Federal legislation makes airbags mandatory

Federal legislation makes airbags mandatory

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

On September 1, 1998, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 finally goes into effect. The law required that all cars and light trucks sold in the United States have air bags on both sides of the front seat.

Inspired by the inflatable protective covers on Navy torpedoes, an industrial engineering technician from Pennsylvania named John Hetrick patented a design for a “safety cushion assembly for automotive vehicles” in 1953. The next year, Hetrick sent sketches of his device to Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, but the automakers never responded. Inflatable-safety-cushion technology languished until 1965, when Ralph Nader’s book “Unsafe at Any Speed” speculated that seat belts and air bags together could prevent thousands of deaths in car accidents.

In 1966, Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act, which required automakers to put seat belts, but not air bags, in every car they built. Unfortunately, the law did not require people to use their seat belts, and only about 25 percent did. Air bags seemed like the perfect solution to this problem: They could protect drivers and passengers in car crashes whether they chose to buckle up or not.

While Ford and GM began to install air bags in some vehicles during the 1970s, some experts began to wonder if they caused more problems than they solved. When air bags inflated, they could hit people of smaller stature–and children in particular–so hard that they could be seriously hurt or even killed. A 1973 study suggested that three-point (lap and shoulder) seat belts were more effective and less risky than air bags anyway. But as air-bag technology improved, automakers began to install them in more and more vehicles, and by the time the 1991 law was passed, they were a fairly common feature in many cars. Still, the law gave carmakers time to overhaul their factories if necessary: It did not require passenger cars to have air bags until after September 1, 1997. (Truck manufacturers got an extra year to comply with the law).

Researchers estimate that air bags reduce the risk of dying in a head-on collision by 30 percent, and they agree that the bags have saved more than 10,000 lives since the late 1980s. (Many of those people were not wearing seat belts, which experts believe have saved more than 211,000 lives since 1975.) Today, they are standard equipment in almost 100 million cars and trucks.

History of Airbags

Airbags are one of the things you need, but hope to never use. Of course, no one with the right mind would like their car to crash for the airbags to blow up. But still it gives us the feeling of safety and protection while driving – thanks to their inventors. Here’s how this gas-inflated, built-in cushions were developed through the years to bring us protection from an impact in case of car accidents.

The War on Drugs, a Brief History

Beginning in the mid-1970s, Congress began to lengthen sentences, culminating in the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which established mandatory minimum sentences and eliminated federal parole.

During the heyday of the war on drugs, from 1985 to 1992 legislators began to lengthen these drug sentences. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was established, which imposed even more mandatory minimum sentences. Feeling that wasn't punishment enough, two years later a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, with no evidence of intent to sell was passed.

In the 1990's "three strikes laws" were introduced, sentencing any person with two prior convictions to life without parole. “Truth in sentencing” policies also demanded that people serve their full sentences. This culminated in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which included a three strikes provision at the federal level.

Today, more than half of U.S. states have a three strikes provision.

When Did Mandatory Vaccinations Become Common?

Herbal panaceas, special cloths, strict diets, cool drinks, eschewing fireplaces, and the edict that a patient’s bedclothes be no higher than the patient’s waist—these were the prescriptions of the pre-inoculation era when someone contracted smallpox. For centuries pandemic diseases devastated much of mankind. Hardly more than a century ago, 20% of children fell to disease before the age of five, a staggering 20% more died before entering into adolescence, survivors finding little recourse in adulthood from the scourges of the age—diphtheria, yellow fever, small pox, measles, pertussis, and a deadly handful of others. It was in such a dire period that the first federal health mandates were made and bore the political origins of compulsory vaccination.

A string of yellow fever outbreaks erupted between 1793 and 1798, taking thousands of lives and leaving the nation dizzy with loss. Shortly after the outbreaks, John Adams signed and established the first federal quarantine law against the recurrent epidemics of yellow fever. According to Carleton B. Chapman, an MD, the Federal Quarantine Proposal of 1796 met “virtually no opposition.”

