From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: A real head-scratcher (was Re: News Blurbs 8)
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:21:47 GMT

From article <C0BDpI.92u@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger):
> In article <C09MBI.A06@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> RL >This wouldn't be much of a "head-scratcher" if you were more 
> RL >familiar with the ongoing squabbles between GM, on the one hand,
> RL >and consumer advocates and animal rights groups on the other.  :-) 
> 
>   What I know of the controversy comes from following t.p.a., which I
> have done for some time. With that as a background, it wasn't obvious
> how animals would be employed in determining the crash-worthiness
> of fuel tanks. I could think of several ways to determine whether a fuel
> tank had been compromised, and none of them would involve animals.
>    The lead-in for the story above, that GM crash-tested vehicles that
> are not standard-issue, didn't have an obvious connection to GM's
> reported animal testing.
>   Therefore, it would seem the previous article is relevant to t.p.a.
> only if one assumed (1) that animals are used by GM to determine whether
> fuel tanks rupture and ignite during collisions, and (2) animal testing
> was involved when GM decided how to equip vehicles that it would
> crash-test, and how it would equip vehicles it would sell to the public.

Your set of alternatives seems unduly limited.   For example, the item
would also be relevant if (1) GM is using its animal testing program as
a legal facade to protect the corporation from litigation stemming
from poor product design; or (2) GM is incapable of addressing potential
safety problems abstractly, and hence, is dependent on a caveman-style
headbanger strategy.  There are other alternatives as well, but you
get the idea.

Relevant to alternative #1, let me remind you of the allegation that
GM allegedly contrived the initial test data used to obtain federal
certification of pick up trucks, as well as the allegation that 
GM failed to disclose information re: fuel tank leakage to the NHTSA.

Relevant to alternative #2, let me ask you if it takes a mechanical
genius to figure out that tanks mounted on the outside of the frame are
likely to spew gas when a vehicle is hit sideways?

> The alternate hypothesis is that the news item has nothing whatsoever
> to do with GM's use of animals in product testing.
> Have I missed something?

Yes, you have missed something.

Mercedes-Benz, Saab, Audi, Volkswagon, Volvo, Toyota, Mazda, and 
Nissan have managed to build cars that are highly rated for safety 
without using animals for testing, but for some strange reason, GM 
can't seem to do without an animal test facility.  I don't have the 
current stats handy but in 1990, six of the top ten cars on the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Highest Death Rates list 
were made by GM.   If GM's animal testing is efficacious, why do
many of the company's cars fare so poorly?

> RL >GM has persistently maintained that the use of animals in crash tests
> RL >is essential to automotive safety engineering, but for some reason
> RL >many of GM's cars and trucks haven't been fairing too well in the 
> RL >safety stats for quite some time... perhaps because GM's "safety" 
> RL >programs are cosmetic, rather than practical. 
> 
> RL >Here's a real head-scratcher:
> 
> RL >Does it take an animal crash-and-burn test to figure out that the 
> RL >gas tank in a pickup truck belongs on the inside of the frame?
> 
> (1) What kind of animal tests does GM use in determining crash-worthiness of
>     fuel tanks?
> (2) Are live animals involved in 'crash-and-burn test[s]' by GM?

Good question.  If it's true that GM employed deceptive tactics 
in the test programs required for federal certification, would it 
matter if they had employed live animals?   What good is honest 
testing [not to be confused with the mere facade suggested above] 
if a company's going to misrepresent the data?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals