Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles Summary
In this safety study (file available below), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) examines causes of and trends in speeding-related passenger vehicle crashes and countermeasures to prevent these crashes. The countermeasures presented represent several, of many, potential solutions to the issue of speeding-related crashes. They do not address every cause of speeding or type of speeding-related crash, but they are intended to be widely applicable to a significant portion of these crashes.
The NTSB focused on the following five safety issues pertaining to the effective application of proven and emerging countermeasures for speeding:
1. speed limits
2. data-driven approaches for speed enforcement
3. automated speed enforcement
4. intelligent speed adaptation
5. national leadership
As a result of this safety study, the NTSB makes recommendations to the US Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, 50 states, the Governors Highway Safety Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs’ Association.
For more information, visit www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Pages/SS1701.aspx
In this safety study (file available below), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) examines causes of and trends in speeding-related passenger vehicle crashes and countermeasures to prevent these crashes. The countermeasures presented represent several, of many, potential solutions to the issue of speeding-related crashes. They do not address every cause of speeding or type of speeding-related crash, but they are intended to be widely applicable to a significant portion of these crashes.
The NTSB focused on the following five safety issues pertaining to the effective application of proven and emerging countermeasures for speeding:
1. speed limits
2. data-driven approaches for speed enforcement
3. automated speed enforcement
4. intelligent speed adaptation
5. national leadership
As a result of this safety study, the NTSB makes recommendations to the US Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, 50 states, the Governors Highway Safety Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs’ Association.
For more information, visit www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Pages/SS1701.aspx
| ntsb_50_year_safety_report.pdf |
Free online Road Safety Course Offered by Johns Hopkins International
Photo Courtesy: Paul Alexander Clark
The Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit (JH-IIRU) is pleased to offer for the first time a free, online training certificate program on Road Traffic Injury Prevention and Control in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (RTIP), hosted via the platform TRAMS. Comprised of seven multimedia educational modules, this comprehensive program covers a wide range of topics, from the basics of road traffic injury prevention to setting up injury surveillance systems, evaluating road safety interventions and influencing policy on road traffic injuries (RTIs).
Injuries cause more than five million deaths every year, resulting in high economic and social costs for communities around the globe. These costs are greater in low- and middle-income countries, where many public health systems have yet to prioritize injuries as a major health concern, despite the cost-effective methods available to prevent them.
The Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit was established within the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Department of International Health to respond to the growing burden of injuries worldwide.
Through research, collaboration and training, the Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit strives to identify effective solutions to the growing burden of injuries in low- and middle-income populations, influence public policy and practice and advance the field of injury prevention throughout the world.
The Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit is a World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Injuries, Violence and Accident Prevention.
Read more at: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-international-injury-research-unit/about-us/
The lectures are taught by a variety of instructors, including JH-IIRU faculty as well as experts in the field of injury prevention control and trauma care from around the world. The program is free of cost and open to policy makers, researchers, educators and anyone in the general public interested in learning more about RTIs. They do not offer academic credit, but do provide a certificate for completing course modules.
Modules in this training include:
Click here to find out more and register: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-international-injury-research-unit/training/courses-in-injury-prevention/free-online-training/index.html
Global Burden of Injuries: www.globalburdenofinjuries.org
Injuries cause more than five million deaths every year, resulting in high economic and social costs for communities around the globe. These costs are greater in low- and middle-income countries, where many public health systems have yet to prioritize injuries as a major health concern, despite the cost-effective methods available to prevent them.
The Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit was established within the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Department of International Health to respond to the growing burden of injuries worldwide.
Through research, collaboration and training, the Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit strives to identify effective solutions to the growing burden of injuries in low- and middle-income populations, influence public policy and practice and advance the field of injury prevention throughout the world.
The Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit is a World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Injuries, Violence and Accident Prevention.
Read more at: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-international-injury-research-unit/about-us/
The lectures are taught by a variety of instructors, including JH-IIRU faculty as well as experts in the field of injury prevention control and trauma care from around the world. The program is free of cost and open to policy makers, researchers, educators and anyone in the general public interested in learning more about RTIs. They do not offer academic credit, but do provide a certificate for completing course modules.
