(EXPANDED FROM 10/30/2020)
When Road & Track decided to go after Ralph Nader in 1972, the magazine took unusual measures. Even before an “evaluation” of a Nader report hit the newsstands, Road & Track held a news conference that drew national media. The author of the magazine’s piece, John Tomerlin, was trotted out to declare that a Nader-led study of the Volkswagen Beetle and Type 2 microbus was “inaccurate and misleading” — and that it should be retracted (Hudson, 1972).
Then came the article. By the standards of the auto buff media, Tomerlin’s piece was a veritable dissertation. In contrast to Road & Track’s typically short and photo-filled road tests, Tomerlin’s article stretched across nine pages and included numerous data tables and references. This was not light reading — which may have been the point. Most people do not have the time and skills to critically analyze such data-drenched research.
Of course, the same could be said for Nader’s report, which was published by a nonprofit organization he helped launch called the Center for Auto Safety. One of the CFAS’s first products was a report, “The Volkswagen: An Assessment of Distinctive Hazards” (Dodge, 1971). This was subsequently turned into a book entitled, Small — on safety: The designed-in dangers of the Volkswagen (CFAS; 1972a, 1972b).
So who are you going to trust?
How might the average person decide who to believe: Road & Track or CFAS? When in doubt, we tend to side with people we know and trust. So if you are an avid reader of car magazines, you may be more inclined to believe Road & Track.
This can be seen in a Curbside Classic post. When “republishing” Tomerlin’s piece, Paul Niedermeyer (2020) declared it to be a “careful analysis” that represented an “apparent exoneration” of VW.
A goodly number of commentators seemed to agree. For example, Alan (2020) decried Nader as a “zealot” and offered kudos to Road & Track for avoiding the tendency of today’s journalism to get “folks riled up . . . on one side or the other, without even attempting to get to the facts.”
A few commentators did question Road & Track’s take. As a case in point, 210delray (2020) stated, “I don’t have time to read John Tomerlin’s R&T rebuttal . . . but my recollection of similar reports by him in the 1970s, arguing the case against airbags and the US 55-mph speed limit, showed he had an ability to project an air of scholarship but that his goal IMO was to reach a preordained conclusion.”
Tomerlin played rhetorical games with the microbus
A good example of Tomerlin’s approach was his response to CFAS’s criticisms of the Type 2 microbus. This was a key part of the debate because here is where Nader’s group offered the most provocative recommendation.
Whereas the report recommended that the Beetle be recalled to fix a number of items, it declared the microbus to be “so unsafe that it should be removed from the roads entirely.” The biggest reason was the “flagrant lack of front collapse distance even when compared to similar vans of other manufacturers” (CFAS, 1972b; p. 160).
Also see ‘Larry Printz’s anti-Ralph Nader rant hurts reputation of The Detroit Bureau’
CFAS pointed to research showing that the microbus had the highest number of serious or fatal injuries of any automobile analyzed. Tomerlin tried to rebut this by noting that the research did not include other vans. He argued that it wasn’t fair to compare the microbus with regular passenger cars.
CFAS disagreed, noting that the microbus was often bought as a substitute for a passenger car, so making that comparison was reasonable.
In a response to Tomerlin’s story printed in a subsequent issue of Road & Track, CFAS offered additional data that the microbus did not even compare well with newer American vans. Whereas the VW had “a scant half foot” of crush space, the Chevrolet and Dodge vans had “more than a foot and a half of crush distance and the Ford van about a foot” (CFAS, 1972a; p. 138).
Road & Track avoided the obvious conclusion
CFAS also responded to Tomerlin’s criticism of an illustration in its report that compared a Type 2 with a typical U.S. passenger car. He had stated that the second arrow (see below) exaggerated the latter vehicle’s advantage because “space occupied by the engine must be deducted” (Tomerlin, 1972; p. 31).
CFAS presented data from Consumer Reports that showed how once you subtracted for “the incompressible engine,” most American sedans had three feet of crush space. That was still quite a bit more than the VW’s half a foot (CFAS, 1972a; p. 138).
Road & Track did not acknowledge the new data. Instead, magazine editors repeated Tomerlin’s original complaint in a rebuttal to CFAS that was published a few months later (CFAS, 1972a; p. 138).
