In a short article, Rosengart et al. (“An evaluation of state firearm
regulations and homicide and suicide death rates”) attempt to evaluate the
effect of 5 different state regulations on four different outcomes
(firearm suicide, suicide and firearm homicide, homicide). There is much
that is good about this article, but a problem, perhaps due to space
constraints, is that the authors do not discuss s...
In a short article, Rosengart et al. (“An evaluation of state firearm
regulations and homicide and suicide death rates”) attempt to evaluate the
effect of 5 different state regulations on four different outcomes
(firearm suicide, suicide and firearm homicide, homicide). There is much
that is good about this article, but a problem, perhaps due to space
constraints, is that the authors do not discuss some important limitations
or caveats for many of their analyses. These limitations substantially
reduce the likelihood that the authors will detect any effect of four of
the laws (minimum age for purchase; for possession; one-gun-per-month;
junk gun ban).
For example, they evaluate the effect of laws raising to (or lowering
from) 21 the minimum legal age for (a) handgun purchase and (b) handgun
possession. Changing the minimum legal age from 18 to 21 or 21 to 18
mainly affects 18-20 year olds. Ideally, the evaluation should focus on
the effects on this age group, with comparisons to other age groups. But
the only age comparisons provided are for ages 0-19, and 20 and over.
This evaluation doubly dilutes the possibility of finding any effect--by
including many age groups with the 18-20 year olds, and then by cutting
the 18-20 group in two. The authors are in effect seeking to find a
measurable impact of the law on the overall rate of (say) firearm
suicides. They are very unlikely to find such an effect, even if it
exists. In 2002, for example, 18-20 year old firearm suicides accounted
for only 3.7% of all firearm suicides. If the law could have had an immediate and incredible effect of reducing 18-20 year old firearm suicides by 25%, the effect on overall firearm suicides would have been
less than 1%, not readily detectable by the evaluation. [For homicides, since the effect of the law should primarily be observed on perpetrators age 18-20, an evaluation with the power to detect an effect would probably need to use 18-20 year old perpetration data rather than victimization
data].
The authors also try to evaluate the effect of one-gun-per month
laws. The authors’ essentially are comparing what happened pre and post in
a state like Virginia which passed a one-gun-per-month law, to what
happened in other states like New York, which did not pass such a law. A
problem with their approach is that one purpose of these laws is to reduce
gun running across state lines, from states with permissive gun laws (e.g.
Virginia) to those with more restrictive laws (e.g. New York). A one-gun-
per-month law in Virginia may help reduce gun availability and homicide in
New York. But in the authors’ calculations, these lives saved would be
counted against the law’s effectiveness.
I believe the authors try to do too much. They focus on the
evaluation of concealed carry laws, but then add, with little modification
or discussion, evaluations of four additional laws. But each of these
laws deserves its own careful and nuanced evaluation. I do not have a
strong priors concerning whether any of these four laws had any effect,
but I don’t believe the paper by Rosengart et al. provides a proper
evaluation. Given their methodology, I am not at all surprised that the
authors find little evidence “that any of the (four) laws evaluated were
associated with a significant reduction in either firearm homicide or
firearm suicide rates.”
Why is IIHS such a staunch critic of driver education programs? To
suggest driver education is a way to "crash proof" novice drivers is just
silly. Driver education provides students with tangible skills that set
the foundation for the acquisition of mature driving skills and judgement.
Driver education at its best is a team effort involving schools,
communities, students, and families.
Why is IIHS such a staunch critic of driver education programs? To
suggest driver education is a way to "crash proof" novice drivers is just
silly. Driver education provides students with tangible skills that set
the foundation for the acquisition of mature driving skills and judgement.
Driver education at its best is a team effort involving schools,
communities, students, and families.
While IIHS focus is on engineering safer cars, there is still a need
to address safer road user behaviours through enhanced enforcement,
education, reinforcement, and graduated licensing legislation.
Cars don't crash, PEOPLE crash cars.
We teach civics--many people don't vote. We teach nutrition--many people
don't eat balanced diets. We teach about vehicle crashworthiness--many
people buy cars with poor crash ratings. We teach the essential knowledge
and skills needed to manage driving risks--many drivers still take
unnecessary risks.
How do you temper the heady mix of youth, mechanical power, and newly
-discovered freedom? How do you counteract the effects of young drivers'
role models who are drunk, enraged, unbelted drivers? We don't know do
we?
