Home

« TRUCKING ASSOCIATION WANTS SPEED GOVERNORS MANDATED | Main | AUTO DESIGN CHANGES URGED AS WAY TO CUT CRASH DEATHS »

October 31, 2006

CARMAKERS BIASED AGAINST GLOBAL ROAD SAFETY GOALS?

A study published in Injury Prevention (Vol. 12, No. 5) has raised questions as to the commitment of car companies to the road safety policies of the World Health Organization (WHO). The study notes that “some commentators are skeptical” that car companies can “make a valuable contribution to road safety in poor countries” through their participation in the World Bank’s Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP).

According to the abstract, the authors examined road safety policy documents to assess the extent of any bias. They carried out word frequency analyses of road safety policy documents from WHO and the GRSP. They found that, “Compared to WHO's World report on road traffic injury prevention, the GRSP road safety documents were substantially less likely to use the words speed, speed limits, child restraint, pedestrian, public transport, walking, and cycling, but substantially more likely to use the words school, campaign, driver training, and billboard… There are important differences in emphasis in road safety policy documents prepared by WHO and the GRSP. Vigilance is needed to ensure that the road safety interventions that the car industry supports are based on sound evidence of effectiveness.”

In a statement about the study, its lead author, Prof. Ian Roberts of the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, noted “serious concerns” that “car markers would be unlikely to promote safety initiatives (for example, better public transport or pedestrian-only streets in cities) that were in conflict with their commercial interests.” For instance, “whereas the WHO/World Bank document emphasizes the importance of speed reduction, particularly to promote the safety of pedestrians, a recommendation that is based on strong evidence, the GRSP documents talk about driver training and safety education campaigns, both of which the available research evidence show to be ineffective in reducing road injuries.”

He explained that the concern behind the study is “whether the GRSP would be able to persuade its commercial partners, many of which are major manufacturers, to fund road safety initiatives that might be seen to conflict with their commercial interests', explains Professor Ian Roberts, of the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and lead author of the study. “Unfortunately, the findings reveal that this is not always the case.”

Posted by MVHAP at October 31, 2006 02:08 PM