/ A 7

A c 2- TO ESTABL ISH A NATIO NA L A C C I D E N T ^

cover nmen. PRE VEN TIO N CENTER

Storage

H E A R IN G S

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

__ _< NTE RS TA TE AND EOR EIGN COMMERCE 

HOUSE OE REPRESE NTATIVE S

EIGH TY -SE VE NT H CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 133

A BIL L TO AM EN D T IT L E III OF T H E PU B L IC H EA LTH SE RV IC E 

AC T TO ESTA B LIS H A NAT IO NA L ACC ID EN T 

PREV ENTIO N C EN TER

FEBR U A R Y 6, ", 8, 20, AN D 21, 1962

P ri n te d fo r th e us e of th e 

Com m itt ee on In te rs ta te and For ei gn Co mm erc e

$

I

80624

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1962
4UV

I 4 »

COMMITTEE ON INTERS TATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

OR EN HA RR IS,

JOHN BELL WILLIAM S, Mississippi

PE T E R F. MA CK , Jr., Illinois

K EN N ETH A. RO BERTS, Alabama

MO RG AN M. MO UL DE R, Missouri

HA RLE Y O. STAGOERS, West Virginia

W AL TE R RO GE RS , Texas

SA MUE L N. FR IE DEL, Maryland

TO RBERT II. MACDONALD, Massac huse tts

GE ORG E M. RH OD ES, Pennsylvania

JO HN JA RM AN , Oklahoma

LEO W. O’B RI EN , New York

JO HN E. MOSS, California

JO HN D. DI NG EL L, Michigan

JO E M. KI LG OR E, Texas

PA UL G. RO GE RS, Florida

RO BER T W. HE M PH IL L, South Carolina

DAN RO ST EN KO WSK I, Illinois

JA MES C. HE AL EY , New York

HO RA CE R. KO RN EGAY , North Carolina

Arkansas, Chairman

JOHN B. BE NNETT , Michigan 

WILLIAM L. SP RI NGER , Illinois 

PAUL F. SC HE NC K, Ohio 

J. AR TH UR YO UN GE R, California 

HAROLD R. CO LL IER, Illinois 

MI LT ON W. GL EN N, New Jersey 

SAMU EL L. DEV IN E, Ohio 

AN CH ER NE LS EN , Minnesota 

HA STINGS KEI TH , Massachuse tts 

WI LLAR D S. CU RTI N, Pennsylvania 

AB NE R W. SIB AL, Connecticut 

VE RN ON W. TH OM SO N, Wisoousln 

PETER II. DO M IN IC K, Colorado

W . E. Williamson, Clerk

Kenneth J. P ainter, Assis tan t Clerk

Professional Staff

Andbkw Stevenson Sam G. Spal

K ubt Bobchardt Martin W. Cunningham

Subcommittee on Health and Safety

KEN NET H A. RO BE RT S, Alabama, Chairman

GEORG E M. RHOD ES, Pennsylvania PA UL F. SCH ENCK,*O hio

LEO W. O’BRIE N New York AN CH ER NE LS EN , Minn esota

PA UL G. RO GE RS, Florid a PETER H. DO MIN IC K, Colorado

n
C O N T E N T S

Hearings held on— Page

February 6, 1962______________ .___________________________ 1

February 7, 1962___________________________________________ 83

February 8, 1962__________________________________________ 143

February 20, 1962__________________________________________ 203

February 21, 1962_________________________________________ 235

Text of H.R. 133___________________ 1

Report of—

Agriculture, Department of__________________________________ 3

Air Force, Department of___________________________________ 3

Budget, Bureau___________________________________________ 4

Civil Aeronautics Board_____________________________________ 5

Commerce, Secretary of_____________________________________ 6

General Services Administration______________________________ 7

Health, Education, and Welfare______________________________ 7

Interior, Department of the__________________________________ 9

Inte rsta te Commerce Commission____________________________ 10

Labor, Department of______________________________________ 11

Postmaster General, Office of the_____________________________ 13

Statement of—

Aaron, James E., coordinator, safety center, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Ill___________________________________ 98

American Public Health Association, by Edward Press, M.D., M.P.H_

Berry, Dr. Clyde M., associate director, Institute of Agricultural

Medicine, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa____________ 147

Borkenstein, Robert F., chairman, Departm ent of Police Administration, Indiana University__________________________________194, 313

Brandaleone, Dr. Harold, New York, N.Y______________________ 316

Carroll, Hon. John A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado_____ 14

Cutter, Walter A., l’h. D., director, Center for Safety Education,

Division of General Education, New York University___________ 310

Donahue, Charles, solicitor, Department of Labor; accompanied by

Frank S. McElroy, Division of Industrial Hazards, Bureau of Labor

Statistics; and Robert D. Gidel, Assistant Director for Safety,

Bureau of Labor Standards, Department of Labor____________ 236

Finesilver, Municipal Judge Sherman G., director, Denver Driver

Improvement School, Denver, Colo_________________ ________ 51

Gerber, Dr. Samuel R., coroner of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, president,

Haddon, Dr. William Jr., director, epidemiology residency program,

Department of Health, State of New York, Albany, N.Y________ 165

Halsey, Maxwell N., traffic safety consultant, East Norwalk, Conn___ 74

Harper, Rev. Howard D.D., officer of the National Council of the

Protestant Episcopal Church and a member of the National Committee of Religious Leaders for Safety (of the National Safety

Hutcheson, R. H., M.D., Tennessee State Health Association, Nashville, Tenn______________________________________________ 103

Johnson, W. G., National Safety Council representative, Chicago, Ill. _ 35

Klein, David, staff associate, Association for the Aid of Crippled

Children, New York______________________________________ 59

Latimer, J. Austin, counsel, Automotive Service Industry Association. 195 

McCrary, V. Eugene, O.D., president, Maryland Optometric Association, College Park, Md____________________________________ 176

Mickle, D. Grant, Deputy Federal Highway Administrator, Department of Commerce; accompanied by Charles Prisk, Bureau of

Public Roads____________________________________________ 203

m
IV CONTENTS

Sta tem ent of—Continued P ag 0

Moore, John O_______________________________________________ 199

Moseley, Alfred L., De partm ent of Legal Medicine, Ha rva rd Medical

School, Boston, Mass_______________________________________ 110

O’Brien, Robert E., president, Bio-Dynamics, In c-------------------------- 92

Peden, Katherine, president, National Federation of Business and

Professional Women’s Clubs, In c____________________________ 315

Porterfield, Dr. John D., Deputy Surgeon General, Public Health 

Service; accompanied by Dr. Albert L. Chapman, Chief, Division of 

Accident Prevention, U.S. Public Hea lth Service_______________ 16

Prath er, Dr. Perry F., Commissioner of Health, State of Mary land; 

chairman, legislative committe e, Association of Sta te and Territorial Health Officers_______________________________________ 314

Press, Dr. Edward, public health director, Evansto n Depar tment of

Health , Evanston, III___________________________________ ___ 152

Russell, Harold, past national commander, AM VETS National 

Service Foundation, Washington, D.C________________________ 83

Schreiber, Dr. Robert J., executive director of research, Public Service

Research, Inc., Stamford, Co nn______________________________ 187

Sheehe, Gordon H ., professor, Michigan State University__________ 178

Silber, Frederick, managing ed itor, Medical Tribune, New York, N.Y . 309

Stapp, Col. John Paul, Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Tex---- 171

Wade, Dr. Preston, American Public Health Association, New York,

N.Y ________________________ _____ _____ _________________ 144

Wilbar, C. I.., Jr., M.D., secretary, Department of Health, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pa _______________________ 77

Woodward, Dr. Fletcher, Charlottesville, Va_____________________ 68

Additional data subm itted to the comm ittee—

Albemarle County Medical Society proposals to the Virginia State 

Medical Society and the Virginia Academy of General Practice for 

the reduction of automobile injuries and death s, rep ort__________ 70

Anticipa ted benefits in 1980 of completed interstate system, table---- 212

Comparison of PHS appropriation for heart, cancer, and accident prevention, fiscal year 1962, table_______________________________ 25

De ath by Driving, reprinted from the Harva rd Medical Alumni Bulletin, (Christmas 1961_____________________________________ _ 117

Federal Employees’ Com pensation Act, inju ry rate s and costs, with 

average number of employees by establishments, 1937 to 1960, 

ta b le s ______________. . . . ________________ - _______________ 298

Federal work injuries sustain ed during 1960, supplied by the Depar tment of L abor_____________________________________________ 279

Labor Departm ent News letter:

Copy date d February 7, 1962______________________________ 244

Copy dated December 3, 1959_____________________________ 248

Copy dated December 9, 1961___________________________ -- 268

Part-tim e consultan ts utiliz ed by the Department of Commerce in 

connection with the Bureau of Public Roads highway safety progra m____________________________________ - _______________ 227

Projects conducted by the Office of Research, Depar tment of Commerce____________________________________________________ 230

Research g rants in the area of accident prevention, table---------------- 28

Technical personnel engaged pa rt time in highway safety research, as

of Jan uary 31, 1962, l isting -------- ------------------------------------------- 213

Communications submitted to the comm ittee—

American Pharmaceutical Association, W. S. Apple, Ph. D., secretary,

lette r dated February 6, 1962------------------------------------------------- 321

Bio-Dynamics, Inc., R. E. O’Brien, president, letter dated February

14, 1962--------------------- ------- ----------------------- ------------------------ 94

Caldwell, Bernard R., director, Traffic Institute, Northwestern University , let ter dated February 6, 1962--------------------------------- -------- 322

Caughrean, Milo C., lette r dated Jan uar y 26, 1962; pa tent No.

1,323,963; and newspaper clipping dated November 30, 1959----- 323-328

Florida State Board of He alth, A. V. Hardy, actin g Sta te health

officer, letter dated Febru ary 5, 1962--------------------------------------- 319

Lab or Departme nt, Arthu r J. Goldberg, Secretary, letters dated:

February 19, 1962------------------------------------------------------------- 235

April 3, 1961___________________________________ ________ 308
CONTENTS V

Communica tions subm itted to the committee— Con tinu ed Mathewson, J. H., lette r dated February 13, 1962------------------------- 317 Motor & Equipment Man ufac turers Association, lette r dated Febru ­ ary 8, 1962________________________________________________ 318 National Association of Motor Bus Owners, letter dated Feb ruary 5, 1962___ ____ _____________________________________________ 320 National Safety Council, W. G. Johnson, general manager, letter dated February 28, 1962____________________________________ 47 New York Sta te College of Agriculture, E. W. Foss, rural safety specialist, lette r dated Jan uar y 31, 1962--------------------------------- 320 Normann, O. K., De puty Director of Research, Bureau of Public Roads, De partm ent of Commerce, lette r dated March 8, 1962----- 226 Safety research and edu cation project at Teachers College, Columbia University, let ter da ted February 3, 1962______________________ 319 Tennessee Highway Patro l, Greg O’Rear, commissioner, letter dated February 5, 1962___________________________________________ 103

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION 

CENTER

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1962

H ouse of Representatives,

Subcommittee on H ealth and Safety of th e

Committee on I nterstate and F oreign Commerce,

Washington, D.G.

The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 

1334, New House Office Building, Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

The Chairman. The committee will be in order.

The Subcommittee on Health and Safety is meeting today to begin 

hearings on H.R. 133, to establish a National Accident Prevention 

Center.

At this point, I want to insert in the record the bill and copies of 

agency reports.

(The bill referred to, H.R. 133, and agency reports follow:)

[H.R. 133, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend title II I of the Public Health Service Act to establish a National Accident Prevention Center

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, Tha t title III of the Public Health 

Service Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new part : 

“Part I—National Accident Prevention Center

“purpose and establishment of center

“Sec. 381. In order to assist in the advancement, dissemination, and exchange of knowledge relating to the cause and prevention of accidents, there is hereby established in the Public Health Service a National Accident Prevention Center 

(hereinafter referred to in this p art as the ‘Center’).

“functions of the center

“Sec. 382. In carrying out the purposes of this part the Surgeon General 

shall—“ (1) conduct, assist, and foster research, investigations, studies relating 

to the causes, and methods of prevention of accidents: “ (2) promote the coordination of research and control programs con­ ducted by public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals: “ (3) make available research facilities of the Service to appropriate public authorities, and to health officials and scientists engaged in special 

studies related to the purposes of this p ar t: “ (4) make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, laboratories and other public or private agencies and institutions for such research projects relating to the purposes of this part as are recommended by the Council, including grants to such agencies and institutions for the construction, acquisition, leasing, equipment, and maintenance of facilities necessary for such research ;
2 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

“ (5) establish an inform atio n cente r on causes and prevention of accidents, and collect and make available, through publications and other 

app ropriate means, info rma tion as to, and the practical application of, 

activities carried on und er this p a rt ;

“ (6) secure from time to time, and for such periods as he deems advisable, the assistance and advice of persons from the United States or 

abroad who are expe rts in the field of accident prevention.

“ad minis tra tion

“Sec. 383. (a) In car ryi ng out the provisions of thi s pa rt all appropriate 

provision s of section 301 sha ll be applicable to the authority of the Surgeon 

General and grants-in-aid for accident prevention and research and training 

projects shall be made only af te r review and recom mendation of the Board 

made pursuant to section 384.

“ (b) The Surgeon General shall recommend to the Secretary acceptance 

of conditional gifts, pu rsu ant to section 501, for study, investigation, or research into the cause, prevention of accidents, or for the acquisitio n of grounds 

or for the erection, equipment, or maintenance of premises, buildings, or equipment necessary to car ry out this part. Donations of $50,000 or over for carryin g 

out the purposes of this pa rt may be acknowledged by suitable memorials to 

the donors.

“Accident P reve ntion Advisory B oard

“ Sec. 384. (a )( 1) There is hereby established in the Public Health Service 

an Accident Prevention Advisory Board composed of the Surgeon General or 

an officer designated by him w’ho shall be chairman, and twelve members appointed by the Presiden t none of whom shall be Fed eral officers o r employees. 

The appointed members, hav ing due regard for the purposes of this part, shall 

be selected from among representatives of various State, interstate, and local 

governmental agencies, of public or private intere sts affected by, or concerned 

with, accident prevention as well as oth er individuals who are expert in this 

field.

“ (2) (A) Each member appointed by th e President shall hold office for a term 

of fou r years, except that any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring 

prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor wTas appointed 

shall be appointed for the rem ainder of such term. None of the members 

appo inted by the President shall be eligible for reap pointm ent within one year 

af te r the end of his preceding term.

“ (B) Members of the Board who are not officers or employees of the United 

States, while attending conferences or meetings of the Board or while otherw ise 

serving at the request of the Surgeon General, shall be entitle d to receive compensation at a rat e to be fixed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and 

We lfare but not exceeding $50 per diem, including travel time and while away 

from their homes or reg ular places of business. They may be allowed trav el 

expenses including i>er diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by law’ for 

persons in the Government service employed inte rmitte ntly.

“ (b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recom mendations to the 

Surgeon General on matters of policy rela ting to the activitie s and functions of 

the Surgeon General under this p art .

“ (c) Such clerical and tech nica l assistance as may be necessary to discharge 

the duties of the Board shall be provided from the personnel of the Public 

Health Service.

“fu nc ti on s of board

“Sec. 385. The Board is autho rized—

“ (1) to review research projects or programs subm itted to or initiated by 

it relating to th e study of the cause and prevention of accidents, and certify 

approval to the Surgeon General, for prosecution under section 382, of any 

such projects which it believes show promise of making valuable contrib utions to human knowledge with respect to the cause and prevention of 

ac cide nt;

“ (2) to collect inform atio n as to studies which are being carried on in 

the United States or any oth er country as to the cause and prevention of 

accidents, by correspondence or by personal inve stigation of such studies, 

and w ith the approval of the Surgeon General make ava ilab le such information through the appro pri ate publications for the benefit of agencies and
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 3

organizations (public or pri vate) , or any other scientists, and for the information of the general p ubl ic; ‘*(3) to review applications from any university, hospital, laboratory, or other institution, whether public or private, or from individuals, for grants- in-aid for research projects relating to the cause and prevention of accidents, and certify to the Surgeon General its approval of grants-in-aid in the cases of such projects which show promise of making valuable con­ tributions to human knowledge with respect to the cause and prevention 

of accid ents; “ (4 ) to recommend to the Surgeon General for acceptance conditional 

gifts pursua nt to section 501 of this Act; and “ (5 ) to make recommendations to the Surgeon General with respect 

to carrying out the provisions of this part.

“appropriations

“Sec. 386. Appropriations to carry out the purposes of this part shall be available for the acquisition of land or the erection of buildings only if so specified, but in the absence of express limitation therein may be expended in the District of Columbia for personal services, stenographic recording and tran slating services, by con tract if deemed necessary, without regard to section 3709 of t he Revised Statute s; travel ing expenses (including the expenses of at ­ tendance at meetings when specifically authorized by the Surgeon General) ; rental, supplies and equipment, purchase and exchange of medical books, books of reference, directories, periodicals, newspapers, and press clippings; purchase, operation, and m aintenance of motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles; p rint ­ ing and binding (in addition to th at otherwise provided by law ) ; and for all other necessary expenses in carrying out the provisions of this part .”

Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C., August 25, 1961.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Harris: This is in reply to your request, received in the Department on February 9, for a report on H.R. 133, a bill to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to establish a National Accident Prevention Center. The D epartment is interested in this matter and is devoting considerable effort to educational work on accident prevention. However, since H.R. 133 does not affect th e activities of this Department, we have no recommendations regarding 

the passage of this bill. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of t his report from the sta ndpoin t of the administration’s program.

Sincerely yours, Charles S. Murphy.

Ac ting Secretary.

Department of the Air Force,

Washington, February 6, 1962.

Hon. Oren Harris.

Chairman, Committee on Inte rstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman : Reference is made to your request for the views of the Department of Defense w ith respect to H.R. 133, 87th Congress, a bill to amend title III of the Public H ealth Service Act to establish a Nationa l Accident Pre­ vention Center. The Secretary of Defense has delegated to this Department the responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense. The purpose of H.R. 133 is to establish in the Public H ealth Service a National Accident Prevention Center which would assist in the advancement, dissemina­ tion, and exchange of knowledge relating to the cause and prevention of 

accidents. The Department of the Air Force is in no position to pronounce upon the necessity or even the desirability of creating a new bureau or division in the Public Health Service to carr y on functions that will presumably duplicate, at
4 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

least in substantial part, certain functions now being performed in other Federal 

agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Agency, the Coast Guard, the Interstate 

Commerce Commission, or the Bureau of Mines. The Department of the Air 

Force, therefore, on behalf of the Department of Defense, respectfully refrains 

from expressing any opinion as to the merits on H.R. 133.

Enactment of H.R. 133 would not involve the expenditure of any Department 

of Defense appropriations.

This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely,

Joseph S. Imirie,

Acting Secretary of the Air Force.

Executive Office of the President,

Bureau ofthe Budget,

Washington, D.C., February 3,1962.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Inter sta te and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your request of February 9, 1961, 

for a report on H.R. 133, a bill to amend title III of the Public Health Service 

Act to establish a National Accident Prevention Center.

The overall objective of H.R. 133, as we interpret its provisions, is to provide 

additional legislative authority to the Public Health Service to enable that agency 

to more effectively carry out its current accident prevention activities. This 

objective would be met by establishing a National Accident Prevention Center 

in the Public Health Service, by establishing an Accident Prevention Advisory 

Board, and by authorizing the Surgeon General, to carry out a broad range of 

research, control, promotional, coordinative, informational, and technical assistance functions.

The in tent of the bill is not clear as to whether the National Accident Prevention Center is to be a specific organizational unit within the Public Health 

Service or whether a new facility is authorized for construction. The report you 

are receiving on this bill from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

points out that the Public Health Service Act already provides broad authorization for establishment of organizational units and that the current flexibility thus 

afforded provides a better legislative basis for efficiently organizing service functions than would a specific statutory organizational unit.

With respect to authorizing the construction of a specific facility, the Public 

Health Service Act now provides broad authority for the construction of additional facilities when required to carry out Service programs, and therefore 

such specific authorization as may be intended by this bill would appear to 

be unnecessary.

Legislation now pending before your committee (H.R. 8398) provides for 

amending the Public Health Service Act by adding a new section 316 which would 

provide general authority for the Surgeon General to appoint such advisory 

committees as he deems desirable. Such authority could be used by the Surgeon 

General to meet the needs for expert advice in the accident prevention area, as 

well as in other program areas. We believe such general authority would be preferable to the specific statutory advisory committee provided for in H.R. 133.

With respect to the broad substantive program authorities for research, promotion. control, and other related activities which the bill would grant to the 

Public Health Service, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare report 

points out that, with the possible exception of authority for training and special project grants, the existing statutory authority of the Public Health 

Service provides an adequate base for the development of Service programs in 

the field of accident prevention.

The activities of the Public Health Service in this field have expanded from 

a level of 5 employees and $49,000 in 1957 to 146 employees and $3.6 million 

in 1962 under the broad research and technical assistance authorities already 

available. In addition, the accident prevention program was raised to division 

status in the Bureau of State Services in 1961 and is headed by an Assistant 

Surgeon General. This substantial increase in the accident prevention activities
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 5

of the Public Health Service and the elevated organizational stat us of the program indicates tha t the Public Hea lth Service has recognized the importance of the subject and has taken appr opriate steps, as the principa l Federal health 

agency, to make its proper contribution to the total Federal effort in accident 

prevention and safety. Reports to your committee from a number of Federal agencies, including the 

Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare, Commerce, Labor and Interior, indicate serious concern t hat some par ts of the bill raise questions of duplication and overlapping of authority and responsibility as between the Public Health Service and other Federal agencies. Without repeating the concerns detailed 

in the reports of other agencies, we would nevertheless agree in general that the bill, in its present form, appe ars to authorize the Public Health Service to engage in a number of activities now specifically authorized to be carried out by other Federa l agencies, and also appears to authorize the Public Health Service to coordinate such activities. Such broad autho rity, by extending the role of the Public Health Service beyond its legitimate and par ticu lar concern in the field of accident prevention, would, in our opinion, be undesira ble and would serve to unnecessarily complicate and burden the effective functioning of the 

overall Fede ral effort in accident prevention and safety. Accordingly, while the Bureau of the Budget favors and has supported an 

effective Public Health Service program in accident prevention, we do not believe tha t any additional legislation is necessary at this time to enable the Service to develop and c arry out its appropriate functions in this field. Furth er, we believe t hat the bill raises serious questions as to the relationships and responsibilities of the Public Health Service vis-a-vis other Feder al agencies. 

Sincerely yours,

Phillip S. Hughes,

Assista nt Director for Legisla tive Reference.

Civil Aeronautics Board, 

Washington, D.C., February 20,1962.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Represenative s, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in further reply to your lette r of February 9, 

1961, asking the Board to comment on H.R. 133, a bill to amend title II I of the 

Public Health Service Act to establish a National Accident Prevention Center. The proposed legislation would establish a new unit in the Public Health 

Service to be known as the National Accident Prevention Center. The functions of the center would be administered by the Surgeon General, who, among 

other things, would be authorized to conduct investigations and studies relating 

to causes and methods of preventing accidents.

It clearly appears that H.R. 133 proposes a very comprehensive program in relation to the cause and prevention of accidents. The Board looks with favor 

upon the general objective of the proposed legislation. While presumably not so 

intended, the coverage of the bill appears broad enough to include airc raft 

accidents which the Civil Aeronautics Board has the statuto ry responsibility 

of investigating under t itle VII of the Federal Aviation Act. For this reason the Board would be opposed to the legislation in its present 

form. In order to preserve the jurisdiction of the Board and prevent undesirable duplication we recommend th at a new section 387 be added to H.R. 133 

reading s ubstan tially as follows:

“Sec 387. The provisions of this act shall not be deemed to modify or repeal 

any provisions of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, or to limit in any way the functions of the Civil Aeronautics Board relating to accidents involving civil 

aircraft, or relating to studies and investigations on matters pertai ning to safety 

in air navigation and the preventi on of accidents. Nothing in this act shall 

authorize the Surgeon General or the Accident Prevention Advisory Board to 

perform any of the accident investigative functions which are the statu tory responsibility of the Civil Aeronautics Board under the Federal Aviation Act of 

1958 as now or hereafter amended.” Apart from the foregoing, we have no comment to make on the proposed 

legislation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised tha t there is no objection to the submission of this report from the stand point of the admi nistration ’s program. 

Sincerely yours,

Alan S. Boyd, Chairman.
6 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

The Secretary of Commerce,

Washington, D.C., February 6,1962.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Wash ington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This letter is in reply to your request for the views of 

this Department with respect to H.R. 133, a bill to amend title II I of the Public 

Health Service Act to establish a National Accident Prevention Center.

The bill would establish in the Public Health Service a National Accident 

Prevention Center which would have certain powers and duties with respect 

to research and investigations relating to the causes and prevention of accidents.

Our report is limited to the effect tha t enactment of the bill would have on traf ­

fic accident prevention.

Since legislation was first proposed to establish a National Accident Prevention 

Center within the Public Health Service, the need for such a center insofar 

as traffic accident prevention is concerned has been met by the establishment of 

the Interdepartm ental Highway Safety Board and the Office of Highway Safety.

The Interdepartm ental Highway Safety Board established by Executive Order 10898 on December 2, 1900, is composed of the Secretaries of Commerce,

Defense, Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, the Postmaster General, the 

Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Administrator of 

General Services Administration. The functions and duties of the Board are 

to coordinate the traffic safety aspects of programs carried on by the depart- i

ments and agencies of the Federal Government and to consult and cooperate 

with State and local officials having responsibility for traffic safety, national 

associations and the motor vehicle industry and others having any interest in 

safety standards, enforcement practices, accident records, traffic engineering, 

and safety education.

The Office of Highway Safety was established within the Bureau of Public 

Roads on December G, 1961, to coordinate highway safety activities of Federal,

State and private organizations and be responsible for a program to : gain public support of highway safety measures; coordinate the application of results 

of all public and private research in the highway safety field; establish and 

maintain highway safety promotional and advisory relations with State, local, 

industry, and allied groups; and promote the development and improvement of 

highway safety standards.

The functions of the proposed National Accident Prevention Center would, we 

believe, duplicate to a considerable extent the functions of the Interdepartmental Highway Safety Board and the Office of Highway Safety. In view of 

this, it api>ears unnecessary to establish such a centerThis Department believes that it is most appropriate that all Federal agencies 

principally concerned with safety particip ate in a combined attack on the problem 

of traffic accidents. However, this participation should be coordinated through 

one agency whose primary responsibility relates to highways and various aspects of motor vehicle traffic. The Office of Highway Safety is an organizational unit under the Bureau of Public Roads, which is responsible to the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce is also Chairman of the Interde partm ental Highway Safety Board. The Interdepartm ental Highway 

Safety Board is in a position to improve the liaison among the units of the Federal Government that are engaged in closely related safety endeavors. It can 

develop a master plan for research on safety matters, for determining priorities, a

and recommending means for conducting needed programs. The Board, along 

with the President’s Committee fo r Traffic Safety serving in an advisory capacity to the Board will have the necessary authority to develop a well-balanced, 

coordinated official program for highway safety.

For these reasons, the Department of Commerce does not favor the enactment of H.R. 133.

The Bureau of the Budget advised there would be no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program.

Sincerely yours,

Edward Gudeman,

Acting Secretary of Commerce.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 7

General Services Administration, 

Washington, D.C., February 6, 1962.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : Your le tte r of F ebr uar y 9, 1961, req ues ts the views o f the 

Gene ral Services Ad min istr ation on H.R. 133, a bill to amen d title II I of the 

Public Health Service Act to establ ish a National Accident Preventio n Center.

GSA is curr entl y rep resented on the Federal Safe ty Council established by 

Exe cuitve Order 10194 of Decem ber 19, 1950, to advise the Secretary of Labo r 

on the development and mai ntenan ce of safe ty organization s and programs in 

the Fed era l Government. Th e Council also esta blis hes cri ter ia, stan dards, and 

proc edur es designed to eliminat e work haz ard s and hea lth risk s, and to preven t 

inj uri es and accid ents in Fe deral employment.

In addition to the act ivi tie s of the Fede ral Safe ty Council, the Secr etary of 

Labo r is engaged cur ren tly in developing and promoting sta nd ard s of ind ust rial 

saf ety and health, and in ass ert ing the several Sta tes in the pre par atio n of 

ind us trial safe ty codes and developm ent of statew ide accid ent preventio n 

programs.

The su bjec t bill, H.R. 133, propo ses to esta blish a National Accident Preventio n 

Cen ter in the Public Health Service of the Dep artm ent of Hea lth, Educ ation, 

and Welfare. The fun ctio ns of the proi>osed Nationa l Accident Preventio n 

Center appear to overl ap those alre ady vested in the Sec retary of Labor. It is 

the view of GSA th at the fun ctio ns prescribed by the sub ject bill are more 

closely rela ted to conditions of employment tha n to problems of health.

Althou gh GSA is in full accord with the objec tives of H.R. 133, we do not 

fav or enac tmen t of thi s bill in its pres ent form for the reas ons stated above.

It is not anticipa ted th at H.R. 133, if enacted, would hav e any financial effect 

upon GSA o peratio ns.

The B urea u of the Budget h as advised tha t, from the stand poi nt of the adm inistrat io n’s program, the re is no objection to the submission of thi s report to your 

committee.

Sincerely yours,

Robert T. Griffin,

Acting Administrator.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

W ashington, February 6,1962.

Hon. Oren H arris,

Chairman, Committee on Intersta te and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : Thi s le tte r is in response to your req ues t of Feb rua ry 9, 

1961, for a rep ort on H.R. 133, a bill to amend tit le II I of the Public Health Service Ac t to establis h a N atio nal Accident Pr even tion Center.

The bill would esta blis h a Nation al Accident Prevention Cen ter in the Public 

He alth Service. It would autho riz e the Surgeon Gene ral to conduct and fos ter 

researc h in the causes and method s of p reventing ac cid en ts; to promote the coord ina tion of rese arch and con trol progra ms conducted by public and pri vat e 

agencies and ind ivi du als ; to ma ke avail able the resea rch fac ilit ies of the Service 

to oth er s: to m ake g rants-in-ai d to unive rsitie s, hospitals, labo rato ries , and oth er 

public or privat e agencies for research proje cts in accid ent preve ntion, including 

gr an ts for constr uctin g, acquiri ng, leasing equipping, and ma intain ing rese arch 

fa ci lities : to esta blish an inform atio n cente r and make ava ilab le infor mati on on 

the caus es and prevento n of ac cide nts; and to secure the assista nce and advice 

of persons from the U nited St ates o r abroad who are experts in the field of acciden t prevention.

The bill would also establ ish in the Public Health Service an Accident Prevention Advisory Board composed of the Surgeon General as Cha irm an and 12 members appointed by the Pre sid ent . The Board would have resp onsi bility for ad ­

vising the Surgeon General on matt ers of policy relating to the accide nt prevention activities of the Se rvi ce; fo r reviewin g and recomm ending action on app licati ons for resea rch g ra n ts : and fo r collecting and dissem inat ing info rmation on 

studies being c arried out as to th e ca use an d preventi on of accid ents.
8 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

The primary objective of H.R. 133, as we interpret its provisions, is to specify 

the role and responsibilities of the Public Health Service in the field of accident 

prevention. We are entirely in accord with this objective.

The toll of injuries, deaths, and economic loss resulting from accidents in the 

United States is one of the major health problems, affecting the American people 

today. Accidents are the leading cause of death among persons from 1 to 35 

years of age. In the 15-to-25 age group, accidents account for more deaths than 

all other causes combined. It is therefore essential that the Public Health 

Service, as the principal health agency of the Federal Government, concern 

itself with this major health problem and. in cooperation with other Federal 

agencies with substantial interests in the problem, make full use of its resources 

in developing improved protection against this major cause of death and 

disability.

The activities of the Public Health Service in the field of accident prevention 

have been substantially increased during the last year under the existing broad 

research and technical assistance authorities in the Public Health Service Act. 

Much more rem ains to be done by the Public Health Service as well as by many 

other governmental and nongovernmental groups, however, in order to determine 

the causes and develop the preventive techniques which will be necessary for a 

fully effective national accident prevention program.

For the most part, the existing stat utory authority of the Public Health Service 

provides an adequate base for the development of Service programs in the field 

of accident prevention. The only additional authorities which may be needed are 

for training gran ts and for special projec ts to stimulate the development or 

demonstration of new methods of accident prevention and control.

The present provisions of H.R. 133 would serve the useful purpose of highlighting the functions of the Service with specific reference to accident prevention. There are, however, a number of features of the bill which we believe 

should be modified or clarified.

It is not clear, for example, whether the intent of the bill is to establish an 

organizational unit in the Public Health Service called the National Accident 

Prevention Center or whether what is contemplated is to authorize the construction of a facility to be known by that name. The Public Health Service Act already provides broad authorization for the Surgeon General with the approval of 

the Secretary, to establish organizational units below the bureau level. The 

current flexibility of organizational arrangement provides, we feel, a better legislative basis for efficiently organizing the functions of the Service th an would a 

requirement for the establishment of a statutory organizational unit. The act 

also now provides authority to construct facilities as they become needed to carry 

out Service programs.

We are also concerned tha t some parts of H.R. 133 are so broadly stated as 

to raise a possible issue of duplication of authority and responsibility of other 

Federal agencies. Accident prevention in its broadest sense is a legitimate and 

necessary concern of many Federal departments. The Public Health Service has 

a particula r concern for the protection and promotion of health, of which accident 

prevention is an essential part. We feel, however, that it should be made clear 

in the legislation that the responsibilities assigned to the Public Health Service 

do not supersede or repeal the autho rities of other Federal agencies for accident 

prevention activities within their own area s of responsibility. In this connection, 

it would also be preferable to authorize the Surgeon General to establish and 

appoint an advisory committee on accident prevention to advise him in the 

administration of the Public Health Service’s accident prevention activities 

rather than to require the establishment of an Accident Prevention Advisory 

Board appointed by the President.

In summary, we are in accord with the overall objectives of H.R. 133. We shall 

be happy to provide such technical assistance as your committee may wish in 

developing legislation pertaining to the role and functions of the Public Health 

Service. We would defer to the views of other interested departments and agencies. however, with respect to their functions and responsibilities in the field of 

accident prevention.

We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget tha t there is no objection to the 

presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. 

Sincerely,

Abe R ib ic o ff , S e c reta ry .
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER, 9

U.S. Department of th e I nterior

Office of th e Secretary,

Washington, D.C., February 7 ,1962.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Inter state and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Harris : Your committee has requested a repo rt on H.R. 133, a bill to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to establish a National Ac­ cident Prevention Center. We make no recommendation regarding the enactment of the bill, but if it is favorably considered we recommend that it be amended to make it clear that it does not duplicate the functions of the Bureau of Mines. The bill proposes to establish with the Public Health Service a National Accident Prevention Center. Its purpose would be to assist in the advancement, dissemination, and exchange of knowledge relating to the cause and prevention 

of accidents. The concept of a National Accident Prevention Center may have merit, but we question the advisability of its establishment in the Public H ealth Service which deals primarily with environmental control of health problems. Much of the research activities connected w ith the cause and prevention of accidents appears to be more nearly associated w ith the field of engineering than with the medical 

profession. In its present form the bill would duplicate activities conducted by our Bureau of Mines. The Bureau of Mines is charged under its organic act to function as follows: “To conduct inquiries and scientific and technologic investigations con­ cerning mining, and the preparation, treatment, and utilization of mineral sub­ stances with a view to improving health conditions, and increasing safety * * * in the mining, quarrying, metallurgical, and other mineral ind ustries ; * * * and to disseminate information concerning these subjects * * * (37 Stat. 681, 30 

U.S.C. 3). Since its establishment in 1910, the advancement of health and safety, collection of data on causes of accidents, and the conduct of educational programs in ac­ cident prevention in the mineral and allied industries, and in mines in particular, have been responsibilities of major concern to the Bureau of Mines. The Bureau has built up and maintains a staff which is incomparably expert in these fields and which is not duplicated in any other agency. The success of the Bureau in collection of data on causes of accidents and in accident prevention training in the mineral industries, which is based on these d ata and on results of investi­ gations and technical research by the Bureau has long been recognized by the Congress, by other agencies of the Federal and State Governments, and also by 

the mineral industries. The accident prevention problems of the mineral industries in underground operations are peculiar to those industries and not susceptible to attack by techniques applicable in industries operating surface installations. This was recognized by the Congress in the legislation creating the Bureau of Mines and in subsequent legislation that conferred inspection and enforcement authority upon the Bureau in respect to its safety program in coal mines. See the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act, May 7, 1941 (55 Stat. 177; 30 U.S.C. 451), as amended July 16, 1952 (66 Stat. 692; 30 U.S.C. 471). This act provides tha t the Bureau shall collect and report data on accidents in coal mines that result in personal injury. The Public Health Service also recognizes these facts as demonstrated by a memorandum of understanding dated November 8, 1956, and still in effect, which provides that the Public Health Service shall conduct the medical phases of health studies in the mineral industries and the Bureau of Mines shall conduct the engineering phases of such health and safety studies. The present health and safe ty activities of the Bureau of Mines require the efforts of about 700 employees and an annual expenditure of $6,782,000 (fiscal year 1961). These activities embrace all the functions of the proposed National Accident Prevention Center w’ith respect to the mineral industries, except for the authority to make grants-in-aid under section 382 (4) of H.R. 133. The Bureau has never found such authority necessary for the effective conduct of its programs for collection of data on accidents and for prevention of accidents, and
1 0 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

is not convinced that such gran ts would contribute significantly to the results of 

these programs.

In the circumstances, we believe the Bureau of Mines is in a superior position 

to continue to provide and evaluate Federa l participa tion in accident prevention 

programs relating to the mineral industries, and we therefore strongly urge 

tha t if this bill is favorably considered by the committee the mineral industries 

should be expressly excepted.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that th ere is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the admin istration’s program. 

Sincerely yours,

J o h n M . K elly,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

I n 'ebstate Commerce Com mis si on ,

Washington, D.C., March 24, 1961.

H o n . Oren Harris.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Harris : Your letter of February 9, 1961, addressed to the 

Chairman of the Commission and requesting comments on a bill, H.R. 133, introduced by Congressman Roberts, to amend title III of the Public Health Service 

Act to establish a National Accident Prevention Center, has been re ferred to our 

Committee on Legislation. After consideration by tha t committee, I am au thorized to submit the following comments in its b eha lf:

H.R. 133 would amend the above-mentioned act, so as to establish a National 

Accident Prevention Center in the Public Health Service. In brief, the functions 

of the proposed center would be to conduct, promote, and coordinate research 

and investigations into the causes and prevention of accidents; to make the 

research facilities of the Public Hea lth Service available for such purposes; to 

make grants-in-aid to institu tions and other private or public agencies engaged 

in such research projects: to establish an information center; and to secure the 

advice and assistance of experts in the field of accident prevention.

The bill also provides for the establishment in the Public Health Service of an 

Accident Prevention Advisory Board. The Board would be headed by the Surgeon General, as Chairman, or an officer designated by him for tha t purpose, and 

would consist of 12 additional members appointed by the Presid ent (none of 

whom ar e to be Federal employees), to be selected from among representatives 

of various State, int erstate, and local governmental agencies; public and private 

inter ests concerned with or affected by accident prevention ; and individual experts in the field. Besides its general function of advising, consulting with, and 

making recommendations to the Surgeon General with respect to his duties in 

the operation of the center, the Board would be specifically charged with the 

duties of reviewing accident prevention research projects and certifying its 

approval of those which it deems m erito rious: collecting and making available 

information on studies of accident causes and prevention : and reviewing applications for grants-in-aid and certify ing its approval of those pro jects which show 

promise of making valuable contributions to human knowledge in the field of 

accident prevention.

Determining the causes of. and finding the means of preventing, accidents has 

become a mat ter of serious concern in this country. Among the areas of human 

activit y in which the accident prevention problem has received special attention 

are indus trial, farm, home, mine, radiation, water carrier , aircraft, railway, 

and highway hazards. Each of these areas is now in some measure the subject 

of inte rest and responsibility of various departments or agencies of the Federal 

Government, including this Commission.

The area of most immediate concern to this Commission is, of course, that 

of promoting railroad and motor car rier safety. With respect to railroads, its 

responsibility includes the administra tion and enforcement of the several Safety 

Appliance Acts, the Hours of Service Act, and the Locomotive Inspection Act. 

As to motor carriers, the Commission is authorized to prescribe regulations 

governing the qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees and 

the safety of operation and equipment. With respect to common carriers,
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 11

whether by rail or highway, the Commission adm inisters the so-called Transportation of Explosives Act.

We believe that the enco uragement and coordination of research in the field 

of accident causes and prevention which the proposed cen ter and Advisory Board 

would undertake would be of benefit to all of the Federal agencies concerned 

with accident prevention, and also to other agencies, organiza tions, and individuals. The proposed finan cial assistance to the research projects, in the form 

of grants-in-aid, would, of course, provide tangible encouragemen t in thi s 

important field. The results and findings of the researchers, duly published 

and made available to those inte rested and concerned, should be useful to all 

those charged with promoting safe ty and reducing accidents of all types. In 

addition, the making available of research facilitie s, the main tenance of an 

information center, and the advice and assistance of experts— a ll of which are 

contemplated by th e bill—would be of material benefit.

Illustra tiv e of the poten tial usefulness which the cen ter could be to this 

Commission is the fac t th at in the discharge of its responsibilities in the field 

of moto r car rier safety the Commission often needs the counsel and advice of 

exp erts on such ma tters as sta ndard s of eyesight, hearing, and the effects of 

organic, nervous, and fun ctional diseases on the hum an body. It also needs 

information as to the effect of fati gue and drugs on driv ing ability. Research 

in such areas promoted and aided by the center and Advisory Board would 

undoubtedly be of benefit to this Commission in its task of prescribing motor 

ca rrier safety regulations.

While we favo r the objective s of this proposed measure, we believe, at lea st 

insofa r as this Commission is concerned, th at it should be amended to make it 

clear that nothing containe d therein should be construed as affecting its ju risdiction in the fields of ria lro ad and motor ca rri er safety, or as requiring submission of proposed regulations, for which the Commission has sta tut ory 

responsibility, to the Surgeon General, the center, or the Advisory Board, for 

prior approval.

Editorially, it is not clear wh at is intended by the reference made to “the 

Council,” in line 19, page 2, of the bill. Elsewhere in the bill the duty of 

recommending the recipients of grants-in-aid is placed upon the proposed 

advisory board. It appears, therefore, that reference to “the Council” was 

inadve rten t, and that a phras e such as “the Accident Prev ention Advisory Board, 

herei nafter provided for,” should be substitu ted in lieu th ereof.

If amended as suggested above, we would have no objection to the enactme nt 

of H.R. 133.

Respectfully submitted.

E verett H ut ch in so n, 

Chairman, Comm ittee on Legislation.

Howard G. Freas. (

Kenneth H. Tuggle.

U.S. Department of Labor,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, April 3,1961.

Hon. Oren H arris,

Chairman, Committee on In terstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

* Dear Congressman Harris : This is in f urther response to your request for the

views of this Departm ent on H.R. 133, a bill to amend title II I of the Public 

Health Service Act to establish a natio nal accident prev ention center.