Modules in this training include:
- RTIP Module 1: Fundamentals of Road Traffic Injury Prevention
- RTIP Module 2: Concepts in Injury Prevention
- RTIP Module 3: Assessing the Health and Economic Burden of RTIs
- RTIP Module 4: Risk Factors and Choosing Interventions for Road Traffic Injuries
- RTIP Module 5: Injury Surveillance Systems
- RTIP Module 6: Evaluation of Road Safety Interventions
- RTIP Module 7: Influencing Policy for Road Traffic Injury Prevention
Click here to find out more and register: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-international-injury-research-unit/training/courses-in-injury-prevention/free-online-training/index.html
Global Burden of Injuries: www.globalburdenofinjuries.org
The role of accident theory in injury prevention – time for the pendulum to swing back
Ragnar Andersson
Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences,
Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden
Injury prevention is a branch of safety sciences. While comprehensive theoretical developments occurred in the wider field in the last decades, little of these developments reached and influenced the injury prevention community. Instead, a clear retro trend ‘back to basics’ is seen among injury prevention scholars, especially to Dr William Haddon’s pioneering work some 50 years ago. This paper intends to draw attention to this polarisation and discuss possible explanations. It is argued that the strong campaign against the accident concept among leading injury prevention groupings became a serious hindrance for theoretical exchange. The underlying process is interpreted in terms of a struggle for ownership over this truly interdisciplinary field of research, unfortunately at the expense of theoretical stagnation in injury prevention circles and lessened interest in collaboration from other scientific areas. This paper is written as a tribute to Professor Leif Svanstro¨m and his scientific contributions, with special regard to his genuine interest in interdisciplinary research.
Ragnar Andersson
Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences,
Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden
Injury prevention is a branch of safety sciences. While comprehensive theoretical developments occurred in the wider field in the last decades, little of these developments reached and influenced the injury prevention community. Instead, a clear retro trend ‘back to basics’ is seen among injury prevention scholars, especially to Dr William Haddon’s pioneering work some 50 years ago. This paper intends to draw attention to this polarisation and discuss possible explanations. It is argued that the strong campaign against the accident concept among leading injury prevention groupings became a serious hindrance for theoretical exchange. The underlying process is interpreted in terms of a struggle for ownership over this truly interdisciplinary field of research, unfortunately at the expense of theoretical stagnation in injury prevention circles and lessened interest in collaboration from other scientific areas. This paper is written as a tribute to Professor Leif Svanstro¨m and his scientific contributions, with special regard to his genuine interest in interdisciplinary research.
| andersson_2012_the_role_of_accident_theory_in_injury_prevention___time_for_the_pendulum_to_swing_back.pdf |
Setting the Record Straight on Terminology: Accident vs. Crash
AUTOMOBILE CRASHES ARE NOT ACCIDENTS
On August 11, 1997, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) made a formal statement that “Crashes are not Accidents.”
Motor vehicle crashes and associated injuries, loss of life, property damage and potential negative quality of life impacts are predictable and preventable events.
Crashes Aren't Accidents Campaign
By Pamela Anikeeff, Traffic Safety Programs, NHTSA Now, V. 3, No. 11, August 11, 1997 pages 1-2
A Crash Is Not an Accident. Changing the way we think about events, and the words we use to describe them, affects the way we behave. Motor vehicle crashes and injuries are predictable, preventable events. Continued use of the word “accident” promotes the concept that these events are outside of human influence or control. In fact, they are predictable results of specific actions. Since we can identify the causes of crashes, we can take action to alter the effect and avoid collisions. These events are not “acts of God” but predictable results of the laws of physics. The concept of “accident” works against bringing all the appropriate resources to bear on the enormous problem of motor vehicle collisions. Continuous use of “accident” fosters the idea that the resulting injuries are an unavoidable part of life.
“Crash”, “collision”, “incident”, and “injury” are more appropriate terms, and should be encouraged as substitutes for the word “accident”.
Within the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (US DOT/NHTSA), the word “accident” will no longer be used in materials published and distributed by the agency. In addition, NHTSA is no longer using “accidents” in speeches or other public remarks, in communications with the news media, individuals or groups in the public or private sector.
Recently, two other U.S. Department of Transportation agencies, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) joined NHTSA Administrator, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, endorsing his goal to eliminate “accident” from the agencies’ vocabulary. In this manner, attention will be focused on causes of crashes and what can be done to prevent collisions and the resulting injuries.
PROCLAMATION
Whereas, changing the way we think about events and the words we use will affect the way we behave. Our goal is to eliminate the word “accident” from the realm of unintentional injury, on the highway and across the nation;
Whereas, motor vehicle crashes and injuries are predictable, preventable events. Continued use of the word “accident” promotes the concept that these events are outside of human influence or control. In fact, they are predictable results of specific actions;
Whereas, we can identify their causes and take action to avoid them. These are not “acts of God”, but predictable results of the laws of physics;
Whereas, use of the word “accident” works against bringing the appropriate resources to bear on this enormous problem. It allows the idea that the resulting injuries are an unexpected part of life;
Now, therefore, we the undersigned, in recognition of this life saving and injury preventing opportunity, do hereby proclaim a national campaign: “Crashes Aren’t Accidents” to eliminate the word “accident” from the realm of unintentional injury, on the highway and across the nation, with our partners, with the media, and in all public contexts.