A couple of years later, in 1798, Congress returned to the issue after a high percentage of marine workers succumbed to yellow fever. For the first time ever,, Congress required privately employed sailors to own insurance and authorized the collection of a monthly payroll tax to fund it. John Adams promptly signed the law when it reached his desk.

Chapman states that few founders contested the federal government’s responsibility to protect the population from epidemics like yellow fever. The real issue, he reports, “was which level of government should enact and enforce quarantine.” This was the same question that arose years later when vaccination gained popularity in the medical field. Wendy K. Marine, George J. Annas, and Leonard Glantz explain that while Jeffersonians were uncomfortable with a strong federal role, Jefferson himself favored a bill that required the federal government to “guarantee and distribute effective vaccine” and signed it into law in 1813. Ultimately, Congress decided that the best approach was to leave the implementation of vaccination efforts up to state and local authorities.

America had many years of experience with vaccinations. The Puritans provided for vaccinations against smallpox after an outbreak devastated New England. But immunizations weren’t required anywhere in the United States until 1809, when Boston imposed mandatory vaccination to quell recurring outbreaks of smallpox that patchy, voluntary vaccination was permitting. Subsequently, some states adopted similar legislation. Scholars Alexandra Minna Stern and Howard Markel report that incidences of smallpox markedly declined between 1802 and 1840, but made major reappearances in the 1830s and 1870s when public memory of life imperiled by disease had dimmed and “irregular physicians” of the 1850s challenged the practice of immunization with “unorthodox medical theories.” One skeptical leader, British immigrant and reformer William Tebb, claimed, facts notwithstanding, that vaccination induced 80% of smallpox cases. Further, he alleged 25,000 children were “slaughtered” in Britain each year thanks to the program. The arguments were preposterous and contrary to evidence, but resonated with the public.

There’s a striking parallel to current anti-vaxxer scares playing on people’s fears, like the discredited and recanted study that alleged vaccination induced autism. Anti-vaccinationist Dr. J.F. Banton warned that vaccination would introduce “bioplasm” into the bloodstream and expose subjects to the “vices, passions, and diseases of the cow.” Stern and Markel relate that critics of vaccination claimed it was a “destructive and potentially defiling procedure of heroic medicine” akin to blood-letting. Many working-class people voiced the fear you hear today that the work of scientists was an “assault on their communities by the ruling class” and an “intrusion of their privacy and bodily integrity.”

The upshot? Smallpox cases surged to numbers that had not been seen in decades. Consequently, many states enacted new vaccination laws while others began enforcing existing laws. This, in turn, stirred increased opposition. California, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, repealed compulsory laws in response to the agitation.

Cambridge, Massachusetts found itself in the throes of a smallpox outbreak in 1902. Disease beset the area and threatened to spread into a major epidemic. To stop this from happening in the future the state passed a law giving city boards of health the authority to mandate vaccinations. But some people objected. When officials ordered Henning Jacobson, a Swedish immigrant and Lutheran pastor to be vaccinated, he refused treatment on grounds of past harm, saying both he and his son had experienced “extreme suffering.” Jacobson’s status as an ethnic and religious minority likely contributed to his decision to refuse treatment. His distrust of authority is shared today by many African Americans, who well remember that racist scientists performed experiments such as the Tuskegee syphilis study on people of color.

In a sense, Jacobson represented the quintessential anti-vaxxer, which may be why his case caught the eye of the anti-vaccination league, which encouraged Jacobson’s recalcitrance and may or may not have provided the Harvard-trained James W. Pickering and Henry Ballard to represent him in court. Eventually the case made its way to the United States Supreme Court. In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the state against Jacobson the Court having found that an immunization rate of 85-90 percent confers protection on the entire group. The landmark Supreme Court case Jacobson v Massachusetts served as the precedent for future court decisions and the foundation of public health laws.

The Supreme Court considered the ordinance again in 1922 when some objected to the requirement that school children be vaccinated. Once again, the principle of mandatory vaccination was upheld. By 1969 compulsory immunization laws in twelve states—Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and West Virginia—had expanded to include smallpox, measles, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus. Meanwhile, seven states—Arizona, California, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington—found it unlawful to compel citizens to be vaccinated for smallpox while still requiring pre-enrollment immunization for other diseases like measles.