The general objectives of H.R. 133 of preventing and reducing accidents are, 

of course, highly desirable. The bill, however, by cen tralizin g in the Public 

f Health Service broad au thority and responsibility in the accident prevention

field raises the most serious problems of shifting and overlapping responsibilities 

and functions now resting in many specialized Government agencies, including 

the Departm ent of Labor. If it should be considered desirable to provide for 

coordination of the accident prevention work of the Feder al Government, we 

are firmly convinced th at not only should the present alinement of functions 

among specialized Government agencies be retained , but th at the Public Health
1 2 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Service is not the appropriate agency for any centralization for reasons discussed below. This bill would authorize the Public Health Service to engage in every phase of accident prevention except the issuance and enforcement of safety regulations. 

Specifically, in section 382: (1) The measure would authorize the PHS to “conduct, assist, and foster research, investigations, studies relating to the causes, and methods of prevention of accidents.” Under this authority the PHS could duplicate or possibly acquire control of the factfinding and analysis program relating to occupational accidents now conducted by the Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Interstate Com­ merce Commission, the Bureau of Mines, and the Department of Agriculture. Similarly, PHS could duplicate, or possibly acquire control of, the factfinding and analysis of transportation accidents now conducted by the Interstate Com­ merce Commission, the Civil xAeronautics Board, the Bureau of Public Roads, and the Coast Guard. PHS could duplicate or possibly acquire control of the safety educational and promotional activities of the Bureau of Labor Standards of the Department of Labor, the Federal Safety Council, the National Bureau of Standards, the Bureau of Public Roads, and the Department of Agriculture. (2) The measure would also authorize the PHS to “promote the coordination of research and control programs conducted by public and private agencies, 

organizations, and individuals.” The authority here is vague, but could be interpreted as conferring authority to exercise control over regula tory agencies such as the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions, the Bureau of 

Labor Standards, and the Coast Guard. The Department of Labor has given general direction and national leadership to the occupational safety program. Technical assistance is rendered to State safety officials in order to improve accident prevention methods. In coopera­ tion with the States, surveys of high-hazard or otherwise significant industries are conducted, and data prepared on sources of injury and methods of hazard control. Organized labor’s interest in safety is supported through the training 

of labor representatives in the fundamentals of occupational safety. The Department’s Bureau of Labor Standards services the President’s Con­ ference on Occupational Safety, which brings together the representatives of management and labor and other interested groups concerned with problems in this field and the development and application of methods to meet these problems. In addition, the Bureau furthers the work of the Federal Safety Council, which concerns itself with accident prevention and safety programs for 

Federal employees. On the international level, the Bureau is recognized by the ILO and the International Committee on Radiation Protection as the responsible agency in the United States in ma tters of occupational safety. H.R. 133 could cause major 

duplication and confusion in the performance of these functions. It should also be noted that, while accident prevention is indirectly related to the field of operations of the Public Health Service, the great majority of accidents result from mechanical or physical conditions which can best be identified and controlled by engineering principles. As a result, the prevention of accidents is firmly established as an engineering science ra ther than a medical activity. The inevitable emphasis which the bill would place upon the medical and psychological aspects of accident prevention would constitute a sharp re­ adjustment in the recognised approach to accident prevention and would, in 

our opinion, result in a disruption of the safety movement. The confusion which would result from enactment of this bill is furth er em­ phasized by the fact that in practically all States the responsibility of accident prevention both in Government and industry is centered in a safety, rathe r than 

a medical, division. In view of the foregoing we would be opposed to the enactment of H.R. 133. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection from the stand ­ point of the administration’s program to the submission of this report to your 

committee.

Yours sincerely,

Ar th u r J. Goldberg,

Secretary of Labor.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER 13

Offic e of t h e P ost mast er G en er al,

Washington, D.C., February 6,1962.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Inte rsta te and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This Department has given consideration to the request 

for a report on H.R. 133, a bill to amend title II I of the Public Health Service 

Act to establish a National Accident Prevention Center.

This measure would establish within the Public Health Service a National 

Accident Prevention Center which would—

(1) Conduct, assist, and foster research, investigations, studies relating 

to the causes, and methods of prevention of accidents ;

(2) Promote the coordination of research and control programs conducted 

by public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals;

(3) Make available research facilities of the Service to appropriate public 

authorities, health officials, and scien tists;

(4) Make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, laboratories, and other 

agencies and institutions for such research projects ;

(5) Establish an information center on causes and prevention of accidents, and collect and make available such information ; and

(6) Secure the assistance and advice of persons who are experts in the 

field of accident prevention.

The bill would also establish an Accident Prevention Advisory Board with the 

Surgeon General, or an officer designated by him, as Chairman, and 12 nonFederal employee members who are concerned with the accident prevention 

field. The Board would review research projects or programs, review and make 

recommendations for grants-in-aid, and make recommendations to the Surgeon 

General with respect to carrying out the program.

This Department recognizes the need for positive action to reduce accidents 

and to eliminate the causes of accidents, and wholeheartedly agrees with the 

principles of the bill to coordinate research and control programs and assist in 

the advancement, dissemination, and exchange of knowledge concerning the 

causes and prevention of accidents as it relates not only to Federal agencies but 

to priva te agencies, organizations, and individuals as well.

However, H.R. 133 as presently drafted is not clear with respect to the following a re as :

(1) The general language of the bill indicates tha t the fields of traffic and 

industrial accidents (where programing applies primarily to damage to 

equipment or property) are included, as well as those accidents posing medical problems. The placement of this program within the Public Health 

Service would appear to imply limited jurisdiction with respect to the health 

and medical areas only.

(2) It is understood that several departments and agencies of the Federal 

Government, such as the Department of Labor, Department of Interior, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Aviation Agency, and others already have statutory authority and responsibility in accident prevention 

with respect to the operation of the Federal Government, State governments, 

and private business. The responsibilities of these agencies involve many of 

the functions identified for the National Accident Prevention Center such as 

research, investigations, and studies relating to the causes and methods of 

accident prevention, the dissemination of information on all aspects of the 

prevention of accidents, and the like. It does not appear tha t the proposed 

legislation differentiates between those responsibilities which are already 

assigned to departments and agencies and those which would be assigned to 

the Public Health Service. It is believed tha t unless the responsibilities of the agencies involved are 

clarified a situation could develop which would result in duplication of effort and 

consequent added expense in the operation of an accident prevention program. 

In addition, numerous administrative problems would be created among the various Federal agencies required by 5 U.S.C. 784(c) to operate a safety promotion 

program. If amended as suggested, this Department would interpose no objection to the 

enactment of H.R. 133.
14 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

We have been advised by the Burea u of the Budget that from the standp oint 

of the adm inistration’s program the re is no objection to the presentatio n of th is 

rep ort to the committee.

Sincerely yours,

J. E dward Day, 

Postmaster General.

Th e Chairman. Th is leg islation is the ou tgrowt h of the many 

he arings on highway safety problems held by this subcomm ittee and 

the Spec ial Subcommittee on Traffic S afe ty.

As th e special subcom mittee stu dy which sta rte d in 1956 prog ressed, 

it soon became a pp aren t th at research is one of the gr ea t n eeds in the 

traffic safety field. In 1958 we held special hearings on research 

needs in traffic safety.

B ut the need for research is not lim ited to traffic safe ty. Accidents 

of all kin ds take a heavy toll of life and limb in th is co untry . So t his 

leg islation was w ritten to c ove r a much broade r field.

We hav e a long list of witnesses and I am not go ing to tak e time 

now to exp lain the bill, which will be explained fu lly in the course of 

thes e hearings.

We have a lis t of d istingu ish ed witnesses, many of wh om have come 

a lon g way at c onsiderable personal sacrifice. We are very fortu na te 

to have the advice an d counsel of this distin guish ed gro up.

Our first witness this morning will be the Ho no rab le Jo hn Carroll 

of Colorad o. We are please d to have your sta tem ent, Senator.

STATEM ENT OF HON. JO HN A. CARROLL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

TH E STATE OF COLORADO

Se na tor Carroll. Tha nk you Mr. Ch air man an d mem bers of the 

subcom mittee on health a nd safety.

On December 15, 1961, 10 d ays before Christmas? 20 schoolchildren 

were kil led a nd 15 h ospit ali zed when the schoolbus in which they were 

ridi ng was sliced in two by a pas senger tra in . Th is gr im and horrib le 

acc ide nt in Weld County, Colo., stirred the he arts an d min ds of the 

citize ns of my Sta te.

Thi s accident served to po int out the sta gg ering numb er of fatal 

acc ide nts on our Na tio n’s highw ays. Over 38,000 people were killed in 

the y ea r 1960. One t housand one h undred o f these deaths were caused 

by collisio ns with railr oa d tra in s. Nearly 1.5 millio n Americ ans received dis abling inj uries an d an addit ion al 2 million people received 

lesser injuries . In the last 20 years, more th an 25 mi llio n American 

citize ns have been killed or inju re d on our high ways.

These figures of death an d carna ge on the hig hw ays are bu t a par t 

of the toll taken by acc idents each year. More t ha n 90,000 people a re 

killed a nd 46 million injured by ac cide nts o f all sorts every yea r. Th is 

means in terms of ou r n ationa l prod uctiv ity a t least 110 million w orkday s lost each year. Th is is a sta gg ering cost, both in blood and 

money.

Ac cid ents are the pr incipa l cause of dea th fo r all ages between 1 

an d 35. Sixty p ercent o f all death s o f young men between th e ages of

15 an d 25 recorded are d ue to accid ents.

Th ousands of lives, mi llion s of dollars, are lost each yea r, Mr. 

Ch air man. It is about tim e th at a con cen trated and directed effort 

was made bv our N ation a nd i ts citizens to reduce this fr ig ht fu l waste.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 15

I am pleased therefore to discuss today the bill II.R . 133, introduced by you, Mr. Chairm an, and currently under the study of your 

subcommittee, to establish a National Accident Prevention Center. There are many divisions of government, at all levels, local, State and Federal, which have an active interest in accident prevention. There are many private foundations and councils w'hich are doing much useful work in the use of safety devices and the mapping of safety campaigns. I do not in any way underrate the important work 

being done by these public spirited organizations. It is, however, undeniably true tha t very little work is being done 

in the field of basic research into accident prevention. A witness before your committee, Robert J. Schreiber, executive 

director of research of P ublic Service Research, Inc., has s aid:

Accident resea rch is not a very respectable professional discipl ine ; there are no degrees granted in it, no scholarly journa ls of it. It is, at best, a spare-time occupation for all but a few. At professional society meetings, it is difficult to 

find even a half a dozen scientists interested in discussing it.

This is not a happy situation. Basic research pays: Yellow fever, smallpox, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough have been eliminated from the list of 

killers through the results of research and development. In 1959, it was estimated by Dr. Alfred Moseley, Department of Legal Medicine, Harvard Medical School, tha t the amount of money going for polio research per polio death was $40,000; the amount for cancer research per cancer death was $360; the amount per heart death was $87. The amount for preventive research per death through aviation accidents was $500,000. And for automobile accident research we spend less than $5 per death. Th at research can be of value in reducing accidents is clearly demonstrated in the field of aviation. The CAB, the F AA, the Air Force, and private industry have done extensive research into the prevention of airc raft accidents. Work has been done in pilot reac­ tion and training, instrument developments, fuselage construction, et 

cetera.

The results can be seen in the rapidly falling air accident rate. From an average of 7.8 deaths for every 100 million passenger-miles flown on American domestic scheduled airlines in the years 1933-37, the rate had dropped by 96 percent to 0.29, according to the CAB. Our country—m both public and private efforts—is devoting many dollars each year to organized, directed research into the prevention and cure of cancer, tuberculosis, and mental illness. It is long past due that such an organized and directed attack be made upon the 

causes and prevention of accidents. Accidents do not just happen. They are events which have causes— and scientists know very little about these causes. It has been gen­ erally agreed by the witnesses appearing before your subcommittee tha t th e most important need in the area of accident prevention is for basic research. It has been agreed tha t scientists and personnel must be tra ined, tha t research be encouraged, tha t research results be applied in accident prevention. It appears to me tha t H.R. 133 takes a sound approach toward filling this need for an organized program on research for accident 

prevention and control.
1 6 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

I am not an expert, Mr. Chairman, in the field of accident prevention or public health. I cannot comment upon the technical questions 

as to what form such a research center should take, as to how it should 

divide its funds between intramu ral and extram ural research, as to 

where within the framework of H EW it should be placed.

Such questions as these I leave to the wisdom of the subcommittee. 

I know how much study and thought, over several years, you have 

devoted to this matter, and I would only wish to emphasize to your 

subcommittee the importance of seeing th at there is no unnecessary 

expenditure, no overlapping of responsibility or division of authority.

Funds are needed for basic research; they are not needed for the construction of yet another expensive building or fo r the formulation of 

yet another bureaucratic hierarchy.

The people’s money will be involved in this undertaking and it is 

necessary that, there be no duplication of work undertaken by others 

and tha t full provision be made for the active encouragement of pri ­

vate research.

I am especially pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see that provision is made 

in IT.R. 133 for the acceptance of private endowments from individuals and foundations. Such a program as is here proposed will surely 

att rac t the gifts of the public spirited.

I would also point out to the subcommittee tha t this measure has 

already received the support of the Denver Ju nio r Chamber of Commerce, and I understand a resolution of support will be considered at 

the next jaycee national convention.

Mr. Chairman, I would close with a personal reference. For several 

years I have been concerned with the appalling tragedies which occur 

in accidents at railroad crossings in particular, and on our highways 

in general. I have given much time and thought to this problem. 

I have talked with many people. I have read much material. I have 

seen the perfection of warning signals and signs, crossbars and crosswalks, cloverleaves and crossovers; and yet the killing and carnage 

continue.

Accidents will never be eliminated but the number and severity of 

accidents can be reduced. They must be reduced.

Wholesale murder must be stopped and this, Mr. Chairman, is why 

I support the intent of H.R. 133.

The Chairman. Our next witness will be the D eputy Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Hea lth Service, Dr. John Porterfield.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN D. PORTERFIELD. DEPUTY SURGEON

GENERAL, PUBLIC HEA LTH SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY DR.

ALBERT L. CHAPMAN, CHIEF, DIVISION OF ACCIDENT PREV ENTION. U.S. PUBLIC HEA LTH SERVICE

Dr. Porterfield. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you for this opportunity to present the views of the Department 

of Health, Education, and Welfare on H.R. 133, a bill which would 

amend title II I of the Public Health Service Act to establish a National Accident Prevention Center in the Public Health Service.

First, let me convey the regret of Secretary Ribicoff that he could 

not be present to testify personally. I know you are aware of his keen 

interest in accident prevention activities. In fact, in testimony before
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 1 7

this subcommittee last Ap ril on a somewhat related proposal he 

stressed the importance of accident prevention research and indicated some of the ways in which the Public Health Service may be 

expected to contribute to the prevention of accidental injuries and 

deaths through scientific research.

The Public Health Service has a direct and immediate concern with 

accident prevention because accidents rank high among the causes of 

death and disability in th e United States. Statistics reveal that more 

than 92,000 accidental deaths and about 46 million accidental injuries 

occur every year. Perhaps it would be useful to break these figures 

down into their component parts, so their national significance might 

be better comprehended.

First of all, let us look at the fatality figures. The 92,000 deaths 

include 15,000 children under 15 years of age—more than the total of 

deaths in this age group from the next four leading causes combined. 

In the next age group—from 15 through 35 years of age—accidents 

continue to be the princ ipal killer—with over 24,000 deaths in 1959. 

In the same year over 28,000 Americans between the ages 35 and 65, 

and 24,000 aged 65 and older lost their lives by accidents. These individual tragedies in every age group and in all parts of the country 

are repeated year after year.

Now let us consider injuries. On the basis of statistics collected by 

the national health survey for 1959, we estimate tha t some 46 million 

American men, women, and children sustained accidental injuries 

severe enough to incapacitate them beyond the day of injury. Thousands of these suffered lifelong handicaps, including blindness, loss 

of limbs, and disfigurements. They filled over 50,000 hospital beds 

all year round and required a substantial portion of our critically 

short supply of medical and nursing skills.

Reliable estimates indicate th at our Nation sustains an economic loss 

of over $13 billion every year from accidents. Pa rt of this loss is 

visible to everyone who drives along our country’s streets and highways. Much of it is not, however, except to the victims, their families, 

and medical and hospital personnel. When you consider the toll th at 

accidents inflict among our young people from whom the Nation must 

draw the bulk of its productive strength, you see a loss of life every 

year greater than the size of an Army division. When you consider 

the accidental casualties among our senior population, you see a loss 

of experience and mature judgment that no nation can long afford.

As the principal health agency of the Federal Government, the Pub ­

lic Health Service has long been concerned with this mounting toll of 

death and disability, and we have played an active role in the development of certain preventive measures.

It was not until recent years, however, that accident prevention per 

se was recognized as a major program interest of the Service, centered 

in the Division of Accident Prevention tha t was established just 1 

year ago.

The reason for this new focus of Service interest and program activity is not that we have jus t recognized the health significance of 

accidents. Rather, it lies in a new awareness of the importance of 

scientific research as the basis for effective accident prevention—and 

particu larly research relating to the “human factors” in accidents and 

in accident prevention.
1 8 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

I do not mean to imply tha t accident prevention research is an 

entirely new or recent concept. Much valuable work has been done 

in some fields for many years. For the most part, however, it has 

concentrated on studies re latin g to how things can be made relatively 

safe for humans to use. This includes research into the design of 

equipment and materials so as to reduce their inherent hazards for 

humans. Much less attention, relatively, has been given to why human 

beings behave in ways tha t cause or invite accidents to themselves or 

to others. Yet it is well accepted by those who have studied the problem of accident prevention tha t the principal cause of accidents is 

human behavior.

The importance of these human factors has long been recognized, of 

course, but this recognition has been reflected primarily in campaigns 

designed to make people “safety minded” through training and education. Many of these campaigns have had beneficial results, and 

I here is no question that they will continue to be needed.

Unfortunately, there is a very limited base of scientific data at the 

present time on which effective campaigns or other preventive measures can be based. We need a great deal more research into the physiological, psychological, as well as environment factors tha t make people act as they do.

Some of the facts we need are already being uncovered by basic and 

applied research into the sciences related to health, but they need 

correlation and analysis from the standpoint of accident prevention 

requirements. In addition, we have recently begun to see the rich 

potential available in health and related research institutions for 

studies directed specifically toward major causes or forms of accidental 

death and injury.

In some instances the effective conduct of such research will require special equipment or facilities. This is particula rly true in the 

case of research into the causes of accidents, where the researcher needs 

to observe human behavior in simulated situations which remove the 

element of risk so frequently present in actual performance situations. 

An example, which has previously been discussed with your committee, is the need for a high-fidelity driving simulator in research directed toward the causes of traffic accidents. With such a simulator 

we could put many drivers through identical tasks and individual 

drivers through a variety of tasks, without the hazards to themselves 

and others which would be unavoidable if this were attempted in 

actual traffic situations.

With such a device, it would be possible to analyze the effects of 

driving under varying conditions, such as the influence of drugs, alcohol, fatigue, and other physiological factors, thus substituting scientific facts for the subjective opinions which must govern our attitudes 

toward these factors today.

We could discover whatever actual limitations on driving ability 

might be imposed by various chronic or acute diseases or other physical 

disabilities. One could also test the effects of such physiological and 

psychological factors as attitudes, emotions, and other motivational 

factors and study intensively the interactions that take place between 

the driver, the vehicle, the roadway, and other aspects of the environment.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 1 9

In addition to automotive safety, which has deservedly received a 

major share of public concern, there are many other fields of accident 

prevention which deserve increased attention and in which sound 

research could lead to the saving of many lives and the prevention of 

many crippling injuries.

In the almost equally important area of home safety, for example, 

it would be profitable to investigate physical factors which may be 

involved in such common mishaps as falls, electrical shock, bums, and 

wounds inflicted by knives, firearms, and utensils. Here, too, a variety 

of physiological factors appear to be involved which we have lacked 

the research capability to explore adequately.

We also need to investigate such lifesaving techniques as resuscitation, proper storage of household medicines and other substances, and 

safer occupancy of the various kinds of human habitation.

With the increasing amount of leisure time available to the average 

American, we have witnessed an increasing number of deaths and 

injuries among those who engage in skiing, skin and scuba diving, 

hunting and camping, swimming, and boating, amateur and professional sports like baseball and football, and even gymnastics. Investigation of the technique known as “drownproofing” could save many 

lives, among both swimmers and nonswimmers.

These are only a few illustrations of areas in which scientific research can open the way to progress in accident prevention. I hardly 

need add t hat such research—like research in other fields—must later 

be translated into programs of action before its full value can be 

realized. This will require such intervening mechanisms and procedures as the publication and dissemination of research findings, the 

conduct of experimental and demonstration programs, and the tra ining of personnel in new accident prevention concepts and techniques.

This brief projection of the needs and opportunities for research 

in accident prevention indicates the prim ary focus of accident prevention interest and plan ning within the Public Health Service. It 

should not be inferred, however, that the Service itself can or should 

conduct all needed research, or tha t this is a field in which miraculous 

results can be quickly achieved. On the contrary, this is an area where 

the talents, resources, and interests of many agencies—both governmental and voluntary—can contribute to a common goal, and many 

years will pass before some of our most difficult accident prevention 

problems can be solved.

The interest and purpose of the Public Health Service is to make 

certain th at our own intram ural research potential—and the potential 

of our programs for the stimulation and support of research by nonFederal agencies and laboratories—will be fully utilized in a broad 

attack on accidental deaths and injuries.

Mr. Chairman, I have undertaken to define in general terms the 

interests, objectives, and purposes of the Service in the field of accident prevention because that—as we interpret it—is the principal 

purpose of H.R. 133. As was pointed out in our Department’s report 

on the bill, H.R. 133 adds no substantial new program authority to 

tha t already available to the Service under existing statutory prov isions. It would, however, add specificity to some general authorities, 

thus underscoring and focusing public attention—and the attention 

of research workers in the health sciences—on the particu lar needs
20 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

and objectives of accident prevention research. We believe tha t such 

action by the Congress could contribute in this field, as it has in other 

fields of research, to the furth er advancement of programs already 

authorized and established.

We have also pointed out in our report several provisions of H.R. 

133, as introduced, which would require substantial revision. I see no 

need to reiterate all of these comments and suggestions here, but we 

shall be happy to explain them more fully at the convenience of your 

committee.

The only point that we believe requires reiteration and emphasis in 

this statement is the need for revision or clarification of those provisions of the bill which might be so construed as to limit or subordinate 

the accident prevention research interests and responsibilities of other 

Fede ral departments and agencies. As I indicated earlier in this 

statement, the field of accident prevention, including accident prevention research, is very broad and diversified.

It requires the resources of many agencies and individuals. No one 

organization or agency could possibly conduct an all-embracing program of its own or undertake the central planning in coordination of 

tlie efforts of other agencies. Therefore, while our own activities in 

this field could be strengthened through specific legislative emphasis 

along the lines of H.R. 133, any such legislation should give due recognition to the parallel interests and programs of other agencies in the 

field.

This concludes my general statement, Mr. Chairman. I shall be 

glad, however—with the assistance of Dr. A. L. Chapman, the Chief 

of our Division of Accident Prevention, to answer any questions your 

committee may have regarding our present and projected activities in 

this im portant field.

The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Porterfield.

Dr. Chapman, would you care to make any supplementary statement ?

Dr. Chapman. I have no supplemental statement to offer at this 

time, Mr. Roberts.

The Chairman. I would like to ask you some very brief questions.

First of all, I want to thank you, Dr. Porterfield, for your appearance here. I know how busy you are at this time with appropriations 

and other important matters. I appreciate very much your being here.

I should like first of all to know a little bit about the beginning of 

the activity in the division which Dr. Chapman now heads, as to 

when you started in accident prevention, what you have been doing 

and what particular field you are engaged in, and how you go into 

these fields. Also, indicate w hat type of grants or other activities you 

are sponsoring at the present time.

Dr. P orterfield. I think Dr. Chapman can best answer that, Mr. 

Roberts, if I preface it only with the point tha t we have been in 

accident prevention work for some years antedating the development 

of a division with this name. The Division was formed about a year 

ago as a result of a very thorough study of the new functions and the 

relative emphasis of programs in the Public Health Service which led 

to a fairly comprehensive reorganization of the Service and in that 

reorganization we had identified such important work in accident 

prevention in various divisions tha t a division for this purpose alone 

was created.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 21

Dr. Chapm an was ma de chief of this an d I th in k can answ er as 

to the development of work und er t hat hea din g.

The Chairm an. Dr. Chapm an.

Dr. Cha pm an. I t w as formed in 1947. Dr. Jo seph Mounta in, who 

was a pioneer in m an y of the P ub lic H ea lth Service program s, rec ognized the fact t hat hom e acciden ts were a pro ble m which s hould concern S tate and local h ea lth depart me nts . He had an engineer assig ned 

to Michi gan to dev elop competence in the field an d try to estab lish a 

role for the public serv ice. Th is interest continued general ly alon g 

the lines of en vir on mental control un de r en gin eerin g guida nce un til 

about 1956.

A t t hat time, o ur a nn ua l bud get was in the neigh borho od of $50,000 

a ye ar a nd su pp orted f our people. In 1956 th e S urgeon Ge ner al c alled 

a committee to deter mi ne wh eth er there could be an ything done th at 

would increase the c ap ab ility of the Pu blic H ea lth Service in accid ent 

pre vention. I t w as th ei r decision th at th is p ro gram should be tr ansferred to a divisio n o f g ood me dical lea dersh ip an d should concentrate 

on th e study of th e h um an fa cto rs in accidents.

A t t hat time, I became c hie f of the D ivision of Special Hea lth S er vice and Dr. James G od da rd who has appe ared before your committee 

was name d he ad o f th e ac cident prev entio n program .

Dr . Go ddard was the one who developed the concept of th e sim ulator, as we now kno w it, an d has testified ma ny t imes before you r com ­

mittee . The pr og ram then began to bro aden ou t from its or iginal 

base of home a cciden ts t o th e con cept th at acc ide nts have common bases, 

th at if an ind ividual is em otionally distu rbed, if p hysiologically unfit, 

he may fal l do wn sta irs coin ing dow n to br ea kf ast, he may drive 

his ca r into a tree g oing to work , he ma y hav e a n acc ide nt at the bench 

when he is at work. Thi s concept o f research int o the fac tor s which 

pr ec ipita te acc idents became bro ader t ha n ju st home accidents.

We the n became intereste d in traffic acc idents, poison con trol, an d 

of cours e, any accid ent ha ving comm on roots. Since th at tim e th e 

Sta te and local he alth de pa rtm en ts have graspe d th is concept, hav e 

increased their po ten tia l by em plo yin g and tr ai nin g people, hav e in ­

creased their expend itu res , a nd more th an t hat th e medical and he alth 

related sciences hav e show n a treme ndous interest in this and, as a 

res ult, you will see befo re yo ur comm ittee t his week many repr es en tatives of such agencies as the Am erican Pu blic Hea lth Ass ociatio n, 

the Am erican College of Surgeons, and so fo rth, and so on. So, in 

effect, with the en tra nc e into the research pha ses of accident pr ev en ­

tio n, pr im arily focusin g down on the huma n fac tor s, the medic al, 

clin ical, biological be ha vo ria l aspects of the pro ble m which ma ny 

peo ple say rep res ents about 80 p erc ent of the pro ble m, we have seen 

a g re at recruit me nt of inter es t and effort on th e par ts of h ealth g roup s 

an d health rela ted gr ou ps to this movement.

Our pre sen t budg et, sir , is $3,618 million for 1962.

Th e Chair man. Now, one of the best exa mp les th at comes to my 

mind with reference to home accidents has to do wi th poisonin g of 

children . Would you discus s briefly the estab lishm ent of poison con ­

trol centers throug ho ut the cou ntry, wh at par t yo ur divisio n ha d in 

th at a ctivity.

Dr . Chap man. Th e Am eri can Acade my of Pe di atrics became in ­

ter ested in this pro ble m because of the fac t th at poisonin g am ong
22 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

children is a tremendous problem. It affects about a half million 

people a year. So they did a study to determine what role could be 

played by a national agency in bringing this problem under control.

As a result of their recommendations they approached the Secretar y of HEW and asked tha t a national clearinghouse for poison 

control centers be established in the Public Health Service. He agreed 

with this and this was set up in 1957.

At th at time, there were about 62 poison control centers in the United 

States. Today we have about 460. These centers are providing information to physicians who have to treat poison cases, information 

concerning the poisonous ingredients in substance that children have 

swallowed, information concerning antidotes that are prescribed in 

the case of these poisonings, and proper treatment.

In addition to tha t, research has been done to determine better 

methods of treatment. For example, if a child swallows kerosene, 

should he be lavaged—should his stomach be emptied out? Research 

was done which indicated certain facts which were presented to the 

medical profession. Now, we are attempting to use these poison control centers as nuclei of community prevention programs. Our first 

demonstration is in Charleston, S.C., where every available education 

resource in the community is being mobilized to get across to parents 

that 50 percent of child poisoning is due to medicine, that 70 percent 

of these poisons are not in the medicine chest, they are lying around 

where the child can reach them. By simply putting medicines out of 

the reach of children from 1 to 5 they can solve 70 percent of 

that part of the problem.

The Chairman. I certainly would like to congratulate you and 

vour coworkers for the fine work you have done. I believe in the last 

Labeling Act tha t Congress passed you appeared with reference to 

tha t bill in which we attempted to bring up to date many thousands 

of new substances tha t had been introduced into our community lives, 

detergents and other things used by the home, many of them were 

packaged without adequate warnings to parents.

Now, with reference to the traffic safety field I would like you to 

discuss the simulator proposition and what you think could be accomplished in tha t field.

Dr. Chapman. With your permission, might I use a diagram I 

have here?

The Chairman. Certainly.

Dr. Chapman. This was produced to indicate the need for an interdisciplinary approach to all accident problems. We have used traffic 

accidents as an example. Here we label human factors. The health 

and medical sciences look at the traffic accidents problem primarily 

from the viewpoint of the driver, what is wrong with the driver.

The motor vehicle industry looks at the traffic accident problem 

from the viewpoint of the automobile. What kind of car shall be 

produced, what modification should be made? The roads and highways engineering group looks at the traffic problem from the point 

of view of the environment, how can they better improve our roads 

so that traffic accidents won’t occur.

You see here in these circles where they overlap—when we talk 

about building a car, the limitations of man must be taken into account so that the automobile manufacturers have to cooperate and
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 23

work with the health and medical professions to determine how to 

build a car within the limitations of a man’s capabilities. Here is 

another overlap between environment and agent. This means that 

the automobile manufacturer must work with the roadbuilders to 

build cars that can safely maneuver on the roads that they build.

Here again environment and man overlap. We have to build 

road signs in such a way tha t the man can see them within the 

capabilities of his vision, that the signaling devices are adequately 

provided. In the center all three overlap and that is why I brought 

this up—in connection with simulation.

In the case of simulation we bring together the capabilities or lack 

of capabilities of the man, th e characteristics of the automobile which 

now exist, and the characteristics of the highway which now exist. 

Here all three groups and their satellites must work together in an 

interdisciplinary team to solve this problem, to learn new facts about 

the prevention of traffic accidents.

I just use tha t as an example which may have some bearing on the 

feeling of insecurity th at has arisen among some people that any one 

group can or has a desire to take over prim arily control of the traffic 

accident field, of the home accident field, or some other field. There 

is no such intention and such an intention would be aborted by these 

very facts—the need for interdisciplinary cooperation.

The Chairman. Now you have touched on two fields, that of highway accidents and tha t of home accidents. Now what part would 

the center which we seek to set up by H.R. 133 play in the field of 

industrial accidents?

Dr. Chapman. At the present time, Mr. Chairman, we have avoided 

doing studies in the field of industrial safety in order to avoid any 

misunderstanding on the pa rt of the Department of Labor who traditionally has carried on a very excellent safety program in industry.

But the cause of accidents I mentioned earlier, which may precipitate a traffic accident, are equally at work when a man is behind a 

bench. So that information developed about the cause of traffic accidents, home accidents, and recreation accidents are equally applicable 

by those involved in industrial safety in preventing industrial accidents.

The Chairman. In other words, what you would attempt to do 

would be to follow this, say, J ohn C. Citizen through these three fields 

and you try to find out what physiological and psychological factors 

he carries with him as he moves from home to work and on highways?

Dr. Chapman. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Do you see any duplication of effort that would be 

brought about by this creation of a new center?

Dr. Chapman. When you become intimately acquainted with the 

problem and the research available to solve, you are immediately aware 

that the size of the problem is so great and the research tha t is available is so relatively small tha t any duplication of effort would be nonsensical and certainly not warranted and has not existed up to this 

point and shall not exist in the future so far as we are concerned.

The Chairman. I would like to ask one other question.

What do you think would lie the additional cost incurred by the 

provisions of this bill ?

Dr. Chapman. Since the bill would add little new statutory authority, it is difficult to say what the additional costs of the bill itself would
24 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

be. However, our Division has prepared some preliminary cost estimates and projections th at may help to answer your question. The 

actual center requirements would involve a cost of about $800,000, 

presumably during the fiscal year 1963; $500,000 fo r the planning for 

construction, $200,000 to begin tooling up for research programing, 

and $100,000 for administrative costs.

Then, during the 1964 fiscal year when the construction actually 

began, and we had to absorb the cost of construction we estimate i t 

would cost $8 million.

Program operation would step up to $300,000. Administrative cost 

would remain at $100,000, making a total in 1964 of $8,400,000.

Then, in 1965 with the cost of construction out of the way there 

would be no cost for construction. The research program operation 

would step up to a half million dollars, adm inistrative costs, $200,000, 

making a total of $700,000 for 1965.

In 1966, the last projected year tha t we have here, there would be 

no cost for construction, $2 million for research program operations, 

and $500,000 for adm inistrative cost.

Now you must realize, sir, tha t this does not involve only a simulator. This involves research facilities and interdisciplinary teams 

working in projects in all areas of accident prevention tha t we are 

tai king about.

In other words, there probably should be a test track in which the 

simulated results could be tried out and are in an actual safe environment on the track.

The Chairman. Do you anticipate th at living, as we do, in a nuclear 

age, that there will be need for some work in the field of radioactivity 

and how to protect the civilian population in the event of nuclear 

attack.

Dr. Chapman. I -would suggest that Dr. Porterfield fill in on this.

Dr. Porterfield. This provides an example just within the Public 

Health Service, Mr. Chairm an, of our feeling that coordination and 

interdisciplinary cooperation is essential.

In our Division of Radiologic Health we concern ourselves with 

just this sort of thing. I would expect if you raised the question of 

nuclear accidents or accidents involving radiation, tha t we would have 

to ask for some coordination between these two divisions to get the 

competence and resources on the one hand of our radiation specialists 

working with the competence of our accident prevention specialists on 

the other hand.

Even with the establishment of a division of accident prevention 

in the Public Health Service all activities of the Sendee that might be 

considered as helpful in accident prevention are not in that division. 

There is some research going on under the aegis of the National In ­

stitutes of Health that is useful in accident prevention. There is work 

being done in community health service which gives deference to this 

pa rt of the program. In many other ways this is a coordinated effort 

even within the human factor, the health approach field. The radiation accidents I thi nk would be one of these.

The Chairman. I believe you pointed out in your statement, Dr. 

Porterfield, th at one of the biggest losses that we have is in the teenage 

group in accidents.

Dr. P orterfield. Th at is correct, sir.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 25

The Chairman. Now do you have or could you supply for the record 

the figures which would allow us to compare what we spend in the 

heart field and in the cancer field as against what we are spending in 

the safety field ? Per capita ?

Dr. Porterfield. Yes, sir ; I think we can supply such figures.

The Chairman. You might supply those for the record.

Dr. P orterfield. Yes, sir.

(The information requested follows:)

Comparison of PHS appropriations for heart, cancer, and accident prevention,

fiscal year 1962

To tal appropriatio n

Per capita i

Nation al Heart In sti tute___________________________________________ $133,000,000 $0.72

National Cancer Institute_______________________ ___________________ 138,000,000 .74

Division of Accident Prev ention___ ___________ ________ ______________ 3,600,000 .02

1

 Based on population as of Jan. 1, 1962 (midfiscal year population).

The Chairman. Mr. Dominick.

Mr. Dominick. Dr. Porterfield, recently in my district we had an 

extremely tragic accident in Greeley, Colo., involving collision of a 

bus and train at an unprotected intersection.

Do you know whether there are experimental programs now going 

on through the ICC or through local industry to determine whether 

safety devices can be created or installed which would have the effect 

of providing a warning for school buses of approaching trains w ithout the expense of having eithe r signalmen on the crossing or underpasses or overpasses ?

Dr. Porterfield. I thin k Dr. Chapman can answer your specific 

question better than I.

Dr. Chapman. I have no knowledge of any specific studies tha t 

have been made or are being made. That does not mean tha t they 

have not been made by other agencies. However, we have let a 

contract, rather small in size, for a study of intersection railroad and 

traffic collisions. We feel our research department feels tha t these 

can be studied so tha t with some mathematical precision better methods of control can be worked out. But tha t is as far as we have gone, 

sir, with our researches.

The Chairman. If the gentleman will yield to me on that point. 

I have had some contact with ICC recently on that point. Our staff 

also investigated.

It seems to me tha t prim arily this matter of warning devices at 

grade crossings is State responsibility. Th at is the answer I have. 

I am not satisfied with it yet but that is the answer I have been getting.

I just put that in for the information of the committee.

Mr. O’Brien?

Mr. O’Brien. I have only one question, Mr. Chairman.

I was interested in the cost breakdown given by Dr. Porterfield. 

Did that take into consideration the possibilities of gifts, as mentioned in the bill ?

Dr. Chapman. No, sir. I believe gifts over $50,000 would be permitted to be accepted by the Federal Government and could be added 

to this cost of operation, to expand the operations of the program.
26 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

Mr. O’Brien. In other words, the gifts would not reduce the cost 

you mentioned but would make possible additional work.

Dr. Chapman. Yes, sir.

Dr. Porterfield. I should point out, if I may, sir, tha t the cost 

figure tha t we have given you is on the assumption that the word 

“center” in the bill refers to a physical facility center which would 

house research rather than defining the word as an organizational 

unit. We are not positive in the language of the bill which of these 

is meant but we have made the assumption in giving you these estimates, that this calls for a physical structure.

Mr. O ’Brien. The thought I had in mind was if some large foundation wanted to make a substantial contribution toward the cost of 

such a building. Wouldn't there be a possibility that tha t would reduce the cost estimates you are giving or would it merely mean a 

bigger building.

Dr. P orterfield. That is possible, if it were a sizable contribution 

it could.

I thin k that, our figures have been as much as possible on the economy side to get the basic essential elements in such a structure. We 

would, I suppose, try to negotiate between more facilities and more 

special possibilities and the saving on the basic structure itself. It 

would depend on the term of the g ift and the nature of interest.

Mr. O’Brien. I suppose, too, the appropriations committee might 

take that, into consideration if there was a substantial gift from some 

foundation, they might decide tha t a smaller appropriation by the 

Government would be sufficient.

Dr. P orterfield. I am sure they would.

Mr. Dominick. I have one more question on the expense angle. I 

understood from your testimony tha t in at least 2 years the administrative expenses will be almost 50 percent of the operating research 

program. Wha t do you include by way of administrative expenses?

Dr. Chapman. The administrative cost, sir, is the cost of clerical 

help, o f engineering planning help, the housekeeping, the nonprofessional type of employment.

In other words, during the programing period there are many, many 

negotiations that have to be entered into. We have to contract with 

scientists to help us in our planning. We have to provide them with 

staff assistants. These are the types of expenses t ha t are generally 

included under administrative costs.

When the facility is finally completed then you have your housekeeping and management such as anv industrial corporation has in 

running a building, in running a plant, in maintaining and repairing 

equipment, and so forth.

Mr. O ’Brien. Your adm inistrative expenses when you get into your 

$2 million level of your research programs are running approximately 

25 percent of the cost of your research program.

Mr. Dominick. It seems to me that is awfully high from the management. point of view.

Dr. Chapman. It depends on the definition of administrative cost.

Dr. P orterfield. The expenses tha t we have had in the scientific 

community in this country seems to indicate that indirect costs, costs 

not used just for the research in the highly technical professional ac-
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 27

tivities alone, but witli all of these supplementary, ancillary and helpful costs, runs on the order of 25 percent.

The Chairman. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. R ogers of Florid a. Mr. Chairman, I have just a few questions.

Dr. Porterfield, where is this Division of Accident Prevention presently housed ?

Dr. Porterfield. In the headquarters in W ashington, in the HE W 

Building.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. Do you have research facilities there ?

Dr. Chapman. No; we have no intramu ral research facilities. We 

had transferred to the Division of Accident Prevention, as of last 

February 1, the research gra nts operations formerly with the National 

Institutes of Health. We now have an extram ural research capability. 

We conduct contract research of limited size. We can contract for 

research.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How will this bill affect the present program 

you have outlined for y our Division of Accident Prevention ?

Dr. Chapman. This would give us the same balance for the research 

program th at now exists in any of the National Institutes of Health 

where about one-third of the ir research funds is spent for intramural 

research, two-thirds for extramural research and additional funds for 

technical assistance and application.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. This would bring about a center as you 

envision in the bill, the actua l physical building where the research 

facility would be located ?

Dr. Chapman. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You, yourself, with your personnel would 

conduct one-third of your research projects ?

Dr. Chapman. We would not anticipate reaching th at level but the 

need for this is extremely important. If I might, I would like to 

explain it. At the present time, if we try to recruit a high-level 

research worker, he says, “Fine , where is your laboratory, I will move 

and I will go to work and you can use me throug hout the Nation to 

advise and help others.” We say, “We have a room over here and a 

table and a bench.” He says, “Where is my lab oratory ? Where do I 

work?”

We don’t have any. Bu t with a center situated on a university 

campus, working with other researchers on the faculty, where research 

fellowships supply new research blood, you would have the type of 

facility and the type of atmosphere th at would perm it the recruitment 

of researchers. These research fellows, after they have spent 2 or 3 

years working on applied research projects, would then go out into the 

universities, and be tra ine d and capable of applyin g for extram ural 

research grants. This is the thing we lack now. There is a very grea t 

dearth of qualified researchers who can work in the very complicated 

areas of accident prevention research.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Where are research projects being carried 

on presently under your program ? Are there great numbers of them ?

Dr. Chapman. We have about 33, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Will you submit that for the record ?

Dr. Chapman. Yes.

(The information requested follows:)

80 62 4— 6: 3
28 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Research gra nts in the area of accident prevention

G ra n t N o. P .I ., co -P .I ., a n d i n sti tu ti o n T it le Y ea rs of 

support

A m o u n t

1. RG-2 91 9______ Ve lz an d H em p h il l, U n iv ersit y of M ic h ig an .

In v esti g ati o n an d A pplicat io n of 

H om e In ju ry S u rv ey D ata in 

D ev el opm en t of P re ven ti on 

P ro ce dure s.

1951-52 $55,512

2. M -7 90 .......... .. M arc u s, T u la n e U n iv ers it y . S tu die s of C h il d re n Sh ow in g 

In ju ry P att ern s.