Have you looked at the data (Texas, Colorado, etc.) to see the
difference between the crash rates of parent-taught and formal driver
education programs?
Following is the 2003 and 2004 fatality data for VA teens.
Age -- 2003 -- 2004
15 ----- 9 ----- 5
16 ---- 19 ---- 21
17 ---- 31 ---- 30
18 ---- 22 ---- 29
19 ---- 26 ---- 38
Total - 107 --- 123
It's interesting to note that the data shows older teens' crash
rates are significantly higher than younger teens' rates. DO they drive
more? Maybe. Gain a few years of experience and take more risks?
Maybe. Have less parent involvement? Maybe. All of the above? Maybe!
Think about it. Where can you experience the sensation of power,
"rock out" in a chair that adjusts to fit every curve on your body, talk
on the phone, eat, drink, and act irresponsibly (and sometime violently)
in public and still have the illusion of anonymity? Have you hugged your
car today? Now throw in youthful risk taking, thrill-seeking behaviour
with little to no adult supervision and yes we have a tragedy in the
making.
While parents and peers have a significant impact on risk-taking
behaviours, effective teachers influence student achievement and behaviour
in a powerful way. Driving is far from the simple task it is perceived to
be and driver education is an important component in the process of
preparing novice drivers to effectively handle this dangerous task.
I would like to invite you to visit our classrooms/driver education
vehicles to shadow some our students so you can observe firsthand their
skill acquisition. You will have the opportunity to see the difference
between an educated and a clueless driver.
You may also be interested in looking at our transfer student,
public, non public, and commercial school driver education program
graduates' first-year crash data located at
http//www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Instruction/PE. We use this data to
evaluate and improve our instructional programs.
We need to be on the same team to help students understand the
fundamentals of driving and to foster responsible attitudes and driving
behaviours needed for safe motor vehicle operation.
Please don't encourage throwing the baby out with the bath water. I
have no desire to share the road with under educated drivers!
Anyone who is in doubt about the need for protective headgear should
request a computer print-out of hospital admitted (or treated) cases from
the U.S. Consumer Products Safety division. With less than 10% of soccer
head injuries being reported, the long, detailed list of injuries would
shock even those who are against soccer headgear. These figures leave
very little room for any one to deny the need...
Anyone who is in doubt about the need for protective headgear should
request a computer print-out of hospital admitted (or treated) cases from
the U.S. Consumer Products Safety division. With less than 10% of soccer
head injuries being reported, the long, detailed list of injuries would
shock even those who are against soccer headgear. These figures leave
very little room for any one to deny the need for soccer headgear.
It is true soccer headgear needs to be improved to the point it covers not
only full head protection but should also give some protection for heading
of a soccer ball. Heading is still the unknown to some, but with the
death of a professional English soccer player (Jeff Astell), the coroner's
report states that his death was from long-term heading of a soccer ball. A
soccer ball fully inflated weighs 16oz and can travel at a speed of 0 to
70+ mph. In soccer there are only two ways to advance a
ball: kicking and with the head. It is up to the rule makers of
soccer (FIFA) and the parents of young players to make the decision to
protect the players - it is not a decision to be made by young players or
those who have not researched the issue of soccer head
injuries.
Kangaroo soccer headgear does provide full head protection
and is now introducing a helmet with an impact disbursement plate in the
header pad for forehead protection in heading, and continue to improve
the helmet as new materials and research presents themselves.
Kudos to M D Schmidt, S I Sulsky, and P J Amoroso.[1]
The authors described how military hospitals' researchers not only
collected medical records, but then acted to prevent or reduce a trend of
serious hospitalized injury continually treated. They compiled and
organized injury data on parachuting, studied the nature and extent of
injury types and assessed injury prevention and control enginee...
Kudos to M D Schmidt, S I Sulsky, and P J Amoroso.[1]
The authors described how military hospitals' researchers not only
collected medical records, but then acted to prevent or reduce a trend of
serious hospitalized injury continually treated. They compiled and
organized injury data on parachuting, studied the nature and extent of
injury types and assessed injury prevention and control engineering
outside-the-boot ankle braces, for both civilians and military
parachutists.
In 1961, there was a similar seminal investigation conducted by Drs.
William Haddon Jr., director of the epidemiology resident program, New
York State Department of Health, Albany, New York (Haddon was the
father of modem injury prevention and control who stressed evidenced-based
research); Arthur Ellison, an associate in orthopedics at the student
health services of Williams College Williamstown, Mass.; and Robert
Carroll, a student at Albany Medical Center.[2] They studied all
persons purchasing tickets to ski areas on the four consecutive weekends
from Jan. 28 through Feb. 19, 1961 and showed that the primary evidence
for preventing serious skiing was using certain release binders.
The current leadership on prevention of parachute-related injury,
published in the Injury Prevention and the archival initial pioneering
leadership work of Haddon some 40 years earlier, again validates the
efficacy of interventions applying evidenced-based (or promising)
injury reduction systems.
Les Fisher, MPH
Les Fisher M.P.H.
Safety / Management Consultant
(Archivist, American Public Health Association, ICEHS Section (see
injury prevention history leadership commentaries at http://www.icehs.org
Newsletters and Members' Only)
97 Union Avenue South, Delmar NY, 12054 ,USA; 518-439-0326.
The opinions are mine alone.
References
1. M D Schmidt, S I Sulsky, and P J Amoroso. Effectiveness of
an outside-the-boot ankle brace in reducing parachuting related ankle
injuries.Inj Prev 2005;11 163-168.
Parents need to know this is really happening and it is happening
more than America and the world knows because it is not talked about! My
boy was the 2nd child this month at Kaiser No. hosp. in Sac. Ca. to
die from this! The other I heard was 12 yrs. Old. Accidentally they died!!!
Feeling helpless and still loving all four of my children,
Parents need to know this is really happening and it is happening
more than America and the world knows because it is not talked about! My
boy was the 2nd child this month at Kaiser No. hosp. in Sac. Ca. to
die from this! The other I heard was 12 yrs. Old. Accidentally they died!!!
Feeling helpless and still loving all four of my children,
Blacking out: Choking: Passout: Fainting: Spacemonkey
The above titles are the names of a game that's becoming popular among some junior and senior high school students. It involves one person hyperventilating then holding the breath while another person bear hugs them from behind. This hug and breath holding enhances an effect called Valsalva Maneuver (VM). VM is the technique that weightlifters instinctively employ when lifting heavy weights. They hold their breath and squeeze their abdominal muscles as they lift. The net effect of VM is an increase in intrathoracic pressure (inside the chest cavity) which creates high pressure on the great veins (superior and inferior vena cava). This high pressure on the great veins reduces blood return to the heart which in turn, reduces blood output from the heart. When blood output to the brain is reduced, brain oxygen is reduced (cerebral hypoxia) and the person faints or passes out.
Are these games dangerous?
It can be. Repeated bouts of cerebral hypoxia has the potential to cause brain damage. For individuals with heart disease or certain vascular diseases Valsalva Maneuver can cause heart attack, stroke, or other cardio vascular damage.
Most of the time as soon as the person faints they return to normal breathing and recover in a few minutes. Headaches may follow.
Are these games autoerotic asphyxia?
Only if it is combined with masturbation--that's the auto (self) erotic (sex) part.
Below is a link to an article published in our local paper regarding
the death of my boy Gabriel Harry Mordecai, age 13, 3 weeks from his 8th
grade graduation. http://www.paradisepost.com/Stories/
Gabriel Harry Mordecai
Gabriel Harry Mordecai of Paradise, Ca, entered into eternal rest on
May 6, 2005, surrounded by his loving father, mother, grandmother,
brothers, sister, numerous family members and friends.
Born on July 31,
1991 in Quincy, Gabriel lived in Paradise for 10 years and attended
Paradise Elementary School, Evergreen Academy, and Paradise Intermediate
School, where he would have graduated eighth grade this June. Gabriel was
and will always be a precious gift who blessed us. Gabriel was unique in
so many ways. He was loyal to his family without fail; he showed empathy
beyond his years to those less fortunate than himself, and he was a very
forgiving young man.
Gabriel's passions were the outdoors, camping, skiing
with his father and brother, target shooting, hunting, archery, aircraft,
reptiles, especially his ball python 'Monty' otherwise known as 'Julius
Squeezer' and the family dog 'Ezra. Gabriel always looked forward to his
visits with his father and grandmother every two weeks and the adventures
they provided for him.
