Secretary Dole and the Future of Automobile Airbags

Abstract

This article, which describes the Reagan administration's involvement in the airbag controversy and the resultant plans of the Secretary of Transportation (Mrs. Dole), examines the options and the strengths and vulnerabilities of the final policy. The three technologies that have proven ability to mitigate the severity of crash injuries are manual lap and shoulder belts, automatic belts, and air cushion (airbag) systems. The rank ordering of these three devices is not disputed and all parties agree that the best system for injury mitigation is the airbags-belts combination, followed by manual lap and shoulder belts and then automatic belts. In response to conflicting pressures, Mrs. Dole compromised by reinstating the Carter administration's rule on a phased-in-schedule: automatic crash protection is required in 10% of the 1987 models, 25% of the 1988 models, 40% of 1989 models and 100% of 1990 and later models. To encourage the installation of airbags and friendly interiors, the new rule provides that each car with these innovative devices would be counted as one-and-a-half units in calculations of each manufacturer's contribution to the phase-in percentages. However, there was a trap door: if states containing two thirds of the U.S. population adopt mandatory seatbelt laws by April 1, 1989, then the automatic-restraint rule is to be rescinded. This trigger provision applies only if state laws satisfy certain criteria, such as a minimum fine of $25 for violators and a plan for implementation and enforcement of the law. This plan instigated a dramatic increase in pressure for adoption of belt-use laws. Leaders of the automobile industry saw the trigger provision as a political opportunity. Almost overnight, Detroit's lukewarm support for seatbelt legislation was transformed into an aggressive, $15 million lobbying campaign in state capitals throughout the nation. Buckle-up laws vs. automatic belts are diccussed as well as the future of airbags. It is noted that the belt technology does not offer great promise as an approach to protecting the health of high-risk groups, such as teenagers or citizens who mix drinking and driving. Unless society can effectively ban driving by those who neglect or refuse to wear safety belts, the public health argument for installation of airbags will remain strong.