1954-57 111, 728

3. A C-4 7

(f or m er ly

RG-436 7).

M oo re , K ra ft, W olf, an d 

C am p b ell , C orn el l U n iv ers it y .

A uto m oti ve C ra sh I n ju ry R ese ar ch .1956-62 668,662

4. RG -5 00 5_______ Coo k, U n iv ers it y of M ic hig an .

Effec ts o f C ar bon M onoxid e as a n 

A tm osp her ic P o ll u ta n t on 

H ealt h as In d ic ate d b y R el ati o n sh ip to A u to A cc id en ts in 

an U rb an Are a.

1957-58 59,110

5. M -1 38 1________ A m m ons a n d Ellin gs on , 

U n iv ers it y of N o rt h 

D ak o ta .

L ab o ra to ry S tu d y of Accid en ts ___ 1957 1,812

6. M -1 5 0 8 .............. M os el , H u n t, a n d G old st ei n, 

Geo rg e W ash in g to n U niver si ty .

H u m an B eh avio ra l F acto rs in 

A uto m obile D ri v in g Saf et y, 

P h ase I.

1957 18,245

7. A C-7 9

(for merely

M-192 8).

T u tl es a n d W ax m an , C on ­

n ec ti cu t S ta te D ep art ­

m e n t of H ealt h .

F am il y In ju ry S u rv ey ------------------ 1957-60 208,402

8. A C -4 8

(for m er ly

RG-534 3).

Bisse ll, M cln n e s, a n d C la rk , 

S an Jo se , C al if, C it y 

H ealt h D e p a rtm e n t.

A cc id en ta l Poi so ni ng as a Ca sefindin g Pro ce dure .1958-62 65,5 57

9. A C -7 8 (form erl y 

M-2353).

G ui lford an d S chust er, U niv ers it y of S o u th ern C al ifo rn ia .

C a li fo rn ia A c c id e n t R e p e a te r 

D ri v er Sc ale s.

1958-59 27,684

10. A C-6 1 (form er ly

B ak er, N o rt h w este rn U nivers it y.

E xp eri m en ta l C as e S tu die s of 

Tra ffic A cc id en ts .

1958-60 188,100

RG-535 9).

11. RG-5 36 1______ Terr ell an d S te ed , G eo rg ia 

D e p a r tm e n t of P u b li c 

H ealt h .

G al la gh er a n d M oo re , H a rv ard U n iv ers it y .

E v alu ati o n of A v ail ab le Tr af fic 

A cc id en t R ec or ds .

1958-59 24,60 8

12. A C-6 7 (form erl y

C au se s of A uto A cc id en ts o f Ado ­

le sc en t D ri ver s.

1958-60 92,34 0

RG -557 7).

13. RG-5 95 9........... . V au ghan a n d C la y to n , N ati o n al S an it ati o n F o u n d ati on, U n iv ers it y o f M ic higa n.

C ar bon M on ox id e an d I ts R el ati o n to Tra ffic A cc id en ts .

1958 21,40 0

14. AC-4 4 (form erl y 

M-2407).

M cN am ara a n d G ad al la , 

U n iv ersit y of M is so ur i.

Se lected E n v ir o n m en ta l an d H u ­

m a n F acto rs A ss oci at ed W it h 

In ci den ce o f F a rm A cc id en ts i n 

M is so ur i.

1959-61 103,442

15. A C -6 8 (form er ly

M er ri ll a n d T w y fo rd , M ic hig an S ta te U n iv ers it y .

E v a lu ati o n of H ig h w ay Tr af fic 

Saf et y M oti on P ic tu re s.

1959-60 25,3 21

RG-5 78 6) .

16. A C -1 9 (form erl y

M cC ar ro ll , C orn el l U n iv ers it y M ed ic al Co lle ge.

F ie ld E x p eri m en ta l S tu die s on 

A cc id en ta l T ra u m a .

1959-61 160,344

RG -5 93 7) .

A cc id en t- In duci ng C har act er is ti cs 

of M o to r Veh ic les.

17. A C -1 (for mer ly 

RG-6 07 3) .

Sch re ib er , D u n la p , an d J a ­

co bs , P u b li c Se rv ic e R ese ar ch , In c.

1959-61 170,973

18. A C -4 9 (form erl y

RG-6 08 4) .

19. A C -2 (f or m er ly

RG-6 09 0) .

M os el ey an d F o rd , H arv ard 

U n iv ers it y .

R es ea rc h on F a ta l H ig h w ay Col ­

lisi on s.

1959-63 809,820

C ors a a n d M an h eim er, C al ­

ifor ni a S ta te D ep art m en t 

of P u b li c H ealt h .

E pid em io lo gy of C hil d h o o d Acc id en ts .

1959-62 328,986

20. A C -5 0 (form erl y

RG-6 09 1) .

21. A C-6 9 (fo rm erl y

RG-6 28 4) .

22. A C -5 3 (form erl y

RG-6 35 9) .

23. A C -5 4 (fo rm erl y

B ar ch a n d F orb es , M ic higa n S ta te U n iv ers it y .

Skill D ecre m en t in C o n ti n u o u s 

D ri v in g .

1959-62 41,0 54

R y a n , U n iv e rsit y of M in n eso ta .

Saf et y D ev ic es fo r A uto m oti ve 

Veh icles.

1959-60 97, 750

G re en sh ie ld s, U n iv ers it y of 

M ic h ig an .

D ri v in g B ehavio r a n d Tra ff ic A cci den ts .

1959-61 63, 740

L is sn er a n d E v a n s, W ayne 

S ta te U n iv ers it y .

Eff ec ts of A cc el er at io n on th e 

H u m an Skel et on .

1959-63 173,672

RG-6 38 4) .

24. A C -3 (f or m er ly

RG-6 50 6) .

H asb ro o k , K ra ft, T u m b o w , 

a n d L edere r, F li g h t S af et y 

F o u n d a ti o n , In c.

A v ia ti o n C ra sh In ju ry R esea rc h .. . 1959-60 97,446

25. M-2 95 7............ - P re is s a n d H ow ell , M ic h iga n S ta te U n iv ers it y .

R ol e Im ag e of th e S ta te Po lic e 

T ro oper.

1959 18,1 12

26. A C-5 1 (form er ly 

RG -6 09 4) .

S niv ely a n d C hic hes te r, 

Sne ll M em o ri al F o u n d ati o n , In c.

Im p a ct A tt e n u ati o n in P ro te cti on 

A gai nst C on cu ss io n.

1960-64 40,870
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 29

Research grants in the area of accident preventio n— Co ntinu ed

G ra n t N o. P .I ., co-P .I ., a n d in s ti tu ti o n T it le Y ea rs of 

su p p o rt

A m o u n t

27. A C -5 2 (fo rm erl y 

RG-6 29 6) .

H en der so n a n d P lu tc h ik , 

D ri ver s Saf et y S er vic e, 

In c.

M as s C o m m unic ati on an d G ro u p 

D is cu ss io n T ech niq ues .

1960-64 $17, 754

28. A C-5 5 (for ­

m erl y

Spi ce r, H aw aii D e p a rtm e n t 

of H ealt h .

H u m an F acto rs in Tra ff ic A cc ide nts .

1960-62 79,0 60

RG-6 55 0) .

29. A C-7 0 (for ­

m er ly

K ra ft an d L ed er er , F li g h t 

Saf et y F o u n d ati o n , In c.

R es ea rc h in G en er al A v ia ti o n 

Saf et y.

1960 77,6 22

RG-6 65 8) .

30. A C-5 6 (fo rm erl y R G -

Sch le sing er an d D ic kso n, 

H ealt h R es ea rc h, In c.

R ock la nd C o u n ty C hil d In ju ry 

P re v en ti o n P ro je ct.

1960-63 121, 538

6717).

31. A C-7 7 (for ­

m erl y R G -

W hi te la w , M ic hig an S ta te 

U niv er si ty .

B ib liogra phy of H ig h w ay Tra ff ic 

Saf et y L it era tu re .

1960 2,30 0

676 3-A ).

32. A C-7 1 (for ­

m erl y 6798- 

A ).

33. A C -5 7 (for ­

m erl y R G - 

6819).

B ro dy, N ew Y ork U n iv e rsi ty .

C ri ti q u e of N ee ded R es ea rc h on 

C hil d A cc id en t P re v en ti o n .

I960 2,3 00

M at hew so n a n d H u lb e rt, 

U n iv ers it y of C al if orn ia , 

Lo s Ang ele s.

T ra n sp o rt ati o n H u m a n F acto rs : 

P a rt I. P h y si cal For ce s.

1960-62 115,287

34. A C -5 8 (fo rm erl y R G -

Ja co bs an d B arm ack , P u b ­

lic Se rv ic e R es ea rc h, In c .

R el at in g D ri v er E d u c ati o n t o Acci de nt-A void in g B eh av io r.

1960-61 144,786

7025).

35. A C -5 9 (fo rm erl y R Q - 

7044).

S hum at e, C ro w th er, a n d 

S m it h, In te rn ati o n a l A sso ci at io n of C hi ef s of P o ­

lic e, In c.

T h e Eff ec t of E nfo rc em ent on 

D ri vin g B eh avio r.

1960-61 161,774

36. A C-7 2 (fo rm erl y R G - 

7011).

A be rc ro m bi e a n d K ey , N a ­

tional E d u cati o n A ss oc ia ­

tion.

Sc ho ol- Ag e A cc id en ts a n d E d u c atio n.

1960-62 121,164

37. A C-1 8 (fo rm erl y R G -

Sho be n, C olu m bia U n iv ersit y.

D ev el opm en t of a C ri te ri o n for 

D ri ver B eh av io r.

1960-61 52,846

7051).

38. A C-6 2 (fo rm erl y R G -

M al fe tt i, C olu m bia U n iver si ty .

M ea su ring T eac her Eff ec tive nes s 

in D ri v er E d u cati o n .

1960-61 35,938

7365).

39. A C-6 0 (fo rm erl y R G - 

7050).

M at hew so n, Sev er y, a n d 

Siegel, U n iv ers it y o f C ali ­

fo rn ia , Lo s Ang ele s.

A uto m ob ile Col lision In ju ry E xper im en ts : Sid e Im p acts .

1961-62 49,984

40. A C-7 3 (fo rm erl y R G -

------ d o ................................. .......... A ut om obi le A cc id en t a n d In ju ry 

P re v en ti o n Stu die s.

1961-65 648,842

7822).

41. AC-6 4 (fo rm erl y R G - 

7958).

H u n t a n d S c h le s i n g e r , 

Ge orge W ash in gto n U n iver si ty .

G ro up D y n am ic S tu d y of D ri v er 

A tt it u d es an d D ri v in g B eh av io r.

1961-63 270,000

42. A C-6 5 (fo rm erl y R G - 

8105).

K ov ac ic an d S niv el y, U n iv e r s ity o f C a lif o r n ia , 

D av is .

P ro te cti v e M ate ri als a n d A th le ti c 

In ju ry P re v en ti o n .

1961-64 48,079

43. A C-6 6 (fo rm erl y R G - 

8106).

Sto ve r, B u rn ett , a n d S livin - 

sk e, I n s ti tu te for R es ea rc h, 

In c.

D ri v er Dec isio ns in H ig h w ay A cci den t.

1961-64 173,884

44. A C-4 6 (fo rm erl y M -

Y or k, A m er ic an In s ti tu te 

for R es ea rc h.

V is ua l Si gn al C o n sp ic u it y ................ 1961 2,30 0

4945-A ).

45. A C -9 (fo rm erl y R G -

B al dw in , Sen so ry S yst em s 

L ab ora to ry , In c.

A uto m oti ve A cc id en t In str u m e n ­

ta ti o n S tu d y .

1962 20,297

8771).

46. A C -8 (form erl y R G -

S hum at e an d C ro w th er, I n ­

d ia n a U niv er si ty .

E nfo rc em en t Eff ec t o n Tra ffic A cci den t G en er at io n.

1962-63 152,398

8742).

47. A C -1 5_________ M at hew so n an d B urg , U n iver si ty of C al ifor ni a, Los 

An ge les.

R el at io nsh ip B et w ee n Vision T est 

Scores a n d D ri v in g R ec or d.

1962-64 174,970

48. A C -1 6.......... ........ B ork en st ein , In d ia n a U n iver si ty .

R ole of th e D ri n k in g D ri v er in 

Tra ffic A cc id en ts .

1962-63 71,863

49. A C -2 0.................. Forn ey an d H ughes , I n d ian a U niv er si ty .

D ri vin g B eh av io r as A ffec te d b y 

Alco hol.

1962-64 78,598

50. A C -2 5_________ M cB ain , S an Jo se S ta te 

Co lle ge.

S usc epti bil it y to M o n o to n y a s an 

A cc id en t P re d ic te r.

1962-64 30,315

51. A C -2 9................ . T h o rn d ik e a n d M alf e tt i, 

Tea ch er s College , C olu m b ia U n iv ers it y .

D ri vin g an d C o n n o ta ti v e M ean ­

ings .

1962-64 118,898

52. A C -3 0 ................. A lle n, M ic hig an S ta te U n iver si ty .

M u lt iv ari ate A nal ysi s of Tra ffic 

A cc id en t R ec or ds .

1962 21,937

53. A C -3 3.............. - H ah n , A m er ic an I n s ti tu te 

for R es ea rc h.

A cc id en t P re v en ti o n T h ro u g h 

O bs er va tion of D river s.

1962-62 85,595

54. A C -3 7 ......... .. M an li ei m er an d M ell in ger, 

C al ifor ni a S ta te D e p a rtm en t of P u b li c H ealt h .

F ac to rs A ffec ting P u b li c A cc ep tan ce of S ea t B el ts .

1962-63 131,171

55. A C -8 0................ S hum at e, In d ia n a U n iv ersi ty .

S im ula ti on of Tra ffic F lo w on a 

D ig it al C o m p u te r.

1962-64 (*)

1

 T o be neg o ti ate d .
30 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Where are your major research laboratories?

Dr. Chapman. Speaking financially and programwise, we have a 

major study going on at Harvard. Dr. Mosely, the director of tha t 

program, will be a witness here and can discuss tha t in some detail. 

Another study is being performed in connection with Cornell University and Dr. Hadden, the director of several research projects, is also 

a witness here today. The Cornell crash injury studies which did so 

much for the development of improved safety devices was originally 

under the direction of Mr. Moore and he, if his voice comes back, will 

be available later on during the session to testify.

The Public Health Service has supported the UCLA simulation 

study which has resulted in the development of a prototype, an early 

embryonic form, of universal simulator, and has also supported UCLA 

collision experiments with Dr. Severy, which has resulted in the development of a great deal of information of value to the automobile 

industry.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You have no research centers ?

Dr. Chapman. No, sir ; we have no research center as such. We 

support research being done in various p arts of the country.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How many personnel do you have now in 

your Division of Accident Prevention ?

Dr. Chapman. 14G and we have a personnel complement of 147 

permitted for fiscal 1963.

Mr. Rogers of Flor ida. How many of these would you say are staff 

people, I mean experts or professional people ?

Dr. Chapman. About one-third.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. About one-third professional ?

Dr. Chapman. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Flor ida. Would this change under the new bill?

Dr. Chapman. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Wh at would be your change in personnel ?

Dr. Chapman. We would have an increased number of professional, 

highly qualified personnel.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Could you give us some idea of the number ?

Dr. Chapman. It would run slightly over 50 percent.

Mr. Rogers. An increase of 50 percent in professional people?

Dr. Chapman. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. And would the staff people increase accordingly?

Dr. Chapman. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. About 50 percent for the staff ?

Dr. Chapman. Yes.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Did I understand you to say your present 

budget is $3.5 million ?

Dr. Porterfield. The budget for this year for accident prevention 

is $3,462,000.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How much of tha t is for administrative 

work?

Dr. Porterfield. In research grants about $1,827,000 is earmarked 

and the rest is for those services including trainin g, technical service, 

and consultations with State and others, dissemination of information 

and the administrative cost of the research.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER 31

Mr. Rogers of Florida. What would be the administrative breakdown ? I understand you have some programs for trainin g?

Dr. Porterfield. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How much would be wh at you would term 

administrative cost?

Dr. Chapman. Let me put it this way, sir. We have a tota l budget 

of $3,460,000. Of this, $1,827,000 is earmarked for research gra nts; 

$1,633,000 is earmarked for research, applied research, training and 

technical assistance.

Now the administrative cost as you speak o f it-----

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I thought you broke down in your projected 

program administrative costs as such.

Dr. Chapman. Only rela ting to the center itself, sir.

Dr. Porterfield. There would be a difference between our present 

figures and projected figures, sir, in that we don’t have an intra mural 

research program now. Our administrative costs really would be 

identified only by de termining of our staff’s time, how much of it is 

devoted to the development of contracts, the auditing of the research 

results and tha t sort of thing in contrast to the amount of time they 

spend on technical assistance and other types of consultation. We 

could attempt to identify th at partic ular figure and supply it for the 

record if you would like.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Th at is all right. I just thought you had 

tha t breakdown.

What increase do you anticipate in the gra nt program under the 

projection of the proposal in this bill? Did I understand you to say 

you would get up to $2 million ?

Dr. P orterfield. $2 million by the fourth year.

Dr. Chapman. Yes, that was $2 million for the research program 

operations within the center.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Th at is within the center?

Dr. Chapman. Within the center.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Wh at would you project for those grant 

programs for research outside the center?

Dr. Chapman. We have to go before the Appropriations Committee 

for these moneys, sir. We could give you the amounts of money th at 

we will estimate could be used next year, e.g. we estimate that in 1963 

we could absorb $3,250,000 based on the present prospects. As new researchers come into the field this capability of doing research, which 

is what I am talking about, would increase at a rate, steady rate. But 

when you say how much will we get, that depends entirely on a series 

of factors over which we have no control.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I realize that. I am just trying to find 

out some of this for my own information because I am very much 

concerned—not particularly about this program but a number of 

programs which this committee has jurisdiction of—where we have 

turned over the authority to the Appropriations Committee and I 

may want to discuss w ith this committee the setting of authorization 

limitations, if I can’t find ou t the information I want as to how these 

programs are going to go on. We want to cooperate with the Appro ­

priations Committee, but I want to know as much about these p rograms as the Appropriations Committee does. I want to see us get 

this information, Mr. Chairman, for all of our programs.
32 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER

Dr. Chapman. I had additional figures which I didn’t read to you 

because I didn’t think they were applicable tha t relate to the grant 

programs that would parallel the development and operation of the 

center. Now in 1962, they have projected certain special project 

grants for which we don’t now have authority. So I didn’t give you 

that.

As, to research fellowships, we don’t have that authority, so I 

did n’t give them to you.

Nor the training grants.

Now, what I would like to do to clarify this in your own mind is 

to relate two factors which will ^ive you a clue.

The National Institute s of Health over a period of 10 years evolved 

from a very small base un til a typical institute will have a budget of 

from $50 to $80 million, much of which is in research grants. The 

accident prevention program must be evaluated against the size of the 

problem, the number of deaths, and the number of injuries. And 

then an added factor, the capability of doing research and eventually 

control in this area.

Now, I believe tha t if research is done in the field of accident prevention of the type which has been done in the field of heart disease, 

cancer, and mental health, tha t we will come up with the same definitive answer that will perm it the scientific prevention of accidents. 

It will then be your judgment as to the importance of preventing accident deaths and injuries versus preventing deaths from heart disease, cancer, and mental health.

So, to answer your question obliquely, I would say we have the same 

potential for definitive research as one of the National Institutes of 

Health over a period of years.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I have just a few more questions. Now, 

will you just tell me this. As I understand i t under the bill the figures 

you have given are mainly for the operation of the center?

Dr. Chapman. Yes, sir; only that.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. That would go up to a budget of $2 million 

as I understand it.

Dr. Chapman. Yes.

Dr. Porterfield. $2.5 million.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. $2.5 million?

Dr. Porterfield. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Now, your regular research program will 

continue in addition to that?

Dr. P orterfield. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. And approximately what will be th at projection over those same number of years that you project this center?

Dr. Porterfield. We can answer that, Mr. Rogers, only in terms 

of the potential that we think can be developed.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. What you probably will recommend is 

what I was thinking of. I realize you may not be granted that by 

the Congress but I thought probably you have a similar projection 

on your research programs as you would on this particular program 

for a center here for intram ural research.

Dr. Porterfield. They are ethically, then we would foresee from 

our present knowledge a trajectory which would lead to a $5 million 

extramural research program in 4 years. We would change this esti-
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 33

mate every year as we saw how this potential developed and how we 

were able to make it come true.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. But you anticipate somewhere around $8 

million for research within 4 years ?

Dr. P orterfield. This is what we would estimate.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. About $8 million for the building here?

Dr. P orterfield. Yes, sir, $8.5 million including planning money.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I have just one question more. I was a little 

concerned, Dr. Porterfield, with your statement on page 9, that no 

one organization or agency could possibly conduct an all-embracing 

program of its own or undertake the central planning and coordination of the efforts of other agencies in this field. Now it seems to me tha t one of the problems we have had is getting 

a little research going in accident prevention, and we have gone into 

this with the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Public Roads 

and the program they have, is the fact tha t so much of it is uncoordinated and that one department has a tendency not to know exactly 

what the other department is doing. It was my hope this was the 

type of bill and type of legislation that would tr y to bring some coordination and some unified effort and direction in research in the field 

of accident prevention although I realize it is a very broad field.

I am somewhat disturbed by tha t statement tha t we have no possibility of tying these program s together.

Dr. Porterfield. As you say, Mr. Rogers, the field of accident prevention is so extremely broad that we honestly do not believe tha t 

you could have one central point, at least not in one department of the 

Government, which would cover all phases of accident prevention, 

including accidents in the various fields of transportation , of housing, 

of recreation, of everything else, of devising and constructing and 

making safe all of the elements of the environment in which man 

lives, and finally of devising all of the factors which influence the human contribution to the accident or its prevention.

We believe tha t you can have a coordinated and centralized effort 

in one particula r field or aspect and we think this is very desirable.

Or, at any given time, with a more or less single objective you could 

develop this type of coordination. But to create an overall continuing 

permanent coordination agency would seem to me even more than 

the creation of a new major departm ent of government. I think that 

our hope lies ra ther in improving, as we have over the past several 

years, the methods of communication and the intent to coordinate 

and cooperate that we have seen in the Federal Government as between 

Housing, Interior, the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation 

Agency, and many others.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How shall we draw the lines of authority 

as to which departm ent should conduct what?

Dr. Porterfield. This is one of the technical problems th at I don’t 

think we can answer in a flat statement but would be very happy to 

work with the committee on.

The problem of a ttem pting to define an area in statutory language 

which would not preempt or stifle other efforts to help and at the 

same time to give a thrust and stimulus to tha t part of it which you 

want. We think this can be done, but it takes rather careful discussion of the language.
34 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER

The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield ?

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Yes.

The Chairman. I want to clarify this one thing.

Actually, what we would be doing, Dr. Chapman, with this bill, it 

seems to me, would be to place the same emphasis on one of the three 

leading killers tha t we are placing on heart, cardiovascular disease, 

and on a rthritis, cancer, mental health, and we would be recognizing 

for the first time tha t you have to use epidemiological approach to 

this epidemic just as we do any other epidemic that threatens our n ational existence. That is what you would attempt to do and you 

would confine yourself, as I intended to in the bill, to medical and 

cl inical research. Does that make it any clearer ?

Dr. Porterfield. I think tha t is a fair statement; yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florid a. Now what I am concerned with is the fact 

that I am not sure, for instance, just what research in Public Health 

would want to do on traffic accidents, and so forth, and what should be 

done in the Commerce Department.

Have you a defintion of what you want to do in your Department ?

Dr. P orterfield. Yes, si r; we have some ideas on that.

Dr. Chapman. May I add a preamble to my statement on this.

There are more than two. There are many ways in which scientists working in this field get together to make sure that they don’t 

duplicate and overlap. The National Safety Council has a function 

in bringing together all of the people working in the safety field.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Do they try to coordinate ?

Dr. Chapman. Yes, sir. Then, there is as the interdepartmental 

Highw ay Safety Board establishd by Executive order. It has not 

met yet but I understand the Secretary of Commerce intends to call it 

together very shortly, which would have on its membership the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Defense, Post Master General, Secretary of HEW , Chairm an of the ICC, and the Administrator of 

General Services.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. May I say there tha t I have absolutely no 

confidence in the Board. We went throug h this last year. It was 

never formed last year. This is the great coordinating committee that 

never even comes together to coordinate. It has not even met, as you 

say.

Dr. Chapman. I merely reported the fact. Wh at I am getting at 

is th at through various mechanisms—there is no one mechanism, there 

are many mechanisms. The people that we employ have certain competencies and the people that the D epartment of Commerce employs 

have certain competencies. Their funds are a ppropriated for certain 

purposes. Because of the appropriation language, because of the ir 

basic legislation, they are directed toward certain segments of the 

program.

As I pointed out, in what I hoped was an illuminatin g discussion 

earlier, there are areas of overlap, and in the areas of overlap through 

friendly understanding and objective interrelationships we do produce 

interdisciplinary attacks on the problem. These areas are very diverse. 

Of course, doctors, psychologists, and social workers are needed to understand the vagaries of the human mind and body and emotions. 

These will be brought to bear on studying the behavior of people th at 

precipitates accidents. We have in Florida being developed now a
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER 35

research activity in connection with the State and local health depa rtment in Pinellas County to study the accidents to older people. Why 

do accidents happen to older people so frequently ? What types of 

accidents occur? After we lump all of these facts then we may be 

able to develop some ways of preventing these.

One of the current byproducts is a study in osteoporosis. We felt, 

hypothetically, tha t two-third s of the cases th at have broken hips involve people over 65 who fall down and suffer minor trauma or suffer 

serious in jury. What is the answer to that ?

Obviously, it is to go back to the metabolic researchers to find ways 

to postpone the onset of osteoporosis. It is the same way in traffic. 

We want to learn what is the corelation between drinking and driving. 

This has been estimated as high as 50 percent. This is approaching 

it from the driver point of view.

Now the roadbuilder wants to determine whether road fatigue will 

increase on a straight highway like the New Jersey Turnpike or be 

decreased by a winding highw ay such as the New Jersey Garden State 

Parkw ay.

The auto m anufacturer wants to know how to improve his controls, 

his signaling devices, and so forth. As a matter of fact, there has not 

been overlap and duplication because of the existence of these many 

devices for getting together, talking to one another, learning what 

each other is doing.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. This is the point I want to make. I think 

there can be coordination, I th ink there must be coordination-----

Dr. Chapman. There can be better coordination.

Mr. Rogers of Florida (continuing). Rather tha n going off on 

tangents. I am hopeful t ha t this could be your organization, perhaps 

be a coordinating organization to help in many areas of this research 

rather tha n saying you can’t do anything and what they are doing we 

just don’t know about and what we are doing, good, appropriate them 

a little money, give us a little. I would not want to support a p rogram th at is not a coordinated program but rather is just going off on 

tangents and throwing money away.

I thin k it must be coordinated. I believe it could be done.

Tha nk you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Are there any further questions ?

Thank you, Dr. Porterfield and Dr. Chapman.

Dr. P orterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Our next witness is Mr. W. G. Johnson, general 

manager of the National Safety Council, Chicago, Ill. Mr. Johnson 

has appeared before our subcommittee many times.

We are always glad to have you, Mr. Johnson. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OE W. G. JOHNSON. NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 

RE PR ES EN TA TIVE . CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. J ohnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to inject one note of optimism in to today’s hearings. We are in the midst of accumulating our current tabulations 

for the year 1961 and our present figures indicate th at accidental 

deaths went down about 2,000 last year and tha t this reduction ex-
36 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

ten ded to every major ca tego ry of accidents. I t is like ly, then, th at 

fo r the firs t time th e accid en tal d eath rate will be about 50 pe r 100,000 

po pu lat ion and the m otor vehic le mileage de ath rate will dro p aga in.

Th e Na tional Sa fety Council is ove r 48 years old. It s role as the 

pr incipa l natio nal me chanism for vo luntary coordin ation of public 

an d pr ivate saf ety ac tiv ities was confirme d by th e 83d Congress F ed ­

eral incorporation of t he council. Th e cou ncil’s struc ture of conferences, sections, an d com mittees has the active pa rticip atio n of 2,600 

volun tee rs in 54 m ajor bodies an d a hos t o f subcommittees.

A t the las t count, 120 Fe deral officers a nd employe es occupied 150 

position s in the council str uc ture. Conse que ntly the council is the 

pr inci pa l means wh ere by the Fe de ral Es tablish men t ma int ain s coor dina tio n wi th the sa fety movement as a whole. Th e council is also 

one mechanism fo r vo lu ntar y coord ina tion of Fe de ra l saf ety activities 

them selv es.

I listen ed with conside rab le int ere st to Congres sman Rog ers questio ns , and I could cite you some instanc es where the Fe deral Est ab ­

lis hm ent is co ordina tin g its elf throug h the Na tio nal Sa fety Cou ncil's 

va rio us mechanism s.

Be fore ap proa ch ing th e various objections th at th e council has to 

th is bill, I migh t come to the crux of the m at ter by say ing th at we 

concur in th e recom me ndations for changes that were contained in the 

re po rt o f the Surge on Ge neral. We conc ur in Dr. Po rte rfi eld ’s statement t ha t most of the aut ho rity pr ovide d by this bill is already p res ent 

in the U.S . Pu bl ic H ea lth Service. To be very specific I would say 

th at , ju st from he arin g Dr . Ch apman’s figures on the costs of the 

estab lishm ent of an in tram ur al research cen ter—a nd I he ard them 

fo r th e first tim e toda y— however, my impressio n fro m listen ing to 

them was that this is precisely what the Na tio na l Sa fety Council 

endorse s.

Sin ce talk ing about th e obje ctions to certa in features of the pres ent 

bill is not alt og eth er pleasant, I th ou gh t we might come to the par t 

th at we do ac tua lly agree on.

We object to cert ain provis ion s of I I.R . 133 inasm uch as th e language 

an d some pro visions unnec essarily dupli cate the fun ctions the Con ­

gress assigned to the c ouncil. Some othe r pro vis ion s of II.R . 133 are 

unnec essary inasmu ch as the Pu blic Hea lth Service alread y has the 

au th or ity provided.

Be fore detailing the objections, it would be well to point out th at 

th e council, as early as 1937, was ur ging public he alth au tho rities to 

accept gr ea ter res po nsibilitie s in saf ety . Alth ou gh pro gre ss was 

slow , the presen t level of int ere st is gr at ifyin g to the council.

When groups in itia lly become int ere ste d an d active in saf ety , we 

com monly en cou nter som e overemphasis on new ap pro aches and u nd erem phasi s of p roven tech niques. Despite thes e problems, the N ational 

Saf et y Council has a fine day-t o-d ay wo rking rel ati on ship with the 

Ac cident Pr ev entio n Divis ion of the Pu blic Hea lth Service. Th e 

cou ncil endorse s t he p urposes o f the Division 's pro gra ms . The cou ncil commen ds the D ivi sio n's avowed int ent to coord ina te its work with 

th e safety movemen t as a whole pr im arily th roug h the council’s conferenc e, comm ittee, an d s ection structu re.

Th e National Sa fe ty Co uncil’s specific, str on g objections to H. R. 

133, as pr ese ntly d ra fted , are th re e:
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 37

(1) The name “National Accident Prevention Center" implies a 

broader scope and competence than the Public Hea lth Service, and overlaps the scope of a host of Federal and private agencies. The name, as written, can be construed as a duplication of the 

council’s name:

National Safety Council.

National Accident Prevention Center. 2. The function, “promote the coordination of research and control programs conducted by public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals,” duplicates a function assigned to the National Safety 

Council.

Congressional Charter, S3(6) (36 U.S.C. 463 (6)) :

The objects and purposes of the corporation shall be : * * * to cooperate with, enlist, and develop the cooperation of and between all persons, corporations, and other organizations and agencies, both public and private, engaged or interested in, or in any manner connected with, any or all of the foregoing purposes * * *

Congressional inten t:

One of its (National Safety Council’s) functions is to act as a national co­ ordinating agency for all private and public bodies interested in matters of safety. * * * In view of the annual toll on life and property caused by accidents and the need for a national group to coordinate safety efforts in industry, on the farm, in the home, and on the road, the Committee recommends the Federal incorporation of the National Safety Council (House Judiciary Committee, Rept. No. 556, 83d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 11, pt. 5, pp. 2-3),

The coordinating function cannot be carried out on a voluntary basis, except by duplicating the comprehensive conference, section, and committee structure of the council and a number of other specialized safety organizations. Because this got some attention in a previous discussion I might show you a chart—I realize you cannot see the details b ut you can see the amount of red on it. This is a chart of the basic organization of theh National Safety Council, and the red indicates the points of pa r­ ticipation, a t the present time, of the U.S. Public H ealth Service. In other words, the U.S. Public Health Service is actually partic­ ipating in the Council’s structure and a good deal of the desired co­ ordination is effected throu gh this mechanism. I would cite a few instances. Just a few weeks ago, Jan uar y 15, we met in New York with the American College of Surgeons and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. This is a joint committee of the council and these two medical groups. This is a joint committee which has stimulated interest in the study of the matter of transportation of in­ jured persons. At tha t meeting the U.S. Public Health Service pre­ sented five important recommendations for furthe r action to improve 

transportation of injured. The surgeons took these under study. In short this committee was an excellent point of contact between the U.S. Public Health Service and the surgeons to bring about coordination and cooperation in the 

specific area of transportation of injured persons. This same group has stimulated a study of transportation of injured in the rather unique San Francisco area. This study will be financed 

now with approximately $100,000 of U.S. Public Health Service 

money. The idea for the study grew out of the activities of this joint National Safety Council-American College of Surgeons com­ mittee, and we have had full and friendly and constructive participa-
38 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

tion of the U.S. Public Health Service in that work. We heartily 

endorse and commend their support for the San Francisco study.

We have good relations with them in the field as well. We sponsored recently four regional meetings of field staff of all safety organizations around the country so tha t these field people, the ones with 

the “overalls,” could see whether they were working on the same 

objectives in the States. The U.S. Public Health Service participated 

in those meetings and we have an excellent level of cooperation.

But I point out tha t this is being done through a comprehensive 

structure, and tha t many of the Federal agencies are also represented 

in these same groups.

I m ight cite one other instance. Our motor transportation conference has a research committee. The U.S. Public Health Service is 

represented on that conference, as is the ICC. At th at same meeting 

then will be the American Medical Association and a wide variety of 

nongovernmental groups, all of them working together to outline 

research needs in the area of motor transportation and to set about 

independently and voluntarily to find support for those functions.

Retu rning to the statem ent : The function—

establish an information cente r on causes and prevention of accidents, and 

collect and make available , thro ugh publications and oth er appropriate means, 

inform atio n as to, and the pra ctical application of, activitie s carried on under 

th is par t—

without appropriate qualification, duplicates a function assigned to 

the National Safety Council.

Congressional charter, S3( 2), 36 U.S.C. 463(2) :

The objects and purposes of the corporation shall b e: * * * to collect, correlate . publish, distribute, an d disseminate educ ational and informative data, 

reports , and all other da ta relative to safety methods and pro ced ure s; * * *

Congressional intent:

The Council is prese ntly engaged in a contin uous and unified program of accident prevention which inclu des * * * dissemination of material on accident 

cause and prevention (House Jud iciary Committee Repo rt No. 556, 83d Cong., 1st 

sess.. on S. 1105, p. 2).

The Council is now in its 40th year of service to the c ountry in gathering and 

distributing information abo ut causes of accidents and way s of preventing them. 

Th e National Safety Council is the hub of the safety movement (Senate Judiciary 

Committee Report No. 353, 83d Cong., 1st sess., on S. 1105, p. 6).

The Public Health Service already has app ropriate authority to collect and disseminate information and is developing its concepts of 

appropriate services. Pend ing orderly development of nonduplicative services, special authorization is not only unnecessary but carries 

an implied au thority to use tax funds to widely distribute publications 

which duplicate the self-supporting services of the Council and numerous other private agencies. Tax-supported programs carry the danger of destruction of p rivate, voluntary, self-supporting efforts.

I would use some of the Council’s publications by way of illustration. We publish four technical magazines. One goes to industry, 

35,000 circulation, a farm magazine with 20,000 circulation, a 9,000 

circulation school magazine, and Traffic Safety, with a circulation of 

15,000 among the city and State traffic authorities throughout the 

country, and we are regu larly reporting in that magazine research 

findings.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CEN TER 39

We publish annually Accident Facts with a circulation of 47,000. 

Now I would point out to you that this booklet could not exist if it 

were not for governmental safety activities. It is replete with compilations from the Federal Aviation Agency, the ICC, the Bureau of 

Public Roads, U.S. Public Health Service and so forth. The booklet 

could not exist without governmental statistical services.

However, if we consider for a moment the question, “How do we 

extend this type of information?” and it deserves to be extended, it 

would appe ar tha t the cost of one man beginning to duplicate this 

type of function could far better be spent in wider distribution of 

the existing publication.

I am not now trying to sell th is committee 40,000 copies of the book 

but I thin k we have to give some serious thought to the fact tha t 

the movement as now organized depends largely on voluntary selfsupporting service to carry the momentum.

The Council points out tha t three functions assigned by H.R. 133 

are unnecessary inasmuch as the Public Health Service already has 

such authority. Their re petition here seems to imply the creation of 

a Federal superagency. The th ree are:

1. To make research facilities available to others, S. 382(3).

2. To make grants-in-aid for research, S. 382(4).

3. To secure expert consultants, S. 382(6).

I would speak particularly to item 2, to make grants-in-aid research: 

The Public Health Service lias this authority a t the present time and 

is making grants-in-aid for research. We heard some of the figures 

a moment ago. The Council certainly supports the present level of 

expenditures on those grants-in-aid, and supports a constructive 

growth in tha t level so there is no conflict in intent here.

The simple question is whether we need a new device to carry out 

these activities.

The Council believes tha t the Accident Prevention Advisory Board 

proposed by H.R. 133 is an unnecessary and less effective mechanism 

than the research approval bodies and the Accident Prevention Advisory Committee as presently constituted within the Public Health 

Service.

More important than the above specific criticisms is what is not said 

or implied in the bill:

1. Only a voluntary, comprehensive structure can provide mechanisms of effective exchange of information, standards development, 

group planning, and coordination.

2. Only policies which recognize how and why accidents can be 

prevented in communities can be effective—a Federal centralization 

of safety will be expensive and ineffective.

3. Broadly agreed-upon action programs are a necessity for cooperative, voluntary action.

4. Only a careful analysis of Public Health Service capabilities for 

serving specific groups can produce efficient use of resources and be 

effective.

There is a great need to study and develop (1) the role of State 

and local health departments in safety, and (2) the services the Pub ­

lic Health Service can appropriately render in this regard. The 

Public Health Service is making encouraging progress in this area. 

The National Safety Council assisted by conducting a 1960 survey
40 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

of State medical services in traffic safety, and submitted its findings 

to the Association of State & Territorial Health Officers for study 

and recommendation.

I might at this point describe one current activity which illustrates 

both coordination and the matter of studying the role of the local and 

public health department. Our public safety committee will sponsor 

a meeting in Florida the latter part of this month in which we have 

drawn together a wide variety of people interested in recreational 

safety. The topic under discussion by these people is what should be 

the role of local health departments in recreational safety.

We are calling the meeting at the request of the U.S. Public Health 

Service. So we are able to bring together through our facilities a wide 

variety of voluntary and official agencies at the State and local level.

The task then of defining this local health department role will be 

followed by the task of defining what services should be given by the 

U.S. Public Health Service, because they are the authorized instrument to serve the local health departments.

Air. Rogers of Florida. May 1 inte rrupt ?

Mr. Johnson. Yes.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Where is this to be held ?

Air. J ohnson. I think it is Jacksonville, Fla.

On page 6 of the statement we listed some of the agreed-upon 

premises by which the Public Health Service and ourselves conduct 

our affairs. Under item 2 we urged coordination of Public Health 

Service programs with the safety movement as a whole through such 

organizations as the National Safety Council structure and the President’s Committee for Traffic Safety. In the first dra ft of this s tatement we had “item C, the Interdepartmental Safety Board.” I concluded, as did Air. Rogers, that realism required its deletion from the 

list because it never met, which we deeply regret.

AYe have also shown other bases on which we coordinate our affairs 

and on which we have had a very constructive relationship. AVe believe the Accident Prevention Division is making excellent progress 

and creating a good basis for cooperation and mutual effort along the 

following lines:

I. Definition of primary roles of Public Health Service, such a s:

A. Services to State and local health officers.

B. Research into accident causes and remedies.

C. Stimulation of health and medical groups to become more active in 

safety.

II. Coordination of Public Health Service programs with the safety movement as a whole through such organizations a s :

A. National Safety Council structure, including the traffic, home, school, 

public, farm, motor transport, and other groups.

B. President’s Committee on Traffic Safety.

II I. Statements of Public Health Service endorsement and support for:

A. NSC “Community Safety Organization—Principles, Policies, Programs,” including the community program of the home conference.

B. “Action Program” of the President’s Committee for Traffic Safety.

C. Inventories which measure items A and B above.

D. Recommendations of Join t Policy Committee of the National Safety 

Council, American College of Surgeons, and American Association for Surgery of Trauma with respect to transportation of injured.

IV. Recognition and use by the Public Health Service of the same service chart 

and other systems of analysis used by the National Safety Council for determining priority needs in the field of safety. This is of value in the important job 

of building public support for expansion of constructive accident prevention 

activities in the Public Health Service and at State and local levels.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENT ER 41

In 1956 and 1957, representatives of the National Safety Council 

appeared before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Inter ­

state and Foreign Commerce, which was investigating highway traffic 

accidents.

Included in the testimony of the council representatives, and in 

the testimony of representatives of some other organizations, were 

statements on the need for basic research into the causes of accidents, 

particula rly the human factors involved. It was also pointed out 

tha t efforts to obtain funds from private sources to conduct this type 

of research had been largely unsuccessful.

Several witnesses suggested that the appropriation of Federal 

funds fo r basic research into the causes of accidents would constitute 

an a ppropriate and significant contribution to the prevention of accidents by the National Government.

One element of the above presentation, a “Quantitative Analysis of 

Traffic Safety Services of National Organizations,” was later used 

as an appendix in the “Federal Role in Highway Safe ty.” This chart 

gives appropriate emphasis to research without underemphasizing 

the need to apply what is now known.

In reviewing this statement just yesterday it seemed to me we might 

have erred in its preparation in one respect. I did not consider it was 

necessary to further establish the need for research before this committee. I had thought th at this need had been adequately established 

and that we were talkin g simply about a device for getting on with 

the job.

But if the committee feels that there is a need to establish the need 

for additional research, I would briefly give you this record, and I 

could supplement it with a written record.

In 1948 the President’s Conference on Occupational Safety, issued 

a report on research needed. A study of tha t repo rt will show tha t 

many of the same behavioral factors tha t ru n through other kinds of 

accidents are cited as needing study.

In 1954 to 1956 our own school and college conference defined needs 

for research in safety education.

In 1957 the Robert’s committee, the special subcommittee of the 

Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, stated the need for basic 

research and mentioned the need for a research center in that 1957 

report.

The public officials conference here in Washington, called by the 

White House in 1957, also underscored the need f or research.

