Mandatory passive restraints

ECONOMICS OF MANDATORY PASSIVE RESTRAINTS BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS, RULEMAKING AND COURT DECISIONS... 

Economics of Mandatory passive Restraints Benefit-Cost Analysis, Rulemaking and Court Decisions... 

BENEFIT-COST STUDIES OF MANDATORY PASSIVE RESTRAINTS... 

A sketch of an exemplary study illustrates what should be contained in a benefit-cost analysis of mandatory passive restraints if it is to be useful ... 

The first independent attempt to estimate conventionally the benefits and costs of mandatory passive restraints was made by Richard Amould and Henry Grabowski. For the reduction in fatalities and injuries in crashes they use two sets of estimates. One set is based on a 1981 field team study of rural traffic accidents which shows, for example that fatalities are reduced by 34 percent by air bags and lap belts together, 32 percent by lap and shoulder belts together, 28 percent by passive belts, and 25 percent by air bags alone. The field study estimates are only appronmately one half of the NHTSA lab study estimates which is the other set. Arnould and Grabowski assume that 60 to 70 percent of occupants with passive belts would use them and that 0 to 20 percent of occupants with air bags would also use lap belts. Occupant protection is assumed to have no affect on chances of accidents. The 1 5 distribution of traffic accident injuries and the estimates of restraint effectiveness in crashes are used to calculate the fatalities and injuries prevented. 

The major features of the four benefit-cost analyses discussed are summarized in Table 4-1. While differences exist, they share a common result. We might offer a conclusion based on these conventional benefit cost studies that the mandatory passive restraints poli<7 as described in the Adams Rule passes the social net benefit test. 

Recall that an exemplary benefit-cost analysis of mandatory passive restraints should reflect changes in the chances of survival in accidents and any changes in the chances of accidents. The analysis should reflect costs of installation of equipment and any increases m operation costs borne by vehicle users. The general problem with the studies reviewed is that they have taken a technological approach to traffic safety. An individual net benefit approach, which is consistent with the exemplary sodal benefit-cost analysis, suggests two critical areas of inadequaqr. The studies fail to incorporate estimates of changes in chances of accidents due to motorist response and user costs of passive safety belts associated with discomfort and inconvenience. 

The upward bias is inherent in a technological approach to traffic safety. The rigid approach caused problems in measuring the contribution of vehicle safety regulation export and it causes problems for evaluating mandatory passive restraints ex ante. The individual net benefit approach is a better approach because it incorporates zero risk compensation as a special case and permits attempts to measure any risk compensation. 

The decision to rescind the Adams Rule was not made counter to results of an exemplary benefit-cost analysis which show positive net benefits of mandatory passive restraints. Taken together the four studies reviewed show positive net benefits, but they are not exemplary because they ignored crucial factors. The studies are biased in favor of a passive restraints rule because accident chances will be greater for occupants and nonoccupants—not fixed. 

Given NHTSA s emphasis on the case of little net benefit in its analysis it is not surprising that the mandatory passive restraints rule was rescinded in October 1981. The reasons given were ... 

From an economic perpective, analysis of mandatory passive restraints should consider the ensting, nonregulatory safety efforts. The driving force behind the nonregulatory effort is that motorists themselves have the most to gain and lose in matters of traffic safety. The goal of safety regulation, from an economic perspective, is to improve the decisions made by motorists by... 

Just as imperfections can be found in the traffic safety behavior of individual travelers so can imperfections be found in the formulation and implementation of traffic safety policy. Vehicle technology has been emphasized at the expense of nontechnological safety measures. Safety of passenger car occupants has been emphasized at the expense of other travelers. Net benefits of crashworthiness standards such as mandatory passive restraints have been exaggerated because safety gains are overestimated and some costs are ignored. The Dole Rule on passive restraints only partly satisfies the five criteria for analytical acceptability. 

---