Since its inception compulsory public health laws have generated skepticism and resistance. Today, recent measles outbreaks—176 affected from January 1rst to March 13th, 2015—have revitalized a long-lived debate and precipitated discussion about new approaches to public education.

New Federal Legislation Seeks to Eliminate Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

While arbitration as a form of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) has long had a presence in American jurisprudence, a recent Supreme Court decision —coupled with significant cultural trends —have left many employers and legislators wondering about the continued viability of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration for all employment disputes.

Is the FAIR Act Fundamentally Unfair to Employers?

On February 28, 2019, U.S. Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) and U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced “The Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act” (“FAIR Act”) which seeks to (1) prohibit pre-dispute arbitration agreements that force arbitration of future employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes, and (2) prohibit agreements and practices that interfere with the rights of individuals, workers, and small businesses to participate in a joint, class, or collective action related to an employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights dispute.

The Senate bill is S. 610. It has 33 co-sponsors, all Democrats. It has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it is unlikely to receive consideration. The House bill (H.R. 1423), on the other hand, has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it is likely to receive active consideration. It has 160 co-sponsors.

Impact of the Fair Act

If enacted, this legislation would drastically alter employer/employee relations nationwide—particularly due to the bill’s rather broad definition of an “employment dispute.” The bill would render unenforceable any arbitration agreement raised in response to a dispute between one or more individuals (or their union) and a person “arising out of or related to the work relationship or prospective work relationship between them, including a dispute regarding the terms of or payment for, advertising of, recruiting for, referring of, arranging for, discipline or discharge in connection with, such work.” This legislation would apply to agreements made with both employees and independent contractors alike.

Perhaps the largest blow to employers would be the bill’s prohibition on agreements that require aggrieved employees to pursue their claims on an individual rather than a class basis. One of the biggest advantages that mandatory arbitration provides is the ability to compel aggrieved employees to individual arbitrations, rather than pursuing class claims against employers. Individual arbitration clauses are generally used to prevent small claim/high stakes lawsuits—suits where plaintiffs’ possible recovery is exceeded by the cost of litigation but which could cost companies significant sums if brought as a class action. When the clause is enforced against such a claim, plaintiffs usually have to abandon the suit, as the cost of arbitrating on an individual basis is prohibitively expensive, and the potential recovery is too low for them to secure representation. What was once a contentious legal grey area has now been firmly established by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. The Court in Epic Systems held that arbitration contracts that compelled employees to arbitrate individually, as opposed to collectively, were to be enforced by those terms. The Court went on to conclude that agreements that require employees to waive their right to bring a collective action do not violate any provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

History of Arbitration

Favorable judicial treatment of arbitration can be traced to The Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (“FAA”). Its enactment represented a national policy favoring the practice and made agreements to arbitrate valid and enforceable unless one party could show fraud, unconscionability, or some other grounds that would be sufficient to render the contract unenforceable. Since the enactment of the FAA, the use of arbitration has grown substantially, particularly in the labor and employment context where the use of mandatory arbitration agreements has become a widespread practice. Mandatory arbitration agreements are generally entered into by prospective employees as a precondition to employment with limited opportunity afforded for negotiation. These agreements typically require employees to bring claims against their employers in solo arbitration, rather than a court.

Advantages and Widespread Use of Arbitration

There are, of course, positives and negatives to the use of arbitration. First, arbitration is typically much quicker than court proceedings, which in turn results in less attorney hours being billed, saving employers both money and internal resources. Additionally, many arbitration agreements include confidentiality clauses that can help shield employers from the embarrassment and reputational harm that can potentially come from a public trial or media focus. Of course, another advantage is the ability to compel aggrieved employees to pursue their claims individually. One significant downside of arbitration is the difficulty in appealing an arbitrator’s decision—judicial review of arbitration decisions is severely constrained under both federal and state law. Other downsides are that employers find it difficult to prevail using a motion to dismiss prior to trial, employers must shoulder the full cost of arbitration, and discovery obligations can be very broad.