In 1958 we submitted a pa per to this committee which included the 

economic justification for research in terms of accident cost. The 

Williamsburg conference, jointly sponsored by the Presiden t’s Committee, the U.S. Public Health Service, Automotive Safety Foundation, National Safety Council was also held in 1958. There were 20 

top scientists who underscored the need for additional research and 

laid down some constructive guidelines. In 1958 we also had a 

panel of research hearings before this committee.

Our own farm conference in 1959 conducted a farm research conference. The “Federal Role in Highway Safety” issued by the Secretary of Commerce in 1959 stated the need fo r research.

In 1961 the President’s Committee for Traffic Safe ty revised its 

action program and everyone of those reports states the need for 

research.
42 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

On this basis, gentlemen, I had not thought it necessary to go into 

the need for research. It seems to me tha t on the record, both of 

this committee and in other places, it has been very well established. 

We are concerned with what devices would fur the r the present task.

In 1958 a National Safety Council representative was a consultant 

for the preparation of a report entitled “Analysis of Responsibility 

and Capability of the Public Health Service in Accident Preventio n/’ 

Hap pily we can say t ha t the major programs therein suggested have 

been initiated, with one important exception, a program of intra ­

mural research.

In 1960 a National Safety Council representative; namely, myself, 

along with Dr. Barry King, participated in the preparation of the 

following statement. We were members of the Accident Prevention 

Committee of the Surgeon General.

Requirements for Public Health Service Accident Prevention activities, as 

defined by the National Health Advisory Council, consist of programs and 

services which include intramu ral research, research and training, education 

grants-in-aid, collection, analysis and reporting accident dat a; dissemination 

of inform ation; development of accident prevention procedure s; internal accident prevention programs; assistance to State public health orgainzations and 

safety groups; and collaboration and continuing liaison with national nonFederal organizations—th e National Safety Council, American Red Cross, and 

American Medical Association.

In addition to extram ural research supported by grants-in-aid. intram ural 

research, conducted by members of the staff of the Public Health Service is 

essential. This inhouse research is necessary since i t can be directed specifically 

toward the support and operation of the Public Health Service programs and 

sendees in accident prevention. The purpose of the grants-in-aid is to contribute 

to the support of a program of studies proposed by investigators in academic 

and other research organizations outside the Federal Government. The purpose 

of intram ural research is to provide a program of applied research directed 

toward the development of solutions to specific problems in public health accident 

prevention activities; provide for program continuity and effectiveness; and 

develop and maintain the necessary high degree of professional proficiency of 

the staff.

Since there are currently no facilities or provisions for such a program of 

intramu ral research, the Accident Prevention Advisory Committee makes the 

following recommendation:

“That the U.S. Public Health Service develop and operate a U.S. Public 

Health Service Acicdent Prevention Research Center with adequate facilities 

and staff to conduct continuing intram ural research in the basic medical, clinical, 

and behavioral sciences essential for support of PHS accident prevention 

programs and serv ices.

“Specifically, it is the judgment of the Accident Prevention Advisory Committee that the facilities for applied research in accident prevention should 

provide for essential experimental studies such as are listed as examples below. 

“ («) Laboratory research on : normal biological and disease mechanisms ; 

physiological and psychological bases of behavior; physical and mental 

growth and maturation.

“(b) Clinical studies on: performance, behavior, physical condition, incapacitation, impairments, aging, and disease.

“ (c) Feasibility or preliminary studies of various research approaches 

for program development and for validation of reported findings.

“(d) Measurement and description of human capabilities under the conditions they will be exercised, i.e., practical real life situations.

“(e) Computer studies of the influence of the variables in accident 

causation and prevention.

“(f) Simulator studies of the requirements, behavior, and performance 

in potentially hazardous tasks and situations, and of accident prevention 

measures.

“The center, with its research facilities and staff, would constitute an important part of an effective Accident Prevention Division in the Public Health
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 43

Service for its liaison and coll abor ation with non-Fed eral agencies and oth er 

Feder al agencies, and for conduct ing State and oth er servi ces which const itute 

its overall progra ms and services in public health acc iden t preven tion .”

That same resolution was reviewed and again endorsed by the Su rgeon General’s Advisory Committee just a few weeks ago.

Very recently the National Safety Council representative voted 

affirmatively on the following Accident Prevention Advisory Committee resolution:

The Advisory Committee on Accident Prev enti on recomm ends the stro nge st 

possible Public Hea lth Servic e and Budget Bu rea u sup por t be given to budg etary requ ests in the ar ea of fa rm safe ty resea rch. It is pa rti cu lar ly im po rtant 

to emb ark on resea rch inasmuch as many fac ets of modern far mi ng are uniq ue 

and knowledge from oth er ar ea s does not apply. Thes e res ear ch efforts should 

be coor dina ted with those of orga niza tion s th at have known achievements , 

interests, and skills in the field. Such orga nizations and grou ps would includ e: 

The Fa rm Dep artm ent of the National Safe ty Council, Extension Service of the 

U.S. Departme nt of Agricul ture , the Agricu ltur al Rese arch Service of the U.S. 

De par tme nt of Agricultu re, safety councils at the Sta te and local level, acciden t 

prev entio n programs in Sta te he alt h departme nts, the American Association of 

Ag ricu ltur al Engineers , the Fa rm Equip ment Insti tut e, Nat ional Association of 

Vocational Agricul tura l Tea chers, progra m are a comm ittee of the American 

Public Hea lth Association, and othe rs.

The Council representative commented as follows:

The Nationa l Safety Council’s far m confere nce sponso red a resea rch conferenc e, October 1 and 2, 1959. The resea rch conference was full y representativ e 

of ag ric ult ural agencies and int ere sts. The research conference concluded th at 

the re was gre at need for increased farm safety rese arch , and liste d many examples of needed rese arch which are with in the special competencies of the 

Public Health Service; namely, the medical, clinical, and behavio ral sciences.

The National Safety Council believes that there is a great need for 

expanded accident prevention research, and that Public Health Service efforts to stimulate such research in the medical, clinical, and behavioral sciences can be a valuable contribution to accident prevention. 

Careful attention should also be given to promoting State, local, industrial, and other private research support.

Because the chairman of this committee has frequently expressed 

the hope tha t Federal expenditures for research would stimulate a dditional expenditures for research, I have included in this statement 

simply one negative finding.

In 1958 we conducted a survey of State traffic safety research activity. We asked each of the State governments what was going on in 

their State. This was the first time such a survey had been made.

Most of the research programs were being funded from Federal 

funds and very little research was receiving State support. We 

returned to each o f the State s a series of recommendations, the last 

two of which are :

Sta te legis lative app rop ria tio ns are necessary if Sta tes ar e to guide their 

own d esti nies to solving local probl ems— 

an d:

More public in form atio n and educ ation rega rding the necessity for acce lerated 

res ear ch programs is v ital.

There are two current reports that are more encouraging. Ju st 

the other day we had word that California will do something to help 

remedy this situation this year. The government recently approved 

a $100,000 research program to seek the cause and cures of dangerous 

80624—62-----4
44 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

dr iv in g hab its. We are in form ed th at New Yo rk Sta te is showin g 

leg isa ltiv e su pp ort fo r ex pansion of its pio nee ring research efforts.

Pr izes and recognition are alw ays ple asa nt. Th e research pro jec t 

whi ch in 1961 rece ived th e Na tio na l Sa fety Council’s Metropoli tan 

Li fe Award fo r Research in Ac cid ent Prev entio n was sup ported, in 

pa rt, by Pu blic Hea lth Service fun ds. Th is s ubcommittee can pr op ­

erl y s ha re in the sat isf actio n o f th is recognition.

Fr om the for egoin g it should be am ply cle ar th at the Na tional 

Sa fe ty Cou ncil believes th at a contr ibuti on to safety will be m ade by 

crea tin g wi thin the Ac cide nt Preventio n Division a U.S . Public 

H ea lth Ser vice A cci den t P reve ntion Research Ce nte r devo ted to in tr amural resear ch prog rams in the medical, clin ical, and beh avioral 

sciences.

Th e Chairm an. Tha nk you, M r. John son .

I believe th at when you an d Air. Kra nl appe ared before this sub ­

com mittee , I believe it was 3 years ago, pe rhap s 4, the committee 

pla ced in the record at th at tim e inform ation giving us the cap ital 

ex pe nd itu re in the field of cancer, heart disease, and in the field of 

accid ent pre ven tion . I believe it was lim ited at t hat time to the t ra ffic sa fety field.

Do you happen to recall wh at those figures were? It seems t o me 

we used polio; we spent at th at tim e $40,000 per death .

Air. J ohnson. I can’t rem em ber the figures. I f you recall, they 

were not pub lish ed due to an interru pt ion in the com mittee’s continuity of activities. I st ar te d to give you a figure bu t I am af ra id 

to quote from memory. I would be glad to get fo r you the figures 

wh ich we used at th at tim e an d attempt to br ing them up to date if 

you so desire.

(T he inf orm ation req ues ted is inc orp ora ted in the letter a pp earin g 

on p . 47.)

Th e C hair man. If I r ecall co rrectly , in th is p ar ticu la r field of t ra ffic saf ety, we were spend ing $2.50 pe r de ath and abo ut $0.70 per inj ury.

Yet the costs hav e been extensive. In 1956 th e Na tio nal He alth 

survey we fou nd inst ead o f iy 2 1° 2 m illion people bein g injur ed every 

ye ar we are now in ju ring at the rate of ab ou t 5 mi llio n a year. Th e 

cost is estimated by the ins urance com panies in th e neighborho od of 

$10 billion p er year. Is t h at correct ?

Air. J ohnson. I have ne ve r been able to find out what is in that 

insuran ce estimate. Our own est imate of economic cost is described 

in Ac cid ent Facts . It is ap proa ch ing $14 billion fo r all accidents.

Th e Chairman. You wo uld agree, I belie ve th at there should be 

an expanded attack in this field o f ac cidents.

Air. J ohnson. Yes. Th e economic justifi cation fo r rese arch was 

cited in the pa pe r th at we provide d on Ja nuar y 3, 1958, fo r the committe e. We s aid the n the costs of ac cide nts were estim ate d at $11,200 

mi llion fo r 1956. Th e costs of traffic congestio n, a problem susceptib le to the same orga niza tio na l solutions, pro bab ly exceeded the cost 

of traffic accidents, which w ere the n $5 billion.

Th us res earch ex pe nd itu res m ust be bud geted in r elation to the many 

billio ns of do llars now spent o r wasted.

Th e Chairman. Now, wo uld some of your objections to H.R. 133 

be removed if the wo rd “N ationa l” was lef t out of th e bill and we 

su bstituted what you sug gested here, “U.S. Pu blic Hea lth Service 

Accid ent Pr eventio n Re searc h C en ter ” ?
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 45

Mr. J ohnson. Th at is one of our suggestions.

The Chairman. Of course, you do not make any research grants 

from your organization to the universities and colleges, do you ?

Mr. J ohnson. That is right. We have no funds for that purpose. 

We conduct a very limited amount of internal research where we have 

the data internally from previous reports; for example, the annual inventory of traffic safety activities. We have a mass of data on what 

1,200 cities and 50 States are doing. We do research with those data 

but we limit ourselves to the internal programs.

There is one other exception, tha t is, the winter driving tests which 

we have conducted on frozen lakes up in Wisconsin and Michigan for 

about 25 years. These have led to the redesign of chains and tires. 

History does not record how we got into this particu lar activity, but 

ordinarily we don't conduct direct research activities.

The Chairman. Xow, at the present time I believe you testified that 

one of the research gr ants which is being used by the National Safety 

Council comes through, part of it at least, through the public service 

to the National Safety Council.

Mr. J ohnson. Are you referring to the San Francisco story I 

mentioned ?

The Chairman. No, sir; I think I was referring to the Metropolitan 

Life Insurance statement. You said at page 11, par agraph 2:

The research project which in 1961 received the National Safety Council’s 

Metropolitan Life Award for research in accident prevention was supported in 

pa rt by Public Health Service funds.

Mr. J ohnson. The actual project was Stan Ba ker’s intensive investigation of accidents at Northwestern University. Tha t won our award. 

This project was supported in part by Public Health Service funds. 

The money did not come through the Council. T was simply recording 

the fact tha t our award had been given to a project funded in part 

by the Public Health Service, which would serve to express our high 

regard for the direction this research work has taken.

The Chairman. I thin k your most recent contribution was joining 

with the American Medical Association and Public Health Service 

in a joint letter to the automobile m anufacturers trying to get them 

to put on a national education program and you succeeded.

I recall very distinctly that you made that contribution.

Mr. J ohnson. That is paid of the continuing program the three 

agencies started in 1958 w ith the education on seat, belts.

The Chairman. You seem to have indicated briefly in your statement a knowledge of the need for research in the accident prevention 

field.

Now, would you state for the record what the Safety Council is 

doing to generate money and manpower for these jobs?

Mr. J ohnson. Yes, sir. The stimulation of research comes about 

first, through assessment of the needs that have to be filled. I would 

retu rn to a specific example because they are many. The Research 

Committee of our Motor Transportation Conference, and this Conference consists of representatives of the large common carriers and 

private carriers, the Intersta te Commerce Commission, bus companies, 

insurance companies, representatives of the medical profession, and the 

U.S. Public Health Service—this Research Committee will define the 

research needs and then the members of th at conference through their
46 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

own channels endeavor to find support for those research needs. The 

support might be through the American Trucking Association 

Foundation o r it might be a Public Health Service grant. It might 

be a grant—one was a Pure Oil Co. grant—it might be a study of 

the characteristics of drivers who had driven over 20 years without 

an accident which was conducted through Columbia and was supported by the Du Pont Co.

In other words, from each one of these conferences which has a 

research committee the effort fans out. The same thing would be 

true of our School and College Conference Research Committee, the 

Research Committee of our Industrial Conference and so forth.

In the area of traffic we made a decision some years ago to rely 

on the Research Committee of the President's Committee for Traffic 

Safe ty rather than trying to convene the same people in a duplicating 

effort. So we have no research committee on traffic safety for the 

simple reason that we work through the President’s Committee. We 

are presently serving as the secretariat of the Research Committee 

and we are d rafting its report for the President’s action program.

The Chairman. You mentioned the In ters tate Commerce Commission. I would like to interject one statement here from the report of 

the Interstate Commerce Commission which approved this bill and 

ask for your opinion on that statement.

This statement is as follows:

Illustra tiv e of the poten tial usefulness which the cen ter could be to this 

Commission is the fact th at in the discharge of its responsibilities in the field 

of motor carrier safety the Commission often needs the counsel and advice of 

exp erts on such ma tters as sta ndard s of eyesight, hea ring, and the effects of 

organic, nervous, and fun ctional diseases on the hum an body. It also needs 

information as to the effect of fati gue and drug s on drivin g ability. Research 

in such areas promoted and aided by the center and Advisory Board would undoubtedly be of benefit to thi s Commission in its tas k of prescribing motor 

ca rrier sa fety regulations.

Mr. J ohnson. I would endorse t ha t statement if I understood it 

correctly. What they are saying is that we need additional research 

on these matters and certainly this is true.

I think the question o f duplication of effort would take this form— 

1 refer again to the research committee of our Motor Transportation 

Conference. A member of the committee is Dr. Brandaleone of the 

AMA. If the Public Health Service were endeavoring to answer a 

question from the ICC there is no reason under the sun why the U.S. 

Public Health Service could not assemble in the room the same group 

of people we already have and get the opinion o f the medical profession, as well as the results of their in tramural research.

There is no reason why this could not be done. I am simply pointing 

out to the committee tha t this would duplicate an existing body.

The Chairman. The committees tha t you speak of do not actually 

do research ? Is tha t correct ?

Mr. J ohnson. Tha t is right.

The Chairman. Therefore, in such a meeting as you refer to there 

would be actually no expert opinions. It would simply be their own 

personal opinion without being supported and backed up by intramural research such as is being done by the Public H ealth Service?

Mr. J ohnson. The individual members of the committee do research 

but the committee does not as its function. It is simply a means of 

exchanging of information and coordination.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER 47

The Chairman. What I have reference to, Mr. Johnson, is the type 

of work which has been done, like the work at Cornell, the work by 

Colonel Stapp and others which come up in repo rts on the basis of 

actual experimentation and actual use of volunteers, human beings, 

and animals and such.

You do not conduct any such research as that?

Mr. J ohnson. No, sir. This is why we endorse this intramural research center because we believe this work should be done. I was 

speaking to the point of the coordinating mechanism.

The Chairman. That is all.

Mr. O’Brien?

Mr. O’Brien. Mr. Chairman, I realize tha t this accident field is 

much broader than the traffic problem but do you have any figures on 

how much the 50 States are spending in the field o f accident prevention on highways. You mentioned in California $100,000 as a notable 

exception. I would assume the others are not doing as well.

Mr. J ohnson. On the research aspect, I thin k this is correct, that 

they are not spending money at the present time on research in anythin g like the proportions they ought to.

If you go into a State motor vehicle department and there you see 

acres of clerks expensively processing records, and then you set that 

against the fact that there is no research expenditure within the State 

to improve the process, I think this is a sad state of affairs.

Mr. O’Brien. Would you say the States collectively spend as much 

as $6 million on accident research?

Mr. J ohnson. I ’m quite sure it would not be tha t much. I can get 

von the figure as to the 1958 level from this survey that we conducted. 

But I pointed out that most of the money that they could identify as 

research money being spent in the State came from the Federal Government, but I could provide the committee with a copy of that 1958 

summary.

(The information requested is incorporated in the following le tte r:)

National Safety Council, 

Chicago, III., February 28, 1982.

Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety,

Committe e on I nte rstate and Foreign Commerce,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : During th e hearings I agreed to supply you with resea rch 

expenditures per f atality fo r accidents and diseases. However, I noticed the next 

day they were supplied by one of the health people. Since we would have no data 

other tha n those supplied by the health groups, I will presume that the data 

you were given answer your needs, unless I hea r from you to the contrary.

I also agreed to send you the State-by-State expend itures of Sta te fund s for 

research . However. I find in going hack to the summary of our 1958 survey 

that we concluded it would not be possible to make an acc ura te State-by-State 

tabulation which would have any significance (see bottom of page 3 in the 

rep ort).

Although the individual State figures don’t mean much for one year, the 

synopsis on page 2 of the rep ort explains the rea l situation —“Major sources of 

funds come from Federal budgets,” and “S tate legislative app ropriat ions are 

necessary if States are to guide th eir own destinies in solving local problems.”

Best regards.

Sincerely,

W. G. J ohn son, General Manager.
48 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

Mr. O’Brien. Still there are approximately 60 million automobiles 

in the United States, is that correct ?

Mr. J ohnson. More than that, 74 million now, I think.

Mr. O’Brien. Each State collects rather heavily for the registration 

of each one of these vehicles ?

Mr. J ohnson. Yes, sir, and gasoline taxes.

Mr. O’Brien. Of course, I realize tha t a large amount of that money 

goes into the construction of roads but from the figures, we have 

probably less than 2 cents per car at the State level, th at is going into 

research.

Mr. J ohnson. I would say substantially less than 2 cents per car. 

It would probably get down to mills. I think the best way to handle 

this type of question would be if I reviewed tha t 1958 summary and 

sent up the level then with some estimate as to what it is now.

Mr. O’Brien. Are the States waiting for the Federal Government 

to do it ?

Mr. J ohnson. Well, I can’t ascribe the reasons. You are probably 

fam iliar with State legislatures and their responsiveness to factual 

information, which very often leaves something to be desired. They 

act from their personal experience. We have this problem in trying 

to get the uniform vehicle code passed.

I don’t think you have research-minded people at these various 

points. I think this is only being gradually recognized now.

I might cite some exceptions. I believe the State highway departments have engaged in research in terms of road construction, alinement, and layout. You have research activities in the Agricultural 

Extension Service and the State college of agricu lture directed to 

farm accidents. This is at a fair level. But when you get into relatively new administrative areas such as driver licensing the studies 

have been all too rare. There have been some.

Mr. O’Brien. I had in mind, e.g., in my S tate I pay $27.50 registration every year. I pay several times tha t amount for insurance 

in case I am involved in an accident and damage someone else’s prop ­

erty or person. App aren tly not even 5 percent, not even 2 percent 

of what I pay for registration goes into any research activities which 

would make it safe for me to drive. I am wondering if this is not a 

pre tty good field of exploration for the States.

Mr. J ohnson. This was the tenor of our recommendations. I repeated these five recommendations in the body of my statement because we sent these back to the States. Traffic safety research a t the 

State level is weak and uncoordinated except in a few cases.

There is a definite need for stronger State leadership.

Much more coordination of State research and National priorities 

is desirable.

Major sources of funds come from Federal budgets.

State legislative appropriations are necessary if States are to find 

the ir own destinies in solving local problems.

And we need more public information on this point.

This is what we sent to the 50 Governors.

Mr. O’Brien. There we have a case of where we have discovered 

the problem. The question is what are we doing about it. That is 

one of the things that concerns me. I believe this is a very great 

problem for which Congress has the responsibility. I am wondering
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 49

aft er we get throu gh with all this information, after we get it all, 

I understand safety belts, better tires, and chains t hat you mentioned 

and so forth, what do we do, e.g., when we find out tha t people over 

60 are more accident prone than other people? Do we deny them 

licenses? Do we give them limited licenses? Do we keep them off 

superhighways ? Do we consider half the time when an older person 

gets in an accident he is run over by a younger person ? I am wondering what do we do about legislation when we get the information. 

We go back to the same legislature for remedial action.

Mr. J ohnson. I believe this committee would like to hear about 

my experience in Florida where the application of medical standards 

to older drivers was discussed on a television program a few years 

ago. Knowing tha t this question was very likely to occur, I had a 

very carefully phrased statement. I said that we needed periodic 

medical examinations, and I hastened to add that these were for the 

purpose of suggesting compensating factors in drivin g, as to how 

they drive, where they drive, making them aware of growing deficiencies, rather than for the purpose of taking people off the road. 

But everybody in Florida turned off his hearin g aid afte r I finished 

the first sentence. The television station tells me tha t they got more 

mail and more phone calls on that statement than they ever had before. So when you begin to discuss any kind of administrative 

handling of older people dealing with a very precious thing, namely 

with a driver’s license, you must be aware tha t reason very quickly 

leaves the room and not everybody listens.

Mr. O’Brien. I am not so sure that reason leaves the room. I think 

I would accept the periodic medical examination for older people if 

we had periodic psychiatric examinations for some of the younger 

people. I think 9 times out of 10 when we find an older person involved in an accident it is not an older person involved in the accident 

with him. It is some younger driver or careless driver who is tailgating, who ignores his flicker sign when he wants to move over in a 

throughway. Actually I think the older drivers are much more careful th an the younger drivers. I would not have said that 20 years ago.

The Chairman. The gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Rogers of Florid a. Mr. Chairman, just a question or two.

Wh at funds does the National Safety Council have at its disposal 

for research ?

Mr. J ohnson. For the funding of research ?

Mr. R ogers of Florida. Yes.

Mr. J ohnson. Prac tically none except for the small amount of intram ural research tha t we do. We derive about $5 million of income 

from the distribution of publications. Most of this goes to pay printing bills. We have about a half million dollars in gran ts to conduct 

public service programs and about a half million dollars in contributions. We do not conduct a national fund raising campaign as do 

some of the other voluntary health agencies.

Mr. Rogers of Florid a. Wh at is it tha t makes people come to you 

to coordinate tha t ?

Mr. J ohnson. I thin k historically, principally because we have 

the “meeting room.” We call the meeting and we have the voluntary 

structure. I could tell you some stories about the fact tha t Federal 

people from different departments have on many occasions found out
50 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER

what the other department was doing at a National Safety Council 

meeting.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I have no doubt about that.

Mr. J ohnson. I testified once before a predecessor of this committee to the effect that Federal coordination was weak and inadequate and it deserved to be corrected. I was told afterward s th at the 

only way to do this was to create another agency. So I have since then 

been hoping that the council struc ture would be a help in this direction 

but I still think you need more Federal coordination.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I am wondering, suppose someone comes to 

you with a problem, that they want to try to get a decision tha t research should be done on thi s particular project, would they come to 

you and then your panel would go over it and recommend research or 

what is your function ?

Mr. J ohnson. We have one staff man whose principal function is 

the correlation of research, the publication in Traffic Safety magazine of lists of projects that are going on, the collection of abstracts, 

and providing a service to researchers. For example, a man in a university conceives of a certain project and sometimes we can tell him 

that there is an investigation on parallel lines already underway, or 

we can tell him in a few instances where he might hope to get funds for 

this project.

Ours is an informational coordinating function, not in the sense 

of direction, but of providing information.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You make no decisions on what projects 

should be researched.

Mr. J ohnson. Our committees and conferences do prepare lists of 

recommended research but they make no decision that this project 

will not be funded and th is one will. They make no such decision.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Who makes those decisions?

Mr. J ohnson. Whoever has the money.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You don’t know whether those projects 

will be done or not?

Mr. J ohnson. That is right. Unless there is more money available 

we know th at some of them will not be done.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You may think some projects are good but 

unless someone has some money to do it then tha t project may never 

be done ?

Mr. J ohnson. Yes. If I may trace the mechanism there—in 1959 

our farm conference conducted a special conference on research. This 

conference delineated a large number of lines of inquiry which it 

thought was productive. Ju st a few weeks ago the Accident Prevention Advisory Committee of the Public Health Service made a 

formal statement of the need for U.S. Public Health Service and 

Budget Bureau approval of more funds to investigate particularly 

the medical topics that were in this list which we had developed. 

This recommendation that Public Health Service funds be expended 

in this area and tha t they be increased was, incidentally, endorsed by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which while it has certain research capacities does not have them in the medical, clinical, behavioral science areas.

So I thin k it could be said tha t the 1959 conference set in motion 

a train of events by which we may hope to get an orderly solution 

in the next few years, and get more money.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENT ER 51

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You would not be too willing to set this 

up as a coordinating agency, but you would be w illing to have a research center?

Mr. J ohnson. Yes.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Yet, don’t you feel in thin king over the 

problem tha t where it appears from the testimony of the Health, 

Education, and Welfare, and from your testimony th at in Government 

we have no real coordinating agency to place priorities, to see tha t 

projects are done t hat really need to be done, because even if they 

come to you they never get done unless someone just decides to do it, 

don't you think it might be a good idea to have such an agency and 

tiy to set up some prio rity and coordinate the necessary research 

projects?

Mr. J ohnson. Yes, I think there should be coordination of research and other safety activities within the Federal establishment. 

However, our experience, particularly in State government, tells us 

tha t a coordinating agency located in a single department is never 

very effective. At the State level we seek the Governor’s office, the 

Governor’s coordinating committee. The parallel at the Federal 

level would be to raise a question as to whether w ithin the Bureau of the Budget there should be a facility, a staff facility, for the coordination of Federal safety activities. I would be inclined to think we 

would think this is a good idea.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. That would be a better approach rather than 

putting it in just one of the departments.

Mr. J ohnson. I don’t believe putting it in any one of the departments would work.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. But you do see the need of some coordinating agency ?

Mr. J ohnson. Yes.

The Chairman. The Chair would like to announce at this time that 

the House will be in session shortly on a bill coming out of this 

committee.

We will take the next witness and try to go as far as we can. I 

am not sure tha t we can sit this afternoon. It may be tha t the 

committee will not be able to sit this afternoon and we may have to 

go over until tomorrow. We will go as f ar as we can.

I would like to take Jud ge Finesilver.

We welcome you to our subcommittee. I realize that you have 

come a great distance and at a sacrifice to be here with us.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MUNICIPA L JUDGE SHERMAN G. FINESILVE R,

DIRECTOR, DENVER DR IVE R IMPROVEMENT SCHOOL, DENVER,

COLO.

Judge Finesilver. Mr. Chairman, if it please the committee, initially I will state at the outset t ha t it is a privilege for me, a member 

of the judiciary, to appe ar before this committee which is charged 

with the responsibility of conducting hearings in an area that is considered our No. 1 domestic problem.

The statement that I submit to the clerk is much more detailed. 

With your permission I would like to parap hrase and excerpt what 

I have included in the longer statement.
52 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

The Chairman. Without objection your complete statement will 

be placed in the record.

(The prepared statement of Municipal Judge Sherman G. Finesilver, director, Denver Driver Improvement School, Denver, Colo., 

follows:)

Statement of Municipal J udge Sherman G. Finesilver, Director, Denver

Driver I mprovement School

Gentlemen, thank you for the privilege of appearing before a congressional 

committee charged with hearings on an area tha t is said to be our No. 1 domestic 

problem—accident prevention.

After almost 7 years as a Denver municipal judge, during which time I have 

withdrawn from the field of militant advocacy, I have looked forward to this 

hearing today because it affords a legitimate opportunity to once again become an 

advocate, defending that which I sincerely believe to be the truth.

Also bearing on my qualification to speak on the present subject is the fact tha t 

I was associated with the Denver city attorney’s office for 5 years—my work 

almost exclusively that of a tria l lawyer.

During my 7 years as a traffic judge, I have tried a myriad of traffic cases of 

all degrees of severity; founded the Denver Driver Improvement School, which 

has attracted considerable national recognition; and was the recipient of the 

1960 Paul Gray Hoffman Award of the Automotive Safety Foundation here in 

Washington for outstanding contribution to traffic safety.

I am sincerely and enthusiastically in favor of this bill and feel tha t the 

well-being of the country would best be served by its enactment. However, I am 

not able to offer any philosophical approaches today, hut I believe tha t my 

remarks and observations should be considered in light of my previous interest, 

activity, and responsibility in traffic safety and accident prevention.

It is frightening to realize tha t more American people have been killed in 

traffic accidents on the streets and highways of this Nation than have been 

killed in all the wars and armed conflicts of the United States during our 

entire history. Even though nearly 40,0(X) Americans are being killed each year 

in traffic accidents, very few of us become excited or concerned over this tragic 

situation. Unlike killing with guns, killing with automobiles has actually 

become a matter-of-fact occurrence in America. Murder by motor is tolerated; 

murder by other weapons of violence is not. In the 10-year period 1950-59, there 

were 375,000 people killed in traffic; there were 13,500,000 injuries. It doesn’t 

take very much imagination to visualize the human misery, the suffering, the 

heartache and mental anguish tied up in those horribly grim sta tistics; and, for 

those who might be money conscious, it could be stated that the monetary loss 

was approximately $45 billion. Consequently, the importance of accident prevention is apparent.

The local and national traffic scene is rapidly changing. There are more and 

more drivers of motor vehicles and operators of motor scooters. By 1968 we can 

expect 100 million cars and other vehicles to be whizzing along the Nation’s 

highways and byways. There are more automobile registrations and more 

suburban living requiring more extensive use of the automobile. Because of 

retirements at earlier ages, th ere is more free time for more people. No longer 

is the automobile a luxury—it is now considered a real necessity of life.

One of the earliest cases I tried as a traffic judge involved a 16-year-old boy. 

He was charged with speeding 60 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour zone and 

on a heavily traveled Denver street. It was his third citation within a year with 

convictions in the two preceding cases. When I inquired regarding the whereabouts of his parents, the young man replied tha t they were in Las Vegas but 

that before leaving they had given him a $100 bill to pay any fine that might be 

imposed by the judge. Of course, the case was continued for plea and further 

proceedings until the boy’s parents could attend with him in court. But, the 

shocking fact is tha t this case is not unusual. Money was the least of this 

young man’s worries. Traffic judges throughout the country realize tha t all 

too often money is the least worry of most repeat offenders. Obviously, this 

incident has deep significance and points up and emphasizes the undeniable fact 

that, in order to achieve correction of driving habits in this type of case, we 

must look beyond the utilization of monetary penalties. It is questionable if a 

jail sentence was the proper answ er in this case.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 53

Prom reflection on this case, I realized th at some thing more had to be done 

with this youngster oth er than a tine which his paren ts could readily pay.

I fe lt that an edu cation al fac ilit y and corre ctive techn iques must, of necessity, 

be corr elat ed to the work of traffic court. However, wh at curriculum should be 

used in such a vio lators ’ or drive rs’ impro vement school? Wh at about financing, 

adm inis trat ion, methodology, etc. ? More especially, how effective had these 

schools proven?

I immediately surveyed the resea rch in thi s area an d foun d th at the re were 

two principal researc h sources : ( l ) a 1938 pub licat ion by the U.S. Dep artm ent 

of Commerce th at was badly outd ated, and (2 ) a sum mar y of schools prep ared 

by the Natio nal Safe ty Council. Lit tle help for our purposes was realized in 

thes e publications. I was sur pri sed to find t hat, in thi s cru cia l area, no th orough 

and painsta king rese arch ha d been done as to effectiveness and methodology of 

dri ver improvement schools. Accordingly, it was nec essary for me to und ertak e my own rese arch even though—to say the lea st—t his is not my trainin g. 

The caseload of the ave rag e traffic judge also does not lend itse lf to research.

It took 2 years of extensive rese arch to surv ey sim ila r schools elsewhere, pre ­

pare the first rep ort of its kin d in the country, and develo p the progr am in the 

Den ver Driv er Impr ovem ent School. The school opened in 1959. To show the 

inter est througho ut the cou ntry in this field, since 1959 over 100 cities and, in 

add ition, countless judg es an d safe ty councils have r equ este d copies of th e rep ort 

in add itio n to 75 lib rari es. Ten doctorate can didates used it as the ir main source 

of rese arch .

The Denver Driv er Imp roveme nt School has been exce ptionally well received, 

and over 15,000 stu den ts—vi ola tors and volunteers—hav e atte nde d its program. 

We have also conducted dr iver improvement sem inar s for c adets at th e A ir Forc e 

Academy, at a rea m ilit ary installations , the F ede ral Cor recti onal I nstituti on (for 

teen age offenders of Fe deral laws ) and before stu den ts from 50 Colorado public 

and paro chial high schools.

In this connection, a stat istic al repo rt indicate s th at over a 3 -year s pan, 90 pe rcen t of the gra dua tes o f the s chool have enjoye d unble mishe d driving re co rd s; of 

the chronic or persiste nt violato rs, over 68 per cent have not appeared aga in in 

the traffic court to a nsw er a traffic citat ion.

The school is unique—it op era tes with out a budg et and wit hou t cost to the t ax ­

paye rs. The success of our prog ram indicates th at driv er-education prog ram s 

will be accepted in the gen era l community whe re they ar e estab lishe d on an 

inte rest ing, educationa l, and contin uous basis.

Thi s whole reh abi lita tion and ret rainin g approac h is crying out for adde d 

knowledge, research, and po ten tia l implementation in oth er communitie s. However, believe it or not, res ear ch and activity in this prim e field is stil l noticea bly 

lackin g. Resea rch in this ar ea has been long neglected. I speak of well-defined 

res ear ch into effectiveness an d methodology.

Traffic judge s thro ugh out the coun try are receptive to thes e reh abilitative innovat ions. Let us give to the traffic judg e and, yes, leg isla tors on all levels of 

government, the tools needed to be effective. Mean ingful researc h can immeas ­

ura bly aid in this rega rd. In my opinion, merel y making our traffic cour ts more 

dignified, per se, will not aid the accid ent prev entio n prog ram. Something more 

is needed to make this wo rk effective.

To fu rth er indic ate the need for rese arch a nd add itio nal development of tr ai ning programs, I point out th e fa ct tha t, af ter our dri ver improvemen t program 

had such wide acceptance by people of all ages in Colorado, sever al ad ult dea f 

driver s contacted me in reg ard to the possibility of a dri ver ref resher prog ram 

for a du lt deaf drivers. When I made inquir y in knowledgeab le qu art ers t hro ugh ­

out the country, I foun d th at no tra ining techniques had ever been developed for 

dri ver education for ad ult deaf drive rs of out-of-school dea f youths. Yet, 

250,000-300,000 deaf people ar e taxp aying citizen s of our co untry .

Thro ugh our own efforts, an d af ter an add itio nal year of research, we developed a 7-week tra ini ng pro gra m for deaf driv ers and held a class for 125 deaf 

driver s las t yea r and an addit ion al 100 atte nde d thi s yea r. The program has 

alread y become a prot otype fo r dea f driv er ref res her courses in oth er cities.

These incidents should ind ica te my stron g feelin g of t he necessity for researc h 

into all area s of accident pr eve ntion—for all segments of our community.

In addition, there mu st be incr ease d acti vity at all levels in accident prev ention rese arch to keep pace wi th the tremen dous upsu rge in population. The 

cu rre nt national census ind ica tes th at the population of the United Sta tes will 

incr ease from 180 to 208 milli on, up 28 million or 15 per cen t over the coming
54 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

decade. It is inte rest ing to note th at one out of every three people in the United 

St ate s toda y was not born by 1946 ; by 1965 we will be funn elin g 4 million new 

dr ivers yea rly into the vehic ula r driv ing popula tion. Thi s compares to about 

2 mill ion in 1960. The gro wth in the y outh ful population, it is said, resu lts from 

a sh arp incre ase in the birth ra te dur ing the ear ly yea rs of World War II and 

the imm ediate post war period. Young driv ers (un der 24 ) will account for a 

a ma jor sha re of the changes in the drivin g popul ation durin g the 1960’s. There 

will be:

(a ) Many more young drive rs (pa ren thetica lly, las t ye ar ’s driv ers under 

25 were involved in nea rly 30 perce nt of all fatal accide nts. In fut ure 

ye ars the propo rtion of drive rs unde r 25 will become stea dily larg er and, 

if the ir records do not im prove, casu alties are su re to in cre ase).

(ft ) Relative small inc rea se in the gene ral acci dent -free age group of 

35-54 ; many in this group were born during the depressio n of 1930’s when 

bi rth rat es were low.

(c ) Lar ger numbers of older drive rs, including ea rli er retire ments.

Not only will the education and labor picture be affected by thes e far-r each ing 

pop ulat ion changes, but they will create new challenges which must be met 

hea d on in the intere sts of traffi c safety. In 1960 and 1961, the first bumper 

baby crop of the 1940’s became of driving age and thi s is reflected alrea dy in 

acc ide nt statistics. The saf ety of our senior citizen has also been affected. As 

an exam ple, las t yea r most of the victims of fatal traffic accid ents in Denver 

wer e und er 25 or over 60 years old—23 of the 70 fa tal ities in 1961 were 6 0 years 

old or over and 22 were und er 25 yea rs of age—13 were between 25 a nd 40 years 

of age and 12 between 40 a nd <50 ye ars of age.

Whi le abou t 38 perc ent of po ten tial drivers in our high schools receive a 

stan da rd course of driver education , we seem to have given up on the adu lt 

driv er- This is warped thi nk ing which abandons, wit hou t a fight, a large segme nt of the driving public who could, beyond the shadow of a doubt, improve, 

by educ ation , the ir driv ing hab its. Most, if not all, of our senior drivers have 

receiv ed little or no valid dr iv er education. In most instances, it has been 

ye ars since they were exposed to curre nt traffic laws, defen sive driving techniq ues an d safe-driving prac tice s.

Fa ilu re to properly un der sta nd the population changes, which will appreciably 

occur by 1967 and 1968, and imme diate ly pre par e grassro ots, traffic-safety educat ion al programs by researc h and implem entatio n, will inev itabl y mean some 

58,0 00 dea ths annu ally by 1967, and 3 million inju ries yea rly—not to mention 

the alm ost fan tas tic dollar consequences and economic loss to the Nation and 

its compo nent parts, which will str ike with crushing impact and which is ce rtain 

to follow such failu re.

Th ere is no magic form ula, no Pan dora’s box, no sho rtcut, no cure-all for 

preven tion of traffic accid ents. I am satisfie d that the problem cann ot be solved 

overnight.

We, in time, may be able to find cures and vaccines for polio, the common cold, 

flu. and dreaded cancer and many other man-k illing disea ses. We very well 

may launch an ast ron aut in spa ce and return him to earth and miracul ously so, 

bu t the ana lysis of wh at mak es for accident-fr ee driv ing and wha t makes a 

dr iv er tick is vastly more difficult tha n othe r resea rch, for we are clearly with 

an ab stra ct that denies ana lyt ica l descripti on. Acciden t-preven tion research, 

as proposed here, is a valid and esse ntia l appro ach to the gr ea t problem.

There is a vita l and pre ssin g need for rese arch into all phase s of traffic 

sa fe ty ; i.e., licensing, acc iden t preve ntion, psychological aspe cts of motorists, 

at tit ud in al factors, motivation, and minimal saf ety featu res in automobiles. 

However, I feel it is timely th at we must recognize th at autom obile accidents 

ar e of such tragic consequences th at traffic safety mus t be considere d of equal 

sev erity as cancer, he art disea se, tubercu losis, and oth er mankillers. For 

this reaso n. I feel it necessa ry tha t, in addition to the oth er facet s and respo nsib iliti es of the U.S. Publ ic Health Service, th at a nat ion al accident prevention cen ter be establish ed. In thi s manner, an ade qua te working facility 

would be afforded to res earch ers who are delving into the mysteries of our 

No. 1 dome stic problem. The esta blis hm ent of such a cen ter would not duplicat e existing outs tand ing fac ilitie s and exemplary work being done both pri ­

vat ely and under the ausp ices of colleges and univ ersities. But more so, an 

acc ide nt preven tion cen ter woul d con stitute an add itio nal positiv e working 

force.

It shou ld be observed th at tra ined profession als and resear che rs in accide nt 

pre ven tion are lacking. The cre ation of the center, in my opinion, will provide
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 55

the impetus for addition al activity in thi s field, ju st as the creation of can cer 

and tuberculosis res earch by the Public Health Service and the act ivities of 

the National In stitu te of Mental Health have proven so marvelous and penetrat ing. It is also possible that the ins titu tion of the cente r would stimulate 

long-neglected r esearch are as.

The accid ent-preventio n movement in the United Sta tes has, over the pa st 25 

years, proceeded slowly but steadily toward a grea ter reduction in acc ident 

rates. Much of this pro gress has been based on general educational approac hes. 

In looking ahead, it is quite app are nt th at any significant decline in accidental 

dea ths and injuries mu st depend upon an intensification of scientific research 

on many fronts—hum an behavior, physical environment, and machines. A 

Public Health Service acciden t researc h center would mark an important step 

in the direction of increased scientific ana lysis of accident causation and would 

pave the way for the development of more scientifically valid control measures.

Today, this country’s best efforts are direc ted to science and the advanc ement of public welfare. We a re bent on securing scientific proficiency. To train 

a scientific genius to pea k performance is futile , however, if in a split second 

his productive life is los t because he or some oth er automobile driver lacked 

proper preparation or is apa thetically careless in carrying out this unive rsa l 

activity of present-day life.

The fac t that we are tra ini ng scientific geniuses for the advancement of public 

welfare in our complex society warrants increas ed driving pre paration and 

education.

Saving lives is the hig hest responsibility of government and communal life. 

We are a pa rt of this gr ea t problem—more especially, we are a pa rt of its solution. The responsibility is ours. Thank you for listening.

Judge Finesilver. I have served as a municipal judge in Denver 

for the past 7 years and charged with the responsibility of hearing 

traffic cases on all areas of severity, from jaywalking cases to man ­

slaughter cases. I had the pleasure several years ago of founding the 

Denver Driver Training School, a municipal facility for violators 

which incidentally is operating without a budget of any kind, has done 

so for the past 3 years.

