highway is concerned, the first priority is insuring a vast improvement in the packaging of people who are in crashes. We know this is where the biggest payoff can be achieved.

At the State level, the priorities are to beef up State programs. This is going very well.

Senator HARTKE. What do you mean by "packaging people"? Does that mean special cars?

Dr. HADDON. This is one aspect of our overall push toward getting better packaging for people. By packaging we mean surrounding them by structure and safety belts such that the forces of the impact are distributed in such a way that they are not injured any more than absolutely necessary.

Senator HARTKE. What priority do you give to special cars?

Dr. HADDON. We give a fairly high priority to this, and for this reason have issued a series of contracts to companies in several parts of the country to develop specific plans for the special car program. Senator HARTKE. What is the value of this contract?

Dr. HADDON. I believe, subject to correction in the record, for one, it is $163,000. For another, about 130. For another, about 70. These contracts were let in March 1968. But this is in addition to prior expenditures totaling several hundred thousand dollars for portions of the systems which will be incorporated in these plans now being pulled together.

Senator HARTKE. What is the total of those prior contracts?
Dr. HADDON. I would have to submit that for the record.

(The information follows:)

The total of the contracts referred to is $1,898,000.

This related work conducted under contract during FY 1967 and 1968 consisted of the following:

1. Fuel Tank Protection, $48,000

To develop data and criteria for uniform safety standards that will improve the performance of motor vehicle fuel tanks and fuel systems.

2. Crashworthiness of Vehicle Structures, Two contracts: $100,000; $175,000 To develop and document a detailed bibliography and analyze the state-of-theart on all aspects of the structural design in motor vehicles as it relates to protecting vehicle occupants from serious injuries in crashes.

3. Basic Research into Crashworthiness, Two contracts: $192,000; $123,000 Long range research involving crashes in order to develop improved means of supporting the human body and protecting it from crash injury.

4. Braking Systems Research, $379,000

A basic systems research program using a systems analysis approach to developing safety performance requirements for braking systems for motor vehicles of all types.

5. Vehicle Handling, Three contracts: $148,000; $37,000; $26,000

To develop a detailed body of knowledge on the engineering, economics, and safety aspects of vehicle handling properties.

6. Basic Research into Vehicle Handling, $62,000

To develop the long-range research program needed in regard to motor vehicle handling properties.

7. Glare and Driver Vision, Two contracts: $99,000; $52,000

To investigate and document existing safety standards and recommend performance criteria to reduce glare and improve vehicle lighting.

he major changes were an increase in thickness of the plastic interyer and a reduction of the adhesion of the glass to the plastic. The next case illustrates a reduction in the effects of injury from e windshield. In this case a 1967 Chevrolet (fig. 7) was slowly making left turn when it was struck on its left side by a 1966 Ford. The speed as about 30 miles an hour. In the car in which we are interestedwo young males were in the front seat (fig. 8). The right front seat ssenger moved forward at impact and struck his face against the indshield (fig. 9). This speed, as you will recall, is twice the prior eed. The windshield shattered (fig. 10) but didn't rupture, and this otorist received only minor cuts and abrasions.

This case is a typical illustration, in our mind, of the reduction in ury-producing potential of the newer windshield. This level of rformance is referred to and supported by NHSB standard 205. We researched our data and I have for the first time for you, and never saw anything comparable in print, a tabulation of motorists o struck the old and new windshields (fig. 11). This tabulation plotted against speed as seen at the bottom of this graph. This is the windshield. You will note the large numbers of severe injuries at markably low speeds. While these were rarely fatal, major disability d disfigurement often resulted.

This is a dramatic comparison of the newer windshield (fig. 12). otorists who struck this windshield received predominantly minor juries at comparable and remarkably higher impact speeds. This

heralds what appears to be a major decrease in the number and severit of windshield injuries. Further performance standards are require because further improvement is possible.

Senator HARTKE. What you are saying is that significant chang for the better has been made in regard to the windshield?

Dr. NAHUM. Right. I think this is a remarkable achievement. A indication of what can be done.

The next important area, as you recall, is the wheel column systen In January of 1968 we suggested that the new design introduced i 1967 was going to be a radical improvement. At that time we didn' have what I would call significant data to back up our claim. Thes are injuries which are produced.