|
|
|
|
|
IN THIS ARTICLE   
A slow refeeding (2-3 pounds per week) is recommended for recovering eating disorder victims. more...  OTHER TOPICS |
Road Traffic Injuries: Can We Stop A Global Epidemic? Lauren P. Giles, B.A.; Elisabeth S. Hayes, M.B.A.; and Mark L. Rosenberg, M.D., M.P.P. Dr. Rosenberg is Executive Director of the Task Force for Child Survival and Development. Ms. Giles and Ms. Hayes are, respectively, Program Development Coordinator and Senior Program Associate for the Global Road Safety Program at the Task Force. The Task Force for Child Survival and Development is an independent non-profit organization affiliated with Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. The authors report no commercial conflict of interest. There is a hidden epidemic on the world's roadways. Over one million people every year are killed in road crashes, and 20-50 million are injured. Still, road traffic safety receives little international attention, and few are aware of the human and economic toll of road crashes on low- and middle-income countries, which represent 85% of deaths and the lion's share of injuries. As developing-country vehicle use rises, road traffic injuries (RTIs) are also growing. By 2020, RTIs are expected to be the third leading cause of death and disability worldwide, by some calculations matching the toll of AIDS.1,2,3,4,5 For every RTI death, there are four cases of severe, permanent disabilities, typically to the brain, spinal cord or lower limb joints; 10 cases requiring hospital admission and 30 requiring treatment in an ER. In the European Union alone, 150 000 people are left permanently disabled by RTIs each year.6 Crash victims are often working-age adults, whose families are left without a primary source of financial support. A study in Bangladesh found that 70% of families experienced a decline in household income and food consumption after a road death.7 Victims and their family members frequently experience depression, travel-related anxiety and sleep disturbance for years after a crash. The direct global cost of road traffic crashes is over US$500 billion annually, while the cost to developing nations is estimated at US$65 billion, almost double the total amount of development assistance sent to such nations every year.2 Indirect costs to victims, families and governments -- such as potential income and societal contributions lost -- are not included in these calculations. The average impact of crash costs on low- and middle-income countries has been estimated at 1-1.5% of GDP.2 Road traffic injuries are a global epidemic and the situation is only getting worse. 'Being Careful' Isn't Enough For years, most believed that responsibility for preventing traffic injuries lay with road users: drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Crashes were considered to be random events and being careful was the best way to avoid them. In the United States, this conception began to shift in the 1960s with the publication of Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed , which detailed risks to passengers from poor vehicle design and the reluctance of automakers to include crash-protective features. The US Congress responded to this and other criticisms by passing the 1966 Highway Safety Act, which created the National Highway Traffic Safety Bureau (now Administration or NHTSA). The Highway Safety Act represented the first nationwide legislative effort to reduce crashes, and included provisions on road improvements, hazard removal and vehicle safety, taking the focus off the driver as the primary cause of crashes. In the succeeding decades, NHTSA invested in research that contributed directly to making safer cars, safer roadways and safer drivers. In many developing countries, however, road crashes are still seen as 'accidents' that cannot be prevented. In fact, road crashes are both predictable and preventable. The causes of RTIs have been established: excessive speed, consumption of drugs and alcohol, failure to use protective measures such as seatbelt and helmets, poor vehicle impact protection and poor road design. At-risk populations have been defined. Proven, cost-effective prevention measures exist. The real barrier to reducing road traffic injuries is fatalism -- accepting road traffic injuries as inevitable, as the necessary cost of development, keeps us from addressing this devastating epidemic. The Road Traffic Safety System To understand road crash prevention, it is necessary to view the road user, the vehicle and the built environment as elements of a dynamic system that work together to either produce or prevent injuries. Road users include drivers or occupants of buses, trucks and passenger cars, riders on motorized two-wheelers (MTWs), cyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers and MTW riders are called 'vulnerable' road users because they are at greater risk of injury or death if involved in a