Scientific Research Literature
Journal of Trauma Stress. 2002 Aug;15(4):333-5.
Motor vehicle crash versus accident: a change in terminology is necessary.
Stewart AE, Lord JH.
Abstract
We assert that motor vehicle crash should replace motor vehicle accident in the clinical and research lexicon of traumatologists. Crash encompasses a wider range of potential causes for vehicular crashes than does the term accident. A majority of fatal crashes are caused by intoxicated, speeding, distracted, or careless drivers and, therefore, are not accidents. Most importantly, characterizing crashes as accidents, when a driver was intoxicated or negligent, may impede the recovery of crash victims by preventing them from assigning blame and working through the emotions related to their trauma.
Full Article "Look Inside" view only (2 pages): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1016260130224
AUTOMOBILE CRASHES ARE NOT ACCIDENTS
On August 11, 1997, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) made a formal statement that “Crashes are not Accidents.”
Motor vehicle crashes and associated injuries, loss of life, property damage and potential negative quality of life impacts are predictable and preventable events.
Crashes Aren't Accidents Campaign
By Pamela Anikeeff, Traffic Safety Programs, NHTSA Now, V. 3, No. 11, August 11, 1997 pages 1-2
A Crash Is Not an Accident. Changing the way we think about events, and the words we use to describe them, affects the way we behave. Motor vehicle crashes and injuries are predictable, preventable events. Continued use of the word “accident” promotes the concept that these events are outside of human influence or control. In fact, they are predictable results of specific actions. Since we can identify the causes of crashes, we can take action to alter the effect and avoid collisions. These events are not “acts of God” but predictable results of the laws of physics. The concept of “accident” works against bringing all the appropriate resources to bear on the enormous problem of motor vehicle collisions. Continuous use of “accident” fosters the idea that the resulting injuries are an unavoidable part of life.
“Crash”, “collision”, “incident”, and “injury” are more appropriate terms, and should be encouraged as substitutes for the word “accident”.
Within the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (US DOT/NHTSA), the word “accident” will no longer be used in materials published and distributed by the agency. In addition, NHTSA is no longer using “accidents” in speeches or other public remarks, in communications with the news media, individuals or groups in the public or private sector.
Recently, two other U.S. Department of Transportation agencies, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) joined NHTSA Administrator, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, endorsing his goal to eliminate “accident” from the agencies’ vocabulary. In this manner, attention will be focused on causes of crashes and what can be done to prevent collisions and the resulting injuries.
PROCLAMATION
Whereas, changing the way we think about events and the words we use will affect the way we behave. Our goal is to eliminate the word “accident” from the realm of unintentional injury, on the highway and across the nation;
Whereas, motor vehicle crashes and injuries are predictable, preventable events. Continued use of the word “accident” promotes the concept that these events are outside of human influence or control. In fact, they are predictable results of specific actions;
Whereas, we can identify their causes and take action to avoid them. These are not “acts of God”, but predictable results of the laws of physics;
Whereas, use of the word “accident” works against bringing the appropriate resources to bear on this enormous problem. It allows the idea that the resulting injuries are an unexpected part of life;
Now, therefore, we the undersigned, in recognition of this life saving and injury preventing opportunity, do hereby proclaim a national campaign: “Crashes Aren’t Accidents” to eliminate the word “accident” from the realm of unintentional injury, on the highway and across the nation, with our partners, with the media, and in all public contexts.
Scientific Research Literature
Journal of Trauma Stress. 2002 Aug;15(4):333-5.
Motor vehicle crash versus accident: a change in terminology is necessary.
Stewart AE, Lord JH.
Abstract
We assert that motor vehicle crash should replace motor vehicle accident in the clinical and research lexicon of traumatologists. Crash encompasses a wider range of potential causes for vehicular crashes than does the term accident. A majority of fatal crashes are caused by intoxicated, speeding, distracted, or careless drivers and, therefore, are not accidents. Most importantly, characterizing crashes as accidents, when a driver was intoxicated or negligent, may impede the recovery of crash victims by preventing them from assigning blame and working through the emotions related to their trauma.
Full Article "Look Inside" view only (2 pages): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1016260130224