Presentation

on
Case Study

Air Bags and

Automobile Manufacturing
Miraz Hossain Khan 1911569030
M Iftekharul Islam 1812900630
Arpon Rahaman 1731483630
Moshahab Aziz Alvee 1912870630
Md Mahadee Hasan 2021903630
Md Abdul Matin Sharif 1921289030
Md Rezwanul Islam 1911876030
According to ASIRT (Association for
Safe International Road Travel),

Approximately 1.35 million people die in

road crashes each year; on average 3,700
people lose their lives every day on the
roads.

An additional 20-50 million suffer non-

fatal injuries, also long term disabilities.
The US Congress implemented
the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act and applied
National Highway Traffic Safety
administration to apply it
accurately, in 1966.
 Notice for Airbag Installation

Safety Majors were published through notice i

1969 which focused on the airbags installed in
motor vehicles in the US

The Car Manufacturers went against this as

they complained about increased cost that
could drive them out of the market.
First Issue: NHTSA cancelled automated
seatbelts or airbag.

Unethical in the light of Hobbes 8Th law.

Managerial point of view

• All major automobile intended to comply with

detachable seat belts
• In 1981 a complete rescission of automated
seatbelts was called
Outsiders view point
Outsiders view point

The insurance company

• The inance companythought
thought automatic airbags or seatbelts would decrease accident by which
cost will be decreased
automatic airbags or seatbelts would
decrease accident by which cost will
• The customer thought automated airbags or seatbelts will be great for safety purpose but they
be decreased
didn’t expect the extra cost.
The customer thought automated airbags
or seatbelts will be great for safety
purpose but they didn’t expect the
extra cost.
Alternative action

NHTSA should have

considered the safety of
the vehicle user.
NHTSA could have
invested more time and
money for developing a
better automated airbag
or seatbelt.
Second issue: Air-bag malfunctions causing Accidents

Unethical and unjust in terms of:

“good ethics is also good business” ( Solomon and

Hanson)
 Managerial perspective:

Seat belts were not enough to bring down

traffic accidents, but as expected, it did not
work out. Thus, as such getting air-bags, the
managers should have searched for other
solutions to minimize the traffic casualty.
Third issue:
Consumers’ Usage of
perspective:
• According to 5th Natural
seatbelt. Law of Hobbes, it is
unethical as the decision is
not impartial.
• Technical difficulties of Airbag release

• Designed for average

• Defective airbags
Solutions could be….says,
As Hobbes Social
• harmful for nature
Cooperation is imperative for any
• truly human
Introduce society otherwise
new technology for airbags we
might struggle in state of nature,
• where
Seatbelt we
airbags
will see conflicts only.
 If we look at Kant’s Key Point, this is
Consumers’ perspective: unethical.

Human beings have an intrinsic value beyond

any cost-benefit analysis. There can never be a
• moral cost-benefit analysis that allows
Technical difficulties of Airbag release
corporate leaders and their corporations to
• Designed for average
unjustly exploit or endanger employees,
• Defective airbags customers and local communities exclusively as
means to corporate profit.
Solutions could be….
• harmful for nature

• Introduce new technology for airbags

• Seatbelt airbags
 Outsider’s Point of View

Usage of Seat
Consumers’ Belts
perspective: • People thought, Safety Standards were not
considered in the purchasing decision of a
vehicle.
• Technical difficulties of Airbag release
• 34% Strongly agreed and 53% somewhat agreed
• Designed for average and 8%somewhat disagreed and 5% strongly

• Defective airbags disagreed.

• The burden of paying
Solutions extra
could for the installation of
be….
• harmful for nature
Air Bags.
• Introduce new technology for airbags

• Seatbelt airbags
 Managerial Perspective
Usage of Seat Belts
• In 1969 ruled usage of Inflatable Occupant Restraint
System to all vehicles, so as to somehow bring the
fatalities down by whatever means.
• NHTSA believed it would be safe since the propellant
cannot come in contact with the passengers.
• The organization ruled the usage of Seat Belts
mandatory since most of the auto companies opposed to
the Air Bag policy.
• NAII filed a case to retain the policy of 1966.
 Alternatives by NHTSA
Usage of Seat
Consumers’ Belts
perspective:

• Deep Research was needed to extract

information from both the parties
• Technical difficulties of Airbag release
concerned.
• Designed for average

• Defective airbags
• Alternative
Solutions couldtobe….
air bags could have been
• harmful for nature
thought off for the greater good.
• Introduce new technology for airbags

• Seatbelt airbags
Fourth Issue: Was the price increasing for airbags worth it in the
long run or led to the economic collapse?

• Unethical in the light of- Hobbes’s 4th natural law.

• Nobel laureate Milton Friedman’s view regarding the main

mission of any business.

• John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism theory.

NHTSA’s point of view:

• Decreasing death rate – From 5.7 to 3.6

• Safety of propellant container – Non toxic Hydrogen

• Long Term Effect – Mass Production

Automobile Industry’s point of view:

• Decreasing Auto Sales – From 9.66 million to 7.44 million

• Less Profit – Dropped at 60%
• Increasing Layoffs – More than 200,000 auto workers
• Declining Economical Condition
• Mass Production of Airbags
• Less freedom
 Firth Issue
Automobile companies’ Lobbying to avoid passive
restraints

This is unethical
about:
-Mill & Bentham
utilitarianism theory
Fifth issue
The management perspective

Companies should make seat belt

in price cheapest.

-Companies should have mostly

focused on about safety standards.

-The government had to give

special incentives for companies.

- Airbag & Automobile depended on

each other continuously.
Alternative measures

-The companies shouldn’t ignore

passive restraints.

-The government should make a

law for seat belt & passive restraint
without any alternatives.
 General Approach Developed from This
Case

Proper research, development & measurement are essential before

introducing something to the market.

The intention of any act should be only for the benefit of both
stakeholders and the consumers.
 Government's role
Government should interfere in some cases where it is actually required

Government should do which is right and justified for every people and groups.
 Conclusion
NHTSA’s safety act in 1970 clashes with automobile manufacturers and insurers.

Cost-benefit investigation was embraced by NHTSA for

every security device or framework for establishment on transports.

There was no noteworthiness taken a toll punishment to amber signals versus red light, yet of it’s
activeness.