Gabe was an excellent student, who worked hard to
achieve the goals he set for himself, especially a high GPA so he would do
well in high school and go on to a good university.
Gabriel is survived by his father, Blair Mordecai of Berkeley, Ca, mother,
Sarah Pacatte and twin brother, Samuel Mordecai, both of Paradise, brother
Gregory Mordecai, of Boulder, Co., brother Arthur Golden III, of Chico,
sister Elizabeth Golden of Long Beach, grandmother, Adrienne Mordecai of
Berkeley.
Gabriel had many, many aunts, uncles, cousins and friends that he loved
and who loved him. (m. e. o.) Gabriel brought such life, joy and awe to
our family, always curious, adventurous, and fearless. We thank you God
for blessing us with such a precious gift. Gabe, we will miss you, and
cherish you, until the end of days....
"It is no slight thing when those, so fresh from God, love us".
Published in the Paradise Post from 5/10/2005 - 5/12/2005.
I am 42 years of age and believe it or not I used to play that "game"
when I was a child in the suburbs of Chicago. From vague memory it was
somewhere around 1974 and I was around 10-12 years old? This story really
caught my attention. I thought "oh my god I used to do that!"
My older brother would have all the kids line up and he'd pick us up by
the neck (literally) for maybe 10 seconds and let us p...
I am 42 years of age and believe it or not I used to play that "game"
when I was a child in the suburbs of Chicago. From vague memory it was
somewhere around 1974 and I was around 10-12 years old? This story really
caught my attention. I thought "oh my god I used to do that!"
My older brother would have all the kids line up and he'd pick us up by
the neck (literally) for maybe 10 seconds and let us pass out on the bed
while my sisters stood around laughing waiting for their turn. I remember
it feeling "really cool" it was a game it was "fun" to feel all tingly and
it was similar to happy gas at the dentist. We are all educated normal
successful adults today however at the time I had no idea how dangerous it
was.
I guess I just wanted people to know this "game" is not NEW by any means.
Unfortunately its been going on for a lot longer than people know. I hope
my info can help families know this is not new.
My deepest condolences for anyone who has lost a child from this.
While it is not customary for an author to comment on a review, a
response seems appropriate to L.S. Robertson’s review [1] of my 2004 book
"Traffic Safety."[2]
Another reviewer writes "Evans' work covers in remarkable detail the
full range of important topics in traffic safety…but his chapter 'The
Dramatic Failure of U.S. Safety Policy' is the showstopper."[3] This
"showstopper" shows that wh...
While it is not customary for an author to comment on a review, a
response seems appropriate to L.S. Robertson’s review [1] of my 2004 book
"Traffic Safety."[2]
Another reviewer writes "Evans' work covers in remarkable detail the
full range of important topics in traffic safety…but his chapter 'The
Dramatic Failure of U.S. Safety Policy' is the showstopper."[3] This
"showstopper" shows that while Britain, Canada and Australia reduced their
traffic fatalities by 50%, US fatalities declined by only 16%. If the US
had matched their performance, about 200,000 fewer Americans would have
died in a two-decade period. The explanation I offer is that the US,
instead of pursuing a balanced mix of interventions, obsessively focuses
on vehicle factors. This focus originates from a giant litigation
industry devoted to its own financial interests rather than reducing harm.
As one who supported and greatly profited from that industry, it is
understandable that Robertson should seek to discredit my book. The fact
that all he could come up with were extraneous trivia only adds support to
my thesis.
Unable to discredit the core content, Robertson attacks the
publisher. My preface [2, p.xiv] states that by not using a major
publisher, "Traffic Safety" was available a year or so earlier. Given the
success my 1991 book,[4] and the 27 glowing reviews it received, the
present text would have been welcomed by major publishers. The six
reviews to date (excusing Robertson’s!) of "Traffic Safety" have been
likewise glowing. For information on reviews of both books, visit
http://www.scienceservingsociety.com.
Robertson's implication that I was unaware of the stability factor
equation underlines his desperation. Its creator was, like myself, a
former General Motors employee. I discuss it my 1991 book, [4, p. 76] but
do not included in "Traffic Safety" because more pressing material
(including factors more affecting rollover deaths) claimed each of its 445
pages. For similar reasons, I do not devote scarce space to demonstrating
massive flaws in published studies as I did in the earlier book.
