Looking briefly at the past decade in the automotive industry we are mindful that the average American's love affair with his car has been overshadowed by the presence of a new wave of consumerism. The stronger voices of the adamant consumer advocates have fed the federal fires of Congress and have resulted in Detroit's finding a new full-time partner; and the partner not only did not have to pay his dues, but the car buyer again picked up the bill.

Not unlike some of the documentaries on UHF, safety and energy are not exactly the same as watching NFL football. It is not exciting but it is expensive. To Detroit's credit, the car makers made a conscious effort to sell seat belt safety nearly twenty years ago. They were ahead of their time as the average motorist was still in his pre-consumerism atmosphere.

Again to Detroit's credit, but now with their new full partner (the federal government), the engineers have re­sponded to both the consumer and Congress in the now regular re-sizing of the cars. And this is due to continue through 1985 when makers meet the mandated 27.5 mpg for fleet average.

To many, there exists a real danger that consumer and Congress will get used to the partnership idea, assumed recognition for the advancements in design and meeting the goals, and simply continue to raise those standards. They may just become smitten with the idea that they are wiser than all of Detroit. After all, if 5-mile-per-hour crash­proof bumpers are now possible, why not go to 10; if air bags are the answer for the front passengers, why not all the way around the inside of the car; if engines and carburetors meshed with pollution equipment can average 27.5 mpg, why not 35?

Somewhere down the road of progress Detroit has to shed its new partner, or at least make it a silent partnership with the acknowledgment that the partnership is there but that Detroit's leadership and imagination will preempt constant intervention. It is not that the entire load is upon Detroit. The car buyer who influences Congress has to be convinced of the practical limitations and of the direct costs that he bears through his purchases.

Musing about the future, wouldn't it be pleasant to rekindle the real safety programs that we used to think about; i.e. more stringent driver license examinations, both written and driving; improving and finishing our interstate system; state and federal defensive driving promotion and programs; encouraging insurance companies to reward the accident-free drivers with reduced premiums, therefore shifting the burden to accident-prone drivers.

Somehow these goals seem more practical and realistic than wrapping every motorist with an air bag and a crash helmet.