I am sincerely enthusiastically in favor of this bill and I feel fu rther tha t the well-being of the country would best be served by its 

enactment. I thin k this committee realizes perhaps more so than I 

tha t more people in this country have been killed in automobile accidents than have been killed in our combined U.S. wars.

In a like manner, I am sure th is committee realizes that the local 

and national traffic scene is rapidly changing—more motor vehicles, 

motor scooters, younger drivers, more drivers, more cars per family, 

more superior highways. By 1968 we can well imagine and anticipate 

some 100 million cars and vehicles on our streets and highways. Because of more suburban living, early retirements, more recreation, I 

think we realize tha t no longer is an automobile a luxury in this country but more so a necessity.

One of the early cases I tried involved a 16-year-old boy who was 

charged with his th ird speeding violation in a year. He was charged 

with going down Main Street at 60 miles an hour on a Saturday afte rnoon oefore Christmas. He came into court and was readily w illing 

to admit his guilt. When I inquired where his parents were, he said 

they were in Las Vegas but they gave him a $100 bill to pay any 

traffic fine.

Now this is no reflection, of course, on people in Denver. I think 

this experience might be common to judges throughout the country.

Much of this hearing this morning has dealt with our roads, our 

licensing, seat belts, the aspects of research. However, an aspect tha t 

I am quite deeply interested in is corrective and rehabilitative efforts
56 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

in regard to the traffic violators as was done with this young man and 

educational techniques for senior drivers. Somehow in this whole 

program of traffic safety we have concentrated on the youthful driver. 

About 38 percent of all eligible school students are taking driver trai ning. But the senior citizen, the older driver, those over 60, somehow 

are left out of this program. In like manner as an individual, because in my opinion no resource materials suitable for our purpose 

were available, I inquired into corrective rehabilitation techniques for 

violators, what type of techniques to use for senior drivers, dealing 

with human behavior aspects, their motivation, and so forth.

As a result of this research—and I point out I am not a trained researcher or professional, my background, of course, is dealing as an 

attorney—because in this country after inquiry we could find no ready 

materials to use in rehabilitative and corrective techniques we developed these materials ourselves.

Considering tha t the last report on traffic violator schools was by 

the Department of Commerce in 1938, of course, our understanding of 

these problems has changed quite a bit. The areas t ha t I mentioned, 

education, reeducation, mass education techniques brough t about perhaps by television are areas that presently need well-defined research 

into effectiveness and methodology. These would enable the judge, a 

traffic judge, to have the necessary working tools to undertake a responsibility that is imposed upon him. Merely by dressing up our 

courtrooms, making the judges better qualified in the law, in and of 

itself will not help the traffic safety problem and movement in this 

country.

I think also tha t we must reflect and do some considerable soul 

searching in regard to the changing population. Over the coming 

decade the population of this country will go up 15 percent. For the 

senior citizens this is about 30 percent. We are now beginning to see 

the effect of the bumper baby crop from the forties on our streets and 

highways. Ju st about now we will be funneling some 4 million new 

drive rs into our driving population every year in comparison to about 

2 million in 1960—almost double their numbers. I thin k we recognize the drivers under 25 make up about 14 to 15 percent of our driving population.

Year in and year out though, locally, nationally in most communities they are responsible fo r from 28 to 30 percent of all our fatalities. 

We are going to have more younger drivers. The relatively accidentfree years from 30 to 50 are being compressed, this age level, more 

senior drivers.

Notwithstanding some statements to the contrary, we see already 

some reflections of the increase in fatalities for our senior drivers. 

In Denver last year we had 70 fatalities, 22 of which were under 25, 

23 were over 60. This is out of all proportion to our population areas. 

This means about 66 percent of the people killed were in these two age 

levels.

I am sure tha t we are going to be confronted with this even all the 

more by 1966 and 1967. It has been stated and I haven’t verified that 

nearly one out of every three Americans today was not bom by 1946. 

We can anticipate what thi s might mean in the next several years. 

What is the answer? Well, I am sure that there is no magic formula, 

there is no Pandora’s box th at we can anticipate or use to prevent traf-
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 57

fic accidents. We are making headway with polio, with arth ritis , 

perhaps even with cancer. However, here we are dealing with an 

area tha t defies analytical description because not all of us are afflicted 

with polio, nor will we be, nor heart disease, but every one of us 

drives. This is an area that is much different. We are having more 

people killed from accidents than we are from these other mankillers.

As was pointed out here today, our emphasis has not been in this 

area. I feel that accident prevention research as proposed in this bill 

is valid, essential, and I feel it is crucial. I think we must realize th at 

now accident prevention must be raised to the stature of what we have 

done with these other areas of public health. I feel t ha t the Public 

Health Service is the logical and the necessary facility to undertake 

this. To no degree am I underestimating or undervaluing the magnificent work of the N ational Safety Council who have done so much 

with the judges in this country together with the American bar. I 

am saying however, we need an additional working facility so that 

more impetus will be given toward accident prevention, toward research, toward developing research on individuals. The accident prevention movement in the United States over the past 25 years has 

progressed slowly. I th ink w e are making some headw ay.

It is quite interesting to hear the remarks of Mr. Johnson, that the 

complexion for last year is quite healthy which indicates th at even if 

wTe hold our own we are making the progress considering the additional miles driven, the additional drivers. I don’t feel there is a 

duplication of effort. I feel that research as it is proposed here, with 

an accident prevention center, will aid immensely those involved in 

this field, whether they are legislators, wdiether they are traffic judges, 

or they are people in private industry who need some valuable information and they need it in an area in a meaningful manner tha t will 

help them in their areas of responsibility. I think we all know that 

this country’s best efforts are directed to science, the advancement of 

public welfare. We are bent on securing scientific proficiency, howTever, in reflection, to tra in a scientific genius to peak performance is 

foolish if in a split second his productive life is taken away because 

some individual is apathetically careless or indifferent toward his 

everyday responsibility.

The fact that we are training scientific geniuses for the advancement of public welfare in our society warra nts increased driver pre paration and education in this everyday activity that we are undergoing.

As I mentioned before, I speak of corrective measures, rehabilitative measures, group therapy which has not been used to any degree in 

the country with problem drivers. I mentioned errant drivers. We 

know’ the secret of success of any traffic movement is how we get the 

message across to any individual. Saving lives is the highest responsibility of government in our. communal life. I feel this is a 

legislative matter and prop er exercise of our responsibility in saving 

lives. We are a part of this problem. I thin k no doubt we should 

realize we are a part of this solution. I also am authorized to state 

tha t the Denver Junior Chamber of Commerce is enthusiastically in 

support of this legislation and it will be proposed to the Colorado 

Jun ior Chamber of Commerce for their approval, in like manner to 

the National Jun ior Chamber of Commerce in Tulsa, to show the
58 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

interest of other people who are not professionals, that, however, they 

realize the need in this area.

Thank you very much for allowing me to te stify and to appear to 

express these quite personal views in an area tha t I think so crucial.

The Chairman. Thank you, Judge, for a very fine statement. I 

appreciate very much your appearance. I believe you won the Pau l 

Hoffman Award for traffic safety last year.

Judge F inesilver. Two years ago.

The Chairman. I am a little too old to say tha t I am an active 

Jay-Cee. I used to be.

I certainly recognize the fine contribution tha t the Jay-Cee’s 

throughout the country have made in this field of highway safety. I 

am pleased that the Denver chapter is in favor of this bill and i t will 

be submitted to your State body for action at the p roper time.

Judge Finesilver. Thank you.

The Chairman. Do you feel that with the creation of such a center 

as envisioned by this bill tha t we would have a continuity of effort in 

many projects which suffer today by the more or less stop-and-go approach that has been used ?

Judge F inesilver. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the effective aspects 

tha t there will be some one Government organization charged with this 

effort, to have the staff and facilities to continue the work as they have 

done such marvelous work in heart and cancer, and so forth.

The Chairman. Some of the finest work which has been done in 

this country was done by Col. John Stapp. When we got into the 

astronaut field the knowledge of what the human frame could withstand, the number of g.’s tha t it would take, had been collected through 

a project of his which had been financed by the Air Force. He was 

using rebuilt cars donated by the industry. I think at a cost of less 

than $30,000 a year. That was the—I wouldn’t say the only body of 

information th at we had, it was one body of information which proved 

very useful to us when we made the tremendous ascent by balloon 

which was done by Navy officers. Yet tha t project has been allowed 

to be abolished, dissipated. I think this type of center would provide 

a sort of beacon light, a place where these things could be properly 

evaluated and we could have continuity of effort in this field that we 

lack today.

I want to compliment you again on your statement.

Mr. O’Brien?

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join very strongly in 

your complimenting of the distinguished judge. He has answered 

some questions in my mind. I was thinking of research as being something of the upper level. I was wondering how i t was going to get 

down to the work-a-day world. I am impressed with the fact that 

here is a judge who has devoted so much of his spare time to preventing accidents, establishing a school he has there and then he comes with 

his practical experience and tells us that if we have this research 

program he can do a more effective job at the Denver level. Certainly 

that affects my judgm ent on this bill to a considerable degree.

I am very grateful to you.

Judg e Finesilver. Thank you for your kind remarks.

The Chairman. Ou r next witness will be Mr. David Klein, who is 

staff associate with the Association for the Aid of Crippled Children, 

345 East 46th Street, New York.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 59

This group has done outstanding work in aiding crippled children 

and we are happy to have Mr. Klein.

You may proceed with your statement.

STA TEM ENT OF DAVID KLE IN , STAFF ASSOCIATE, ASSOC IATION 

FOR TH E AID OF CR IPPL ED CHILD REN, NE W YORK

Mr. Klein. Mr. Chairman, the interest of the Association for the 

Aid of Crippled Children in research on accidents can be explained in 

a simple sentence: Accidents are now the leading cause of death in 

children of all age groups—from age 1 to 21 years. They are also 

responsible for a substantial though undocumented proportion of all 

permanently disabling injuries to children.

The association is an endowed foundation which devotes its entire 

income to the support of biological and social research into the causes 

and consequences of fatal and handicapping conditions. During the 

past 20 years improvements in medical care, the widespread use of 

antibiotics, the general rise in the standard of living in the United 

States, and other medical and social factors have, as we all know, led 

to a very sharp reduction in deaths and disabilities due to disease and 

congenital malformation.

As a result, on a relative basis, accidents, especially in children, have 

begun to loom very large as a cause of death and disability and are 

likely to loom larger with fur the r advances against disease. Whether 

or not accidents have increased absolutely in number and severity 

cannot be determined—and this lack of adequate data is a problem to 

which we shall return later in this statement.

The association’s efforts in stimulating accident research have been 

various. They include the organization of conferences among experts, 

the establishment of interdisciplinary study groups, the support of 

research publications, and the funding of studies in the causes and 

prevention of accidents. Viewed more broadly, these efforts have 

attem pted (1) to increase both the quantity and the quality of current 

accident research (and let me emphasize that we feel the quality 

needs every bit as much improvement as the qu an tit y) ; (1) to enlist 

in accident research well-trained scientists from several disciplines 

which can make essential contributions toward an understanding of 

accidents; and (3) to improve the status of accident research as a 

profession so tha t it will attrac t the promising young investigator who 

now finds other areas of research considerably more attractive.

It should be emphasized th at in the course of all these activities, the 

association has in no way developed a vested interest in accident research. On the contrary, the general mandate of the association enables it to initiate work in any unpopular or neglected area of investigation, such as accident research, but encourages it to relinquish its 

work to larger organizations as soon as these become available to take 

it on.

To put this more bluntly, our endorsement of this bill neither particularly promotes our welfare as an organization nor does it threaten 

it. It is for this reason that the association goes on record as being 

very strongly in favor of the establishment of a national accident 

prevention center.

In view of the association’s interest in and experience with accident 

research, some of its views about current needs in the field may serve 

80624— 62----- 5
60 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

to document its strong endorsement of the establishment of a national 

center.

Perhaps the greatest need in the study of accidents is a broadening 

of the research base; tha t is, the involvement of investigators with 

backgrounds in biostatistics, biology, medicine, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, and other medical and behavioral areas 

to supplement the skills and knowledge provided by the safety engineer and by those who identify themselves professionally with safety 

education.

The reason for this involvement of various disciplines is fairly 

clear. In the past, the greatest successes in accident reduction have 

been brough t about by the installation of mechanical safety devices, 

such as machinery guards, or by some sort of compulsion, whether it 

be legislation, the establishment of factory regulations, or the setting 

up of rules in a military installation or other totally controllable 

community.

Thro ugh these efforts we have witnessed dramatic reductions in 

industrial and mining accidents, fireworks fatalities and injuries, 

and military aviation accidents, to cite but a few examples. Most of 

the accidents tha t occur today, by contrast, cannot be prevented by 

anything so simple as a mechanical device or a socially acceptable 

piece of legislation. Instead, their prevention involves an understanding of human behavior, values, and motives as well as an understanding of physical capacities, tolerances, and limitations. It is unlikely, 

for example, that a major fur the r reduction in the current number of 

accidental deaths by fire, drowning, or shooting would be achievable 

by a mechanical safety device or a piece of acceptable restrictive legislation. They are the result of extremely complex human behavior 

that is not easily changed by simple or unilateral means.

This broader research base is particularly necessary for a careful 

evaluation of a wide variety of publishing, teaching, advertising, and 

other action programs carried on under the general rubric of “safety 

education.”

Action programs in safety education consume a very considerable 

proportion of the money we spend each year on accident prevention; 

nevertheless, there has been virtu ally no acceptable research that indicates whether they are to any degree effective. We do not know with 

any degree of certainty, for example, whether the countless highway 

billboards urging the motorist to “Slow Down and Live” have prevented a single accident—or whether, indeed, there is any causal relationsh ip between speed and the occurrence of automobile accidents— 

or, in fact, whether these billboards do not distract the motorist 

sufficiently to produce an accident.

Similarly, there is no evidence tha t the time and effort, and money 

devoted to the teaching of safety in the elementary schools has saved 

the life of a single child.

Indeed, there is some evidence to indicate that, in certain important 

categories of accidents, the individuals who are most liable to become 

victims are those who are least reachable by—or most resistant to—the 

usual channels of safety education.

Perhaps one reason why the evaluation of safety education is not 

popular lies in the recognition of the complexity and difficulty of such 

evaluation. It requires the involvement of extremely thoughtful,
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 61

well-trained, and highly sophisticated investigators, and such men are 

even scarcer in accident research today than in other fields of investigation. It is our hope t ha t the establishment of a national center will 

help to attrac t or tra in such qualified people.

One of the greatest difficulties in attracting competent personnel— 

and here I think I am talking about something that a number of the witnesses have mentioned and that is certainly as crucial as the expenditure of large amounts of money because these amounts cannot be expended until we have the rig ht people to expend them on, particularly 

those who come with the requisite training from another discipline—- 

is the ambiguous status of accident prevention as a professional 

career.

The well-trained investigator, whether he be statistician, anthropologist, psychiatrist, or physiologist, who chooses to leave an established career line to engage in research in accident prevention, finds 

that he has forsaken one well-defined professional atmosphere with its 

clearly structured employment possibilities, professional journals, 

scholarly meetings, and oth er appurtenances for one which has not vet 

developed these essential amenities.

This is why the sociologist who is quite willing to devote his career 

to criminology, for example, or the anthropologist who is quite ready 

to study industrial organization, is extremely loath to divert his career 

to the study of accident causation and prevention. The establishment 

of a national center offers the possibility of providing such desirable 

investigators with a professional environment and a career line as attractive as those tha t are available to them in the ir own disciplines.

Still another strong argum ent in support of the establishment of a 

national center relates to the attitudes of the general public toward 

accidents. Although very few laymen regard themselves as experts in 

such fields as medicine, physics, or law, it is rath er difficult to find a 

layman who does not regard himself as something of an expert on 

accident causation and prevention.

There is hardly a holder of a driving license who will not, upon the 

slightest provocation, offer one or several panaceas for the traffic accident problem, and there are few laymen in general who do not have a 

ready supply of easy answers to the difficult questions of accident 

prevention.

The establishment of a national center may be highly effective in 

persuading the public tha t accidents, like all of our other physical and 

social pathologies, require scientific investigation and do not lend 

themselves to commonsense solutions. If commonsense could, indeed, provide us with solutions, the accident problem would not continue to be one of the greatest threats to our health and welfare.

I would like to add one point tha t came out of the interchange 

this morning and that is that we tend to judge research activity in 

terms of the amount spent. I think this can be a somewhat misleading thing. The very word “research” has become a rather muddy one 

over the past 5 or 10 years. Anybody counting cars on a comer in 

order to establish the number of cars t ha t go by the comer can call 

himself a research person and although he is not in fact necessarily 

doing research.

A great deal of the money that is spent for research, whether in the 

traffic field or elsewhere, is going to people who are not trained for
62 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

it or are not doing particularly useful or analytical research th at involves a hypothesis and comes up with an answer. They are doing 

counting instead and, although the study of the magniture of the 

problem is certainly an essential first step, this in itself is not going 

to produce anything in the way of solutions.

The other question I would like to address myself to very briefly 

is another one tha t came up this morning and that is, How much 

coordination should a Government agency do? How much should 

it control ? How authoritative can it be or should it be ? This is a 

question th at we have had a good deal of experience with because the 

association, which went into research actively and with fai r size some 

15 years ago, has now had the experience of seeing the National 

Institute s of Health grow up to be very much larger, many, many 

times larger than the association, and interested in very much the 

same kind of thing. Once again, we have never regarded ourselves as either threatened 

or particularly advanced by the growth of the National Institutes. 

Our regulationship with them is an extremely good one. They have 

more money than we have and they can support more research, but 

because they are Government agencies there are certain kinds of research which they cannot support. One kind is the prelim inary investigation which must be undertaken, and which does cost money, before one can get the thin g into 

project shape for submission to a large r group. This is one area in 

which the association has served a very useful purpose and I cite 

the association merely as an example of a wide variety of voluntary 

agencies which can do the same thing —tha t is, support career lines, 

support preliminary investigations, get a project to the point at which 

it is at last feasibly fundable by a Federal agency and then pass it 

on to them. This is enough to do if one does not want all the glory.

Than k you.

The Chairman. Tha nk you, Mr. Klein.

I regret tha t circumstances have prevented more members of the 

subcommittee from hearing your statement. I think it is one of the 

best statements we have had. I take it tha t you believe that if the 

center simply suceeds in expanding the number of investigators and 

the people who are competent in this field that it will be well worth 

while on tha t score alone.

Mr. Klein. Completely. If the center merely became sufficiently 

prominent so that it was visible to all th e potential investigators and 

if it had sufficient status to be able to offer the potential investigator 

either a partial career or in some cases a whole career, this alone, we 

feel, would justify its existence. On the other hand, there is another very important point. I would 

like to stress again th at the quality of what is called research is rather 

low. I think that the existence of a center properly staffed would 

do a very great deal either to restrict the word “research” to its real 

meaning and to a more productive connotation than it has now or, if 

this is impossible, and it may well be, then at least to act as a strongly 

corrective fa ctor in the quality of accident research tha t is now going 

on.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Klein.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 63

I appreciate the splendid contribution tha t yon have made. I 

would just like to say one other thing. Going back to the very excel­ lent statement that Dr. Chapman made this morning I believe he pointed out in this Division of Accident Prevention he has approxi­ mately 122 people, which is a very small number it seems to me to try to handle this tremendous program so important to our communal life. As you pointed out, if we did nothing more than to expand the number of people in this field we would be making a verv fin « 

contribution.

Than k you very much.

Mr. K lein. I thank you.

The Chairman. Before I receive the next witness, T see two gentlemen from Alabama's fourth district, Sheriff Jim Clark, from Selma. Ala., and Mr. Green, from Dallas County. We are glad to have y ou in this committee room. We operate with more personnel usually 

earlier in the day. Next is Dr. Samuel R. Gerber, M.D., who is here representing the Greater Cleveland Safety Council, 1021 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland. 

Ohio. You may proceed with your statement, Doctor.

STA TEMENT OF DR. SAM UEL R. GERBER, CORONER OF CUYAHOGA

COUNTY. OHIO, PR ES ID EN T, ACADEMY OF FOR ENSIC SCIENCES,

CLEV ELAND, OHIO

Dr. Gerber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 1 appear here in support of II.R. 133. My reasons 

for this I will read in m.v statement. The Blueprint for Life safety campaign and its sponsor, the Greater Cleveland Safety Council, are deeply indebted to the U.S. Public 

Health Service. With out the encouragement, leadership, and support of the Public Health Service, it is doubtful the B lueprint campaign ever would have 

been undertaken. Certainly, Blueprint never could have attained its scope, intensity, and impact without the materials, services, and counsel provided by 

PHS. The Public Health Service has provided Blueprint with materials, safety films, and other special services costing more than $200,000. And while this investment by PH S did not bring cash into the Blue­ pri nt funds, it did bring to the campaign a strength, vitality, and sustenance that lifted the pro ject fa r above the level it otherwise could 

have reached. Later, the seven 15-minute safety films produced by P IIS and now in wide use throughout Greater Cleveland, along with other materials, will be made available to every community in the Nation that desires 

them. Blueprint for Life is a pilot run for the Nation—a laboratory test in accident prevention, an exciting exploration into the vast and 

uncharted potentials of organized safety. Nothing comparable to Blueprint in scope and size has ever been attempted before in this country or elsewhere. This is a sustained, continuing, all-out attack by all segments of a community of 1,700,000
64 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

persons—not on accidents of one type, but on fires and accidents of 

all types, regardless of where and when they occur.

It has a specific goal—the saving of 100 lives and the prevention of 

12,000 disabling injuries in 1 year.

Equally and perhaps even more important, it proposes to actively 

continue this life-saving effort as part of the Safety Council’s program after the actual 12-month campaign period has ended.

If the campaign succeeds, it will mark a dramatic and major breakthrou gh in accident prevention. If it fails it will have struck organized safety a body blow.

In the first 4 months of the campaign—September 1961 to Ja nua ry 

1962—the death toll from fires and accidents of all kinds of Greater 

Cleveland came down by 30 from the same period a year before.

This indicates that with equal or increasing activity in the campaign, 

the goal of saving 100 lives can and will be realized.

This campaign, it is true, could not be waged as effectively without 

the facilities of the ILS. Public Health Service and the task force 

of statisticians and other specialists PH S has provided.

But it is also true that it could be waged with infinitely more ease, 

precision and efficiency if the ILS. Public Health Service and the 

Research Center proposed in H.R. 133. And similar campaigns 

throughout the United States can be conducted—and doubtless will 

be conducted—with much greater chance of success if such a Research 

Center is created.

Definite, specific and accurate facts and figures as to just where fires 

and accidents of all kinds are occurring, to whom they are occurring, 

and precisely why they are occurring, are tragically unavailable in 

Greater Cleveland, and elsewhere.

Through the help of PIIS, the Blueprint campaign is uncovering 

such facts in Greater Cleveland—but slowly and laboriously. Had 

we had such facts when the campaign began, we could have pinpointed 

our attack instead of scattering it.

A research center in US PH S, serving as a clearinghouse for 

accident facts and figures from all over the Nation, and stimulating 

more and more research on local, State, and National levels would 

provide every community with a source of vital information essential to any real success in reducing the fire and accident toll.

We know from firsthand experience in the Blueprint campaign 

tha t such a research center is a “must” for successful accident prevention efforts. We cannot urge too strongly tha t it be made possible 

through passage of H.R. 133.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say that I am in agreement and in *

sympathy with Dr. Porterfield and Dr. Chapman in their desire for 

the formation of this center.

I am sure that if this is developed that the accident total and the 

death toll as a result of accidents will be greatly reduced to a very, *

very minimum.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I want to thank you very much, Doctor, 

for your statement. I know that you are recognized as one of the 

best experts in the world in the field of medical-legal problems and 

the committee is very fortunate in having you come here today and 

make your views known to this committee.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER 65

I would hope that you might make your talents available not only to Cleveland but elsewhere because you certainly have made a fine 

contribution. I was in your great State a few years ago; one of the first hearings the subcommittee held was in Dayton, Ohio. We did not have the opportunity of visiting Cleveland at that time. A our very able Con­ gressman, Air. Vanik, came down and gave our subcommittee a state­ ment. As you know, he has been quite interested in this field. ITe is a fonner judge of your municipal court there and he has been inter­ ested in the activities of our committee ever since its inception. I found that in our travels in Ohio, and the hearings that we had at t hat time, they were making some great strides, particula rly in the 

field of highway accident prevention. If my information is correct, Ohio still has a fine record in that field. We had the opportunity at that time of hearing Dr. Zipf who has 

contributed a lot. We learned at that time the Dayton, Ohio, community group had a very active program, and I am sure yours in Cleveland has also been active in accomplishing results, as in your statement. Again it is a pleasure to have you before our committee.

Dr. Gerber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say Con­ gressman Vanik was a judge of the municipal court and he was very active in traffic safety during the time he was there. Tie is con­ tinuing his activities. I am sorry he is not a member of this committee.

The Chairman. Well, we would be glad to have him because he has maintained his interest through out his time here as a Representative of your great State. (A prepared statement of D r. Samuel R. Gerber, presented in addition to his oral statement, follows:)

P repared Sta te men t of Dr. Sam ue l R. Gerber

The Blueprint for Life safety campaign is a year-long project of the Greater 

Cleveland Safety Council. It is an all-out attack on fires and accidents of all kinds. A pilot run for the Nation and a laboratory test for proven accident preven­ tion techniques, the Blueprint campaign began September 8, 1961, and will con­ tinue at full speed until September 8, 1962. After that, the campaign will become part of the regular and continuing pro­ gram of the Greater Cleveland Safety Council. It will not be allowed to fade 

away. All activity in the Blueprint for Life campaign is designed— 1. To reduce the all-accident and fire toll in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County by 100 deaths and 12.000 disabling injuries in the year ending September 8, 1962. 2. To increase public awareness of the size and severity of the accident 

problem. 3. To bring about interest and participation in safety activities by people and organizations not now engaged in such activities, and to coordinate the activities of established safety groups. 4. To increase public knowledge of ways to prevent accidents. 5. To make this community more safety minded and thus increase public acceptance and use of accident prevention techniques. To achieve Blueprint goals, all efforts are being directed along three lines— organization, action, and public education. The aim is to reach as many people and organizations as possible, give them something specific to do in the Blueprint campaign, and through public informa­ tion channels and other means of communications, keep them interested and 

active.
66 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

To achieve this, the Blueprint campaign is directed by the following organization :

General cha irm an: Dr. Samuel R. Gerber, coroner of Cuyahoga County for 

30 years.

Executive committe e: Composed of Dr. Gerber as cha irm an; Paul J. Hoover, 

vice president of the Halle Bros. Co. and president of the Greater Cleveland 

Safety Council; Allan J. Lowe, general manager of the Sheraton-Cleveland 

Hotel and treasurer of the safety council: Federal Judge James C. Connell, 

first vice president of th e safety council; Robert H. Ferguson, assist ant director 

of indu stria l relations, Republic Steel Corp.; William E. Billings, executive 

vice preside nt of the safety council ; and Paul Jones, adm inistrator of the Bluepri nt for Life campaign.

Truste es: A group of 37 top business and indus trial leaders of Greater 

Cleveland. Chairman is Charles F. McCahill, retired senior vice president of 

the Forest City Publishing Co. Cochairmen are Ralph M. Besse. president of 

the Cleveland Electric Illum inatin g Co., and Charles E. Spahr, president of the 

Standard Oil Co. (Ohio ).

Chairman, women’s division: Mrs. H. Chapman Rose, wife of the former 

Underse cretary of the Treasur y and widely known as a leader in women’s 

activities in Greater Cleveland and throughout the Nation.

Chairman, advisory board : Louis B. Seltzer, editor of the Cleveland Press, 

who through his newspaper and his personal services has made a great contribution to the Blueprint campaign.

Adm inistrator: Paul Jones, for 23 years director of public information for 

the National Safety Council.

St aff: Four full-time and one part-time personnel, assigned to organizing a 

women’s division of Blueprint, handling public relations and public information, and secretarial and clerical work.

Special sta ff: In addition to the administrative staff assembled in Cleveland, 

the U.S. Public Health Service has provided the services of—

William C. James, statisticia n, and three a ssist ants to make the most thorough 

study of accidental deaths and injurie s ever attempted in this county.

Dr. Irmagene Holloway, nationally known safety consu ltant and specialist.

Dudley Anderson, safety specialist who is serving full time on the Blueprint 

staff as community organizer and assistant to the administrator.

Of all those listed above, only the admin istrative staff and the specialists 

provided by the U.S. Public Health Service receive pay for thei r services. All 

other services a re contributed on a volunteer basis as a public service.

1. Funds.—Administrative and operating expenses of the Blueprint for Life 

campaign are estimated at $85,000. This covers a 20-month period—8 months 

of planning and organization and 12 months of the ac tual action campaign.

This amount—contributed by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners, the Beaumont and Cleveland Foundations, and by local business and industry —includes 

the cost of all educational material produced locally in Cleveland—leaflets, 

graphics, newspaper, and magazine stories, radio, and television spots, checklists, displays, awards, etc.

In addition to these funds for the actual operating costs of the campaign, more 

than $200,000 has been spent by the U.S. Public Health Service for seven 15- 

minute safety films and statisti cal and other specialized services provided the 

Blueprint campaign—all designed first for use in Greate r Cleveland and then 

for nationwide use.

2. Community organization.—More than 3,000 organizations or companies of 

one type or another already are participating in the Blueprint campaign, with 

others joining in daily. These inc lude:

Civic, professional, frate rnal, and patrot ic groups

Churches

Ind ust rial and business concerns 

Schools—public, private, and parochial 

Women’s organizations

Police and fire departments 

Community safety councils 

Neighborhood groups 

Natio nality groups 

Newspapers

Radio and television statio ns 

Cleveland Automobile Club

Mayor’s Committee for Traffic Safety 

Education

Cuyahoga County Commissioners 

Real property inventory 

Cleveland Hospital Council 

Public utilities

Cuyahoga County coroner’s office 

Mayors and other public officials of 55 

communities in Cuyahoga County 

Boy Scouts

Girl Scouts 

Campfire girls
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 67

Communitywide orga nization is being based on block-by-block group meetings 

of neighbors, to discuss accidents and accident problems over th e coffee cup, under the them e of “Each One Save One.” Special emphasis is being placed on na ­

tion alit y and low-income groups.

3. Spe ake r's bureau.—Services of approximate ly 75 speake rs are being enlisted to brin g Blueprint to ind ustries, churches, civic groups, and others. The admi nis tra tor and members of the executive committee alone have spoken at luncheons, dinners, and meetings with audiences totaling 10,000 persons.

4. Off-the-job safe ty.— Managem ent of ind ustrial concerns is address ing personal a ppeals to hund reds of tho usa nds of employees to step up their off-the-job safety and, with their families and friends, partic ipa te in Bluepri nt for Life.

5. Women's division.—An active women’s division of Blueprint and the G rea ter 

Cleveland Safe ty Council has been formed under the leadership of Mrs. H. Chapm an Rose, chairman. On September 28, this division gave a luncheon at which Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce spoke. Dr. Theodore Bauer of the U.S. Public Health Service was special guest and speaker. More than 400 women attended.

0. Campaign kickoff luncheon.— The Blueprint campaign was form ally 

launched September 8 with a luncheon sponsored by the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce as a salute to the camp aign. An overflow crowd of more tha n 500 business, civic, and professional leader s packed the big ballroom to h ear Dr. A. L. Chapman, Director of the Division of Accident Prev ention of the Public Health Service and an Assistant Surgeon General, and Raymond Burr, television’s famed Pe rry Mason, who was responsible for bring ing the Bluep rint campaign into existence. Television, radio, and press coverage of the luncheon was allinclusive.

7. Blueprint weekend.—On the Saturday and Sunday following the kickoff 

luncheon, pra yer s for the success of the Blueprint campaign were offered from 

hundreds of churches and synagogs in Greater Cleveland.

8. Sa fety films.— The “No Defense” film, produced by the U.S. Public Health 

Service, along with six oth er 15-minute safety films for the Blu epr int campaign and later nationwid e distrib ution, was shown by all three Cleveland television stations on prime time Sunday, September 10. Dozens of prog rams dedicated 

to Blueprint were carried by the c ity ’s eight radio stations. Since the campaign kickoff the s afe ty films produced by the U.S. Public Hea lth Service have been shown in hundred s of ind ustrial pla nts and schools and at saefty, civic, and P-TA meetings throug hou t Cleveland and Cuyahoga County.

9. Liv ing Blueprint signs.—On Monday afternoon, September 11, 250,000 people leaving the downtown dis trict for the ir homes saw at the sid e of the 21 high­ ways lead ing out of the downtown dis trict Blu eprint signs held aloft by Boy 

Scouts in the Burma Shave manner.

10. Kiwanis Blueprint thermom eter.—The Cleveland Kiwanis Club arra nge d 

for, financed, built and erected a huge therm ometer on Cleveland’s public s quare to show month-by-month progress of the Blueprint campaign in term s of the curre nt accident and tire dea th toll as compared with the same month last year. Other Kiwanis clubs throughout the county are preparing to erect similar 

thermometers in other communities.

11. New s and radio-TV coverage.— Under the direction of a volu ntee r public 

inform atio n committee composed o f 22 representatives of all form s of the media, Blu eprint has received more than 5,000 mentions on rad io and television, more tha n 100 programs specifically dedicated to the campaign, and a total time of more tha n 2,500 minutes of airtime which would be valued commercially at 

$400,000. In add itio n Raymond Burr, Law renc e Welk, Jimm y Stewart. Mary Pickford. Buddy Rogers, Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, members of the Cleveland Indians and Cleveland Browns have con tributed their services to personal appearances and radio-TV programs at an estimated value of more than $25,000. Public officials, business and industrial leade rs and other local dignitaries 

also have contributed their services for Blueprint rad ioT V plugs. Blu eprint has received more than 500 news stories, features, editorials and cartoons in the two daily and 35 weekly newspapers in Cuyahoga County. The Celveland Pre ss contributed a full-pag e ad to Blueprint, while the Pla in Dealer reproduced a Blueprint poster in a four-column, four-color display. We are especially gratified th at the 37 nation ality radio programs and 35 nationalit y newspapers in Gr eater Cleveland are solidly behind Blueprint and are carrying regular announcements of the campaign to their readers and 

listeners.
68 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

At advert is in g ra te s, th is new sp ap er sp ac e de vo ted to B lu ep ri n t is es tim at ed 

to be w orth a t le as t $250,000.

H alf a mill ion win ds hi eld and ho m e do or st ic ke rs , en ve lope st ic ke rs , and simila r m ate ri als are be ing d is tr ib u te d th ro ugh in se rt s in ta x bills , auto lic en se 

pl at es , d ri v er licenses , i n d u str ia l m ai lings, etc.

I t is est im at ed th a t th ro ugh a ll m ea ns of co mm un ications , B lu ep ri nt has 

re ac he d a t le ast th re e-f ourt hs of th e 1,800,000 re si den ts of Cleve land an d Cuy aho ga Cou nt y— som e as m an y as 25 tim es .

12. S ta ti sti ca l ev alua tio n. — B ill Ja m es an d hi s staf f ar e pro vi di ng in va lu ab le 

sta ti sti c a l in fo rm at io n, lim it ed only by th e am ou nt of fu nds av ai la ble . Thi s is 

th e m os t ex te ns iv e an al ysi s of ac cid enta l in ju ri es an d dea th s ev er m ad e in th is 

co un try, and it no t only pro vi de s an accura te s ta ti st ic al yard st ic k w ith which to 

m ea su re B lu ep ri nt pr og re ss, bu t it pi np oin ts whe re, how , an d w hy ac ci de nts ar e 

ha pp en in g, en ab ling sa fe ty sp ec ia li st s to ap ply specific p re ssu re whe re it is 

ne ed ed m os t.

Mr. Ja m es an d hi s st af f a re w ork in g w ith th e C lev elan d H osp it al Council an d 

th e R eal P ro pert y I nven to ry in m ak in g th is study .

Th e C hairman. We h ave th ree other witnesses listed.

Dr. W oodward. Air. Ha lse y, and Dr. W ilb ar, secretary of the Depa rtm en t of He alt h, Comm onw ealth of Pennsylva nia . I would like to 

kno w if you gentlemen will find it convenien t to ap pe ar before the 

sub com mittee tom orro w o r will it be impossible fo r any one o f you to be 

here tom orrow.

Mr. H alsey. I have to go b ack a t 4 this afternoon .

Dr. W ilbar. I will not be abl e to stay fo r tom orrow. I have two 

me eti ngs scheduled.

Th e C hairma n. I am g oing to t ry to go ah ead.

Dr. Wo odward, you will be the next witness. We will go as fa r as 

we can . In anticip ate I will get a floor call in a m inute.

Dr. Gerber, it has been a ple asu re to have had you. I know d uring 

th e ye ars 1 have served as a mem ber of thi s subcom mittee you have 

been most helpful, hav e been willing to come alm ost at a moment’s 

notice. We are thankful fo r the fine work you hav e done with the 

Comm itte e on Trau ma of th e Ame rican M edical As soc iation.

We a re very ha ppy to hav e yo u w ith us today .

STATEMENT OF DR. FLETCHER WOODWARD, 

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.

Dr. W oodward. Mr. Ch airm an , I th an k you fo r th e priv ileg e of 

com ing. I am always d eli gh ted to help any way I c an. I am pa rti cul ar ly delig hte d to help to prom ote this par ticu la r bill. I will tak e 

a ve ry few moments to presen t my position. I am ta lk in g prim arily 

as a clinic al phy sician, a man who is active ly eng aged in the repa ir 

of people who have been i nj ur ed in these accidents.

I beca me intere sted in th is field a good ma ny ye ars ago, some 15 

or 20, whe n in the Unive rsity of Vi rginia Ho sp ita l we took care of 

frac tu re d faces and jaws. A t th at tim e we saw mo re or less a sta tic 

nu mbe r of people th at came in, often kicked by a horse, butted by a 

cow, or the y ran into bra ss knu ckles or ran int o a beer bottle on a 

Sat urd ay n ig ht o r thing s of t h at kind b ut as th e new hig hw ays began 

to ap pe ar an d new cars and gr ea te r speeds, we beg an to see a gr ea ter 

nu mbe r of injurie s to jaw s an d faces occasioned by the autom obile. 

So we became concern ed an d beg an an inv estig ati on as to where this 

perso n was s itting, how he ha pp en ed to get hu rt, an d th at led us int o 

an inte nse inte rest in thi s problem.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER G9

We soon came to the conclusion that there was something we could 

do from a medical stan dpoint which would prevent many of these 

accidents. Then through the years, although we exhausted every possible source of information, we found it very difficult to get information. As the years went by we found our information in research 

centers. We tried at one time to get the Ford Motor Co. interested 

in establishing a foundation similar to the Polio Foundation for the 

accumulation and dissemination of knowledge along this line. They 

were mildly interested f or a while but they soon abandoned the idea.

Then my good friend, Dr. Goddard, who served on my AMA committee, and I talked a good deal about having the Public Health 

Service taking over this function. They were very sympathetic to 

tha t and so were all the doctors we discussed it with. 1 am delighted 

to see at last this proposal is being made.

Now, I have worked through some 15 years as best I could from 

a clinical standpoint, I have distilled out of tha t time and from this 

mass of information certain proposals which I have submitted to our 

Albemarle County Medical Society only last Thursday night.

Our Albemarle County Medical Society unanimously approved these 

proposals by which we feel, if employed, we could reduce the toll of 

deaths and injuries by perhaps 50 percent. Now, we also feel that 

that is about as fa r as we can go at this time. If these recommendations are carried out we can perhaps improve our situation one-half. 

But in order to advance fur the r we must have more basic research, 

more facts, more figures, and we would particularly like to see such a 

center established here in Washington which would not only accumulate data, reprints, books, films, all kinds of published things in regard 

to safety, but they would help to correlate, and stimulate research 

throughou t the country as well as carry ing on research themselves.

We have to have this basic research in order to advance any further 

than we are now doing.

I would like to append to my report this report to the Albemarle 

County Medical Society which 1 think will explain in more detail 

as to the limits th at we feel tha t we have been able to go and we are 

very anxious to get considerable help in the future and we feel that 

this particular research center established here in Washington will 

be the answer to our needs.

(The report presented by Dr. Fletcher Woodward follows:)

Dr. Edward P. Cawley,

President, Albemarle County Medical Society, University of Virginia Hospital,

Charlottesville, Va.

Dear Dr. Cawley : Your Committee on the Prevention of Automobile Deaths 

and Injuries wishes to make the following proposals which we feel will sub­ stantially reduce today’s tragic highway toll, perhaps by 50 percent or more. We hope that the Albemarle County Medical Society will approve these pro­ posals and forward them to the Virginia Academy of General Practice and to 

the Virginia State Medical Society. Our reasons for making these proposals were initiated by the following fa cts: (1) Deaths last year on our highways were approximately 40,000. In other words, more people died on our highways last year than live in our city of Charlottesville. The injured numbered approximately 5 million. In other words, more people were injured on our highways last year than live in our State of 

Virginia. (2) The Armed Forces reported 2,000 deaths last year. In all our wars less than 1 million men have died. The automobile counted its 1 millionth victim 

more than 5 years ago.
70 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

(3 ) The leading cause of death in this country is cardiovascular disease. Next conies cancer. But, if figured on man-years of life lost the automobile rank s third for the first two take their greatest toll in the older age groups whereas the automobile takes its greatest toll among ou r youth. (4 ) Many epidemics have visited this world in former years and in each in­ stanc e they were combated and controlled with the tools and remedies available at th at time. We recognize the fact tha t much basic research needs to be done before we have definite answers to thi s complex problem. But, we also recognize the fac t tha t we now have tools and remedies which, if used, are adequate to reduce this traffic toll perhaps by 50 percent or more. So, why not let’s sta rt applying the remedies we now have as outlined in the appended proposals? (5 ) Since there are approxim ately 70 million cars on our highways today and since this number is increasing rapidly along with higher speed limits and more complex traffic patter ns the number of deaths and injuries can also be expected 

to increase in the same proportion in the future. (6 ) The medical profession is proud of its definitive care of the injured but it does not feel that its duty as physicians and citizens has been fully discharged unti l preventive measures have become facts and are reflected in the gruesome daily automotive statistics. Then we will be able to answer Cain’s query and 

sa y: “ Yes; I am my brothe r’s keeper.”

Respectfully submitted. J ames C. Andrews, M.D.

Frank D. Daniel, M.D.

Charles J. Frankel, M.D.

J ames H. Gamble, M.D.

Fletcher D. Woodward, M.D.,

Chairman.

The Albemarle County Medical Society Proposals to the Virginia State

Medical Society and the Virginia Academy of General Practice for the

Reduction of Automobile I njuries and Deaths

Propos al 1. Education

Discussion.—A driver trai ning course approved by the Virginia State Board of Education given by approved instruc tors should be provided in all public, privat e, and parochial schools. Similar courses should be provided for adults, especially those applying for driving permits for the first time and for those whose permits have been revoked by the court and who have been ordered to complete such a course before a new permit will be issued. A certificate from such a course should be one requisite for driving licensure and if additional funds are needed for such courses in our schools they can be provided by a higher applicatio n fee which amount would be compensated for lat er by lower insur­ ance company rates. In school cu rricula now overcrowded time and space could be furnis hed by omission of many courses now offered which are of doubtful value. In addition to the didactic lectures with particul ar stress on drinking and driving, recklessness, and the use of seat belts and shoulder straps, behind the wheel instruction should also be provided. A youngster having successfully completed such a course could apply for licensure at age 16. Otherwise, 18 

years should be the minimum legal age fo r licensure.