The bottom line is that Road & Track played disingenuous lawyerly tricks rather than copping to a core problem with the Type 2: Its old-fashioned, “cab-forward” design made its front passengers more vulnerable in a frontal crash than virtually any other vehicle then being sold in the U.S.
Why did Road & Track defend VW so slavishly?
Tomerlin’s punchline was that “Ralph Nader [should] observe the ‘ethical imperative’ to recall the VW Report and publicly retract its inaccuracies.” Since he brought up ethics, let’s put the shoe on the other foot.
If Road & Track did not offer an honest assessment of the Type 2, how could a careful reader take at face value anything else stated in Tomerlin’s story and the magazine’s subsequent rebuttal to CFAS’s comments?
What’s particularly revealing about Road & Track’s defense of the Type 2 is that the magazine couldn’t hide behind arcane statistical debates, like it often did in defending the Beetle. Anyone who has ever sat in a Type 2 has seen the relative lack of crush space. By not acknowledging this, Road & Track appeared to be slavishly defending VW.
This is an example of how car buff magazines have been used by the auto industry as proxies to attack its opponents. The strategy is a simple one: If an automaker such as VW pushed back against criticisms from CFAS, it would look less credible than if a supposedly independent media outlet such as Road & Track did so.
What would real journalism have looked like?
All car buff magazines of yore depended heavily on advertising from automakers. That inevitably gave them less editorial independence than Consumer Reports, which is a nonprofit publication that has never accepted advertising — and even buys its own test cars (go here for further discussion).
Let’s step back from the cold, hard realities of the for-profit publishing world and imagine what Road & Track could have done with a Nader-versus-VW story if it took the risk of practicing truly independent journalism.
I would have started by hiring an investigative reporter with more experience in objective analysis. Tomerlin strikes me as having been too much of an anti-regulation ideologue to synthesize conflicting views.
When it came to the Type 2, it would have been entirely fair for Road & Track to point out the exaggeration in CFAS’s illustration of crush space. However, the magazine should have also acknowledged that Nader’s group was essentially correct: The vehicle’s design was obsolete from a safety standpoint.
Also see ‘Ralph Nader on Car and Driver magazine vilifying him’
By the same token, it strikes me as reasonable for Road & Track to have stopped short of agreeing with CFAS that all Type 2s should have been taken off the road. However, the magazine should have recommended that VW follow in the footsteps of U.S. automakers by ditching the cab-forward design.
Correspondence showed R&T’s ideological blinders
Back in the real world, Road & Track instead went with a no-holds-barred advocacy piece. You can see this most clearly by reading through the letters exchanged between CFAS and Road & Track senior staff following publication of Tomerlin’s story.
As a case in point, Editor James Crow parroted a long-used industry line that drivers “cause the overwhelming number of accidents, not cars.” He then applied this logic to the VW: “Beetles don’t kill people, bad drivers kill people” (1972, p. 130; original italics).
Crow went on to repeat Tomerlin’s conclusion: “No panacea, no simple solution to the problem of highway safety presently exists. To imply that there is one is a disservice to the motoring public and to the cause of highway safety” (1972, p. 130).
This was a strawman argument. CFAS staff member Bernard O’Meara noted that neither Nader nor their organization had “ever contended that cars are the primary cause of crashes.” In addition, the report’s chapter on suspension, handling and sidewind sensitivity “seemed to evoke little disagreement from either Road & Track or Mr. Tomerlin” (1972, p. 134).
My biggest takeaway from the correspondence is that Road & Track staff were so rigidly anti-Nader that they were hesitant to acknowledge any points of agreement.
Tomerlin’s story is the gift that keeps on giving
My goal in writing this essay was not to give Nader and the CFAS a free pass. I did not have access to all of the relevant documents needed to critique their VW report. So instead I have focused on how Road & Track addressed the Type 2. My emphasis has been on crush space because this topic is not heavily grounded in statistical debates.
Also see ‘Why does The Daily Drive repost discredited anti-Nader rant?’
Road & Track’s analysis appears to have been quite “careful” — but from a legalistic rather than a journalistic standpoint. Tomerlin and his editors acted like a legal team that knew their client was guilty. Thus, their defense of the Type 2 consisted of nitpicks and redirects that ultimately did not rebut the core allegations. Instead of exonerating the microbus, Road & Track merely undercut its own journalistic credibility.
