Protection of automobile occupants in crashes has been a matter of public debate for more than a decade. While those years have yielded a laudible literature of research and development accomplishment, the subject of occupant crash protection remains a political cause celebre, with powerful adherents to either side of the belt/bag controversy and a mountain of printed rhetoric. Delayed repeatedly in the past, there is still reason to question the likelihood of passive restraints implementation on the announced NHTSA schedule.

More research is needed to give full assurance of safety of air cushion systems in these areas:​ 1) small child static deployment injuries, 2) sodium azide toxicity, and 3) diminished adult injury tolerance. On the other hand, there remains the nagging lack of voluntary use of active shoulder belt systems. Only one "passive" restraint system has seen extensive acceptance and use as a true user option. The VW Rabbit passive belt/kneebar is an outstanding example of design initiative that is yielding excellent benefits and relatively high usage.

Among the airbag design options, one system holds the multiple promise of significant and early safety benefits at reasonable cost, while minimizing exposure to those lingering uncertainties. An airbag plus active lap belt for the driver only, and a passive-belt and knee bolster for right-front passenger, together with conventional active/ passive belt and warning systems for the remaining seating positions, clearly offers the greatest protection at the least cost of all viable alternatives for large cars. This configuration also presents the unique prospect of large-scale real world experience, which is the only real way to answer many of the nagging questions about restraints effectiveness.

The driver position, unique in its occupancy and occupant proximity to easily-managed vehicle structure, presents an outstanding opportunity to reap benefits at reasonable cost. Further, it avoids most of the negative effects of air cushion systems. Alternatives which allow the optimization of larger car restraint for seating position and occupancy should be pursued. Their optional implementation requires only that the center front passenger position (less than 5% of occupant casualties) be exempted from the passivity requirements. Rulemaking to allow such an option would be consistent with sound occupant protection policy.