collision. Vehicles can be either motorized (cars, trucks, two- and three-wheelers) or non-motorized (bicycles, carts, rickshaws). The road environment varies by road location (rural or urban), type of road (motorway or street), time of day, visibility and traffic flow. It is also critical to appreciate the three phases of injury as applied to road safety -- pre-crash, crash and post-crash. In the pre-crash phase, preventive measures may be taken, such as enforcement of drunk-driving laws and the separation of pedestrians from vehicles. During a crash, forgiving roadway designs and vehicle safety features can reduce injuries. In the post-crash phase, acute care, rehabilitation and long-term care are critical. Healthcare professionals play a vital role in helping crash victims to recover from their injuries and return to their lives. Effective interventions must address the entire road system. Programs to teach children to look both ways before crossing the street will prevent a limited number of injuries, but if we provide sidewalks and speed bumps, mandate safer vehicle fronts and enforce speed limits, many children will be saved from death or lifelong disability. Encouraging safe behavior among road users is important but it is not enough to stop the road traffic injury epidemic. The Vulnerables Developing Countries Residents of developing countries are at much higher risk of RTIs than are residents of high-income countries. They are also at greater risk of death when a crash occurs: in the US, 10,000 crashes result in 66 deaths but in Vietnam, for example, there are 3000 deaths per 10,000 crashes.8 Rapid motorization, which often accompanies rapid economic development, has long been understood to lead to higher RTI risk,9 because of its adverse impact on the three components of the road system:
Pedestrians and Cyclists Pedestrians and cyclists incur higher crash risks than other road users. The modern traffic system, in both the developed and developing worlds, is designed primarily for motorized vehicles and often fails to make provision for other road users. Young Drivers and Men Young drivers and riders, particularly males, are at higher risk for crash involvement. Teenage drivers run the greatest risk of any age group, particularly within the first year after receiving a full license. Men, especially young men, are more likely than women to be in a road crash.10 Taking Action: Key Steps Acceptance of a high rate of RTIs continues in part because no one is responsible for lowering the crash rate. A critical first step is the appointment or creation of an agency to lead the national road safety movement. A lead agency, once appointed, creates needed focus and accountability for road safety. Specific interventions will vary by country and within countries. Governments must assess the road safety problem in their country and prepare a national strategy that incorporates those steps most likely to have an impact on RTIs. National plans should set clear, measurable goals and provide for evaluation of outcomes. Plans must also address all three phases of road traffic injuries: prevention, minimization, and post-crash and long-term care. Environmental Factors Safety is often left out of the road planning and construction process. This is a particular problem in developing nations, who spend very little on road safety. For every $2500 the Asian Development Bank spends on transport projects, only $1 or less is spent on safety initiatives.11 The separation of different types of road users is a key step for improving safety. Crashes will be reduced if we keep pedestrians and cyclists off motorways, create bicycle lanes, provide sidewalks and put safety barriers between pedestrian zones and the roadway. Road planners should also seek to keep high-speed traffic and heavy commercial traffic separate from lower-speed, inner-city traffic. Vehicles leaving the road and colliding with solid objects are a major safety problem. Researchers in Australia and the EU have found that such collisions are involved in 18-42% of fatal crashes.12,13 Reduced visibility resulting from hedges, signs and poles is also a safety concern. Removal of unforgiving objects and keeping lines of sight clear will reduce these risks. Vehicle Factors Design features can reduce both crash risk and crash severity. Use of daytime running lights for motorized vehicles and reflectors for bicycles improves visibility. "Smart" features can discourage speeding, remind drivers to use seatbelts, improve vehicle stability and prevent a drunk driver from turning on a car. Airbags, collapsible steering columns and rollover protection can reduce the severity of injuries sustained in a crash. Unfortunately, vehicles in developing countries are often older and lack up-to-date crash-protective features and "smart" systems are expensive or unavailable. Developing countries need to establish higher vehicle safety standards that, in