Proposal 2. Licensure

Discussion.—All applicants for licensure should be required to present a certificate from an approved driver train ing course and a certificate from his family physician or from a medical refe rral committee certifyin g as to his physical fitness to drive a vehicle. A guide as to the determination of his fitness could be furnished by the “Medical Guide for Physicians in Determining Fitness to Drive a Motor Vehicle” published by the American Medical Association, March 14, 1959, volume 169, page 1195. These two certificates would free the State police from a tremendous responsibility which they should never have been asked to assume and would perm it them to confine their examination to the appl icant’s knowledge of traffic signs, laws, and signals and the ability to drive in traffic and to park. The medical certification and police testing should be 

requir ed every 3 years before a permi t is reissued. For driver s of passengercarry ing vehicles and for those 70 years of age or older a yearly medical and
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 71

Proposal 3. Medical referral comm ittee

Discussion.—A medical re fer ral committee should be established by all medical component societies of the Stat e society. This committee should be staffed by three or more general practition ers or inter nists with consultants avai lable .in psychology, psychiatry, ophtholmology, otology, and orthopedics. Their duties would be to pass on the physical fitness to drive of those referred by the police, the courts—such as repeat offenders, and those referred by other physicians. All applicants suffering from convulsive disorders, diabetics taking insulin, emo­ tional or mental disorders, those who have been paroled or discharged from mental institutions, and those with prosthetic appliances would be passed on by 

these committees.

Proposal 4- Perm its to drive

Discussion.—There should be three classes of driving permits issued; one for priva te vehicles, two fo r commercial vehicles, and three for passenger-carrying vehicles. A booklet type of driving permit should be provided so tha t court convictions could be entered and space provided for blood types, diabetics taking insulin, known allergies—especially to drugs, those on anticoagulant or anti- convulsive medication. This information would be of grea t value when uncon­ scious patients are brought into the emergency rooms of hospitals. Those with bilateral deafness should not be prohibited from driving a private vehicle but to drive a commercial vehicle the applicant should have normal hear­ ing, eithe r aided or unaided, at least in one ear and a driver of a passenger­ carrying vehicle should have hearing within the normal range in Ivoth ears. Also, a driver of a commercial or passenger-carrying vehicle should be reexam­ ined every year, those for priv ate vehicles every third year except for those 70 

years or more in age. Many other physical disorders enter into the decision as to whether a permit to drive can be granted. Although we esti mate tha t approximately only 2 per­ cent of all accidents are caused by physical disabilities still 2 percent repre­ sents a large number of death s and injuries and no one is better able to deter­ mine the relationship of these physical disorders to driving than the family physician or a medical refe rral committee. To drive a car is a privilege and not a righ t and to drive a schoolbus certainly is a much more responsible undertaking than to drive one’s priva te vehicle. The point or demerit system employed by many State s which covers many types of offenses should be seriously considered by the State of Virginia for 

adoption.

Proposal 5. The drinking driver

Discussion.—A drinking driv er is involved in one-third of all accidents and in from 50 to 55 percent of those in which a death occurred. Since the average individual suffers impairment of his driving skill with a blood alcohol level of 0.05 percent let us make this the critical level for conviction of driving while drinking rath er than the 0.15 percent, a far too generous figure. The average individual under average conditions can take two bottles of beer or 2 ounces of whisky and his alcohol blood level will remain under 0.05 percent. Four bottles of beer or 4 ounces of whisky will produce a blood level of 0.1 percent and at this level we all will fail the driver test of skill and judgment. How­ ever, although physicians feel th at 0.05 percent would be the ideal level for conviction of driving while drinking we a re willing to accept 0.1 percent as the critical level because this figure leaves no element of doubt about one’s ability to drive. Of course, the prese nt day figure of 0.15 percent, which represents 6 bottles of beer or three 2-ounce drinks of whisky, is ridiculous. A chemical test of the breath or blood should be mandatory in all cases in which driving while drinkin g is suspected. The breath test is scientifically accurate and would free the innocent as well as help to convict the guilty. It should be administered by a properly qualified testing officer who has been tra ined both in the care of his equipment and in the technique of its use or by a physician. The alter nativ e to such a law is the implied consent law which has been so widely used in other States. The results of the chemical breath test should be accepted as prima facie evidence. If the case goes to a jur y its verdict should be limited to “guilty” or “not guilty” provided mandatory laws have 

been enacted. The p resent laws exonerating a driv er of drinking while driving with a blood level of 0.05 percent or less are proper (0.10 percent alt erna te) . The present
72 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

laws punishing those with a blood level of 0.15 percent or higher are often proper 

but not enforced. The gre ate st problem is in the twilight zone of intoxication 

from 0.05 i>ercent to 0.15 i>ercent. For this zone a new set of laws should be 

enacted, mandatory and tough enou gh to control the average drinke r for this 

is the range of the social dri nker who thinks he is perfectly capable of handling 

a ca r in our modern high-speetl traffic. The results consistently prove him wrong.

In answer to the many arg um ents pro and con in this complex problem the 

physician is not interested in wh eth er the degree of intoxication was reached 

on an ascending or descending curve of intoxication. He is not concerned with 

the type or rap idity of consumption of the alcoholic beverage or whether consumed on a full or fasting stomach. He is not concerned with whether the 

individual is a beginner or an experienc ed drinker. He is only concerned with 

the fact th at no one should opera te an automobile in our modern high-speed 

and complex traffic patte rns with an alcohol blood level higher tha n 0.05 

percent but in orde r to get proper laws passed he is willin g to set the figure at 

0.10 i>ercent which represen ts four bottles of beer or two 2-ounce drinks of 

whisky in the average case. The interp retation of the laws concerning the 

pun ishing of these offenders should not be left to the discretion •'!' the judge 

or consulting physician for they have both faile d miserably in the past. As 

citizens and physicians, we urge th at full time traffic court judges be appointed 

with a sa lary commensurate with the importance of their function. Also, proper 

and dignified qua rters should be provided for this most important court in 

which th e public and the law u sua lly meet fo r the first time. *

We feel th at mandatory laws should be provided for each degree of intoxication. Those with an alcohol blood level of 0.05 percent (0.10 percent as an 

altern ate figure) should go free of the charge of driving while drinking. Those 

with a blood level of 0.10 per cen t or higher are to be severely punished by 

revocation of their license, a fine th at hu rts and a jail sentence which cannot 

be suspended even if only a few hours. Repeat offenders should be dealt with 

even more harsly. What these manda tory laws should be mu st be determined 

by bar associations and the State le gislature.

Proposal 6. Speed and reckless driving

Discussion.— Since speed and reckle ss driving are causa tive o f some 30 percent 

or more of deaths resulting from crashes we suggest th at more Sta te police be 

utilized, th at the public be educated again to supp ort them and to cease playing 

“cops a nd robbers” on the highwa ys and th at proper laws again be enacted and 

made mandatory. We should end orse and enforce uniform adoption of the 

speed limits suggested by the Nation al Safety Council. These lim its are 60 miles 

I>er h our for the day, 55 miles per hour at night and 35 miles per hou r in urban 

zones, all with a 5-mile-per-hour tolerance. Dual lane and other modern highways should likewise have a minim um limit of 40 miles per hour. These limits 

may seem somew hat low to many but until the manufac turers provide us with 

safer machines from the standpoint of human engineering we believe th at these 

lim its should be considered the maximum und er present conditions. If, and 

when, the day comes that the ma nufac tur ers provide cars employing the many 

saf ety suggestions previously offered by the medical profession then these limits 

can be rais ed accordingly. Again, the la ws governing speed and reckless driving 

should also be mandatory and st rict enough to deter those individuals from 

excessive speed and recklessness for the public must realize th at driving a motor 

vehicle today is a privilege and no t a right. Nor should sympath y be -wasted 

on the so-called hardship case for you may be his next victim. He knows the ♦

wages of each offense, whether set by mandatory law or as a resu lt of the point 

or deme rit system, and no dev iation can be allowed if the num ber of deaths 

and injur ies is to be curtailed. The present-day unequal sentences imposed 

by the courts and suspension of fines and ja il sentences with minimum punishment 

for serious offenses must cease. *•

Proposal 7. Automotive design

Discussion.—Since some crashe s ar e unavoidable and others inevitable it is 

important th at the machine itself be designed and safety fea tur es provided to 

protect the occupants. At the present time the destiny of thou sands rests in 

the hands of a com parative handful of men, the designers and engineers who 

plan next ye ar’s cars witho ut benefit of medical advice or consultation. It is 

also astound ing as to how little money is spent on research for safety feature s 

compared to the large sums received from the sale of their products.

The Committee on Trauma of the American College of Surgeons has been 

concerned with the importance of saf ety design of the vehicle and provision of
TO ESTABLIS H A NATIONAL ACCID ENT PREVENTIO N CEN TER 73

safe ty fea tur es as sta ndard ra th er th an optional equipm ent. Th eir efforts have 

the w hole hear ted supp ort of all phys ician s, par tic ula rly of the America n Medical Association Committe e on Medical Aspects of Automobile Injurie s and Death s. Although this committee is pri ma rily intereste d in the medic al aspe cts of the problem their studies and rep orts of researc h groups, such as the Cornell Study Group, hav e convinced them th at design should occupy a high place on the list 

of objecti ves. For insta nce, the three leadin g sourc es of in ju ry according to the Cornell figures are (1 ) ste eri ng assembly, (2 ) ejec tion from the vehicle, and (3 ) impact aga inst the dash or windshield. These inj uri es can occur on impa cts of 12 miles per hour which seems to be the cri tical speed for at thi s 

poin t the average steer ing wheel collapse s, leaving the steering post as a let hal projec tion, and no one can pro tect him self from dea th or injury . If thro wn out of the ca r the chances of get ting killed or hu rt ar e five time s greater tha n if one had rema ined inside the pro tective shell of the vehicle. Of course, saf ety 

door latc hes are importa nt, too. The sea t belt or, prefera bly, the shoulder har nes s is the best safe ty featu re th at can be p rovide d at this time and, if worn, will pre ven t some 60 p erce nt or mor e of d eath s and inju ries . The belt shou ld be anch ored to the floor of the ca r and must meet the saf ety specific ations of the Society of Automotive Engi neers . If belts are not provided as sta nd ard equip ­ ment provision should at lea st be mad e for their attachm ent and an inten sive campa ign car ried out to edu cate the public as to th eir imp orta nce in the prevention of dea th a nd inju ry. Many sugge stions have been mad e which would con trib ute to passenger safe ty at little extra cost to the ma nuf acture r. Among thes e suggestions a re : a collap sible steering assembly, Fo rd ’s deep-dish stee ring wheel with a broad stee ring pos t covered with pro tective cras h padding, the same type of padding over the dashboard, the back of the fro nt seat and oth er dangero us are as in the car, sea ting t he passenger in the fro nt s eat fa rthe r away from the das hboard, firm anchorage of seats, visu al or audible speed sign als and additional small red lights on the top of the ca r to flash when speeds of 70 miles per hour have been reach ed. The la tte r would serv e as a warning to the police as well as to other mot oris ts th at a car is dri vin g at excessive speeds. In add itio n to these sign als the following devices ar e recom mend ed: safety door locks, polarized head ligh t lenses and an opposi tely polarized spot on the wind shield to prev ent hea dlig ht gla re and blind ing a t nigh t, bet ter designed windshi elds from an optic al standpo int, high exte nsions of seatb acks to preven t whipla sh inj ury to neck, a recessed shelf behin d the back seat to prev ent inj ury from secondary missiles, less chrome and oth er reflecting surface s to elim inate glare especi­ ally in nig ht driving, elim inat ion of projectin g knobs and butto ns and levers, shock absorb ers for bumpers or energy absorbing ma ter ial in fro nt end and many oth er feat ures. If the fro nt sea ts are firmly anchored to the floor and if the back s of these seats will no t tip forwar d then small accessory seats for children can be made to hook ove r the top of the seat and secon dary belt ex­ tensions will go arou nd the waists of the very small youn gster s. Older chil­ dren should be made to ride sta nd ing back of the fro nt seat or, if ridin g in the fro nt seat, in cases of impendi ng cras h they should be instructed to dive to the floor with the ir backs to th e fro nt floor are a or back of the fro nt seat wher ever they may be. Most of th is e xtr a cost could be c ompen sated for by less chrome, th e omission of hood orname nts, clocks and radios and many othe r ac­ cessories as sta ndard equipment. As I have previo usly said, one is astou nded as to how little has been spe nt on safety rese arch by the ma nufac tur ers com­ pare d to the vas t sums which hav e been received from the sale of th eir products. We ar e sure th at con sultati on with the medical profes sion on the aspec ts of hum an engineering as rel ate d to autom otive engin eering would soon estab­ lish many rela ted facts. These would bear fr ui t by redu cing dea ths and inj uri es at the time of a cra sh and converting many of the pot entially severe-tocrit ica l injuri es to those of a rel ativel y minor nat ure .

Proposal 8. A liaison committee

Discussion..—A liaison committe e should be appointed by our Sta te medical 

society to consu lt with the Vir ginia Sta te Society Traffic Safe ty Committee unde r the chairm ans hip of Dr. Fr an cis McGovern and the vari ous oth er rela ted agencies of both groups.

For, in spite of all the slogans, police patr ols, vehicle and highway improve­ ments and the inde fatigab le wo rk of the many fine local, regio nal. State, and Nat ional safe ty organ izations, th e traffic toll will continue un til these fund amen tal proposals are adopte d. Fo r the public is not yet inte res ted enough
74 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

in highway accidents and inju ries to demand their employment. Their legislative representatives are certainly not going to do anything until an aroused 

public makes this demand. When this time will come is, of course, unknown. 

In the meantime, since they really do not want to solve the traffic problem 

their favorite way out of such a predicament is to attack it in a manner that 

insures minimum results. Until such a time comes as the public will demand 

this and the legislators will provide the laws necessary the medical profession 

must continue to work on a plan tha t will be available when that day comes 

and the public demand requires action.

Dr. James P. King, of Radford, Va., a former president of our State society, 

is eminently qualified to direct this liaison work between the society and its 

committees, the public, and the legislature. We feel th at adequate funds should 

be provided by the State society to carry out this public relations work. As 

Dr. King has said in a letter recently: “An all-out program for preventive medicine in the field of automobile deaths and injuries sponsored by the Medical 

Society of Virginia would have a tremendous impact upon the public.” Every 

news media, newspapers, radio, TV, and others would acclaim our efforts. 

Every public official, educator, businessman and all organizations within the 

State would endorse our program. For, who could be against saving lives? 

The State society should consider newspaper advertising in all newspapers within our borders as well as spot radio announcements and TV paid programs. 

Then, in due time if we have a proper plan and have presented it properly to 

the people of this State and to the legislators we feel tha t the time will not be 

too far distant until many of these proposals are adopted and, in spite of the 

rapidly increasing number of motor vehicles on our highways, there will be 

a reduction both in the total number of deaths and injuries and in the death rate 

per 100 million miles traveled.

To implement the proposed requirements for licensure of certificates from a 

driver training course and from a physician, it would be required at present 

only for new applicants and for those applying for a new license after revocation of their old license.

Respectfully submitted.

J ames C. Andrews, M.D.,

Frank D. Daniel, M.D.,

Charles J. Frankel, M.D.,

J ames H. Gamble, M.D.,

Fletcher D. Woodward, M.D.,

Chairman. February 1, 1962.

Dr. Woodward. Mr. Chairman, that is a very brief statement but 

tha t is the way I feel. We have gone as far as we can go and to go any 

furthe r we must have some help on basic research. I thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Woodward. I again would like to 

say you have been most help ful throughout the years to our committee. 

Y our contribution has been very valuable to us. We appreciate very 

much the fact that you took time out of your schedule to come before 

us today and I appreciate your support of this bill.

Dr. Woodward. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman. Our next witness is Mr. Maxwell N. Halsey; will 

you come around please, sir. We are pleased to have you before our 

subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF MAXW ELL N. HALSEY, TRA FFIC SAFETY 

CONSULTANT, EAST NORWALK, CONN.

Mr. Halset. Mr. Chairman, I am increasingly convinced of the 

imperative need to add more basic approaches to traffic-accident prevention. These can come only through the adoption of such fundamental proposals as H.R. 133 which would provide research, research 

oersonnel, and training. I strongly urge the adoption of this bill
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 75

with the modifications suggested by the Division of Accident Prevention of the U.S. Public Health Service.

WE ARE BARELY HOLDING OUR OWN IN TH E WAR AG AINS T TRAFFIC 

ACC IDENTS

A glance at any set of curves showing the number of drivers, cars, 

and miles traveled since the war indicates a steady increase. This 

continuous gain in exposure has naturally pulled deaths, and especially 

injuries, up with it. Even the death rate which had been coming down 

has leveled off during the last few years so tha t improvements are 

fractional. Certainly no one is willing to settle for the present status 

in our “safety war,” which virtually guarantees more dead and injured 

each year ahead, even though some improvements may be made in 

the rate.

PRE SENT SAF ETY APPROACH ES IN SUFF IC IE N T

The national traffic safety inventory will show that each year high 

schools train more students in driving, police arrest more violators, 

courts punish more guilty, motor vehicle departments take more 

serious action to improve drivers and suspend or revoke more licenses, 

public education efforts are greater, and of course safer, new roads 

are being built while we are gaining in uniformity of laws.

These are the direct-action safety activities largely responsible for 

holding our own. They have been increasing each year, but barely 

enough to offset annual increases of exposure.

It seems reasonable that merely doing a little more of the same— 

teach, arrest, punish, suspend, revoke, build—cannot be expected to 

bend the accident, injury, and death curves down sharply. Obviously, 

new prevention tools and new and better use of existing ones must be 

discovered.

Many professionals have been greatly encouraged by the development of the seat-belt program, the safer designs of the Interstate 

Highway System, and the creation of the new Division of Accident 

Prevention, which has brough t the U.S. Public Health Service’s long 

history of thorough research and practical application to the field of 

safety. But it will be some years before their potentials can be 

realized.

ACC IDENT PR EV EN TION RESOURCES INA DEQU ATE

The gap between rising exposure and the rate of increase in prevention resources represents the long-range chances of holding our own, 

winning or losing the battle. Privat e resources underw riting private 

safety organizations, which help State, county, and local governments 

and build public support for the ir activities, appear to have leveled 

off and may be approaching a practical ceiling. States, counties, and 

cities cannot be expected to make more than modest annual budget 

increases for the types of prevention activities now underway. Certainly no one State, county, or b ig city is in a position to provide an 

additional sum of the necessary magnitude for large-scale research to 

develop “breakthroughs.”

Logic should tell us th at if we cannot increase prevention resources 

financed from the old sources a t a faster rate than increases in exposure, we are certain to lose ground in the long run.

80624— 62-----6
76 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

PRBO CCUPATION W IT H TR YI NG TO STOP TRAFFIC ACC IDENTS TOMORROW

One of the greatest weaknesses in traffic-safety thinking has been a 

preoccupation with trying to stop traffic accidents this year. By its 

very nature, it does not lend itself to quick, easy cure-alls. Motorists 

and pedestrians are not only complicated human beings—they are also 

the taxpayers and the voters and, in these latter roles, do not take 

natu rally to restrictions. Much more scientific data will be needed to 

convince them of the validity of and necessity for restrictions which 

may be needed in the future.

As in other fundamental human problems, we try to hold our own 

by applying what we know, but always realizing tha t only long-range 

research can give us better solutions.

DRIVER AREA HA S HI GHE ST PO TE NT IAL

Most, safety experts agree that prevention approaches through the 

driver have a higher long-range potential than approaches through 

the car or the highway, although it is important that work must be •

done on all three to have a balanced program. When the human mind 

does not apply itself to safe driving, due to lack of skill, alcohol, drugs, 

illness, and many other factors we do not yet understand, drivers seem 

capable of “outsmarting” the safety features of the safest cars and the 

safest highways.

II .R . 133 WOULD FU LF IL L RASIC NEED

The provision of a national research center coincides with the reasoning previously prese nted:

(1) It recognizes the overriding importance of a more fundamental 

approach; provides a major source of scientific data.

(2) It fits the needs of a long-range program.

(3) It aims primarily at studying the driver, the approach th at has 

the highest potential gain in safety.

(4) It locates the operation in an agency with a long experience 

in studying the human being—the U.S. Public Hea lth Service.

(5) It concentrates on research, the only approach for discovering 

new tools and improving old ones.

(6) It provides a permanent organization, with continuity to attra ct researchers with a high potential.

(7) It offers a training grou nd for researchers.

(8) It provides a university campus setting and proper equipment *

to enhance success in research.

(9) It can provide leadership which will bring coordination and 

reduce costly duplication.

(10) It grives special values, through simultaneous study of the hu- *

man being in relation to all types of accidents and the interrelationships of causative factors.

It is hard to grasp the magnitude of this subject. When traffic 

planners project cautiously a possible saving of several thousand lives 

annually from such an approach as seat belts or through the safer 

design of the Inte rsta te Highw ay System (not to be completed until 

1972), they realize that even such figures are but a small fraction of 

last year’s 38,000, or the projected 47,000 dead for the year 1966, if
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 77

present, trends are maintained. Massive problems can only yield to 

fundamental attacks in depth, H.R. 133 represents this kind of attack.

The Chairman. Tha nk you, Mr. Halsey. I again say that I regret 

there are no more members of the subcommittee present to hear your 

statement. There is business on the House floor. I know you u nderstand we have to be there. When you get to the role of the chairman, 

the chairman has to be both places. It is a pleasure to have you and 

I appreciate the contribution you have made to our subcommittee.

Our next witness will be Dr. C. L. Wilbar, Jr. , secretary of the Department of Health, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pa.

It is a real pleasure to have you. I think i t is generally agreed th at 

vour great State has made tremendous strides in the field o f safety. 

I believe that Pennsylvania is the only State so fa r that has physical 

examinations for renewal of drivers’ licenses.

I might say, too, that I had a call yesterday from Mr. Shipley, 

the comissioner of vehicles, I believe, in your State who is quite interested in this subject.

We are delighted that you can lie with us today. We appreciate 

very much the sacrifice you have made to come and you may proceed 

with your statement.

STATEMENT OF C. L. WIL BAR , JR., M.D., SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSY LVANIA, HARRISBURG,

PA.

Dr. Wilbar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Dr. Charles L. Wilbar, Jr., secretary of health of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

This year I am also chairm an of the health officers section of the 

American Public Health Association, chairman of the Program Area 

Committee on Public Hea lth Administration of the American Public 

Health Association and vice president of the Association of State 

and T erritoria l Health Officers.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to testify in 

favor of the enactment of H.R. 133, with some possible modifications.

In Pennsylvania, accidents have been the fourth leading cause of 

death since 1900 and remain firmly established in this position. As 

in the rest of the Nation, they constitute the leading cause of death 

from the end of the 1st to the 35th year of life. In our State health 

department, we have 13 full-time persons working in the field of environmental safety and, in addition, have a physician and his secretary working in a unit called traffic epidemiology. This latter unit 

has been in existence for nearly 4 years and is unusual among State 

health departments.

You are undoubtedly having repeated to you a phrase such as “accidents are caused—they do not just happen.” This is true, but it 

means tha t those of us who are working in the accident prevention 

field must know the causes, know how to prevent such causation, and 

be able to convince the public to effectuate the necessary preventive 

measures.

Adequate research is badly needed as to the causation factors of 

accidents, particularly the human element. What makes certain 

types of individuals, particularly at certain times of their lives, es-
78 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

pecia lly liable to hav e acc ide nts? How can a procliv ity for havin g 

acc idents be prevented by educational mea sures among tlie gro ups 

most ap t to have ce rta in ty pe s o f accidents, such as traffic accidents by 

th e y oung ad ult m ale ?

Lo oking over the pri nte d repo rts of studies in accident control, I 

am imp ressed with the la rg e percentage of the se stud ies which are 

con cerned with m an uf ac tu ring , eng ineering, an d con struction in 

connection with a cciden ts, wh eth er they be a t home, a t work, or on th e 

hig hw ay, and the relativ ely few careful stud ies bein g made in connectio n wi th human being s an d their b eha vio r in t hi s field. Yet it is the 

hu man being, much mo re th an the ina nim ate object—be it an au tomob ile, traffic sign, ste plad de r, sca tter rug , sh arp ins tru me nt, or o ther 

dang ero us ina nim ate ob jec t—which is the pr im ar y cause of the accident.

Certain accident preven tio n pro gra ms where the huma n element h as 

been invo lved have been successfu l in reduci ng m or ta lit y and m orbidity. La st year, Pe nn sy lvan ia’s highway fa ta lity ra te was the lowest 

in its history. The ra te was 3.7 death s per 100 millio n mile s compa re d with 4 in 1960 an d 8.6 in 1946.

Gov. David L. La wr ence inau gu rated a 13- point traffic saf ety pro ­

gr am in Fe br ua ry of 1960. Ed ucati on is an in tegr al par t of this 

pr og ram. One po rtion in whi ch the he alt h de pa rtm en t has been in ­

volved , and which is un ique in Pennsylvania , is a per iod ic phy sical 

exam ina tio n of driver s, -whereby dri vers with severe disabi lities which 

ma ke them unfit to drive are discovered and rem oved from behin d 

th e ste eri ng wheel.

In the State o f M ich igan abou t a decade ago, with the expenditu re 

of p riva te fou ndation m one y, a c onc entrate d acc ide nt prevention ed uca tio na l prog ram aim ed at red ucing home acc ide nts in certain tow ns 

an d counties was r em arka bly successful. In Kalam azo o, for instance , 

th e home acciden t ra te wa s brou gh t down by a 2-y ear con cen trat ed 

pr og ra m fro m 30 pe r 100,000 to 6 per 100,000, an 80 perce nt reduction.

In ou r env ironm ent al sa fe ty prog ram we have been attempting to 

ascerta in some of the p ersona l fac tors which ha ve an imp ortan t impac t 

on acc ide nt rates. Nea rly a hu nd red hospita ls in th e State are re ­

po rtin g da ta to the he al th de partm ent on the acc ide nts tre ated in 

these ins titu tions.

We find a con siderable va ria tio n in acc ide nt rates in different age 

grou ps. Most fatal in ju ries occu r amo ng person s in the very young 

an d very old age gro ups, wh ere as most non fatal acc ide nts occur in the 

age g roup o f 15 thro ug h 24. Males h ave a m uch hi gh er accident rate 

th an females.

As wou ld be expected, ph ysica l sho rtcoming s wh ich interfe re with 

coord ina tio n, balance, an d locomotion pre dispose individu als ha vin g 

the se shortco min gs to acc ide nts. So do certa in vis ual and audit ory 

ab no rm ali tie s and co nd ition s which pre vent the individu al from ha vin g m ental control of his activit ies , su ch as f aint in g, convulsions, h ea rt 

att acks , cerebral he mor rh ag e and such. I t is clear th at the me nta l 

an d emo tion al ma keu p of t he indivi dual is a major factor concerning 

his acc ide nt proneness.

I t is no t entirely clea r when the person becomes acciden t pro ne, 

althou gh it is cle ar th at ce rta in psyc holo gica l chara cte ristic s cause 

individu als h av ing th em to be unusu ally likely to have accidents. An
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 79

individua l who is apt to give himself over without much restraint to worry or grief, predisposes himself to inattentiveness. An individual who is quick to anger is a pt to lose the cautions which help prevent accidents. Fatigue causes slowing of the reaction time, so that the chronically fatigued individual is more subject to accidents than other persons. The quality of judgment is difficult to measure, but certainly some individuals do better at judg ing the ir own skills and 

capabilities than others. There are, of course, those who have psychoses or neuroses, some of which render individuals exceedingly accident prone. Accident prone­ ness is often not co nstant; it is ap t to occur for limited periods when acute physical or emotional conditions are present, predisposing to accident causation. Accidents are prevented by the correction or modification of either environment or attitudes. These sparse generalized findings concerned with the human factor in accident causation and indicating some roads to prevention which have met with some success point out, the need for more careful sub­ stantive research and investigation in the accident control area on a national scale by a unit which has adequate physical facilities and competent personnel. Unfortunately, very few individuals in the Nation seem to be both competent and interested in working full-time in this important area of the human aspects of accident causation 

and prevention. It seems to me that an accident prevention center stressing research is most urgently needed for th e Nation. Here a number of qualified persons in this field could be gathered together with proper working facilities and sufficient funds to begin to tackle the problem in somethin g of an adequate manner. There is indication that some of the projects now in existence are duplicating other studies already in progress or completed. This Federal center, under the Public Health Service, could serve as a national clearinghouse for information on research and to some extent for information on available educational materials. This, of course, would not mean that all research would be done in this center to the exclusion of having some done by other organizations. The center should encourage and stren gthen additional research elsewhere, but the waste of duplication of prelim inary investigative efforts might be 

avoided to a considerable degree. Inasmuch as accident prevention has been generally accepted as a major public health problem, the placement of such a center in the U.S. Public Health Service seems highly desirable, and H.R. 133, if enacted, would fill an imp orta nt need in public health practice in the 

Nation. There is some question in my mind about the desirability of setting up an accident prevention advisory board in the manner in which it is now’ contemplated by H.R. 133. Having a board appointed by the President and passing upon every project or program makes it a high level administrative board, superseding to a degree the usual administrative functions of the Surgeon General. There are a number of other advisory boards in the Public Health Service which are appointed by the Surgeon General and carefully advise him on necessary matters, but do not supersede his authority. Generally speaking, s plintering of Government authority into boards 

and commissions is not advisable.
80 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

I t wo uld seem, the ref ore , t hat it wo uld be bette r to have th e accid ent 

pre venti on advisory board ap po inted by the Surge on Ge neral in the 

same m an ne r as oth er advis ory board s are ap po int ed by him, and 

th at the functio n of this bo ard be spelled out in less detail in the law 

but consist general ly of advisin g the Sur geo n General in reg ard s to 

all aspects of ad mi nis ter ing th e p rovis ion s of the act.

1 bus, I should like to recommend to y ou r com mittee and to th e Congress th at H.R. 133 be acted upon fav orably, af te r some mod ifica tion 

to pa rtic ul ar ly stre ss research activ ities and to have an acc ide nt preven tion advis ory boa rd ap po inted by the Surge on Ge neral wi th a resp on sib ility to advise the Su rgeo n Gen eral on the va rio us aspects of 

ad minist ering the act once i t becomes law.

Mr. Roberts. Th an k you ve ry much, Dr. W ilb ar. We appre cia te 

yo ur sta temen t a nd especially in view of yo ur work with no t only your 

own St ate but the work which you do in the Associatio n of S ta te a nd 

I er rito rial Hea lth Officers, also yo ur work with the Am eri can Public 

Hea lth Associa tion.

I th in k th at the suggestion you make as to the advis ory board certai nly sho uld come in fo r some conside ration by the subcom mittee and 

I am sure that it will.

I might say to you th at it h as been my hope fo r some tim e that the 

subcom mittee vis it yo ur St at e as a way of pa ying trib ut e to what 

yo ur St at e is doing in th is field an d also to see if our subcommittee 

might no t be able to generate mo re intere st on the pa rt of the oth er 

States in th e Union. I hop e th at when we come o ut we will have the 

ple asu re o f seeing you in Har risb ur g.

Dr. W ilbar. I hope so, M r. C ha irm an .

Th e Chairm an. Tha t you ag ain .

I wa nt to th an k all of you w ho hav e come before the com mittee and 

th e p ress and those in atten dance a t thi s session. We are very grate ful 

fo r yo ur presence and fo r yo ur att en tio n.

I ha ve one statem ent by R ev. Ho ward Har pe r who ha d to leave and 

asked th at his state ment be p lac ed in the rec ord.

(T he prep ared sta tem ent of th e Rev erend How ard H ar pe r, D.D. 

follo ws :)

Stateme nt of Rev. H oward H arpe r. D.D.

I wish to speak in favor of the establishment of a national accident prevention 

center.

While I do not a t this hearing officially represent either organization, I cannot 

help speaking from the point of view of an officer of the National Council of the 

Protestant Episcopal Church and a member of the National Committee of Religious Leaders for Safety (of the National Safety Council).

To anyone who believes in man’s worth as the image of God, it is difficult to 

see how this bill could be opposed. The preservation of human life is a religious matter. To prevent the destruction of life is our duty to God, and failure 

to use every means within our power to prevent such destruction is of the nature 

of sacrilege.

It is probably true t hat some—even many—accidents are not preventable, and 

will continue in the face of all our efforts.

But I know it is also true that many can be prevented through the improvement of mechanical safety devices, and I believe it is true tha t many more can be 

prevented through psychological studies of the human factors involved.

In both the mechanical and the psychological areas activities are, of course, 

now going on—uncoordinated, piecemeal, local. A national center would perform the double service of bringing together already existing knowledge and of 

further advancing our understandings on a total national scale.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 81

I would be strongly in fav or of this bill even if I were not concerned about the 

relig ious values involved. Havin g also the religious concern, I am doubly in 

fav or of it.

I earnestly urge the e stab lish ment of a national accid ent prevention center.

The Chairman. The subcommittee will be in recess until 10 tomorrow morning in the same room.

(Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 10 

a.m., Wednesday, Febru ary 7,1962.)

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION 

CENTER

W ED N E SD A Y , F E B R U A R Y 7, 19 62

H ouse of Representatives,

Subco mmittee on H ealth and Safety

of th e Committee on I nterstate and F oreign Commerce,

Washing ton, D.G.

The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., purs uant to recess, in room 

1334, New House Office Building, Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

The Chairman. The subcommittee will please be in order.

Our first witness today is Mr. Harold Russell, past National Commander of the AM VETS National Service Foundation, 1710 Rhode 

Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

It is a pleasure, Mr. Russell, to welcome you to these hearings. We 

know, of course, of your fine work in the field of rehabilitation and 

veterans affairs, and we welcome you to our hearings.

You may proceed with your statement.

Would you like to identify the gentleman with you?

STATEMENT OF HAROLD RUSSELL, PAST NATIONAL COMMANDER,

AMVETS NATIONAL SERV ICE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. R ussell. Mr. Norman Carroll, our service foundation 

administrator.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee.

I am delighted to have this privilege of being here today.

As you know, my name is Harold Russell and I appear here today as 

the representative of the American Veterans of World War II and 

Korea (AMVETS) which was chartered by Congress in 1947. I have 

served the organization as national commander du ring three separate 

terms since 1950. I do not claim this makes me an expert witness but 

if I say so myself, I th ink I know something about accidents.

As an organization we are very much concerned with the problem 

tha t confronts this committee.

First, I think I would like to thank the honorable members of the 

subcommittee and the chairman fo r this privilege of appearing on behalf of AMVETS th roug hout the United States. As an organization 

we are most grateful for th e opportunity to be heard and we welcome 

the opportunity to testify on behalf of H.R. 133. AMV ETS feel it is 

fitting fo r us to support th is measure, not only on its merits, but also 

because it parallels and in fac t expands upon one of our own major 

objectives.

83
84 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

As an organization we are concerned not only with the program of 

physical restoration for disabled veterans and nonveterans alike, but 

with any program tha t can be utilized to prevent crippling injuries. 

We believe the best rehabilitation program in the world is one that 

makes physical restoration unnecessary.

Perhaps it will sound strange tha t a veterans gro up like ours, composed of men and women who served in World W ar II and Korea, 

should lie placing organizational emphasis on the subject of accident 

prevention—a subject which may seem somewhat remote from the 

immediate concerns of ex-servicemen. But I am proud of the fact 

tha t from their earliest days. AMVE TS have regarded their citizens’ 

responsibilities as transcending any rights which they may retain as 

veterans.

As evidence of this viewpoint, and this comment is really quite relevant to the legislation now under consideration, I should like to state 

tha t our present national commander at this very moment is touring 

the U nited States with a motorized survival caravan designed to alert 

our fellow Americans to one of our deadliest enemies: highway hazard.

Comdr. Edwin P. Fifielski, of Chicago, a successful attorney, is 

devoting his entire year in office to this demanding tour—in fulfillment, I am proud to report, of a mandate unanimously adopted by 

the delegates to our last national convention calling upon our organization to organize a concerted attack on the highway accident enemy.

We adopted this broad program of action upon the recommendation of one of our convention speakers, Mr. Byron Nichols, general 

manager of the Dodge Division of Chrysler Corp. The support and 

cooperation of Dodge in helping us implement this ambitious project as 

a public service activity is merely another one of many public service 

credits earned by this outstanding representative of the motor industry.

I should like to return in a moment to the relationship between the 

AMVET S program and the objectives of H.R. 133. We are not unmindful, however, tha t the proposed legislation covers not merely one 

phase of the accident problem but would embrace the whole area of 

accident prevention in the home, in the office, in the factory and, indeed, into every facet of life in America today.

We heartily endorse the concept t hat any governmental approach 

to th is general problem must concern itself with the spectrum of accident prevention in its broadest terms as a matter of equity to the taxpayers who will be asked to foot the bill.

You will hear from other witnesses better qualified than I in terms 

of familiarity with facts and figures. But it must be evident to the 

least initiated among us that the fantastic cost of accidents in the 

United States, accidents of all kinds, under all conditions, in all sorts 

of places, cries out for the creation of a National Accident Prevention 

Center within the U.S. Public Health Service.

Fo r only through such a center as this bill envisions, carrying the 

prestige of governmental influence and concern, can the many separate efforts of both public and private enterprise, such as our own program in AMVETS, be prop erly and effectively coordinated and 

spurred on to greater effort through promotion, encouragement, guidance, and intelligent development of all our many and varied resources.

I intimated a moment ago tha t I was not an expert statistical 

witness. Yet, as a result of AMVETS efforts in the area of high-
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 85

way accident prevention I have been exposed to some startling facts and comparisons which may be interesting to this honorable subcom­ mittee. I should like to examine them, as befits a veterans group, in 

a somewhat military context. During the first 4 bloody days of the Normandy landings in 1944 twice as many Americans were killed and injured on our highways at home than were felled on the Frenc h coast. And since the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941, more th an 25 million Americans have been killed or injure d on the highways and byways of our peace- loving land as compared to the total casualties in both World War II 

and the Korean conflict. These are incredible figures but I am assured they are true, just as true as the fact tha t the cost of automobile accidents alone runs to more than $6 billion a year, enough money to build 12 nuclear-powered 

aircra ft carriers like the new Enterprise which itself is 3 times bigger 

than our largest wartime carrier and will be able to circle the globe 

more than 20 times without refueling. The American people and the American Congress have never hesi­ tate d to act in the face of direct challenges to our security and our lives. In 1770 we declared war when three Colonials died on Boston 

Common. In 1836 our Nation was ready to fight when 187 Americans fell at 

the Alamo. In 1898 Congress declared war when 266 Americans went down with 

the battleship Maine. In 1917 Congress acted after the death of 124 Americans on the 

Lusitania. In 1941 it was war when 3,883 Americans perished at Pearl Harbor. Today, our streets and highways alone are 25 times more dangerous than were the frontlines in World War II and our fellow Americans behind the wheel are apparen tly more deadly in terms of highway 

carnage than were o ur enemies behind their guns. In the face of such facts, can the American people and the American Congress do less than declare war again? War on the thre at to our lives and to our property posed by the ascending curve of accident rates not only on the highway but in virtually every aspect of our daily 

lives. H.R. 133 is an answer to that question and the answer to the deadly 

daily challenges we face as individual citizens. We construe this bill to represent, in a very real sense, a declaration of war by Congress in the name of the American people against the 

ravages of accidental injury and death. We see in this bill an effort by Congress to help place the respon­ sibility for action where it properly belongs: on the people them­ selves, using our Federal resources only as an instrument to put the problem in focus, to centralize organization of facts, to collect, analyze, and report on pertinen t data from every conceivable source and to generate, through State and community government as well as at the Federal level, and in cooperation with private and public agencies, a coordinated initiative with but one objective: a systematic solution to the many urgent problems involved in reducing the terrible cost of accidents to you and me. our neighbors, and our fellow Americans. In a modest but nonetheless determined way and with our limited resources, under the general heading of highway safety, AMVETS
86 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

seek unifo rm motor vehicle inspection laws through out the country; 

we suggest periodic physical examination of licensed vehicle operators, 

and we encourage general utiliz ation of auto safety belts. Yet great 

as the need for action is, this area is but a segment of the overall problem. Federal action along the coordinating lines established by H.R. 

133 is the obvious answer to an equally obvious problem. We respectfully urge a favorable report by this subcommittee.

If the chairman will permit, I ask permission at this time to submit as an addendum to these remarks the text of an AMVETS document, entitled “Survival,” prepared by our national headquarters in 

Washington, and outlining the objectives and activities through which 

we are implementing our own highway safety project.

Thank you very much for your courtesy.

The Chairman. Thank you, Air. Russell.

Without objection'the addendum will be placed in the record along 

with your statement.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

Survival *

The AMVETS highway safety projec t is one aspect of the theme "Survival” 

which is the descriptive title adopted as the organization’s 1961-62 public 

service program.

TH E PROBLEM

The deaths of nearly 40.000 people a year, the disabling injuries of nearly 1.5 

million and the lesser injuries of an additional 2 million other Americans in 

traffic accidents are pure waste of our most precious national as se t: people.

Suggestions that the answer is to “crack down on teenagers,” “get drunks 

off the road,” or “set a national speed l imit” indicate a lack of understanding of 

the complexity of the problem of the many basic things th at must be done 

if it is to be solved. Gimmicks, shortcuts, and cure-alls are not the solutions.

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITIZEN

Every citizen has the right to expect that his public officials, at each level of 

government, will faithfully and efficiently discharge their responsibilities for 

safe and efficient traffic control. It is the duty of these officials to study the 

needs and to develop and execute sound programs.

In a free country, however, officials can and will discharge thei r duties only 

to the limit the public will accept and support.

Because citizens generally are inadequately informed on traffic problems 

and their remedies, they will often oppose official actions simply through lack 

of u nderstanding. Official explanations of the need for these actions are usually 

not enough. The influence of organized citizens and their leaders is necessary 

to obtain public acceptance of official measures.

Unless citizens give their active cooperation and support to officials who 

are working to prevent accidents, even the best safety programs cannot be e

fully effective. Experience has shown tha t this support can best be provided

through an organized group.

A fully represen tative citizen organization is best able to study the total 

traffic problems, and to speak out in a strong voice to inform the public, to help 

develop positive attitude s, and to provide support for sound official measures. # More than half of the cities part icipa ting in the annual inventory of traffic 

safety activities report tha t they have some form of citizen traffic safety council, 

committee, commission, board, or other group.

These groups vary all the way from fully staffed metropolitan organizations to 

volunteer committees in small cities. They show a wide range also in the degree 

of their effectiveness.

Of the cities of more than 100,000 population, more than 50 percent have 

safety councils or corresponding citizen organizations with full-time staffs operating eith er locally or on a metropolitan-area basis. Activities of these groups 

reach more than a t hird of the U.S. population.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 87

More than half of the States have statewide organizations with full-time staffs, serving an additional third of the Nation’s population not covered by the city 

or metropolitan organizations. Together these two groups service in excess of two-thirds of our total population.