Robertson is not cited in the present book, but often in the 1991 book.
Robertson objects to inferences from raw data, suggesting that
demographic or vehicle factors can explain away the differences. Not so -
- growth of vehicles, travel, etc. was similar. The vehicle mix in US and
Canadian fleets is not all that different, so how can a vehicle factor
explain enormous differences in safety performance?
When raw data show no indication of an effect, I have vigorously
opposed unintelligible hocus pocus analyses that somehow manage to find
effects that support the analyst’s prior beliefs. I have illustrated this
using two frequently cited analyses of the same data (one by Robertson)
that somehow ended up supporting diametrically opposite beliefs,
characterizing both as "the triumph of zeal over science, or perhaps even
common sense." [4, p.83].
Another reviewer writes "Evans has a clear passion for getting the
right answers. For all the strong opinions he lays out, one senses that
his agenda is simply to understand how to improve traffic safety."[3]
It is common in data analysis to discard a point that departs widely
from the trend when there are additional reasons for considering it
suspect. Robertson’s review meets such a standard.
References
1. Robertson LS. Review of "Traffic Safety" by Leonard Evans. Inj
Prev 2005 11:256.
2. Evans L. "Traffic Safety." Bloomfield Hills, MI: Science Serving
Society; 2004.
3. Eisenberg, D. Review of "Traffic Safety" by Leonard Evans. JAMA
2005 294(6), 746–747.
4. Evans L. "Traffic Safety and the Driver." New York, NY: Van
Nostrand Reinhold; 1991.
David Huff[1] either didn’t read our article carefully or didn’t
comprehend it. Besides mischaracterizing us as “experts at crash tests”
(we are behavioural scientists, while engineers at the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety direct crash testing), Huff misstates what we say,
claiming we are “at a loss” as to how to improve driver education and want
it eliminated from high schools.
David Huff[1] either didn’t read our article carefully or didn’t
comprehend it. Besides mischaracterizing us as “experts at crash tests”
(we are behavioural scientists, while engineers at the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety direct crash testing), Huff misstates what we say,
claiming we are “at a loss” as to how to improve driver education and want
it eliminated from high schools.
What we did say is this: Despite worldwide evidence that driver
education does not produce safer drivers and in some cases increases the
crash problem, it has enduring appeal. Many new driver education programs,
often using computer-based technology, have been introduced in recent
years. There is a program in Australia combining professional driving
instructors and parents that we describe as promising. However, given what
research studies have told us about prior programs thought to be state-of-
the-art, we argue that scientific evaluations of the effects of new
programs are essential. We also need to be alert to programs that may do
harm. In this regard it is noteworthy that programs teaching skid control
and other emergency manoeuvres are becoming increasingly popular in the
United States; yet studies have shown that they can increase rather than
decrease the crash problem.[2]
This explains the title of our commentary (“Driver Education
Renaissance?”).[3] Yes, there has been a proliferation of new driver
education programs, but are they making a difference? We won’t know
without rigorous scientific evaluations to guide us. We don’t expect this
view to be appreciated by someone who declares that “we must respect what
is unscientifically ‘known’ by the public;” but as behavioural scientists
who have spent many years addressing the young driver problem, we think
this is the rational way to proceed.[4]
Allan F. Williams, Ph.D.,
Susan A. Ferguson, Ph.D.,
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
References
1. Huff DC. A rebuttal to skeptics of teen driver education. Inj
Prev, eLetters, 20 April 2005.
2. Jones B. The effectiveness of skid-car training for teenage
novice drivers in Oregon. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles,
1993.
3. Williams AF, Ferguson SA. Driver education renaissance? Inj Prev
2004;10:4-7.
4. Williams AF. Barriers and opportunities in reducing motor vehicle
injuries. Inj Prev 2001;7:83-84.
Leonard Evans obviously dislikes my less than totally favourable
review of his book. My review noted several sensible sections in the book,
but several nonsensical ones as well. My reference to self-publication of
the book was only to point out that it would have benefited from peer
review. His assertions in his letter regarding me and my income are
patently false. He needs a skin transplant. His is t...
Leonard Evans obviously dislikes my less than totally favourable
review of his book. My review noted several sensible sections in the book,
but several nonsensical ones as well. My reference to self-publication of
the book was only to point out that it would have benefited from peer
review. His assertions in his letter regarding me and my income are
patently false. He needs a skin transplant. His is too thin.