turn, could help increase the prevalence of modern safety features in developing-country vehicle fleets. Driver Factors Speed Speeding dramatically increases crash risk and crash severity. It has been shown that an increase of 1 kph in mean traffic speed results in a 3% increase in the incidence of injury crashes and a 4-5% increase in fatal crashes.14 Passengers in a car with an impact speed of 80 kph are twenty times more likely to die than at an impact speed of 32 kph.15 While 90% of pedestrians involved in a crash at 30 kph or slower will survive, at speeds over 45 kph, chance of survival drops below 50%.16,17 Lowering the speed limit can dramatically impact fatality rates: a 20 km/h decrease in the speed limit on Swedish motorways, for example, led to a 21% drop in RTI fatalities.18 Enforcement of set speed limits through radar guns and police presence has been shown to lower crash deaths by 14% and injuries by 6%.19 The well-publicized use of speed cameras has also been shown to reduce crashes substantially.20,21,22 Alcohol As blood-alcohol content (BAC) increases, risk of crash involvement rises dramatically. Crash risk at a BAC of 0.05 g/dl, a common legal limit in the United States, is already 1.83 greater than at zero BAC.23 While the danger of drunk drivers to pedestrians is well known, pedestrians' own consumption of alcohol significantly increases risk of dying in a crash.24 The introduction of BAC limits is associated with a decrease in alcohol-related crashes, and subsequent lowering of such limits leads to further reductions, though the magnitude of such effects varies widely. The most effective way to deter drunk driving is to raise drivers' perceived risk of getting caught.25 Sobriety checkpoints and random breath testing have been found to lower alcohol-related crashes by about 20%.26 Seatbelts and Child Restraints Failure to use seatbelts and child restraints dramatically increases crash severity. Seatbelt use reduces crash death risk by 40-65%, moderate and severe injuries by 43-65% and all injuries from 40-50%.27,28 Use of child restraints has been shown to reduce infant crash deaths by about 71% and small children's deaths by 54%.29 Seat belt laws have saved many lives. Visible, well-publicized enforcement programs can increase seat belt use by 10-15% over usage rate at program initiation.30 In the United States, mandatory child restraint laws were found to reduce fatal injuries by 35% and increase restraint usage by 13% on average.31,32 Unfortunately, use of seat belts and child restraints are still not mandatory in many low-income countries. Helmets Head trauma is the major cause of hospital admissions and deaths among riders of motorized two-wheelers and bicycles.33,34 Among motorized two-wheeler riders, it has been found that in a crash, users without helmets are three times more likely to sustain head trauma than are helmeted users.35 Bicycle helmet use reduces head injury risk from 63-88%.36,37,38 Mandatory helmet laws reduce head injuries among cyclists by about 25%.19 Thailand's enforcement of a mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists was associated with a sharp increase in use and a 41.4% decrease in head injuries among MTW riders.39 Unfortunately, rates of helmet use vary widely, dependent on the existence or enforcement of helmet laws. Case Studies: Success in Two Countries Costa Rica40 The Problem Costa Rica is a small Central American nation with a vehicle fleet of around 900,000. Road traffic injuries are a major public health problem: they are the leading cause of violent deaths, the leading cause of death in the 10-45 years age group and the third leading cause of years of life lost from premature death. About 600 people die from RTIs annually and many more are injured. The cost of crashes amounts to almost 2.3% of GDP. A National Problem In 2001, Costa Rica set a goal of a 19% reduction in traffic fatalities in the period 2001-2005. The Costa Rican government sought the assistance of the government of Sweden, the FIA Foundation and the Global Road Safety Partnership in the development and implementation of a national road safety plan. Drunk driving and seatbelt non-use were targeted as key factors in crashes and crash severity. An existing national agency, the National Highway Safety Council, was charged with coordinating the effort. Intervention Legal reforms have strengthened protection of pedestrians and made seat belt use compulsory. The Costa Rican government has taken steps to improve the road environment, including construction of pedestrian bridges and walkways and installation of new lights and signs. Police enforcement of seatbelt, speeding and drunk driving laws has been stepped up, and police presence on the roadways at night and during special events has been increased. National ad campaigns promote safe behavior and road safety education has been added to primary and secondary school curricula. Monitoring