TH E RECOMMENDATIONS OF TH E PRESIDENT’S COMMITTEE FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY

In part these include: (1) Chief executives of States and municipalities encourage the establish­ ment and strengthening of citizen organizations, and take leadership in determin­ ing accident prevention needs, developing official programs based upon the action program and establishing priorities for action. (2) Civic and business leaders take the initiative in establishing State and community citizen traffic-safety organizations or in strengthening existing ones. In this effort, they may be able to utilize communitywide organizations, such 

as chambers of commerce, etc.

(3) Citizen groups— (a) Expand their accident prevention activities and join forces in States and communities to bring their combined potential into action through a citizen traffic safety committee, council, commission, or similar organization. (ft) Follow the basic principles of organization and programing which 

experience has shown to be most effective. (c) Develop action programs that apply to the specific needs of their respective States and cities in line with the recommendations of the national 

action program for traffic safety.

TH E ROLE OF AMVETS

As the national organization of the veterans of World War II and Korea, AMVETS has both an opportunity and an obligation to add its force and leader­ ship in a positive action program of highway safety tha t would operate within 

the recommendations set forth above.

TH E INI TIA L STEP

At the national convention which concluded in August 1961 in Louisville, Ky., the AMVETS organization adopted a resolution calling for a highway safety project. The implementation of such a project would be carried out in coopera­ tion with the Dodge Division of the Chrysler Corp., as a public service activity and reflecting credit upon both organizations. In addition, AMVETS have every reason to call upon and to expect complete cooperation from such groups as the President’s Committee for Traffic Safety, the Automotive Safety Founda­ tion, the Auto Industries Highway Safety Committee, the National Safety Coun­ cil, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the National Committee on Uniform Laws. Finally, it is most obvious th at in every State the appropriate public official within tha t State and similarly appropriate public officials within each city, can be expected to cooperate in programs of substance 

tha t AMVETS introduces.

THE SELECTED AREAS OF AMVETS ACTIVITY

Three specific areas of activity have been chosen to be AMVETS action proj­ ects—the adoption of the motor vehicle inspection provision of the Model Uniform 

Vehicle Code; periodic physical examination of licensed vehicle o perators; and to encourage the increased public acceptance and utilization of automotive safety belts. AMVETS activity will be planned for each of these projects at all three levels of the organization: National, State, and in the local post. Since each of these three areas is significant in itself, the question arises— why divide the effort? To answer this completely, we will examine each pro­ gram area and view the nature of the AMVETS contribution. However, it is well to point out t hat by offering three action possibilities, we encourage maxi­ mum organizational participation at all AMVETS levels: National, State, and local. Additionally, where satisfactory vehicle inspection statutes exist, alter ­ natives are offered. Finally, it is sufficient to state that to some AMVETS groups the possibility of effective achievement in a legislative endeavor or any endeavor outside of their immediate community might have less appeal than a local program such as is possible with the safety belt project.
88 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

UN IFOR M MOTOR VEHICLE INSP EC TION PROGRAM

The need

Vehicle condition is an increasingly important factor as traffic volumes and 

sustained high-speed travel mounts. Unsafe vehicle condition is a constant, 

inhere nt potential in vehicle use. Experience has shown tha t where vehicle 

inspection is required by law, an improved highway safety record results.

While voluntary inspections are helpful, the ultimate objective must be a legal 

requirement of a safety check for all licensed vehicles.

Present status

Successful programs of statewide periodic motor vehicle inspection are in 

operation in 17 States and the District of Columbia. About 25 percent of the 

Nation’s vehicles are now regularly inspected at least once, and in most cases 

twice, each year. Inspection twice a year is preferable in the interests of safety.

Revised standards for motor vehicle inspection were developed by a national 

committee and published in 1957 by the American Standards Association.

Jurisdictions which have established inspection programs are : Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New •*

Hampshire. New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. A few others have legislation pending.

The objective »

Concerted, continuing efforts should be made—including organized, informed 

citizen support—to establish sound inspection programs in all States with the 

least possible delay. Periodic vehicle inspection should be considered an essential part of the highway safety program in every State.

Enactment of a law requiring periodic inspection of all motor vehicles should 

be given high priority in every State that does not have such an official program. State-approved, p rivately owned, officially supervised stations should be 

supported as the most feasible and practcial arrangement.

The AM VETS program would call for the adoption of the model inspection 

law, as set forth in chapter 13 of the uniform vehicle code.

TH E AM VETS PROGRAM

On the national level

(a) Announcement of the project.—A statement of program similar to that 

incorporated in this memorandum would be prepared and distributed nationwide 

to public officials, the press, and nationally within the AMVETS organization.

This program announcement would also advise the intended activity of the national commander in the course of his travels into the various State, to call upon 

the Governor and the responsible State highway official presenting a resolution 

urging the adoption within the State of a State statute similar to the statute 

proposed by the committee on uniform laws. This obviously applies only in 

State s which are not presently adhering to the code on uniform laws.

The commander’s activity or the AMVETS position within any State obviously 

depends upon the nature of the existing State law. In many cases, States provide for an inspection on a once-a-year basis or the nature of the State law is 

not such to be up to date with all current provisions deemed advisable under 

the model code. To establish the AMVETS position in any State, therefore, it is 

obvious that we must be in contact with and carry out the appropriate research 

to determine the status of the uniform code in each and every State. To ac- *

complish this is not particularly difficult, especially with the full cooperation of 

the several interested organizations whose national office is located here in 

Washington. Throughout the national commander’s tour, the entire traffic 

safety program would be a pa rt of public speeches and press releases. Naturally, 

depending upon the local picture of inspection, the emphasis would vary but the *

ability to research the situation in advance makes this a relatively easy matter.

Those States whose existing laws fully satisfy all the inspection requirements 

will be dealt with la ter in this report by the alternative programs.

State level of activity

The national AMVETS resolution presented to the Governor of each State will 

recognize and take note of the fact that the AMVETS organization w’ithin the 

State will be pursuing this program and supporting it with legislative activity 

and seeking to generate citizen support within the State, as might be needed 

to encourage the enactment of the appropriate statute.
TO ESTABL ISH A NATIO NAL ACCIDENT PREVE NTI ON CENTER 89

The State commander would be called upon to name a legislative committee to carr y out the necessary steps to provide legislative support for the AMVETS position. In addition, the Stat e commander would take steps to establish liaison with existing citizens committees at the State level. He would encourage posts within his department to follow simila r lines in terms of their local activity.

Post level of activity

Post commanders would be asked to name a post legislative officer and a post committee to carry out the traffic safety program. The post programs could follow any one of a number of approaches. These include : (1 ) A letterwriting campaign urging passage of the law. (2 ) The obtaining of petitions from the intere sted citizens in the 

community. (3 ) The carrying out of a volunteer motor vehicle safety check (full information on this program is available from an organization entitled the “National Vehicles Safety Check for Communities,” located at 2000 K Street NW., Washington 6, D.C. This activity is sponsored by the Auto Industries 

Highway Safety Committee). (4 ) A display in a prominent area of the community of an exhibit pointing up the importance of motor vehicle safety checks. The above represent but a few of the possible avenues of approach by a local post conducting this program. There are, naturally, many more possibilities tha t involve the conduct of essay contests within high schools, the use of exhibits and displays with local merchants, particip ation in local parades with appropriate posters, trailer exhibits, and so forth. In addition, AMVETS could call local press, radio, and TV attention to the importance of the adoption 

of a model vehicle inspection code.

RECO GN IT ION

No project is truly effective th at fails to provide recognition of effort. The entire AMVETS safety campaign would be geared to emphasize the matte r of 

recognition on State and National levels.

State recognition

All AMVETS departments would be encouraged to carry a monthly report during the entire year of posts active in the various safety projects. In addition, award ceremonies should be planned at the State level for all department 

conventions.

Nationa l level

The various national publications including the National AMVET. Contact, and convention program would carr y continuing articles related to the safety 

program. It is natur ally anticipated th at recognition of the best programing effort by local units would be provided at the AMVETS national convention. It is also anticipated tha t the cooperation of Dodge, the best effort would receive an award of a Dodge automobile. (Note the portion of the report entitled 

“AMVETS-Dodge Cooperation.”)

PHYSICA L EXAMINATIO N OF VEHICLE OPERATORS

The need

It should be reasonably appa rent to any thinking individual that even the safest vehicle is a dangerous instru ment in the hands of an unsafe operator. Most jurisdictions have certain initial licensing requirements to measure the drive r’s skill and physical capacity. Few jurisdictions, however, have shown any inclination to periodically recheck either of these impor tant human factors. As a result, persons subject to varying degrees of disability continue to operate vehicles in instances where this licensed privilege should be restricted, i.e., requirin g use of glasses to correct vision, etc., or in other more extreme cases, where the privilege should be revoked entirely as a safeguard to the individual and to the community. Such extreme situations as totally blind drivers, severe epileptics, heart and blackout cases, mentally disordered, etc., have and presently continue to legally drive automobiles on our Nation’s highways.

Presen t st atus

Only a very few jurisdictions curr ently reexamine licensed drivers. In most areas this is a touchy subject and is not a particul ar popular cause. Its lack
90 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

of popularity, however, is not the measure of its importance. We are presently 

obta ining information as to the sta tus of Sta te activity in this area.

The objective

In this case, the AMVETS objectives would again be a uniform Sta te law 

requiring the periodic phy sica l exam ination of driver s at the time of rev alidation or renewal of opera tor permits. Although considerable research is ahea d, 

it would seem most logical to base all licensing upon the submission of a medical 

form signed by a physician. The content and exact nature of the form yet to 

be determined, however, in any case the individual would be requ ired to obtain 

the required exam ination at his own expense from a duly licensed physician. 

The AM VETS program

Generally, this p rogram would follow the lines of the inspection project. Th at 

is to say, legislative impleme ntation on National and State levels. In this case, 

however, local projects would follow some additional and different lines. For 

example, the supp ort of the medical profession might well be enlisted in the 

form of encouraging doctors to speak on the subject at the community level. 

At all levels, gre at care would necessarily be req uired to avoid misunderstanding 

and resulting resistan ce on the pa rt of aged and handicapped segments of the 

population. This also applies in the case of the en tire grou p of disabled ve terans.

ACCEPTANCE AND UTILIZATION OF SAFETY BELTS

The need

As is the case with vehicle inspection and driver exam ination, few persons 

will logically argue ag ainst the injury reducing and lifesaving value of au tomotive safety belts. The ma jor problem here is one of public acceptance.

Present status

It is encouraging to note th at in 1962 all major automobile ma nufac turers 

included belt anchors as a s tan dard item in new cars. No State or local j urisd ictions require belt use or installatio n. It is not likely th at use could even be 

effectively enforced. It is also unlikely th at required installation can be made 

a requirement on older car s. Providing th at m anufa ctu rers continue to include 

anchors will perhaps perm it the item to become a fu ture requirement as was the 

case with turn signals.

The objective

This aspect of the AMVETS safety program is, therefore , to be one of edu cation 

toward acceptance of the saf ety belt as an item which is in the self-interest of 

every car owner. Therefo re, in this instance the pre sen t belt campaign is not 

legislative and offers an entire ly different approach and objective.

TH E AMVETS PROGRAM

National level

As presently con stituted and envisioned, the national effort will be chiefly 

in the public rela tion s field. Fir st, the commander’s car will be fully equipped 

with belts. Secondly, i t is definitely possible th at for each State visit a presen ­

tat ion of a gift safety belt made up with the State emblem on the buckle 

would be made to each Governor and to each Sta te director of highway safe ty. 

State level

Again in this instance, public relations is the key theme. An effort would be 

made to have each AMVETS Sta te commander receive a safety belt in an 

appro priate presenta tion. Throughout the year, AMVETS State dep artm ents 

would give continuing reco gnition to the project by such devices as as selecting 

the “Safety Post of the Month,” etc., and as in the oth er projects, the ultimate 

recognition would be climaxed at the Sta te convention.

Post level

At the post level the impleme ntation of the safety belt program is basically 

a question of individual ingenuity. Such possibilities as mayor’s proclama tion 

of auto safety belt day or week are obvious. In a ll cases, local Dodge as well as 

oth er automobile deale rs should be willing to cooperate. Gimmick-type approaches along such lines as equipping “the rac ers ” in “soap box derbys” with 

safet y belts or arrangin g to install safety belts in school driv er training car s 

all become natu ral approach es to be utilized by local posts.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 91

Recognition

As set forth above the recognition fac tor would be pa rt of this project and 

follow the same pattern.

SUMM ARY

This memorandum rep res ents the broad outline fo r the AMVETS traffic 

saf ety program as proposed for 1961-62. It is still sub ject to change and, in 

fac t, considerable addition al information is presently being gathered. Th ere ­

fore, as the project develops other materials will be incorporated.

The Chairman. The Chair would like to than k you for a very fine 

statement and would like to thank you and your organization for the 

work that you are doing in this field.

I know you have traveled all over the country many times. I wonder if you believe that there is widespread demand for this type of 

legislation and effort on the part of the Federal Government?

Mr. Russell. I firmly believe there is, Mr. Chairman. I think tha t 

this has to be spearheaded by Federal action. I thin k that there is a 

great awareness of this peril on both the highway and in the home, 

and there is a real need and demand for something to be done about it, 

but I do think it has to be spearheaded by congressional action.

The Chairman. I)o you find in your contacts with other organizations in groups tha t many times they ask the question: Well, what can 

we do about the problem ?

Mr. Russell. Yes; I do, sir. And this is one question th at is difficult to find an answer to because of the lack of coordination between 

the various groups. Everyone, of course, is interested in one sense 

or another in this problem and tha t question, of course, is asked: 

“Wh at can we do?” And there are many organizations that do an 

outstanding job of promoting various aspects, of course, of this whole 

safety program, especially on the highway.

The Chairman. Do you believe the type of coordination and bringing together of loose ends that would be afforded by this bill would 

make a valuable contribution to the whole problem of accident prevention ?

Mr. Russell. Very much, Mr. Chairman. Very, very much. I 

think this will be the first concentrated attem pt to bring together and 

evaluate this most im por tant information and to spur the programs 

on. I think it would give great encouragement and assistance to 

many, many organizations and individuals, both private and public 

organizations, throughout the country.

The Chairman. Do you feel that this bill would infringe on the 

work o f other organizations or would duplicate work that is already 

being done?

Mr. Russell. Not a b it, sir. In fact, I think it would help rather 

than infringe in any sense of the word. It would help inspire other 

organizations to ca rry on. It would take th eir results and take their 

programs and attempt to spread this around. I do not see any conflict 

in any sense of the word, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Than k you very much.

Mr. Nelson ?

Mr. Nelson. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, want to join the chairman in commending you, Mr. Russell, 

on this statement, and the fact that I thin k you pointed up very 

80 62 4— 62 ------ 7
92 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

vividly the problem. Some of us, I think, in this country accept as 

pa rt of our way of li fe all of this damage and the death that results 

because we are living in a very fast age, and not too much has been 

done in th is line certainly in comparison with the death and damage 

that is caused by accidents.

I agree with your statement tha t we must have a coordinated attack 

on this problem, and I personally appreciate your interest and the 

help you are giving th e committee.

Mr. Russell. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman. Tha nk you again. It has been a pleasure to have 

you with us this morning.

Our next witness is Air. Robert E. O’Brien, president, Bio-Dynamics, Inc., 1 Main Street, Cambridge, Mass.

Mr. O’Brien.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. O’BRIE N, PRESIDENT,

BIO-DYNAMICS, INC.

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Chairman and members o f the subcommittee, I 

am Robert E. O’Brien, president of Bio-I)ynamics, Inc., in Cambridge,

Mass.

I would like to address myself to what I feel will be the technical 

contribution of the proposed center to the field of accident prevention.

There is a great deal of evidence, to my mind, which suggests important benefits to be expected from an increased effort in accident prevention research, and it appears to me that the establishment of the 

proposed Accident Prevention Research Center would be an im portant 

step in achieving the greater level of technical effort in the field.

The center could first promote greater interest in problems within 

the field of accident prevention research in the professional communities which can contribute to the solution of these problems. The 

technical challenge and the importance of these problems must be 

communicated effectively to the scientists and engineers whose work 

is needed.

In addition, the proposed center could support the technical efforts 

of workers in this area bv providing direct technical assistance—as 

framed in the terms of H.R. 133—such as information exchange, train ­

ing of workers, and so forth. Furthermore, by carrying out int ramural research, the center would serve to provide answers which are 

needed, and generate related and succeesing research by other groups 

outside of the center. And finally, of course, the center could suppor t technical efforts of workers in this area by financial support v

through grants and research contracts which can help to insure tha t 

the work which needs to be done is, in fact, done.

In summary, it appears to me that the intramural research and the 

technical administration functions proposed for the center in H.R. |

133 will contribute importantly to reducing the effects of accidents on 

public health.

I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present 

our views in support of H.R. 133.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

What type of an organization is Bio-Dynamics, Inc. ?

Air. O'Brien. We are a research organization, sir, of engineers and 

psychologists addressing problems within the area termed “human
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 93

factors engineering.” So this, of course, suggests our technical interest in the problems relating to accident prevention.

The Chairman. I thank you very much, Mr. O’Brien, for your 

appearance. We appreciate you r coming here.

Are there questions ? Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Mr. O’Brien, are you doing any research 

now on accident prevention in your organization ?

Mr. O’Brien. Yes; we are. Our immediate interest is in the area of 

automobile safety. Representative of the projects that we are working on is a technique to monitor the alertness of an automobile driver. 

Another project of ours is in the area of automobile driving simulation. There are a lot of problems in this area of automobile safety 

concerning the effective integration of the human operator in the 

automobile driving situation which are of real interest to us.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Now who sponsors these studies for you?

Mr. O'Brien. We have one private sponsor and we have one Government sponsor. I think this is fairly typical of the field at the present time. There are a number of private associations, insurance companies, industrial corporations, and others which are sponsoring outside work by groups like ours which is needed to promote their own 

particu lar safety interest.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. What governmental department is involved ?

Mr. O'Brien. The Public Health Service.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. You are working with the Public Health 

Service ?

Mr. O’Brien. Right.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. Do you coordinate your work with the National Safety Council ?

Mr. O'Brien. We have attended conferences sponsored by the National Safety Council. And when you refer to coordinating our work 

with others, I would like to point out the usefulness of the technical 

literature of the work of our group and others which is presented 

for the use of all of us.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Who publishes that ?

Mr. O’Brien. In our own immediate field the Journal of the Human 

Factor Society frequently trea ts of technical work relating to safety.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How often is that publication-----

Mr. OBrien. It is published quarterly.

In addition to this journal I would draw your attention to the 

professional journals in the medical areas, which are beyond my immediate competence, and the journals at the more applied level in 

the field of safety itself, which provide information on work being 

done at a very applied level.

Mr. R( xiers of Florida. Do you have difficulty finding personnel, 

trained personnel, for this type of work ?

Mr. O'Brien. Yes, indeed. This is a very real problem. I suggest 

that one of the very useful functions of the center will be to provide 

professional training. This tr ain ing can be done in a number of ways: 

inhouse training, sponsoring conferences and assisting university resea rch es who will, in time, make important contributions to the field 

and so forth. So certainly there is need for more trained people to 

my mind.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Do you think we need more coordination 

on our research work lieing done in this country on accident prevention ?
94 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Mr. O’Brien. In my opinion there is need for more coordination. 

But I want to qualify my endorsement of the need fo r coordination by 

saying th at one must always be careful in research t ha t one’s coordination effort does not become a dictating kind of effort.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. Well, I suppose th at is so with all research.

Mr. O’Brien. Precisely. This is why I wanted to make the qualification.

I would say, yes; there is need for greater coordination, greater 

exchange of information among people working in different fields 

related to accident prevention research.

And one final point in the area of coordination is th at a great deal 

is going on in fields apparen tly unrelated to accident prevention research—work which is relevant and which frequently the worker in 

accident prevention research may not know about. And a worthwhile 

function of the center, might very well to be certain tha t the technologies developing in other fields are brought into the field of accident prevention research.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Thank you very much.

Tha nk you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Mr. Schenck.

Mr. Sciienck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O’Brien, I am sorry I did not get to hear your entire statement, but I shall be very interested in reading it carefully.

I understand that in your reply to our colleague, the distinguished 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rogers, you indicated that p art of your 

work was privately financed and part by Government funds.

Mr. O’Brien. Right, sir.

Mr. Sciienck. What percentage is privately financed ?

Mr. O’Brien. May I first request tha t in your interpretation of 

my answer, would you bear in mind that we are a small organization, 

and in considering whatever statistics apply to us one could not at all 

infe r national figures from them.

But at the present time about one-third of our work is privately 

sponsored and about two-thirds Government sponsored.

Air. Schenck. Would you prefer not to reveal the source of the 

private financing?

Air. O’Brien. I would, sir, simply because I would want to ask our 

sponsor before submitting it to you. I would certainly be glad to 

provide it for you later upon checking with our sponsor.

Mr. Sciienck. Thank you.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

Bio-Dynam ics , I nc., 

Cambridge, Mass., February 14,1962.

Hon. Kenne th A. R oberts,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Committee on Interstate and

Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Roberts : In my testimony before your subcommittee on 

February 7, I withheld an item of information in responding to a question asked 

by Congressman Schenck. His question concerned the identity of the nonGovernment sponsor of our accident prevention research wo rk; I felt it proper 

to request permission of our sponsor before providing this information.

The following statement can be inserted in the record :

“The work is being supported by Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Liberty 

Mutual has been well known for its own work and support of others in accident 

prevention research for many years. If the results of our automobile driver 

alertness monitoring project ap pears valuable, the company will make our reports 

available to other workers in the field.”
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 95

I would like to tak e thi s opportu nity to tha nk you, you r colleagues, and the 

clerk of the committee for enab ling me to presen t our view on H.R. 133. Your int ere st in accident prevention is extremely encouraging to us who are working in the field. I am personally gra teful for your courtesy. If our organization 

can be of technical ass ista nce to you at any time, please let me know.

Very tr uly yours,

Robert E. O’Bbie n, Pr esi den t.

Mr. Sciienck. Do you feel, Mr. O'Brien, tha t the Federal Government should assume the responsibility for all the expense of all this 

research work ?

Mr. O'Brien. I would answer your question, sir, by saying tha t 

there is a great deal of work which needs to be done. There is, I feel, 

as I suggested in my statement, a great deal of value to be obtained 

by the public from an increased effort in accident prevention research. 

And the nature of this increased effort is such that it will involve 

people from many different disciplines, medical scientists, psychologists, engineers, and others. There will be people working in many 

different research groups and laboratories througho ut the country.

Now it seems to me that in order to make this total effort most effective there is a real need for a central organization to assume a kind 

of technical responsibility for this effort and to assist where help is 

needed. So that I say there is a need in an expanded program fo r a 

central assisting, supporting function, a function which provides 

exchange of information, which does research itself and, in general, 

makes itself available to researchers like ourselves and like the many, 

many other groups that are working in the field. The need is there. 

Whether or not it be the responsibility of the Federal Government 

to fulfill this need is an importa nt question. In my own opinion this 

is a case where the national interest is best served by having the 

Public Health Service assume this responsibility.

Mr. Sciienck. How much of this work is being done by States 

and local communities?

Mr. O’Brien. Sir, I just do not know the figures. I know that within many State health departments there are active and ongoing programs with valuable projects whose end is reducing the loss caused 

by accidents. But there are men who know far better than I what 

the facts and figures are and the extent of this activity. I just do 

not know.

Mr. Schenck. Assuming that there is great merit to your position 

for need of centralized supervision, control, cooperation in the matter of safety research, do you feel the Government is justified in doing 

tha t and borrowing the money in order to do it?

Mr. O'Brien. May I first, sir, take exception, a very limited exception, to a comment of yours where you stated the function as being 

one of control, and words to that effect. I feel very strongly that this 

Center must indeed not be a controlling organization. It must be a 

supporting and assisting organization. There is all the difference in 

the world, I think, bet ween the two.

Mr. Schenck. Well now, do you feel tha t the Federal Government is justified in spending money without some control ?

Mr. O'Brien. Yes; I believe that for every dollar which is spent 

by the Center, the Center must assume responsibility for that dollar 

being well spent.

Mr. Schenck. How would you assume the money was well spent 

if it did not have control ?
96 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Mr. O’Brien. Some of the functions, sir, which I feel would be 

fulfilled by the proposed center, would be tra inin g and the sponsoring of technical conferences. In these areas it would appear to me 

tha t the expense or the investment would go into training people 

and one could not hope to control the future productivity of these 

people, th at is, their future fruitfulness. One could train people and 

hope and expect tha t they would, indeed, pay off the investment in 

time. But one could not hope to control that expense in the ultimate 

sense.

There are certainly other kinds of expenses where rigid control is 

virtually mandatory where expenditure is made for the performance. of a certain piece of work. Then, indeed, control is required.

But in the largest context it seems to me that the function is to 

encourage, support, and assist, and whether it is r igh t for the Federal Government to perform this function I admit is a very real 

question. To my own mind, the need is there and the need would be 

well fulfilled by the established capability of the Public Health 

Service.

Mr. Schenck. Mr. O’Brien, the chairman of the Education and 

Labor Committee, a few’ days ago announced tha t 43 agencies of 

the Federal Government are spending in excess of $2 billion a year on 

Federal aid to educational programs of various kinds. You indicate 

about the training of additional personnel. Do you think it justifies 

an increase of that $2 billion still further?

Mr. O’Brien. Sir, I do not know7

. I do not know what the expense 

of the proposed training activ ity of the center would be and how7

tha t dollar amount would compare to the total technical educational 

effort. I simply do not know the facts, sir.

Mr. Schenck. Do you have any information, Mr. O'Brien, as to 

the value in the saving of lives or injuries as a result of increased 

expenditures of such funds as provided in this proposed legislation ?

Mr. O’Brien. Again there are people who know the statistics better 

than I, and 1 think this is a case where statistics could be a very real 

help.

Let me simply draw7

 your attention to the enormous progress made 

in certain of our industries which wrere once highly hazardous where 

accidents were expensive in terms of people and in terms of dollars. 

And through research and development on the part of men w ithin 

these industries the accident rate has been cut drastically. I would 

say th at we have evidence from tha t area and others tha t an increase 

in technical effort can be considered an investment on which there is 

to be a return.

Mr. Schenck. I think the fact tha t you indicated this accident 

prevention research was financed from within the industry is 

important.

Mr. O’Brien, ft is, indeed, sir, and this broad effort and cooperation must continue.

Mr. Schenck. Thank you very much.

The Chairman. Mr. O’Brien, while it is hard to measure dollarwise 

values t ha t might be obtained from a better type of research or more 

coordination, isn’t it true that for every life we save, and for every 

person whose time in the hospital would be reduced, or who might 

be prevented from going to the hospital in the first place, that many
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 97

of those dollars would show up on the tax rolls, not on the States but 

on the Federal Government?

Mr. O’Brien. Sir, I think this is a very good argument. Perhaps 

the largest one is the one which you cited earlier; namely, how is one going to measure the value of having prevented the loss of a human life or human suffering. But there certainly is an economic measure, as you say. People who do not have accidents are not on the public 

roll.

The Chairman. Of course, I haven’t the figures, but I would be glad 

to supply them for the record, but we have been spending probably billions of dollars on such things as the hoof-and-mouth disease, the fire ant, and many other things in the agricultural field, yet isn’t it true tha t we spend, by comparison, very little in the field which, to 

my mind, is much more important ?

Mr. O’Brien. I think this is altogether true, sir. And I think it 

natu rally raises the question: Why is this so? Everyone knows accidents are expensive. Why, indeed, hasn’t there been a greater amount of effort in the past? In my opinion it is because accident prevention is an extremely complex problem. It is different from most of the other things which affect public health, and its very com­ plexity has frustrate d efforts of people. Perhaps the service of the center in defining what are the problems, will permit a more orderly 

and frui tful attack.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Mr. Chairman ? I just want to comment, too, that according to testimony before the committee that was presented yesterday, in line with what you are saying, the complex problem that we have has made many people, I think, shy away and not even want to face up to this problem. They are willing to spend some money, for instance, even the Federal Gov­ ernment, to do research on cancer, heart, and the specific diseases where they think research may bring about a solution. But this is such a complex problem that, as you say, some people just would rath er not even look at it. Yet we have, according to the testimony, 92,000 accidental deaths every year and 46 million accidental injuries! every y ear with a loss estimated at some $13 billion to this country. And I think we are beginning to realize the problem we have and 

how little we have done.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. O’Brien.

Mr. O'Brien. Thank you.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Robert O'Brien follow’s :)

Statement of Robert E. O’Brien, President, Bio-Dynam ics, I nc.

The magnitude of losses caused by accidents—whether measured in terms of human suffering or in an economic dimension—suggests the need for increased technical activity addressed to defining the causes and developing sound methods of accident prevention. An increase in our annual investment in accident pre­ vention research is bound to reduce the effects of accidents on the public health, when we consider the benefits already gained from research efforts in this area. The contributions which have resulted, from large-scale research in other areas of public health—such as the work done and supported by the National Insti­ tutes of Health—gives further encouragement to my expectation that there will be a substantial return on an increased investment in accident prevention 

research.
98 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

This expanded work must be charact erized by a bre adth of technical effort 

if it is to be fru itfu l. The problem s which are to be solved demand the coord ina ted contribution of medical scienti sts, psychologists, engineers, and oth er 

specialists. Not only mu st the re be workers from a variety of disciplin es engaged in this progra m to reduce the haz ard of accidents, but the problems to be 

add ress ed represe nt many levels of technical work. There are, for example, 

many questions to be ans wered which requ ire fai rly basic resea rch, and, the re 

is also much work to be done at the very applied level in developing ways of 

implementing accid ent preven tion knowledge.

A third imp orta nt ch arac ter ist ic of resea rch direc ted tow ard the prevention 

of acci dent s is the existence of many technical orga niza tions which, historic ally 

and curr entl y, con tribu te vital ly to our nationa l effort in thi s area . Certain ly 

fu tu re programs in acciden t prev entio n resea rch must be designe d to encourage 

the work of university , ind ust ria l, government, and oth er qualified group s inter ested in ra isin g s tan da rd s of safety.

It app ears to me th at the esta blis hment of an Accident Prev entio n Rese arch 

Center carryin g out the plan ning , coordination, and in tra mur al researc h function s describ ed in II.R. 133 can be a very effective mean s of insu ring a continu ing, direc ted accid ent preven tion rese arch program.

In disch argin g its program planning responsibility, the Center can serve the 

field by establishing objectives f or accident prevention rese arch , and by iden tify ­

ing problems on which work ough t to he done. Pre sen tation of problems to 

the technical community, described in terms of pote ntia l payoff of successful 

res ults, estim ates of feasibilit y, and evalu ation of resou rces require d to provid e 

mea ning ful results, may well promote subs tant ially grea ter intere st in safe ty 

rese arch, as well as serv ing to coordinat e (in so far as thi s may be desirab le) 

the efforts of independen t grou ps now carryin g out research rela ting to accident prevention. Several of the other functions of the proposed Center as 

envisioned in the tex t of H.R. 133, such as technical info rma tion exchange, and 

personne l training , will fu rt he r serve the ends of promoting greater int ere st in 

the field and fac ilit ating the work underta ken by the man y capabl e private and 

Gover nment labo ratories.

Beyond the valuable role which it can play in planning and coor dinating 

a long-ran ge accide nt prev enti on research effort, the Center ought to be a dire ct 

con trib uto r to tec hnical advance s in th is field.

By gra nts and oth er mea ns of financial supp ort the Cen ter can dire ct the 

tec hni cal contributions of lab ora tories to specific problem s or are as in which 

work is now needed. Undoubtedly, for many reasons, the work which mu st be 

done at a given time cann ot alwa ys be carried out by the Center through its 

pro gram coordination or research gra nt functions. The Cen ter must have the 

cap ability to carr y out researc h and development itself . Whil e giving the pro ­

posed Center the means for car rying out int ram ura l research can be justified 

on the basis of program technical needs alone, the re are imp ort ant side effects 

whic h such r esear ch activities provide.

Intra mur al resea rch will tend to mainta in a level of technical competence 

in the overall program, enhancing the program planning and gra nt adm inistration function of the Center. The very existence of a multidisc iplined techn ical 

orga niza tion addressin g its elf to accident preve ntion research can also be a 

use ful stim ulan t to othe r worke rs in the field. Fina lly, and not unim porta ntly, 

th e presence of an ongoing res ear ch progr am will serve to at tr ac t and ma intain 

cap able staff personnel.

The Chairman. Our next witness is Mr. James E. Aaron of Carbondale, Ill.

Mr. Aaron. I understand you have a plane reservation and I am sure 

the subcommittee will take that into account.

STATEMENT OF JAM ES E. AARON, COORDINATOR, SAF ETY CENTER, 

SOUTHERN IL LI NO IS UN IVER SIT Y. CARBONDALE, ILL.

Mr. Aaron. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am 

James E. Aaron, coordinator, Safety Center, Southern Illinois 

University.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 99

In the interest of time I would like permission to delete certain 

par ts of my testimony because it would, in a sense, be duplication of 

some of the items th at have been mentioned previously this morning.

Mr. Roberts. With out objection tha t may be done.

Mr. Aaron. Fir st of all I w’ould like to commend the committee 

for its interest and previous work in matters related to the field of 

accident prevention. Specifically, I would like to single out the 

hearings related to driver education and research needs in traffic 

safety.

I should like to state initiall y that I do not object to the intent of 

H.R. 133, that is, that of establishing a National Accident Prevention 

Center. However, I do have some objections and reservations about 

certain stated functions, some aspects of the proposed administrative 

structure, and some other perplexing statements tha t I found in 

the bill and I would like to attempt to clarify some of these matters.

In the proposed title, “National Prevention Center,” the implication is made tha t this is a groad, comprehensive accident-prevention 

program, including traffic, home, industrial, and what have you. If 

my information is correct, the intent of II.R. 133 does not cover such 

program developments. It is my understanding that such a Center 

would be essentially a research oriented operation.

Secondly, the intent of section 382(2) is not sufficiently clear. The 

stated function, “promote the coordination of research and control 

programs conducted by public and private agencies, organizations, and 

individuals” seems to infringe upon one’s freedom to design and 

conduct research studies supported through Federal funds. Perhaps 

the term “control” is what concerns me most. I believe this was pointed 

out by the previous witness. Moreover, in section 382(3) it is not clear 

as to whether or not the facilities mentioned are currently available 

or will be developed or made available as a result of this Center establishment. It seems to me that if the latter is the case it might be wiser 

to utilize existing facilities, such as the National Safety Council, in 

order to assist in the development of their facilities; this also would 

assist institutions of higher learning where a capability for the conduct 

of sound research has already been established.

I believe that in section 382(5) we find a duplication, at least it seems 

to me that there will be a duplication, of services already in existence 

from a number of our public and private agencies. Here again it 

seems to be more feasible to use the approach of existing agencies such 

as the National Safety Council, the National Commission on Safety 

Education of our National Education Association, to expand and/o r 

refine their current research publications, materials, and library facilities in order to eliminate this duplication of effort.

At this point I would like to more or less ask a question, and I do 

this out of my own ignorance. The statement is made th at “donations 

will be accepted by the center from various sources, and I am wondering if this is an acceptable as well as a desirable practice for various 

divisions or departments of the Federal Government. This is a 

question I simply ask and to which I should like to receive an answer.

It would seem to me tha t it would be more desirable if such gifts, 

if known, were diverted to institutions of higher learning, and the 

various agencies qualified to conduct accident prevention research.
100 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

I thin k we are all aware of the fact tha t all such institutions and 

agencies, are in dire need of financial support, and this would be a 

means of cooperating and, in a sense, giving them a helping hand.

Another comment that I should like to make at this point, is related 

to the Accident Prevention Advisory Board established under section 

384(a -1). This seems to be a duplication of the existing Accident 

Prevention Advisory Committee of the U.S. Public Health Service.

If this be the case, one of these Boards is unnecessary.

I should like to summarize my comments as follows: I would 

approve, or do approve, of the establishment of a center by the Federal 

Government. However, since research will be its prim ary function,

I suggest that it would be advisable to include this term in whatever 

title selected. Secondly, I would suggest tha t one of the major functions of the center be tha t of cooperating and assisting in the development of research programs in existing safety centers and agencies 

concerned. Thirdly, I would recommend that one of the major functions of such a Federal center should be that of making available 

funds for the conduct of accident prevention research by qualified, 

established institutions and agencies. It does not seem advisable to 

me th at we develop one super research center under the aegis of the 

Federal Government. It would seem to me to be a more feasible 

approach if we had a number of smaller research centers strategically 

located so that all the States would have access to at least one of these 

center operations in their general area of the Nation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Aaron.

As to your question of whether or not it is an accepted practice for 

the Federal Government to receive gifts in this relation, I think, No. 1, 

it is an accepted practice. I think. No. 2, as to how these gifts should 

lie handled, that it would depend, certainly, upon the intent of the 

donor. Whether it would be a trust or a private individual, I think 

the wishes of the person making the gift should certainly have a great 

deal to do with how the donation or money, or thing of th at value, is 

handled by the Government- I think whatever advisory board or 

committee the Surgeon General has advising him would advise him 

as to what control the donor placed on the gift to begin with, and 

whether or not it should be given to a specific institution or used at 

the center. It would depend on, first of all, what the donor wanted 

done with it, or what the document prescribed, whether it be a will or 

deed or whatever it might be.

I agree with you in that I do not think this center should displace 

private institutions. I do not think that is the intent of the bill at all.

I think it is intended that we have, that we need to have, some central 

agency that can know what is going on in other departments of the 

Government. Now we have, of course, as you know, in Labor the mine 

safety, we have certain work being conducted in the Bureau of Public fc

Roads that has an engineering aspect to it, and we have, I suppose, 

quite a bit of research in the Department of Agriculture. I think 

what we need to do is try and find some one center where these things 

can be evaluated.

1 do not mean to say we would want to displace what Labor is doing, 

or what Commerce is doing, or what these other departments are doing. or what Defense is doing, hut I do think that at the present time
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER 101

all this is scattered over the lot and we do not know whether we are getting any value for the tax dollar tha t is being invested, in these various expenditures. So I think this type of center could perforin a very valuable service. But I assure you it certainlv is not my intent in presenting a responsible bill to do away with the National Safety Council or with the NEA, or with any other group tha t is trying to do 

work in this field. Do the gentlemen of the subcommittee desire to question ? Mr. 

Schenck.

Mr. Schenck. 1 have just one short, quick question. You have answered some very interesting questions and made 

some very interesting observations. Now after you get all the results of this engineering and psycholog­ ical information on accidents and how to prevent them, how do you transf er that to the teenagers driving on the highway and to drivers 

who apparently have such an irresponsible attitude ?

Mr. Aaron. This is one of those ever-present points of confusion. 

It seems to me that the application of research findings is one of the very real problems. As I recall, one other witness called this to our attention. It seems to me that we need to establish a closer liaison, so to speak, with those groups, agencies, if you please, that are working with, let’s say, the high school driver education program, with our State departments of education, departments of public safety where this information could be taken and utilized in some practical fashion, rather than have it collect dust, if you please, on the shelves in the 

libraries.

Mi-. Schenck. Is it a question of law enforcement ?

.Mr. Aaron. I think enforcement is part of the total accident prevention picture. The m atter of training enforcement personnel to ac­ cept their responsibility and train these people to do the job is vital 

to the accident prevention effort.

Mr. Schenck. Do you feel that a national uniform traffic code 

would be part of the answer ?

Mr. Aaron. Well, we have a uniform vehicle cotie which covers 

this to a certain extent, and 1 think we are all aware of the various problems that we have seen as a result of trying to get various States to adopt the code. And I suspect we would have similar problems 

here.

Mr. Schenck. May I ask you this same question : Do you feel that 

the Federal Government is justified in borrowing $5 million, or what­ ever it eventually requires fo r this program to be put into effect ?

Air. Aaron. In my own personal judgment, yes, sir. Because I am 

personally sold on the tremendous need for accident prevention ac­ tivity nationwide, and if this is going to help us get the job done, then 

I would certainly approve.

Mr. Schenck. Now as a taxpayer, then, you are perfectly willing to 

increase the national debt which is to be paid by future generations in 

order to do this at this time ?

Mr. Aaron. If that were the only way, yes. But I am not so sure 

I would be in favor of increasing the national debt.

Mr. Schenck. All right, thank you.

The Chairman. Mr. Rogers has a question.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Of course, as you say, Mr. Aaron, mavbe 

if we borrowed from national defense this could be partly paid out of
102 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

taxes coming in. But it just depends on what emphasis we place on 

it I suppose.

I note the fact you are coordinator of the Safety Center of Southern 

Illinois University. Is that correct ?

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. What do you do to coordinate your research ?

Mr. Aaron. Actually, I assist at the present time, our psychology 

department and others in the development of research proposals.

Air. Rogers of Florida. In other words, you have need of some coordination there?

Mr. Aaron. Yes. They look to me and I assist them in any way 

tha t I can. Ultimately I hope to have one or possibly two people on 

my staff who are capable of conducting research within the center 

operation itself.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Now, do I understand tha t you see a need 

for some coordination, for instance, in all the work being done in the 

Federal Government?

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir; I would say that.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. Just as you have some coordination in your 

area?

Mr. Aaron. Yes.

Air. Rogers of Florida. I do agree with you tha t we must keep the 

various programs of research going on, such as at your university and 

the others.

Do you obtain any money from the Federal Government for your 

research ?

Mr. Aaron. To date, no.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. None at all. Did you apply for some?

Air. Aaron. AVe are in the process of making application now.

Air. Rogers of Florida. With what department or departments? 

Public Health?

Air. Aaron. Public Health ; yes, sir.

Air. Rogers of Florida. What particular research is going on that 

you think might be beneficial to meet some of the problems in accident 

prevention ? Could you give us an idea of maybe one or two projects?

Air. Aaron. I have been particularly impressed with the work a t 

Harvard . Dr. Aloseley is present and I am certain he can enlighten 

us on his project development.

And, the research program at the Traffic Institute of Northwestern 

has been a particularly interesting one in the past few years. Moreover, New York University, center for safety education, has been a 

leader for many years.

Air. Rogers of Florida. I was thinking more particularly of the 

work that is going on at your university, Southern Illinois. Could you 

perhaps mention two or three projects for the record ?

Air. Aaron. At the moment I have to say we have no projects 

underway.

Air. Rogers of Florida. But you are contemplating some ?

Air. Aaron. Yes, sir. If I may add, we have three major program 

areas and this is the one tha t we have intentionally delayed.

Air. Rogers of Florida. I see. Thank you very much.

Air. Roberts. Thank you, Air. Aaron.

Our next witness is Dr. R. H. Hutcheson of the Tennessee State 

Health Association, Nashville, Tenn.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 103

The Chair would like to state tha t I have received a letter from 

Greg O’Rear, commissioner of safety, State of Tennessee, which contains an endorsement of the bill and he asks permission for it to be 

inserted in the record with Dr. Hutcheson’s testimony. Without 

objection I will offer that for the record.

(The letter from Greg O ’Rear, commissioner of Tennessee, follows:)

Tenn essee H igh wa y P atrol, 

Nashville, Tenn., February 5, 1962.