Evans notes favourable reviews of his book which I find astonishing in
some respects. Inury epidemiology and prevention will not be a viable
science if we stop being critical of one another's work. When I sent my
review to Dinesh Mohan, who reviewed the book favourably for the British
Medical Journal, he wrote back, “Leon, I agree with you! I should have
read the book a little more carefully. Your review is much more detailed
and sound technically.”
Evans attributes an alleged lag in adopting injury prevention in the
U.S. to a "giant litigation industry" from which I "greatly profited",
leading to my critique of his book. Although the U.S. led the world in
requiring improved vehicle crashworthiness and laws requiring the use of
child safety seats, it did lag in adoption of seat belt laws. That was not
the doing of the Insurance for Highway Safety, where I was employed in the
1970s, or personal injury lawyers. At the Insurance Institute, we financed
research by Australian researchers on the first law in Australia [1] and I
did research which documented the success of that law.[2] I know of no
involvement of personal injury lawyers in the debate regarding seat belts
in state legislatures. Both motorcycle helmet use laws and seat belt use
laws in the U.S. were delayed by debates regarding personal freedom,
mostly by state legislators who were trying to make political hay with
their constituents. Opinion polls indicated that most people opposed
belt use laws at the time. I favoured such laws as any of the students who
took my courses, and others who heard me lecture, can attest.
I did, for a period of time before my retirement, testify in personal
injury lawsuits but I did not profit one penny from that activity. I
donated all the fees I received, indeed far more (some $500,000 in total),
to Johns Hopkins University, the University of Minnesota and the Trauma
Foundation for injury prevention research and advocacy. If you want to
call the satisfaction that I get from giving away money to support the
field in which I laboured "great profit", fine. I noted in my book on my
work with lawyers, free on the web at www.nanlee.net, which Evans
apparently has not read, that I gave the money away and that my motivation
for that work was to hold the manufacturers feet to the fire when the
government stopped most of its regulatory activity in the 1980s.
Evans dismisses my analyses of safety regulation [e.g. 3] as
"unintelligible hocus pocus analyses that somehow manage to find effects
that support the analyst’s prior beliefs." Since Evans and I have never
had a conversation, much less discussed my beliefs, he has no basis for
such a charge. Indeed, I am sure the thousands of users of multiple
regression analysis throughout the sciences would be surprised to see that
method described as "untelligible hocus pocus". I reported what the data
showed me. Indeed, I noted in my 1998 book that the regression coefficient
on seat belt use in relation to fatality rates fit Evan's effectiveness
estimate from his useful double-paired comparison method.[4]
It is sad that, since Evans doesn't have the facts on his side, he
resorts to falsehoods in an attempt to impugn my motives.
Leon S. Robertson, Ph.D.
Retired Injury Epidemiologist
Yale University
References
1. Foldvary, L.A. and Lane, J.C. The effectiveness of compulsory
wearing of seat-belts in casualty reduction. ACCIDENT ANALYSIS ANS
PREVENTION, 6:59-81, 1974.
2. Robertson, Leon S. Automobile seat belt use inselected countries,
states and provinces with and without laws requiring belt use. ACCIDENT
ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION 10:5-10, 1978.
3. Robertson, Leon S. Reducing death on the road: The effects of
minimum safety standards,
publicized crash tests, seat belts and alcohol. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC
HEALTH, 86:31-34,
1996.
4. Robertson, Leon S.: INJURY EPIDEMIOLOGY: RESEARCH AND CONTROL
STRATEGIES, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Once again I am indebted to Robertson for adding support to my
central thesis. The fact that a chair bearing his name is endowed with
his litigation profits underlines the unique influence of litigation in
the US approach to traffic safety. In what other country does this
happen?
In some states, such as Texas, it is illegal for juries to know that
an injured plaintiff was not wearing a safety...
Once again I am indebted to Robertson for adding support to my
central thesis. The fact that a chair bearing his name is endowed with
his litigation profits underlines the unique influence of litigation in
the US approach to traffic safety. In what other country does this
happen?
In some states, such as Texas, it is illegal for juries to know that
an injured plaintiff was not wearing a safety belt, as required by law.