It is easy to see how the advantages offered by mandatory arbitration agreements have resulted in their widespread implementation across the private sector. One study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit employee advocacy group, found that “more than half—53.9 percent—of nonunion private-sector employers have mandatory arbitration procedures. Among companies with 1,000 or more employees, 65.1 percent have mandatory arbitration procedures.” The study further estimates that “among private-sector nonunion employees, 56.2 percent are subject to mandatory employment arbitration procedures.”

Other Legislation Targeting Arbitration

It is expected that The Restoring Justice for Workers Act will be introduced in 2019 by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). In the last Congress, it had 58 co-sponsors, all Democrats. The bill would prohibit mandatory pre-dispute arbitration in the employment context altogether. In addition, the bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act, and would prescribe relief set forth by the Civil Rights Act in civil actions.

In addition, The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act likely will be re-introduced by Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY). It would prohibit mandatory pre-dispute arbitration of sex discrimination claims. It had bipartisan support in the last Congress.

Cultural Trends and Pushback in the #MeToo Era

Despite its long history and widespread use, however, cultural trends — and particularly the “#MeToo” movement — have led to a strengthening pushback against employers who utilize mandatory arbitration agreements in their hiring. #MeToo advocates argue that mandatory arbitration agreements often keep survivor experiences and perpetrator behaviors secret due to non-disclosure agreements. Largely in reaction to these arguments, several large employers have begun to reassess their use of the agreements, some eliminating them entirely. For example, a week after 20,000 employees walked out of Google in protest over allegations of sexual misconduct by high level executives, the company announced that it would be ending its enforcement of mandatory arbitration agreements. Similar actions have been taken by other large employers, such as Facebook, Microsoft, Uber, and Lyft. Even the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson announced that it would no longer require employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements.


While the FAIR Act would result in sweeping change to employment relations across the country, it appears — at least for now — that mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements are here to stay. With a Republican controlled Senate, it seems very unlikely that this bill will be taken up for a vote, much less signed into law.

1032. Sentencing Enhancement—"Three Strikes" Law

The following text was taken from a March 13, 1995, memorandum to all United States Attorneys from Assistant Attorney General Jo Ann Harris (Criminal Division) on the subject of the "Three Strikes" law. (18 U.S.C. § 3559(c))


FROM: Jo Ann Harris
Assistant Attorney General

An important purpose of the Anti-Violent Crime Initiative is to work with our state and local counterparts to take violent criminals off the streets. When a firearm is involved, we have long used the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to achieve the prolonged incarceration of armed, violent offenders. Under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, we have a powerful new federal tool, the so-called "Three Strikes, You're Out" provision, to help us deal with violent repeat offenders.

This provision should play a key role in every district's anti-violent crime strategy. To help us make the most effective use possible of this potential tool, please ensure that state and local prosecutors are aware of the federal "Three Strikes" provision and your willingness to coordinate prosecutive decisions in cases that are "Three Strikes"-eligible. You should have in place a referral mechanism, perhaps through your violent crime working group, to ensure that appropriate "Three Strikes" cases are presented to you for potential prosecution.

In determining whether to bring prosecutions under this statute, you should be guided by the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Trial of an eligible defendant under "Three Strikes will often provide a more effective punishment than a prosecution under,other federal statutes. For the state prosecutor, "Three Strikes" provides a vehicle to take the most dangerous offenders out of the community and keep them out. This is particularly important in states where prison overcrowding results in early release even for violent criminals.

The "Three Strikes" statute is sufficiently important to our violence enforcement efforts that I want to underscore its key provisions. Under the federal "Three Strikes" provision, which is now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), the defendant receives mandatory life imprisonment if he or she:

  • is convicted in federal court of a "serious violent felony" and
  • has two or more prior convictions in federal or state courts, at least one of which is a "serious violent felony." The other prior offense may be a "serious drug offense."

