Takata airbag recall fiasco: What car owners need to know

Takata has refused to expand a recall of faulty airbags linked to at least five deaths in the US, and the path to a nationwide recall has become exponentially more complicated for Takata, automakers, federal regulators, and owners of affected vehicles. 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/AP/File
This undated file photo provided by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows a crash test of a 2002 Honda CR-V, one of the models subject to a recall to repair faulty Takata air bags. Takata, automakers, and the NHTSA have all been reluctant to call a full nationwide recall of Takata airbags, which have been linked to at least five deaths in the US.

Yesterday morning, we were optimistic. Rumors suggested that the confusing web of Takata airbag recalls would soon become simpler and more streamlined. If things went as planned:

1. Takata would agree to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's demands and declare many of its driver-side airbags defective, regardless of whether they've been exposed to humidity; and, 

2. NHTSA would overturn its own highly criticized decision to permit regional replacement of Takata airbags, paving the way for a nationwide recall.

Sadly, neither of those things happened. In fact, the situation got worse, becoming exponentially more complicated for Takata, automakers, federal regulators, and owners of affected vehicles.

Worst of all, those complications will likely lead to recall delays, which could have deadly consequences for drivers.

TUESDAY RECAP

The Takata saga took three unpleasant turns on Tuesday:

1. Takata refused to admit that its driver-side airbags are inherently flawed (meaning that the rumors posted yesterday in Japan's Nikkei were false). The company stood firmly by its claim that recalls of driver-side airbags are only needed in areas with consistently high humidity, like states along the U.S. Gulf Coast. Takata made such claims in spite of the fact that NHTSA presented evidence to the contrary in a sternly worded letterdelivered to the company last week. 

2. The auto industry insisted that more study was needed to determine whether nationwide recalls should be implemented. Takata isn't the only one arguing against a nationwide airbag recall. Automakers are reluctant to launch such a process, too, afraid of the time and energy those recalls would take to carry out -- not to mention the brand damage they could cause and the liability to which automakers might be exposed. 

And so, Toyota issued a press release calling for what amounts to a focus group on Takata airbags:

"Toyota today called for a coordinated industry-wide joint initiative to independently test Takata airbag inflators that have been the subject of recent recalls. The goal of this initiative is to address affected automakers’ issues related to the airbag inflator recalls and supplement testing being undertaken by Takata in order to address customer concerns about safety."

Anyone want to guess how quickly Toyota will be able to get other automakers onboard, begin tests, analyze results, publish them, and, if necessary, begin recalls? Here's an answer: not quickly enough

3. NHTSA refused to demand a nationwide recall of Takata's passenger-side airbags. The agency insists that it wants a nationwide recall of driver-side airbags -- a recall complicated by the fact that (a) Takata hasn't declared its driver-side airbags inherently flawed (see item #1 above), and (b) automakers haven't agreed to undertake such a wide-ranging recall (see item #2). However, NHTSA hasn't even floated the idea of a coast-to-coast recall of passenger-side airbags.

NHTSA hasn't fully explained its reluctance on that point. Our guess is that the agency is attempting to be logical: cars can't operate without drivers, so it would seem reasonable that replacing driver-side safety devices should take priority over replacing passenger-side airbags. 

The problem is, both versions of Takata's airbags use ammonium nitrate, which is responsible for the airbag explosions that have injured dozens of people and killed five. If you follow the news, that's no surprise: ammonium nitrate is a volatile compound, and it's caused numerous explosions at manufacturing facilities over the past few years. It's also one of the materials used in the Oklahoma City bombing. In fact, it's so explosive, its sale is regulated by the Office of Homeland Security.

Why aren't devices from other airbag manufacturers exploding upon deployment? Because Takata is the only company that opted to use ammonium nitrate

OUR TAKE

This absurdity is why we need regulators. No one in the auto industry wants to make a decision regarding these recalls, so they've collectively passed the buck, instituting administrative delays and calling for focus groups (which is simply an administrative delay with a crueler, gentler face).

NHTSA's sole job is to ensure public safety. The word "safety" is part of the agency's name. If NHTSA isn't willing to live up to that role, it should change its name and step aside so another agency can do what's needed -- like slapping Takata with the maximum fine of $35 million and demanding a nationwide recall of the company's airbags.

Frankly, we're a bit surprised that automakers haven't been more proactive on this front. Their hemming and hawing stands to tarnish their images among consumers -- and open them up to lawsuits. 

If you own one of the vehicles on the Takata recall list and you've received a recall notice, have your car serviced immediately. If you haven't received such a notice and have concerns, we encourage you to express those concerns directly to the automaker. If enough consumers complain, that could shift the discussion and put these recalls on the fast track.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.