Data on road crashes are being compiled systematically and made available to the public through the website of the National Road Safety Council. Studies on risk factors, crash victims and the economic impact of RTIs, among other topics, are underway. Recent data show an 11% decline in number of crashes and a 16% drop in fatalities since the beginning of 2003. Bogota, Colombia41 The Problem Bogota, the capital of Colombia, is a city of seven million. In 1995, nearly 1,400 people died as a result of RTIs. The municipal government decided that urgent action was necessary to reduce crash rates. Intervention The Bogota government, along with the national Transportation Ministry and the National Fund for Road Accident Prevention, adopted a comprehensive and creative approach to RTI prevention. They reduced traffic flows by promoting cycling and restricting when and where private vehicles may be driven. They separated cyclists and pedestrians from motorized traffic by creating bicycle paths and reclaiming sidewalks, which had been taken over by vendors and parked cars. They promoted safe behavior through public education campaigns, including employment of mimes at busy intersections to illustrate the use of striped ("zebra") crossings. Legal reforms included the elimination of the city's traffic police force, widely seen as corrupt. Traffic enforcement was turned over to the national police. Bar and pub closing times were also moved up from 4AM to 1AM. A related public campaign sought to build respect for moderation in alcohol consumption. Monitoring Monitoring The independent Epidemiological Supervisory Committee on External Injuries was created in 1995 and charged with collecting data on RTIs in an objective, scientific manner. Statistics in 2002 showed a near-50% decrease in traffic fatalities from 1995. Summary Road traffic injuries are a hidden global epidemic. Though millions are killed and injured every year, few are aware of the heavy human and economic toll of crashes, particularly in developing nations. Millions are at risk -- deaths are expected to rise dramatically by 2020. However, such crashes are not unavoidable accidents: proven interventions exist which can save lives if action is taken soon.
References 1. Peden M, Scurfield R, Sleet D, Mohan D, Hyder AA, Jarawan E, Mathers C, eds. The World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Geneva, The World Heath Organization, 2004. return 2. Jacobs G, Aeron-Thomas A, Astrop A. Estimating global road fatalities. Crowthorne, Transport Research Laboratory, 2000 (TRL Report 445). return 3. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. Global health statistics: a compendium of incidence, prevalence and mortality estimates for 200 conditions. Boston, MA, Harvard School of Public Health, 1996. return 4. McGee K et al. Injury surveillance. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2003, 10:105-108. return 5. Murray CJL, Lopez AD, eds. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Boston, MA, Harvard School of Public Health, 1996. return 6. Federation Europeenne des Victimes de la Route [web site]. (http://www.fevr.org/english.html#Road. Information accessed 17 November 2003). return 7. Babtie Ross Silcock, Transport Research Laboratory. Guidelines for estimating the cost of road crashes in developing countries. London, Department for International Development, 2003 (project R7780). return 8. Reich MR, Nantulya V. Road Traffic Injuries in Developing Countries: Strategies for Prevention and Control. Presented at the Road Traffic Injuries and Health Equity Conference, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, April 10-12, 2002. return 9. Smeed R. Some statistical aspects of road safety research. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1949, 112(Series A):1-34. return 10. Cerrelli E. Crash data and rates for age-sex groups of drivers, 1996. Washington, DC, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 1998 (NHTSA Research Note). return 11. Private conversation with Charles Melhuish, Lead Transport Sector Specialist, Asian Development Bank, 2002. return 12. Kloeden CN et al. Severe and fatal car crashes due to roadside hazards: a report to the motor accident commission. Adelaide, University of Adelaide, National Health and Medical Research Council, Road Accident Research Unit, 1998. return 13. Forgiving roadsides. Brussels, European Transport Safety Council, 1998. return 14. Finch DJ et al. Speed, speed limits and accidents. Crowthorne, Transport Research Laboratory, 1994 (Project Report 58). return 15. IHS Facts: 55 speed limit. Arlington, VA,Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1987. return 16. Pasanen E. Ajonepeuet ja jalankulkijan turvallisuus [Driving speeds and pedestrian safety]. Espoo, Teknillinen korkeakoulu, Liikennetekniikka, 1991. return 17. Ashton SJ, Mackay GM. Benefits from changes in vehicle exterior design. In: Proceedings of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Detroit, MI, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1983:255-264 (Publication No. 121). return 18. Reducing injuries from excess and inappropriate speed. Brussels, European Transport Safety Council, Working Party on Road Infrastructure, 1995. return 19. Elvik, R Vaa T. Handbook of road safety measures. Amsterdam, Elsevier, in press. return 20. Road safety: impact of new technologies. Paris, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2003. return 21. Keall MD, Povey LJ, Frith WJ. The relative effectiveness of a hidden versus a visible speed camera programme. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2001, 33:277-284. return 22. Gains A et al. A cost recovery system for speed and red light cameras: to year pilot evaluation. London, Department for Transport, 2003 (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/.../dft_rdsafety_507639.pdf. Information accessed 12 December 2003). return 23. McLean AJ, Holubowycz OT. Alcohol and the risk of accident involvement. In: Goldber L, ed. Alcohol, drugs and traffic safety. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Stockholm, 15-19 June 1980. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1981: 113-123. return 24. Clayton AB, Colgan MA, Tunbridge RJ. The role of the drinking pedestrian in traffic accidents. In: Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Stockholm, 22-26 May 2000. Stockholm, Swedish National Road Administration, 2000 (http://www.vv.se/traf_sak/t2000/553.pdf. Information accessed on 7 December 2003). return 25. Sweedler BM. Strategies for dealing with the persistent drinking driver. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Adelaide, 13-18 August 1995. Adelaide, University of Adelaide, Road Accident Research Unit, 1995 (http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/T95/paper/s1p3.html. Information accessed 16 December 2003). return 26. Elder RW et al. Effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints for reducing alcohol-involved crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention, 2002, 3:266-274. return 27. Seat-belts and child restraints: increasing use and optimising performance. Brussels, European Transport Safety Council, 1996. return 28. Cummings P et al. Association of driver air bags with driver fatality: a matched cohort study. British Medical Journal, 2002, 324:119-122. return 29. Traffic safety facts 2002: children. Washington, DC, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002 (DOT HS-809-607). return 30. Hagenzieker M. Effect of incentives on safety belt use: a meta-analysis. Crash Analysis and Prevention, 1997, 29:759-777. return 31. Zaza S et al. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to increase use of child safety seats. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2001, 21:31-43. return 32. Motor vehicle occupant injury: strategies for increasing use of child safety seats, increasing use of safety belts and reducing alcohol-impaired driving. A report on recommendations of the task force on community preventive services. Mobility and Mortality Weekly Report, 2001 50:7 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/RR/RR5007.pdf. Information accessed 16 December 2003). return 33. Servadei F et al. Effect of Italy's motorcycle helmet law on traumatic brain injuries. Injury Prevention, 2003, 9:257-260. return 34. Nixon J et al. Bicycle accidents in childhood. British Medical Journal, 1987, 294:1267-1269. return 35. Kulanthayan S et al. Compliance of proper safety helmet usage in motorcyclists. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 2000, 55:40-44. return 36. Thomas S et al. Effectiveness of bicycle helmets in preventing head injury in children: case-control study. British Medical Journal, 1994, 308:173-176. return 37. Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries: a case-control study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1996, 276:1968-1973. return 38. Sosin DM, Sacks JJ, Webb KW. Pediatric head injuries and deaths from bicycling in the United States. Pediatrics, 1996, 98:868-870. return 39. Ichikawa M, Chadbunchachai W, Marui E. Effect of the helmet act for motorcyclists in Thailand. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2003, 35:183-189. return 40. Global Road Safety Steering Committee. Backgrounder: Costa Rica and the FIA Foundation team up for road safety success. N/D. http://www.globalroadsafety.org/costa_rica_fia.doc. Information accessed on 9 February 2005. return 41. Global Road Safety Steering Committee. Backgrounder: Bogota, Colombia. N/D. http://www.globalroadsafety.org/bogota_columbia.doc Information accessed on 9 February 2005. return |
|||||
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
NEWS SEARCH CONTENTS MEDITORIAL ASK DISCUSS REGISTER HELP HOME |
||||||
© 2008 interMDnet Corporation. All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY |
||||||