Editorial

Motherhood, the flag, our church...good-looking girls, a summer place secluded on a clear lake in die middle of July (with an ice cold bottle of Bud), all your bills paid . . . these are like safety. Everyone is for it and anyone who voices his concern over any phase of it is open to immediate criticism from almost every corner.

Yet, despite the noblest of efforts the fleet manager, like the consumer buying public, must be cognizant of the growing cost of safety. Professional men who must maintain records on the cost of every item of ex­pense are necessarily concerned with the rising net cost of safety.

The National Traffic Safety Agency has brought a realistic approach to an area of automotive design that has long been neglected. Detroit engineers and marketing people have admitted this privately to me. The new standards, most of which will be incor­porated into the start of 1968 model production, are reasonable, and safety agency chief, Dr. William Haddon Jr., has to be considered as a candidate for "automotive man of the year" for the efforts he has directed toward the needed solutions in a very con­troversial area. Pressure groups from both sides have instituted very deliberate campaigns to influence the agency's decisions; this is known. Also known and factual is that both sides will remain somewhat un­happy with whatever compromises are made. So Had­don hardly has what is termed an enviable position.

Rational thinkers are aware that all things effect to a degree. No one can possibly place a monetary value on a life lost or saved in traffic exposure. Cer­tainly fewer lives will be lost with the current pro­gram and additional ones will be saved in the years ahead with knowledgeable engineering. No sane man will dispute this or challenge it.

Strongly relating to this movement is the cost to you and me. The professional fleet man, no doubt more safety-conscious than any other group, cannot ignore the consciousness of his own responsibilities in cost-saving economy. The current models increased nearly $50 because of safety innovations. The 1968 models are estimated to rise by $60 to $100. Resale return already supports the original feeling that little, if anything, will be returned from this additional in­vestment. Anti-pollution devices, which become man­datory for all ears at the same time, will add another $18 to $50 on the top. All in the interest of good health and survival.

Realistically this new program is costing the auto­makers millions; it is passed on substantially to the buyer. Therefore the buyer is picking up the tab for millions; and now he has to support another govern­ment agency as well.

My point in evaluating the cost is that the burden to date has been almost wholly on the automaker "to improve". Well and good! But the avowed safety ex­perts, and in the last few years we seem to have nurtured quite a number, agree that the vast majority of: traffic deaths are not of auto design origin. Our thought is that a great deal more of the millions being expended can be more properly channeled to the core problem areas of saving traffic lives: pedestrian education, state inspection laws, better streets and roads, wider utilization of driver education for school age kids and adults . . . for the nut on the wheel, stronger licensing laws and total driver education such as promoting the use of seat belts.

At one of the recent press previews held outside Detroit it was interesting to note that the automaker secretly checked the use of seat belts by automotive newsmen during the driving tests of the new models. Now remember, this is a professional group; less than 50% used the belts. Legislation in this area of per­sonal freedom is going to be difficult.

We are well on our way toward the saving of pre­cious lives. Everyone agrees that it will be costly and that it could not be directed for a better cause. Our plea is for proper direction in the total picture of traffic safety.