That said, I have got to give the magazine some credit. Here we are, a half century later, and Road & Track’s propaganda is still winning hearts and minds.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted Oct. 30, 2020 and mildly expanded on April 24, 2023.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- 210delray; 2020. Commentator in “Road & Track Takes On Ralph Nader: ‘Nader VS. Volkswagen – A R&T Report’ – A Forceful Rebuttal (and Apparent Exoneration”‘ Curbside Classic. Posted 8:14 p.m., Oct. 17.
- Alan; 2020. Commentator in “Road & Track Takes On Ralph Nader: ‘Nader VS. Volkswagen – A R&T Report’ – A Forceful Rebuttal (and Apparent Exoneration).” Curbside Classic. Posted 1:06 p.m., Oct. 17.
- CFAS; 1972a. “The Nader Group’s Reply, Road & Track’s Reply to the Reply.” U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce Serial No. 93-11. Undated: pp. 134-143.
- ——; 1972b. Small–on safety: The designed-in dangers of the Volkswagen. Center for Auto Safety. Grossman Publishers.
- Crow, James; 1972. Correspondence with CFAS. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce Serial No. 93-11. Dated May 17: pp. 29-31.
- Dodge, Lowell; 1971. Excerpts from The Volkswagen: An Assessment Of Distinctive Hazards. Editor. Center for Auto Safety. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce Serial No. 93-11: pp. 144-170.
- Hudson, Edward; 1972. “Nader Scored on Volkswagen.” The New York Times. Published March 12.
- Niedermeyer; 2020. “Road & Track Takes On Ralph Nader: ‘Nader VS. Volkswagen – A R&T Report’ – A Forceful Rebuttal (and Apparent Exoneration).” Curbside Classic. Posted Oct. 17.
- O’Meara, Bernard P; 1972. Correspondence with Road & Track magazine. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce Serial No. 93-11. Dated May 31: pp. 31-34.
- Tomerlin, John; 1972. “Ralph Nader vs. Volkswagen.” Road & Track. April: pp. 25-33.
- Wikipedia; 2020. “Small — On Safety.” Page last edited June 30.
- YOHAI72; 2020. “Vintage Road & Track Report: The Facts Behind Airbags – Do We Need Them? *Updated.” Curbside Classic. Posted Oct. 25.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): Volkswagen Beetle (1964)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Ford (1970)
Advertising is just one factor. Auto writers and auto industry people socialized together, and quite a few people (perhaps most notably C/D’s DED) hopped over the fence between them at least once. Many members of both groups also shared the same enthusiast culture, which venerated “driving skills.” There was–and still is–insufficient separation for an objective critique.
More broadly, many of the readers wanted to believe that they were skilled and that their skills would protect them. This is somewhat similar to the belief that changing fluids regularly will also prevent the failure of non-lubricated parts like the electrical system. People want to feel like they have control over the chaotic world.
All of the above said, Nader and Consumer Reports had their own weaknesses. All entities, even those that supposedly profit no one, seek to expand their influence and revenues. CR has been aware of my critiques against their survey methodology for years, and I’m sure some people inside have the same issues. But 99.9% of the population lacks the desire or knowledge to comprehend these flaws, so why fix them? Even without the profit motive doing things the right way to provide valid information isn’t sufficient justification. They’re serving some other end. Nothing nefarious, just the usual human stuff.
Thank you for adding more context about the professional culture that surrounds the auto industry. This reminds me of how Bruce McCall of The New York Times wrote that Detroit is “a self-isolated world, a kindly way of saying its worldview matches that of any West Virginia hollow for insularity. The lodge is a fortress, wary of outsiders, i.e., non-initiates, if not hostile to them, and unreceptive to their automotive concerns (or, in the argot, meddling). A ‘not invented here’ pathology has over and over stalled adoption of big European-bred technological advances — disc brakes, the air bag, antilock braking — for years.” (go here for longer quote and link).
And, yes, Nader and Consumer Reports did indeed have their own weaknesses. Over the years you’ve done a great job of articulating CU’s methodological issues. My point wasn’t to glorify them but rather to look at the safety movement with a more balanced perspective.
I think that one of the reasons why Detroit failed to adequately respond to a rising tide of imports was because the auto media were all too often lacking in journalistic independence. Of course, in this case Road & Track was carrying water for the industry as a whole by attacking Nader. But it does illustrate how the buff magazines didn’t do real “investigative reporting.” This piece was a public-relations exercise.