSA within five days that a safety defect has been discovered, whether its resolution has been determined or not.
These are the sort of factors that I think have been under-reported, to say the least. It may be the human propensity to “burn witches,” i.e., to point fingers of blame, or it can be simple ignorance of related technical details (including simple math). Ignorance seems to be more typical of grand-standing politicians than the media.
Thank You. I thought that I was the only one that thought this recall is ridiculous.
Well done Mike. Your depth of understanding of these issues is unmatched, being in the industry as long as you have. Thanks for sharing those thoughts. I agree entirely and have always seen these situations as a media feeding frenzy. We desperately need more serious, unemotional, investigative journalism from folks willing to explore the facts and how they fit into the overall scheme of things.
No contrarian here . Just a clear thinker. Finally.
Mike I commend you finally providing a sound functional thought. It’s about time we hear about the additional facts, not just the Cliff’s notes version. I glad you bring up the crash facts about excessive speed, intoxication, as well as the fact that air bags are supplemental inflatable restraints (SIR), supplemental to the seat belt. Everyone wants to point blame and have no responsibility for themselves. On a separate note I’m glad you provided such a fine article, because I was beginning to wonder the competency of the writers at The Detroit Bureau. The articles are general bland and repeat the same information over and over with grammar and typo errors. Does the company not have any proofreaders?
Unfortunately the general public is inclined to hang car makers even when it’s the operators fault. It’s the McDonald’s “hot coffee” mentality. In the U.S. almost no one accepts personal responsibility for their actions or decisions. Unscrupulous lawyers have abused the judicial system to the point where juries and plantiffs view Jackpot Justice as a good thing and an entitlement.
As far as the GM ignition switch deal I asked from the beginning how these vehicles were being driven “off-road”. The statistics certainly make the issue seem quite limited in scope but due to the fact that there have been some fatalities the media has a field day and paints the story they want the populace to believe.
If there was a cover up in the GM ignition switch deal then GM and the appropriate people within GM should be held accountable. The U.S. Congress is a complete embarrassment and they are the last people that should be casting stones at a corporation over a product defect. They put on a circus show to gain public support when they have done all that they can to damage the U.S.
We know the siren chasers will do their part to insure Jackpot Justice prevails. IMO those who were DUI or where the ignition key was still on when they crashed, should not get any compensation as it does not appear the switch had anything to do with their crash. Naturally the siren chasers don’t want the FACTS to be known, they just want to financially profit from the unfortunate injuries and fatalities.
How much GM stock do you own, Mr. Davis? The final number of people killed or injured is going to be far more than the “official” NHTSA/GM 13 and you know that. Investigations by NHTSA, Congress and the SEC are just getting started. Gotta love too how you feel it’s apparently okay that these 13 were killed because some were speeding, some used alcohol, some didn’t have their belts on… Nearly all these victims were teenagers or young adults. You and your friends were so saintly that you never did anything dumb at that age? The fact remains that if the engine had not suddenly cut off in these cars, disabling the airbags and power assist for the brakes and steering, most if not all these people would still be alive. This is also not something that happened years ago at “old” GM; they are recalling several current models for a very similar engine-cutoff issue. And by the way, I suggest you read this excellent article (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-18/gm-recalls-whistle-blower-was-ignored-mary-barra-faces-congress#r=lr-sr) about how this serious defect was well known within GM engineering even before these cars went on sale and was made known to management. The latter’s response? “Stop making waves or we’ll fire you or kill your career.”
And finally…no, I’m not an attorney. I just have compassion and empathy, something you’re obviously lacking.
Liers figure and figures lie.
How does this, more complete picture, eloquently — and briefly — made clear, make its way into the general media? Raising the public temperature on any recall story is an advertising numbers strategy. Sad.
Some of what you note is relevant and informative, some of it less so. Some of it makes you sound like a GM apologist, though for the wrong reasons. I’m sure you have great industry knowledge, though at the same time your tone seems out of touch. I love the old adage “Reports by customers – except for fleet accounts—are unreliable”, great ass-cover. How about their money, is customer money unreliable, or favorable customer service data from customers? just as unreliable? I agree that GM may not be solely at fault but their monumentally deep level of incompetence surrounding the issue incubating what they are stuck with today. It’s a good thing GM is doing so well in China, this would barely be a blip on the their human-life-value- radar.
Stating the facts is not apologizing. The media likes to crucify whomever they believe is guilty – even when they are not and even without a trial – be it GM, Toyota or an individual.
Siren chasers reap FORTUNES from these cases and as such they do all that they can to sway the media into believing anyone of financial means is guilty. In many cases the lawyers are guilty of fraud, lying to the jury, etc. but they are not held accountable for their actions. Thus we should all take the media reports with a large grain of salt and view the FACTS with a lot more value. I don’t mean the paid liars claims as facts, I mean the actual FACTS regarding any situation, not the story the paid liars weave for profit.
If you as a jury person could award a woman a million dollars for pouring coffee on her crotch instead of making here pay for wasting the courts time with a frivolous and meritless case, then you have already been duped by the media and paid liars. In most countries the judicial system would not even hear these absurd liability claims when the plaintiff is the one guilty of stupidity.
Tell the owners to have a minimum of keys and trinkets on their car key fobs. Then the weight is less and the key is less likely to fall out.
I took my old 91 Toyota truck in to the Dealer for an oil change (I had a COUPON !) and the list of required steps that the techs and the service writers had to go through as the result of the recalls was mind-numbing. They did a thorough check and they actually found a repair item that I knew about but had forced out of my simple mind. I have an idea: If a car is not checked for all recalls performed, it shouldn’t be allowed on the roadways. This will greatly reduce the traffic jams and create lots of work for DMV’s and Highway Patrol officers !! My 91 Toyota truck has had ZERO recalls (even the complaints were for items the owners should have taken care of on their own). My 95 Chevy Lumina has 7 recalls but GM records only go back to 2000 so it will never be known if the repairs were made or not.
Good point, Steve. I have never understood the appeal (or need) of having dozens of keys, trinkets and who knows what else on a key ring. The fewer keys, the less weight, the less likely you are to have trouble, and not only in GM vehicles.
Paul E.