Scholars Award: Automotive Fatalities: Making and Unmaking a Scandal, 1950-90

在美国，机动车碰撞是造成伤害死亡的主要原因。在20世纪，有300多万美国人因交通事故而丧生。尽管这个问题很严重，但在整个世纪，关于这个问题的研究和公共政策一直不一致。一段时间的高度关注与几十年的漠不关心交替出现。这个研究项目将阐明为什么一些提高汽车安全性的解决方案一直存在争议和两极分化，而另一些则很容易被采用。通过历史分析，该项目将重点关注汽车安全。20世纪60年代，对汽车死亡的强烈抗议导致了各种技术改进或实施的建议。虽然重新设计的仪表板被普遍接受，但佩戴安全带和遵守限速的要求往往遭到担忧或拒绝。该研究项目将重点关注司机和他们的公众声音，分析为什么这么多司机不愿意扣上安全带，并采取限制他们可以合法驾驶的速度。在公开抗议、给政治领导人的信以及给编辑的信中，司机们援引了个人自由和选择权，而监管机构则将这些变化视为对公共利益的贡献。与其他交通技术相比，个人拥有和经营的汽车更是成为民主协商的场所，政府以安全的名义应该或不应该要求进行何种技术变革。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of injury death in the United States. More than three million Americans have lost their lives due to traffic accidents in the 20th century. Despite the gravity of the issue, research and public policy on this issue has been inconsistent over the course of the 20th century. Periods of intense attention have alternated with decades of indifference. This research project will illuminate why some solutions to enhance car safety have been contentious and polarizing, while others were readily adopted. Using historical analysis, the project will focus on automotive safety. Outcries over automotive deaths in the 1960s resulted in suggestions for various technological improvements or implementations. While redesigned dashboards were generally accepted, requirements to wear seat belts and to adhere to speed limits often met with apprehension or rejection. Focusing on drivers and their public voices, the research project will analyze why so many motorists were reluctant to buckle up and to adopt limitations on how fast they could legally drive. In public protests, letters to political leaders, and in letters to the editor, drivers invoked personal freedom and a right to choose, while regulators presented these changes as contributions to the common good. Even more so than other transportation technologies, individually owned and operated automobiles became sites of democratic negotiations over what kind of technological changes governments should or should not require in the name of safety.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.