Under the statute, a "serious violent felony" includes murder, manslaughter, sex offenses, kidnapping, robbery, and any offense punishable by 10 years or more which includes as an element the use of force or that, by its nature, involves a significant risk of force. The statute also enumerates certain nonqualifying felonies, including unarmed robbery offenses and arsons that posed no threat to human life.

An unarmed robbery offense may serve as a basis for "Three Strikes" sentencing if the offense involved the threat of use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon -or the offense resulted in death or serious bodily injury to any person. If the government files in such a case, the defendant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that neither of those factors existed.

An arson will not serve as the basis for "Three Strikes" sentencing if the defendant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the offense posed no threat to human life and the defendant reasonably believed that it posed no threat to human life.

A "serious drug offense" includes continuing criminal enterprise, violations of Title 21 involving distribution, manufacture, or possession with intent to distribute significant quantities of controlled substances, or equivalent state offenses.

There is a sequencing requirement in the statute: each offense relied upon, except the first, must have been committed after the conviction of the preceding serious violent felony or serious drug offense. The predicate convictions must be final. Sentencing under the statute is triggered by notice filed by the prosecutor with the court prior to trial or plea of guilty in accord with the procedures contained in 21 U.S.C. S 851(a). We suggest that you file notice only after receiving certified copies of the prior convictions or otherwise verifying the validity of the convictions on which you intend to rely.

Section 851(a) of Title 21 requires the filing of an information with the court prior to trial or prior to the entry of a plea of guilty, stating in writing the convictions to be relied upon for sentencing. A copy must be served on the defendant or counsel for the defendant.

The statute does not apply to persons subject to the criminal jurisdiction of an Indian tribal government for offenses committed in Indian country where federal jurisdiction is predicated solely on Indian country, unless the governing body of the tribe has elected that the provision have effect over land and persons subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the tribe.

Furthermore, you should aggressively use all available federal violent felony provisions, including the Hobbs Act, to achieve prolonged incarceration for "Three Strikes"-eligible defendants. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, the Hobbs Act covers a robbery that in any way affects interstate commerce, including the robbery of a convenience store or other commercial establishment. While the Department has promoted use of the Hobbs Act robbery provision primarily in cases involving criminal organizations or gangs, you also should consider using it where a defendant's criminal history would support a life sentence under "Three Strikes." These decisions, of course, should be carefully coordinated with state and local prosecutors, taking into account the availability in each case of a state statute that will result in prolonged incarceration of the defendant.

The Hobbs Act also prohibits an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a robbery.

To assist us in evaluating how the "Three Strikes" provision is being used, please continue to notify Tom Roberts, in the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, at (202) 514-0849, concerning potential "Three Strikes" cases. When you file a "Three Strikes" case, please send an urgent report to the attention of the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys.

We also anticipate that there may be issues arising under the "Three Strikes" provision that will be litigated in district courts and U.S. courts of appeals. The Criminal Division is available to assist you in handling these matters. In any event, please coordinate your positions on issues that are less than clear-cut with the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section to ensure consistency and enable us to develop policy positions as needed.

The Eastern District of Virginia has developed an outline to assist in determining when a particular case is "Three Strikes"-eligible. A copy of that outline is attached for your convenience.

Information Technology: Federal Laws, Regulations, and Mandatory Standards to Securing Private Sector Information Technology Systems and Data in Critical Infrastructure Sectors

Federal policy identifies 18 infrastructure sectors--such as banking and finance, energy, public health and healthcare, and telecommunications--that are critical to the nation's security, economy, public health, and safety. Because these sectors rely extensively on computerized information systems and electronic data, it is crucial that the security of these systems and data is maintained. Further, because most of these infrastructures are owned by the private sector, it is imperative that public and private entities work together to protect these assets. The federal government uses both voluntary partnerships with private industry and requirements in federal laws, regulations, and mandatory standards to assist in the security of privately owned information technology (IT) systems and data within critical infrastructure sectors. As agreed, our objectives were to (1) identify, for each critical infrastructure sector, the federal laws, regulations, and mandatory standards that pertain to securing that sector's privately owned IT systems and data and (2) identify enforcement mechanisms for each of the above laws, regulations, and mandatory standards.

