Citation

Williams AF, Wells JK, Lund AK, Teed N. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1989; 21(5): 427-433.

Affiliation

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, VA 22201.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1989, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

2619852

Abstract

Usage of the automatic belt systems supplied by six large-volume automobile manufacturers to meet the federal requirements for automatic restraints were observed in suburban Washington, D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. The different belt systems studied were: Ford and Toyota (motorized, nondetachable automatic shoulder belt), Nissan (motorized, detachable shoulder belt), VW and Chrysler (nonmotorized, detachable shoulder belt), and GM (nonmotorized detachable lap and shoulder belt). Use of automatic belts was significantly greater than manual belt use in otherwise comparable late-model cars for all manufacturers except Chrysler; in Chrysler cars, automatic belt use was significantly lower than manual belt use. The automatic shoulder belts provided by Ford, Nissan, Toyota, and VW increased use rates to about 90%. Because use rates were lower in Ford cars with manual belts, their increase was greater. GM cars had the smallest increase in use rates; however, lap belt use was highest in GM cars. The other manufacturers supply knee bolsters to supplement shoulder belt protection; all--except VW--also provide manual lap belts, which were used by about half of those who used the automatic shoulder belt. The results indicate that some manufacturers have been more successful than others in providing automatic belt systems that result in high use that, in turn, will mean fewer deaths and injuries in those cars.