Testimony cannot therefore be presented demonstrating that obeying the
belt-wearing law would have prevented or mitigated the injury
(particularly true in rollovers). The incessant message to the American
public is that injuries result from malfeasance by institutions with deep
pockets. As ordinary citizens do not make roads or vehicles, they are led
to believe that safety has little to do with them, whereas in fact the
greatest reductions in risk are from small changes in behavior (such as
wearing a belt). In what other country would a case about an injury
prohibit mentioning safety belts?
While traffic deaths in Canada (and other countries) declined by 50%,
U.S. traffic deaths declined by only 16%. My 2004 book Traffic Safety[1]
associates this huge difference with an enormously powerful U.S.
litigation industry pursuing money rather than safety. Critics of this
thesis need to offer a more convincing alternative explanation than that
U.S. legislators simply make different decisions from those in Canada.
Such decisions have antecedents, including massive campaign contributions
from litigators. The U.S. is a world leader in many public health areas
(smoking, air safety), but its emphasis on vehicle rather than driver
factors assures an ongoing catastrophe in traffic safety.
Dear Editor,
In a short article, Rosengart et al. (“An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates”) attempt to evaluate the effect of 5 different state regulations on four different outcomes (firearm suicide, suicide and firearm homicide, homicide). There is much that is good about this article, but a problem, perhaps due to space constraints, is that the authors do not discuss s...
Dear Editor,
Why is IIHS such a staunch critic of driver education programs? To suggest driver education is a way to "crash proof" novice drivers is just silly. Driver education provides students with tangible skills that set the foundation for the acquisition of mature driving skills and judgement. Driver education at its best is a team effort involving schools, communities, students, and families.
W...
Dear Editor,
Anyone who is in doubt about the need for protective headgear should request a computer print-out of hospital admitted (or treated) cases from the U.S. Consumer Products Safety division. With less than 10% of soccer head injuries being reported, the long, detailed list of injuries would shock even those who are against soccer headgear. These figures leave very little room for any one to deny the need...
Dear Editor,
Kudos to M D Schmidt, S I Sulsky, and P J Amoroso.[1]
The authors described how military hospitals' researchers not only collected medical records, but then acted to prevent or reduce a trend of serious hospitalized injury continually treated. They compiled and organized injury data on parachuting, studied the nature and extent of injury types and assessed injury prevention and control enginee...
Dear Editor,
Parents need to know this is really happening and it is happening more than America and the world knows because it is not talked about! My boy was the 2nd child this month at Kaiser No. hosp. in Sac. Ca. to die from this! The other I heard was 12 yrs. Old. Accidentally they died!!! Feeling helpless and still loving all four of my children,
Sarah A. Pacatte
Links:...
Dear Editor,
I am 42 years of age and believe it or not I used to play that "game" when I was a child in the suburbs of Chicago. From vague memory it was somewhere around 1974 and I was around 10-12 years old? This story really caught my attention. I thought "oh my god I used to do that!" My older brother would have all the kids line up and he'd pick us up by the neck (literally) for maybe 10 seconds and let us p...
Dear Editor,
While it is not customary for an author to comment on a review, a response seems appropriate to L.S. Robertson’s review [1] of my 2004 book "Traffic Safety."[2]
Another reviewer writes "Evans' work covers in remarkable detail the full range of important topics in traffic safety…but his chapter 'The Dramatic Failure of U.S. Safety Policy' is the showstopper."[3] This "showstopper" shows that wh...
Dear Editor:
David Huff[1] either didn’t read our article carefully or didn’t comprehend it. Besides mischaracterizing us as “experts at crash tests” (we are behavioural scientists, while engineers at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety direct crash testing), Huff misstates what we say, claiming we are “at a loss” as to how to improve driver education and want it eliminated from high schools.
What...
Dear Editor,
Leonard Evans obviously dislikes my less than totally favourable review of his book. My review noted several sensible sections in the book, but several nonsensical ones as well. My reference to self-publication of the book was only to point out that it would have benefited from peer review. His assertions in his letter regarding me and my income are patently false. He needs a skin transplant. His is t...
Dear Editor,
Once again I am indebted to Robertson for adding support to my central thesis. The fact that a chair bearing his name is endowed with his litigation profits underlines the unique influence of litigation in the US approach to traffic safety. In what other country does this happen?
In some states, such as Texas, it is illegal for juries to know that an injured plaintiff was not wearing a safety...
Pages