Lives saved by airbags

NHTSA estimates that as of 2017, 50,457 lives have been saved by frontal airbags (National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2020).

In frontal crashes, front airbags reduce driver fatalities by 29 percent and fatalities of front-seat passengers age 13 and older by 32 percent (Kahane, 2015). NHTSA estimates that the combination of an airbag plus a lap and shoulder belt reduces the risk of death in frontal crashes by 61 percent, compared with a 50 percent reduction for belts alone and a 34 percent reduction for airbags alone.

NHTSA estimates that as of 2012, 2,252 lives have been saved by side airbags (Kahane, 2015).

Side airbags with head protection reduce a car driver's risk of death in driver-side crashes by 37 percent and an SUV driver's risk by 52 percent (McCartt & Kyrychenko, 2007).

A study of crashes in Australia found that side airbags with head and torso protection reduce a car driver's risk of death or injury in driver-side crashes by 41 percent (D'Elia et al., 2013). Similar trends were found in a NHTSA study focusing on the fatality risk to drivers and right-front-seat passenger vehicles involved in nearside crashes. Curtain airbags and torso airbags together reduce the risk of death by 31 percent, and combination head/torso airbags reduce the risk by 25 percent (Kahane, 2014). The death reduction was lower in vehicles equipped only with a curtain airbag (16 percent) or only with a torso airbag (8 percent).

The crucial role played by head-protecting side airbags is illustrated by the results of IIHS side crash tests. Since the program began in 2003, all the vehicles earning good ratings have been equipped with side airbags that protect the head. However, airbags alone aren't enough. Vehicles also need side structures that resist major intrusion into the occupant compartment.

Track EPA rulemakings

EPA rulemakings (i.e., regulations that are under development) could impact you once they become final regulations. You have an opportunity to provide input on almost every regulation before it is finalized. To help you get involved in our rulemakings, we provide a number of ways you can keep track of them.

    : Download twice yearly publications of EPA's regulatory activities. : This multi-agency website serves as an online clearinghouse for materials related to EPA rulemakings and is EPA's official on-line comment system. Comment on regulations, and access rules that have been published in the Federal Register and related documents. : EPA docket centers provide access to the same information as for those people without access to the Internet. In addition, the docket centers provide access to those pieces of information that we are unable to provide electronically. You may also submit comments to the docket centers, in addition to submitting them via

Airbags Are Introduced Commercially

In 1971, the Ford Motor Company built an experimental airbag fleet. General Motors installed airbags in a fleet of 1973 Chevrolet Impalas—for government use only. The 1973 Oldsmobile Toronado was the first car with a passenger airbag sold to the public. General Motors later offered an option of driver-side airbags in full-sized Oldsmobiles and Buicks in 1975 and 1976, respectively. Cadillacs became available with driver and passenger airbags options during those years as well. General Motors, which had marketed its airbags as the "Air Cushion Restraint System," discontinued the ACRS option for the 1977 model year, citing a lack of consumer interest.

Ford and GM subsequently spent years lobbying against airbag requirements, arguing that the devices were simply not viable. Eventually, however, the automobile giants realized that the airbag was here to stay. Ford began offering them again as an option on their 1984 Tempo.

While Chrysler made a driver-side airbag standard for its 1988–1989 models, it wasn’t until the early 1990s that airbags found their way into the majority of American cars. In 1994, TRW began production of the first gas-inflated airbag. Airbags have been mandatory in all new cars since 1998.

Watch the video: Ο τρόπος λειτουργίας των αερόσακων των αυτοκινήτων (July 2022).


  1. Burhardt

    Agree, it's the remarkable phrase

  2. Absyrtus

    Where can i find it?

  3. Branson

    Bravo, what are the right words ... wonderful thought

  4. Halstead

    I do not know that here and say this you can

  5. Osahar

    Between us speaking, in my opinion, it is obvious. I recommend to you to look in

  6. Maubar

    Congratulations, what a great message.

  7. Dut


Write a message