SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Schwimmer S, Wolf RA. Proc. Am. Assoc. Automot. Med. Annu. Conf. 1961; 5: 6-19.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1961, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This paper deals with exploratory methods of ranking causes of injury in automobile accidents. Eleven of the leading causes of injury, isolated over a period of years by ACIR, are placed in ranked order when considered from a number of different viewpoints. Major factors considered in development of the ranking procedures are: EXPOSURE to injury, RISK of injury, WEIGHT given to degree of injury. These were examined for two time periods.

Using 1953-1955 data, RISK of injury is first considered as it applies to occupants in seated positions that are especially vulnerable. However, an ordering or ranking according to risk alone does not take into account that a cause with a high risk may be associated with a relatively small exposure (where exposure = the number of occupants in vulnerable seated positions). A better perspective of the total injury effects is gained by a ranking procedure based on the combination of risk and exposure. This combination yields the number of persons in vulnerable seated positions that were in fact injured due to the indicated cause. The next question examined is, what are the effects of varying value or weight placed on the seriousness of injury? Since this is a subjective problem, various weighting systems are examined for their influence on ranking. A ranking scheme which incorporates exposure, risk and weight is introduced.

Lastly, an attempt is made to indicate some of the change in rankings over time by comparing (1953-55) and (1956-59) data, on the basis of injury score and of risk.

Although somewhat crude at this phase of investigation, a preliminary method is devised which appears to yield some clues concerning potential payoff areas for further research. This method also indicates that ranking the causes of injury is highly dependent on the concept of value attached to different degrees of injury. The authors hope that future efforts along these lines will result in the development of ranking procedures that will provide continually improved guides to policymakers in the automotive safety field.

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print