Representative Ken ne th A. R oberts,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, House Committee on Interstate

and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Dear Representative Roberts : I have read the testimony written by Dr.

R. II. Hutcheson in sup por t of H.R. 133 and would like to add my endorsement 

to the testimony th at Dr. Hut cheson proposes to give before your subcom mittee 

in fav or of this bill for the e stab lish men t of a n acciden t prev entio n center.

Yours very truly,

Greg O’Rear, Commissioner.

STATEMENT OF R. H. HUTCHESON, M.D., TENNESSEE STATE H EALTH 

ASSOCIATION, NASHVILLE, TENN.

Dr. Hutcheson. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

if I may I would like to submit to the committee the formal statement 

which has been prepared and duplicated, and assume that the committee will read this, and then with emphasis on two parts of the bill 

give a few remarks which are not included in this testimony. Is tha t 

hi order, sir ?

The Chairman. That is in order.

(The prepared statement of Dr. R. H. Hutcheson is as follows:)

Stateme nt of Dr. R. H. H utcheson

My name is R. II. Hutch eson. I am a doctor of medicine, specializing in the 

field of preventive medicine an d public hea lth. I have the honor of being the 

commissioner of public hea lth for the Sta te of Tennessee and have been since 

1943. I am chairman of the Infectiou s Dise ase Comm ittee for the Sta te and 

Te rri toria l Hea lth Officers Asso ciatio n and am a pa st pre sid ent of this assoc iation.

My testim ony is given in beh alf of the Sta te and Te rri toria l Health Officers 

Association, the Tennessee De par tment of Public Hea lth, and myself p ersonally.

I have read II.R. 133 and am prep ared to give testimon y in favor of this hill.

You have undoubtedly read the alarmin g sta tis tic s concerning death s, inju ries , 

economic loss, huma n suffer ing, and waste of labo r pot ent ial due to accidents. 

Witho ut burdening you wit h a mas s of figures, let me quote you only three 

sta tem ent s which emphasize the cost to us as a nat ion in lives, suffering, and 

dollars.

(1 ) A tota l of 91,000 pers ons are killed in acci dent s in the United Sta tes 

each year.

(2 ) Accidents cause 46 million inju ries each year , 10 million of which 

ar e bed disabling.

(3 ) Accidents cost $13 billion per year, as a res ult of lost wages, medical 

and ho spita l expenses, and pro per ty damage. 1

Let me emphasize th at thes e figures can only continue to rise with passing 

time unles s we do someth ing abo ut it, because we will have more people (a 

lar ger propo rtion of the aged and the youn g), more automobiles, more elec trical 

gadgets, more poisonous agen ts, more people p art ici patin g in leis ure time activities and sports, and so on. Th ere is no doubt bu t th at we live in a world of 

uni ver sal risk to accidents.

1

 AU figures from “Accidents Fa cts ,” 1960 ed., National Safety Council.
1 0 4 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

On e of th e mos t ba sic th in gs we ca n do is to es ta bl is h a N at io nal Accide nt 

Pre ven tion R es ea rch C en te r w ithin th e Pub lic H ea lth Se rvice to :

(1 ) D eter m in e th e ca use s of ac ci de nt s as re la te d to th e tyi>e of ac tivi ty 

invo lved in va ri ous ag e gr ou ps. T hi s se qu en ce of w or ds m ak es a st at em en t 

which so un ds re la tive ly si m pl e bu t th e co nn ot at io ns are comp lex . Inv olved 

in such re se ar ch is th e quest to id en tify th e m ultip lici ty of fa ct ors wh ich 

affect hu m an m ot ivat ion. B ri ef co ns ul ta tion w ith an y re se ar ch er in the 

are a of hu m an m ot iv at io n w ill soo n co nv inc e one th a t su ch fa ct ors ar e no t 

only hard to define an d cl as si fy , but it is eq ua lly dif fic ult to de term in e th eir 

id en tity . Ho we ver, th e det erm in ati on of su ch fa cto rs is mos t ba sic in or der 

th a t we can develop posi tive att it u d es to w ar d sa fe livi ng in coming ge ne ra ­

tions an d ch an ge th e a tt it u d e s of thos e who al re ad y ha ve de velop ed ha bits 

of haz ar dou s living .

(2 ) As ide from th e id en tifi ca tion of hu m an fa cto rs an d how th ey re la te 

to sa fe or unsa fe livi ng di sc us se d above, re se ar ch de finite ly needs to be 

do ne on th e fa cto rs in th e en vi ro nm en t which contr ib ute to or ca us e ac cide nt s. May I sa y th a t we a re ad di ng to th es e fa cto rs dai ly th ro ug h sc ie ntific an d tec hn olog ical ad van ce s. De sig n an d pr od uct io n of automob ile s, 

air cra ft , po wer mo we rs, ho mes , an d clothing , as well as th e ra pi d develop ­

m en t of new ch em icals and dru gs de se rv e st ud y. It seem s log ica l to me 

th a t such stud y ca n be st be do ne on a nat io nal lev el and co or di na te d by a 

ce nt ra lize d or ga ni za tion .

(3 ) Along w ith dis co ve ring th e fa cts ab out th e ro le of hu m an fa ct ors in 

th e ca us at io n of ac ci de nt s an d ho w to im pr ov e th e sa fe ty of m an ’s en vi ro nmen t, we m us t le ar n ho w to im pr ov e his de cision -m ak ing ab il it y in va riou s 

ac ti vit ie s in th e man y a re a s of hi s en vi ro nm en t. W e m us t le ar n how to 

ap pl y w ha t we disc ov er about man an d his en vi ro nm en t in ac ci de nt pr ev en ­

tion pr og rams. Thi s th ir d a re a of re se ar ch shou ld dig de ep er in to th e us e 

of ed uc at io na l metho ds and th e bett er us e of te ch ni qu es of co mmun ication. 

At pr es en t, we are not g ett in g th ro ugh to th e pu bl ic w ith th e in fo rm at io n 

whi ch we al re ad y have. In th e field of ac ci de nt pr ev en tion , co mmun ica tio n 

is as im po rt an t as pen ic illin is in th e co ntro l of th e ve ner ea l diseases.

In th e field of re se ar ch in ac ci den t pr ev en tion we are a bout a t th e plac e whe re 

we w er e 25 ye ar s ago in our re se arc h on on e of our in fe ct io us di se as es —po lio. 

AI th a t tim e, li tt le did we kn ow ab ou t the ca us e of i>olio, es pe cially th a t th er e 

was mor e th an one vir us tha t, co ul d ca us e th e dise as e. T he mo de of v irus tr a n smission an d how th e ho st re acte d to its inva sion w as li tt le un de rs to od .

I am no t sa yi ng th at we m ust st and idle an d w ai t unti l re se ar ch is comp let e 

in th e field of ac cide nts. We hav e to us e w hat we kn ow unti l bett er metho ds 

be come av ai la bl e. In fa ct , w e wi ll ne ve r be ab le to el im in ate or pre ven t all 

ac ci den ts b ut th e tim e is ri ght fo r us to in it ia te pos itiv e ac tio n.

W hat co uld be more ap p ro p ri ate in th is c on ne ction th an th e es ta blish m en t of a 

N ational Ac cid en t Pre ve nt io n R es ea rc h Cen te r? In th is cente r a sound, sy ste m at ic , an d scientific ap pro ac h ca n be mad e to elim in at e on e of th e m aj or 

ca use s of de at h an d di sa bi lity . If we wer e ask in g fo r re se ar ch into a di se as e 

w hi ch ca us es 91,000 dea th s per y ear or ha s th e ep idem ic pro por tions of 500 per ­

so ns ki lled in one ho lida y wee ke nd , th er e wo uld be a trem en do us clam or fo r 

ac tion . On e pe rson ou t of ev er y fo ur is in ju re d an nual ly . Acc iden ts touc h 

ev er y Sta te , co un ty, co mm un ity , villa ge , ha m le t, an d al m os t ev er y home in th e 

co untr y ye ar ly . Th e av oi da nc e of ac ci de nt s de pe nd s to a muc h la rg er exte nt 

on in di vi du al un der st an din g an d ac tion th an does th e pre ve ntion of infe ctio us 

di se as es . We do no t have, nor w ill we ev er ha ve , a va cc in e w ith wh ich we can 

im m un iz e ag ai nst ac cide nts. T hus our prob lem of g ath eri ng ba si c data on which 

to pla n pr og ra m s which he lp pe op le develop under st an din gs an d m ot iv at e them 

to tak e pos itiv e a ctio n w ith re g ard to sa fe ty i s co mplica ted.

This, to me. vividly po in ts out th e ne ed fo r a cente r w he re sc ientifi c disc iplin es 

can affect a team ap pr oa ch in our first st ep to w ar d th e re duct io n of ac cide nts. 

Con du ct, prom oti on , an d co or din at io n of pu blic an d pri vate re se ar ch ef fo rts on 

th e nati onal lev el is a so un d an d econ om ica l plan . G ra nts -in-a id to in st itutions 

an d p ri v ate an d pu blic ag en ci es fo r re se ar ch will br oa de n th e ba se of our re ­

se arc h en de av or s an d allow m or e part ic ip at io n an d a w id er oppo rtun ity fo r 

ap nli cati on o f findings.

T he Su rgeo n Gen eral now h as an Adv iso ry Co mmitt ee on Ac cid en t Pre ven ­

tio n. I t is p ossib le th a t se ct io ns 3 84 an d 385 co nc erning t he Acc iden t Pr ev en tion 

A dv isor y Boa rd cou ld be re d ra ft ed givi ng th e Su rgeo n G en er al specific auth ori ty 

fo r th e ap po in tm en t of an advis ory co mmittee , bo ard, co un cil , or by w ha te ve r
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 105

na me yo u choos e to de si gna te it . I believe t h a t th is wou ld fa c il it a te a d m in is tr atio n of the hill when en ac ted. A u n it fo r re se ar ch in accid ent pr ev en tion in th e Publ ic H ealth Se rvice has been reco mmen de d by th e A m er ic an Pu blic H ealth Assoc iatio n, th e N at io nal Saf et y Co un cil an d th e A ss oc ia tio n of Sta te & T err it o ri al H ealth Officers. Our ow n S ta te he al th dep art m ent in Te nn essee en do rs es it and I pe rs on al ly fu lly en do rs e an d en co ur ag e th e es ta blish m en t of an ac ci den t pre ve nt io n re se ar ch 

ce nt er in th e Pu blic H ea lth Se rvice. The pu blic he al th officers of th e Nation are in te re st ed in pre ven ting ac ci den ts 

be ca us e of th e hig h m o rt ali ty and mor bi di ty from ac ci den ts but hav e neit h er th e st aff no r th e fin an cial re so urc es to co nd uc t re se ar ch in th is field . The S ta te hea lth officers alo ng w ith th e adm in is tr ato rs of hi gh w ay sa fe ty pro gr am s and oth er official an d nonoffic ial ag en ci es wo uld pr of it by re se arc h in th is field as co ns iu ne rs of th e fin din gs of th e re se ar ch ce nt er . The pub lic wou ld pr of it as th e find ings o f re se ar ch a re a ppli ed in sa fe ty pro gra m s re su lt in g in fe w er de at hs, 

fe w er in ju ri es , an d th e sa vi ng of billi on s of do llar s. In su m m ar y I ha ve po in te d ou t th e al ar m in g ac ci de nt prob lem, th e ne ed fo r an ac ci de nt pr ev en tion re se arc h ce nte r in th e Pub lic H ealt h Se rv ice an d th e tyi>e of re se ar ch it shou ld co nd uc t. Final ly, I hav e po in te d out th e oth er ag en ­ cie s th a t ha ve joined w ith us in th e su pp or t of su ch re se ar ch . I off er th is te sti ­ mo ny in su pport of II.R . 133. I ho pe y ou ge ntlemen feel th a t th e n eed fo r su ch 

a cente r w arr an ts the p as si ng of th is bill. I w ish to th an k th e co m m itte e fo r it s co ur te sy to me in al lo win g me to pre se nt 

th is st at em en t.

I)r. Hutcheson. Mv name is R. II. Hutcheson, T am a doctor of 

medicine, specializing in the field of preventive medicine and public health. I have the honor of being the commissioner of public health for the State of Tennessee. I have been in that position since 1943. I am chairman of the Infectious Disease Committee of the Association of State & Territorial Health Officers. My interest for the past 19 years has been in the admin istration of health services. I became interested in accident prevention some years ago when it was called to my attention by statisticians tha t accidents were the first, cause of death in the population of our State, 44 years of age and under, and that we were doing very little about it. Then I began 

discussing with my staff’ what could be done. On investigation I found that there is an interest in this field in practically every organization. I think everyone is interested in it. It. is sold of like people being against sin. We are all interested, and the tru th of the matter is, gentlemen, we do not know what to do. I have made a complete tour of my entire State of Tennessee, and took with me six of my staff members, to meet and discuss with local health personnel throughout the State a plan that we could put into effect that would reduce to some extent the terrific mortality and morbidity that we are ha ving from accidents. The t ruth of the matter is we came up with practically nothing. We can do a lot of talk ing about what ought not be done but we have not formulated any real constructive program of what can be done. And I do not know any way to do this other than to secure the interest of individuals whose primary purpose in life is to pre­ vent mortality and morbidity from accidents. I know of no agency 

better capable of doing this than the U.S. Public Health Service. In my experience I have had association and worked with most of the Federal agencies in one form or another, other than the courts 

and the investigative services, and I have found no instance in which we have had better cooperation between the States and the local 

government personnel and the Federal agency than that which exists between the U.S. Public Health Service and the health services
106 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

throu ghou t the Nation. We get irritated at times, with some of the 

things they require of us, but we realize, as has been brought out 

here this morning, that where there is money put into a program 

by a Federal agency there must be some kind of control over the 

money.

The point that I want to emphasize, and this has been emphasized 

already, is the necessity for research in this field, research that will 

tell us, not where accidents are occurring—we know that—but why, 

and how to do something about it. I think of myself and my associates as consumers of research. I believe you will find the public 

health workers through out the Nation to be a rather cautious lot of 

individuals. They are not going to accept something until it has 

been proven. We are not able either from a financial standpoint or 

from the point of view of personnel to establish research facilities 

that will give us the materials that we need to work with in a program 

of accident prevention.

We have, as you gentlemen know, research in every field tha t I 

know of tha t is causing mortality and morbidity in the medical 

field except in this particu lar instance going on rather actively at 

the Federal level of government. There is a small amount going 

on in accident prevention. It is true tha t individuals in private 

agencies are doing something. But I cannot, in our organization, 

and 1 believe we have one of the best in the Nation, set up a research 

program for this service. It would be uneconomical for us to do so 

when it could be done by one centralized agency and the information 

could then be given to all of us once it is proven to be worth while. 

Then it would be up to us to use it and to put it into effect.

I hear statements, when we get to talking about accidents, tha t 

accidents are just as inevitable as hotel green peas. I am not willing 

to accept that. While I know tha t as long as we go along in our 

do-nothing attitude, accidents are going to be an inevitable part of 

our life. But once one begins to study accidents and study the 

methods by which they can be prevented, then accidents will cease 

to happen—certainly less frequently than they formerly have been 

happening. I believe the best illustration of what can be done is 

to be found in the magnificent record of the transportation system 

we have today through the air dealing w ith what I believe to be one 

of the most hazardous instrum ents tha t has ever been made, and yet 

it has one of the best records tha t one can conceive of.

This is the result of a tremendous amount of research and effort 

that has been devoted to air safety, and the individuals who are working with airplanes. And as we progress, and we certainly shall, I 

think tha t more and more we will be living in what can very well be 

called a mechanistic jungle. Unless we start studying the hazards 

that this jungle places before every single individual who lives in it 

we are not going to do anything toward reducing this mortality. Our 

problem is not just highways. I do not know the history in other 

States, but we have in my State about one-fourth as many people 

drown every year as we have killed on the highways. It is true that, 

serious water accidents usually are fatal, whereas on the highway we 

have a tremendous amount of inju ry in addition to the fatalities. But 

we are not doing a whole lot about these. We have individuals on 

the farms who are being destroyed every year.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 1 0 7

We have a tremendous amount of morbidity from such accidents, 

and probably worst of all is the home which is supposed to be a refuge 

of safety. We have attem pted to study accidents th at occur in the 

home. When we begin to look at our results we find tha t a good bit 

of the hazards are built into the home.

I believe a research center set up to study accidents, not just highway accidents, farm accidents, or home accidents, et cetera, but all accidents, and to study ways of preventing these accidents, would be one 

of the most worthwhile things that, wTe can do in the field o f public 

health. I think it makes not a great deal of difference how many people are interested in accidents, other than tha t the more who are interested the better off we shall be. And I have no fear of someone usurping my rights in this field—if I have any in my position—by doing 

this. If it is felt that the work can be done better somewhere else, 

all right.

Personally I do not think it can. be. The health services pei'sonnel 

by and large are the ones tha t must treat these accidents once they 

occur, and are therefore most interested in prevention.

In my testimony I have said tha t I am testifying for myself personally, for the Department of Public Health of the State of Tennessee, and for the National Association of State and Territorial 

Health Officers. While I do not have the authority to speak for the 

traumatic surgeons in Tennessee, I have never been in a meeting of 

theirs where there was not something said about accident prevention. 

I am sure those gentlemen would be glad to join with us had they 

been asked to do so.

This is a tremendous thing that we have before us and I believe i t 

can be handled only by this or a similar bill. There is one area in this 

bill that I would suggest consideration by you of changing. That is 

where you provide for a board for the advisory committee.

Refer to sections 384 and 385 concerning an accident prevention 

advisory board. I think this could very well be redrafted, giving 

the auth ority for the establishment of this board to the agency in 

which his service is placed, that is, the Public Health Service, so that 

it will be closer to the service and the contact with the board will be 

more realistic.

Thank you so much, gentlemen. It is an honor for me personally 

to be permitted to come here and offer this test imony.

The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Hutcheson. We are certainly 

happy to have you before our subcommittee.

The Chair feels you have made a very valuable contribution. I 

just have one or two questions.

Let us assume tha t you have a person who is trained eithe r in the 

field of science or medicine o r as an investigator, and he is a newcomer and wants to get into this field. Now is there a single group 

with its finger on the current status of the art tha t he could go to 

and get started in this work ?

Dr. Hutcheson. Not in my field there isn’t. Of course, my information may be somewhat limited, but I know of none.

The Chairman. Do you think tha t if such an activity could be 

found in the center it would give us a base for a startin g point for 

training people in this field, whereas there is none at the present time ?

Dr. Hutcheson. If we look into the mirror of past events I think 

we can be certain tha t it will be. There are certainly individuals who 

8062 4— 62----- 8
108 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

are interested, and the establishment of a center of this nature would 

attrac t these individuals who have a burning desire to get into this 

field and work in it.

The Chairman. Now it has been mentioned here th at the National 

Safety Council does quite a bit of work in this field. Do you know 

of anywhere tha t they train people or offer them opportunities for 

training in this particula r field ?

Dr. Hutcheson. No, sir. We have worked with the National 

Safety Council, and we are pleased to have them on our side any 

time that they can help us. I have attended some of their meetings. 

However, I do not believe that the National Safety Council is in a 

position at the present time, with the limited resources they have, to 

establish a center of the kind that you have in mind in this bill.

The Chairman. One other question. What other public health 

field has not been administered by public health people as this one 

has not at the moment ?

Dr. Hutcheson. Well, sir, it would take me too lon^ to enumerate 

them—there are a number of them. If I may say this righ t now, I 

think one of the most confusing problems tha t we have today in the 

public health field is the fragmentation of health services that has 

gone on, not only at the State level—we have five different agencies in 

my S tate th at are operating health services—but a t the Federal level. 

And I think that sometimes when you want to do the Nation a real 

service, you could consolidate some of them. I would hate to see 

more of it. Accident prevention is definitely a health service field, 

and I do not like to think that there is going to be furth er fragmentation of health services.

The Chairman. Do you thin k that one advantage of such a center 

might lie that there would be less fragmentation ?

Dr. Hutcheson. Yes, sir. Yes, I certainly do.

The Chairman. That is all I have.

Congressman Schenck.

Mr. Schenck. Mr. Chairm an, I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Hutcheson’s statement. 1 think it is well based and very well presented. It is 

nice to hear from a gentleman with experience and a professional 

background such as he has, and which is closely tied in with actual 

fieldwork.

Now, Dr. Hutcheson, the various university programs, such as Cornell, Ha rvard, and others, have pretty well established information on 

some mechanical defects that cause accidents of one kind or another. 

I noticed you mentioned many accidents in the home are actually built 

in, such as throw rugs, which are well named.

Dr. H utcheson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Schenck. Now assuming that all of these mechanical things, 

overloaded electrical outlets and wiring circuits and all these various 

problems of one kind and anoth er are very well understood, then how 

do you get the necessary information over to the individual to make 

him more safety conscious?

Dr. Hutcheson. Sir, I thin k tha t that is another problem the research center must attack. Certainly we must get it to the individual, 

otherwise our work is wasted.

In the field of medicine, research workers developed for us certain 

immunizing agents, and then they developed a technique of adminis-
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 109

tration and recommended th at technique to us for carrying the service 

back to the people. There has been a tremendous amount of research 

done in the field of health administration, and that is part of a general research program.

I am not prepared this morning to answer specifically your question because I think there is a tremendous amount of study that needs 

to be done on that as well as the mechanical end of it.

Mr. Schenck. Well, professionally you feel tha t there is a possibility that that can l)e done ?

Dr. Hutcheson. 1 certainly do. May I have just one more minute 

to say something?

Of course, my attitude is influenced by medicine. If we take the simple example of diphtheria, we know that if we can develop, in the 

population, 60 percent that are immune to d iphtheria the probability 

is that we shall not have an epidemic from diphtheria. We do not have 

to get them all. By getting 60 percent we will so dilute those who 

are not immune that even if one or two contract the disease it will 

not jump like a p rairie fire to the rest of the population. I think we 

can compare accident immunization—if you will let me to use that 

ten n—to that in other immunizing fields.

When we can have the proper techniques developed for us in carrying this to the public and secure enough of the public cooperating with 

us in this, then they will be conditioned against accidents. I do not 

know whether we shall need 60 or 80 percent but certainly if we get 

a large portion of the population conscious of accidents and the way 

in which accidents can be prevented, even if it does not help those 

who have not been so conditioned, we will reduce the total number 

of accidents to the extent tha t we have done this work.

We have four big hospitals in Tennessee devoted just to tuberculosis. 

We are appropriating in our State $3.5 million a year for treatm ent 

of tuberculosis. I do not know how much the Federal Government 

is appropriating, but it is a tremendous amount, and yet we have many 

more deaths from accidents in our State than we have from tuberculosis. We have not yet gotten all of these patients who have tuberculosis to the point where they will all go to the hospital or take 

treatm ent, but we are still working on it.

Because we do not know tha t answer now, we are not too discouraged about it, I believe th at anything the human mind can conceive 

of, if enough effort is devoted to the idea it can be accomplished.

Mr. Schenck. Mr. Chairm an, I think the doctor has made a very 

fine statement.

The Chairman. The Cha ir certainly joins Congressman Schenck 

in his compliment.

Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I. too, want to commend Dr. Hutcheson on 

his statement and his helpfulness to the committee.

Thank you.

Dr. Hutcheson. Thank you.

The Chairman. Than k you very much, Dr. Hutcheson.

Our next witness is Mr. Alfred L. Moseley, department of legal 

medicine, Harv ard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

Mr. Moseley. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

'Phe Chairman. Mr. Moseley, T believe you plan to make a slide 

presentation, so maybe we better do something about that.
1 1 0 TO ESTAB LISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

STATEMENT OF ALFRED L. MOSELEY, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL 

MEDICINE, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. Moseley. 1 hav e th at arr an ge d, and I would like to review a 

few things in abo ut 3 o r 4 minutes before doing t ha t.

I have brou gh t two docum ent s which, wi th th e perm ission of the 

com mittee, I wou ld like to have includ ed in the record. Th is would 

obvia te the necessity of spen ding th e tim e in th e session this m orn ing 

coverin g details in tho se documents.

One o f these is the fo rm al testim ony a nd the secon d one is an ar tic le 

summ ari zin g wh at we ha ve accomp lished in th e l as t 3 ye ars, which was 

publi shed in the H ar var d Me dical Alum ni Bu lle tin in December p ast.

Th e attempt here is to cover as muc h material as possible in a 

sh ort space, and I am sure you will appreciat e th at conside ration.

The Chairman. W ith ou t o bjec tion, that will be done.

(T he documents ref er re d to f ollo w:)

Sta tem en t by Alfr ed L. Mose le y, D ep artm en t of Leg al Med ic in e, H arvard

Med ic al Sch oo l, B os to n, Ma ss.

Mr. Roberts, committee members, and distinguished guests, I am grateful for 

the opportunity to appear in favor of H.R. 133. This committee has established 

an outstanding record of sound concern for the health and safety of all our 

citizens in its activities in the past, and the curre nt bill offers significant accomplishmen t for the future.

The President of the United States, in his state of the Union message to the 

87th Congress on Jan uary 11, 1962, said: “In the past year, I have traveled not 

only across our own land but to other lands—to the north and the south, and 

across the seas. And I have found—as I am sure you have, in your travels—that 

people everywhere, in spite of occasional disappointment, look to us—not to 

our wealth or power, but to the splendor of our ideals. For our Nation is commissioned by history to be ei ther an observer of freedom’s failures or the cause of 

its success. Our overriding obligation in the months ahead is to fulfill the 

world’s hopes, by fulfilling our own faith.

“Tha t task must begin a t home. For if we cannot fulfill our own ideals here 

we cannot expect others to accept them. And when the youngest child alive 

today has grown to the cares of manhood, our position in the world will be 

determined first of all by wha t provisions we make today—for his education, 

his health, and his opportunities for a good home and a good job and a good 

life.”

This statement by Mr. Kennedy is relevant to our proceedings here today. 

It is a t one time, our task, our obligation, and our ideal.

PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

Purpo se

The purpose of this bill is to extend the work now being carried out by the 

Accident Study Section of the Division of General Medical Sciences of the 

Nation al Institutes of Health and the Accident Prevention Division of U.S. 

Public Health Service. It essentially does not add to any of the activities 

they are now carrying out, but rat he r makes i t possible to do a bette r job in the 

area s presently active. It does make provision for intra mural research which 

is now feasible to only a very small degree and thus a presen t source of considerable frustration to some very fine scientists who would like to be carrying 

on some research with their other duties.

Provisio ns

There are essentially six provisions in the bill as it is now written hinged 

upon two terms. The word “acciden t” is the fundamental concept of the bill 

and it is without definition as to scope. Thus, accidents of all types are the 

subject matter of the center. The two terms which are concerned with this
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONA L ACCIDENT PRE VEN TIO N CENT ER 1 1 1

focus of interest are “causes” and “prevention.” The six area s of activity 

concerned with research into accidents then are as follow s:

(1 ) To conduct, assist, and fost er rese arc h;

(2 ) To promote the coordination of r esearch;

(3 ) To make available fo r use the research facilitie s of the c en ter;

(4 ) To make gran ts-in-aid;

(5 ) To establish an information cente r;

(6 ) To secure and utilize advice from experts a t home and abroad. 

Administration

The administration section of the bill provides for the review of gran ts 

and train ing proposals approved by the Board and for the acceptance of conditional gifts for use in research training, buildings, etc.

Supervision

Supervision of the center would be an Advisory Board composed of the 

Surgeon General or an officer appointed to serve for him, and 12 members 

appointed by the Presiden t of the United States. The function s of this Board 

would be to advise the Surgeon General on matt ers of policy, to review and 

certify projects or programs, to collect information on studies relatin g to 

accidents at home and abroad and, with the consent of the Surgeon General, 

to make the information accumulated available; to review applications from 

universities, hospitals, laborato ries, public or private instituti ons, and individuals for grants-in-aid for research, to recommend the acceptance of conditional gifts.

Appropriations

The appropriations section of the bill suggests tha t there will be money to 

work with to accomplish these several objectives. This is in essence what the 

bill attempts to do.

URGENCY OF THE BILL

There is no dissent with the idea of a National Accident Prevention Center. 

There is broad agreement tha t such a center to be concerned with causes, 

diagnosis, treatme nt, and prevention could make important contributions to our 

health, our mental health, a nd our productive capacity.

The question arises, “Why now?” What is the urgency of the establishment 

of the cente r at this time?

Need for knowledge

The basic urgency is simply th at we are all ignorant. We have many persons 

here who have devoted 25 years to research and programing or accident prevention. The one common denominator among them is their thi rst for more 

valid knowledge to enable them to increase the success of the ir work.

We have utilized radio, press, television, billboard advertising, and teaching 

to attem pt control of all types of accidental trauma . The record shows tha t 

all our problems are still with us. We placate ourselves by computing traffic 

deaths in terms of gasoline tax paid, and refer to the computation in terms 

of deaths per hundred million vehicle miles. We note tha t t his rat e has dropped 

and express satisfaction. This is a magical means by which to clear the slate 

of the magnitude of the problem. In the time tha t has elapsed since the Williamsburg Conference in February 1958, we have suffered 75,000 deaths by 

the motor vehicle. We are overwhelmed with the problem, but accidents to 

our children, our military personnel, and our senior citizens are of great importance to us. It would seem tha t talk, and language in its other forms, is not the answer 

to the national accident problems. If we knew w hat to do, many of the problems 

would have been solved long ago.

Federa l responsibility

The second reason for urgency of this bill concerns the responsibilities of the 

Federa l Government. Three approaches may be made he re : Accident problems 

in Government, in inter state commerce, and in militar y duty at home and overseas. The lat ter will be considered separately.

A. Accident problems in Government agencies.—The responsibilities in governmental agencies include research on problems which are broader in scope 

than the capacities of the individual department permit, thus supplementing
1 1 2 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

depart m enta l re se ar ch a c ti v it ie s: or prob lems which a re comm on to se ve ra l 

gov er nm en ta l agencie s, th u s av oi di ng th e eco nomic loss es o f dup lica tion o f effo rt.

B. In te rs ta te tr ans port ation .— W ith re ga rd to ac ci den ts in in te rs ta te comm er ce , th e Fed er al re sp onsi bilitie s includ e co ns ul ting and re se ar ch se rv ice to 

th e In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Co mm iss ion . No sa ti sf acto ry re so ur ce is av ai la bl e 

a t th is tim e fo r re se ar ch on th e wide ra nge of pr ob le m s co nc erning dri ver s, 

pa ss en ge rs, an d ca rg o in in te rs ta te comm erce. Th e Pub lic H ea lth Se rvice is 

pre se ntly ai di ng w ithi n it s ca pa ci ty , which is no t suffi cie nt as ye t to m ee t th e 

ne ed s.

T her e is, howe ver, an o th er as pec t of th e ac ci de nt pr ob lem in in te rs ta te tra ffic. 

T his prob lem co nc erns th e pa ss en ge r car in use fo r pe rs on al tr ansp ort ati on or 

fo r bu sine ss. It ha s been ag re ed fo r man y yea rs th a t w hile S ta te s ha ve co nsi der ab le ri ghts an d re sp onsi bilitie s fo r th eir own m an ag em en t, wh en tw o or 

m or e Sta te s are invo lved in prob lem s, th e pr ob lems become th e prov ince of th e 

U.S. Gov ern me nt. A su rv ey of Acc iden t F acts fo r th e la st 10 ye ar s sh ow s a 

ra th e r dra m at ic defic ien cy whi ch m us t now be me t. T abula te d dat a from 17 

to 24 Sta te s sho w co ns iste nc ie s wh ich are firm en ou gh to be calle d tr en d s: (a> 

fr om 14 to 19 pe rc en t of th e au tom ob ile de at h pro ble m invo lves a dri ver re si den t 

in a S ta te ot her th an th e S ta te in wh ich th e ac ci de nt oc cu rred . This mea ns 

th a t one ou t of each six au to m ob ile dea th ca se s duri ng th e la st 10 yea rs in ­

vo lves cros sing a S ta te lin e, an d is th us a prob lem which th e Co ng res s of U ni te d 

S ta te s mus t fac e. W ith re sp ec t to traffi c ac ci de nt s of all type s, Ac cid ent F acts 

ta b u la te s no nr es id en t d ri vers fo r 9 of th e la st 10 ye ar s, a ra nge of 8 to 11 perce nt . Thi s av er ag es 1 ca se in 10 of all tra ffi c ac ci de nt s invo lv ing a nonr es id en t 

d ri v er (t ab le 1) . Thi s is a prob lem wh ich is th e re sp onsi bility of th e Fed er al 

Gov ernm en t.

T ab le 1.—In te rs ta te tr avel: Per ce nt tra ffic ac cide nts by resid en ce of dri ve r,

1951-HO

P erc en t ac ci den ts

Y ea r

N u m b e r

S ta te s

re p o rt in g

All F ata l

R es id ent N onre si den t R es id en t N o nre si den t

1 9 5 1 .. . .................... ......... 18 90 10 82 18

1 9 5 2 .. . ......... ......... 20 90 10 82 18

1953.......................... ................. ........ 21 89 11 81 19

1954______________________ ____ 17 89 11 83 17

1 9 5 5 .. . 82 18

195 6......... .................... ......... ............... 22 91 9 84 16

1957__________ _________________ 21 90 10 .84 16

1958____________________________ 17 90 10 84 16

1959 _________ ________________ 19 92 8 85 15

1960 ___________________________ 24 92 8 86 14

9.66 16.7

One can im ag ine th e sa lu ta ry effect it wo uld ha ve on th e veh ic ul ar ac ci de nt 

re co rd if th e in te rs ta te pr ob le m wer e m et in a resp on sibl e way by the Fed er al 

Gov ernm en t. Th e firs t st ep wou ld be re se ar ch as se ss m en t of th e problem . Su ch 

st ages as dri ver ph ys ic al ex am in at io n, lic en sin g, an d re ex am in at io n could fo llow—t he pr ec ed en t fo r th is in p ri vate flying is alr ea dy in su cc es sful ope ra tion. 

A noth er stag e of ve hicle fitn es s ce rtificatio n to move in in te rs ta te traffic co uld 

fo llo w, w ith a Fed er al re g is tr ati o n to be ap plied to th e ve hicle. Pre ce de nt s ex is t 

fo r th is proc ed ur e als o.

An im port an t fi rs t st ep in ar ousi ng th e in te re st of th e U.S . Gov ernm en t in th e 

acci den ts in in te rs ta te hi ghw ay tr ansp ort ati on ha s be en acco mplish ed in th e 

Rho de s bill which est ab lish ed th e Fed er al R eg iste r in th e B ur ea u of Publ ic 

Roa ds .

NATI ONAL DEF EN SE

In Pre si dent K en ne dy ’s fi rs t co mplete bu dg et, pre se nte d to th e Co ng res s on 

Ja n u a ry 18, 1962, hi s m es sa ge sa id : “B ec au se of th e in cr ea si ng re qu irem en ts fo r 

n ati o n al se cu rity . I ha ve applied str ic t st an d ard s of ur ge nc y in review ing pro -
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 1 1 3

po sed ex pe nd iture s in th is bu dg et. Many de si ra ble new pro je cts are be ing de ­

fe rr ed * * *. It wou ld no t, of cours e, be se ns ible to defe r ex pen diture s w hic h 

a re of gre at sign ifi ca nc e to th e gr ow th an d st re ngth of th e N at io n.”

An im port ant p a rt of th e st re n g th of th e N at io n is th e budget in g f o r nati onal 

de fens e. In th e cu rr en t y ear, th e es tim at e is fo r $51.2 billio n ou t of a to ta l 

bu dg et of $89.1 bil lio n. F or fis ca l 1963 th e es ti m ate is fo r $52.7 billi on out of a 

to ta l bu dg et of $92.5 bil lio n. (H . Doc. 265, p t. 1, pp. 7,10 , 57.)

Fro m th es e dat a it wou ld ap p ear th a t re la ti ng an y m ajo r outlay of mo ney to 

th e re qu irem en ts o f nati onal def en se wo uld be ne ce ss ar y.

D isab ling in ju ri es

Dr. Fla nder s Dun ba r, in an art ic le in W ar Medicine, in 1943, re port ed: “F o u r 

m ill ion w or ke rs were ki lled or se riou sly in ju re d as a re su lt of ac ci de nt s d u ri n g 

1941, ac co rd in g to th e la te st re p o rt o f th e N at io na l Saf et y Co un cil . If o ne th in k s 

of th e ye ar s of effo rt no rm al ly inv olve d in bu ildi ng up an ar m y of 4 mill io n men , 

on e ge ts som e app re ci at io n of th e sign ifica nc e of th is fig ure. Furt her m ore , in 

te rm s of in dust ri al w arf are , th e N at io na l Saf et y Co un cil est im at es th a t th es e 

ac ci den ts re su lte d in a loss of 460 mi llion man -d ay s, en ou gh la bo r to ha ve pr odu ce d duri ng 1941 20 mor e bat tl esh ip s, 100 mor e des troy er s. 9,000 m or e bo mbe rs, 

an d 40,000 mor e ta nk s. T hi s wou ld roug hly ha ve do ub led th e nu m be r of th e in ­

st ru m en ts of w ar a t th e dis pos al of the U nited S ta te s whe n w ar w as de cl ar ed on 

Dec em be r 8, 1941.”

T hi s st at em en t is in te re st in g and to th e poin t a t a tim e whe n th e P re si d en t 

sp ea ks of th e co nt in ui ng ne ed s fo r nat io na l de fens e, an d in dic at es th a t al l th e 

pr ob le m s of sa fe guar din g th e doll ar ha ve no t be en ac co mplishe d as ye t. On e of 

th e d om es tic a ns w er s to s tr ength enin g t he eco nomy an d th e m il it ary f or ce s of th e 

co unt ry may be ap pr oa ch ed b y co ns id er in g th e prob lem of w or k in ju ries .

The ac co m pa ny ing ta ble sh ow s th a t th e nu m be r of dis ab ling work in ju ri es is 

ro ug hl y half w hat it w as in 1941. Al mo st 2 mill ion w ork er s are in ju re d on th e 

job. The man -d ay s of w or k lo st per yea r is abou t 360 mill ion. Th e to ta l compi le d from Acc iden t F acts fo r th e la st 10 years is 3.7 billi on s of man -d ay s of 

wor k tim e lo st (t ab le 2 ). Sev er al in dust ri es de clined to gi ve m an -d ay est im ate s 

fo r th e bu ildi ng of m ate ri al fo r nat io nal de fens e, so th es e d ata ar e no t a t th is 

m om en t car ri ed to th eir fin al co nclus ion , to para ll el th e D unbar es tim at es of 

1943.

Table 2.—M an -d ay s lo st fr om all w ork in ju ri es , 1951-GO

Y ea r

M ill io ns of 

di sa bl in g 

in ju ri es

M illions of m an -d ay s 

lo st tim e F u tu re 

los ses from 

dis ab il it y

T o ta l

B y in ju re d 

w ork er

B y o th e r 

w ork er

1 9 5 1 .......................................................................... 2.1 50 230 145 425

1952 . ......................................... ................. .......... 2. 0 45 205 140 390

1953______________________________________ 2. 0 45 205 140 390

1954. ___________________________________ 1.85 40 190 125 355

1955 _______________________________ ____ 1. 9 45 190 125 360

1956 ...................... ............. ............................. 2. 0 45 190 130 365

1957. ___________________________________ 1.9 5 40 190 135 365

1958 1. 8 38 180 120 338

1959 . ______________________________ . . 1.95 40 190 130 360

1960 _________________________________ .. 1.95 40 190 130 360

T o ta l........ ................. ........... ........................ 19.50 428 1,960 1,32 0 3,70 8

Tr affic ac cide nts

T ab ula tion from Acc iden t F a c ts on th e oc cu pa tio n of al l dri ver s in vo lv ed 

in veh ic ul ar ac ci de nt s in dic ate s an oth er asp ec t of th e pr ob le m as it re la te s to 

nati onal defen se. F or on ly 5 of th e la st 10 years a re th e d a ta pu blishe d. The y 

in dic ate th a t m il it ary per so nnel wer e inv olve d in (a n aver ag e of ) 4.5 per cent 

of all tra ffi c ac ci de nt s an d 6.5 pe rc en t of al l fa ta l traffic ac ci de nt s (t ab le 3).. 

Thu s. 1 dri ver in ea ch 22 traffic ac cide nts, an d 1 in ea ch 15 tra ffi c d eath s is a 

mem be r of the A rm ed Fo rces.
1 1 4 TO ESTA BLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

T able 3.—Traffic accidents by occupation: Milita ry personnel

Y ea r A ll ac ci den ts , 

per ce nt

F a ta l, per ­

ce nt

1951................. ............................. ................................................. 4. 0

4. 0

4. 0

5. 0

5. 0

6. 0

6.0

6.0

8. 0

7.0

1943.............................................................. .

1954____________________________________

1955______________________________ _____

1956_____ ________________________________

M ean _________________________ _ 4. 5 6.5

Military du ty accidents

Accidents ar e a continuing concern in all the milita ry services. From “Statistics in Navy Medicine” (1954, No. 4; 1958, No. 4 ), comparisons may be made 

for 2 wa r and 2 nonwar years. Ra tes ar e per thousand average strength 

for the year. The data (tab le 4) ind icate there are impor tant accident problems 

which continue to plague the Navy and Marine Corps. The rates were higher 

in 1956 than during 1952-53. Admissions for nonbattle classes of diagnosis 

includ ed the following proportions of accidents, violence, and poison ing s: 1952, 

11.8 per ce nt; 1953, 11.8 perc ent; 1956, 13 perce nt; 1957, 10.6 percent. Nonbattle 

deaths for 1956-57 were 1,574 and 1.660, respectively. Out of each 10 deaths, 

in each of these years, 8 are attribu table to accidents, ^violence, poisonings. Out 

of each 10 of these. 8 occur in vehicula r, air, and water transp ortation. Also, 1 

of each 20 persons in the Navy is accidentally injured during the year.

A brief look at table 4 for 1952 and 1953 under “Non continental” service 

areas suggests th at much can be accom plished on the military accident problem 

by providing assistance to our allies in accident prevention, thro ugh resea rch 

and programing.

Table 4.—Incidenc e rates by diagnostic classes, all ships and stations, Navy and

Marine Corps

T o ta l ra te p er 

th o u san d

C o n ti n en ta l N o n co n ti n en ta l Ship s

Y e a r_______________________________ 1953 1952 1953 1952 1953 1952 1953 1952

T o ta l disea se , al l classes . ............ 395.7 43 6.0 409.1 465. 7 514. 9 579. 7 333.9 343. 7

A cc id en ts , vi ol en ce , poi so ni ngs _____ 46 .8 51 .4 46 .4 45.8 88.9 124.7 32 .8 38.4

Y ear. . ___________________________ 1957 1956 1957 1956 1957 1956 1957 1956

T o ta l disea se , all cla ss es . _________ 444.1 36 2.2 453.7 379.1 472.0 414 .2 416 .6 311 .8

A cc id en ts , vio le nce , poi so ni ngs _____ 47.1 47 .1 54.1 56.2 56.4 51 .0 31 .3 29.2

“Medical Sta tistics of the U.S. Arm y” provides a commanding document 

concerning the varied natur e of nonbattle injuries. The classification system 

shows the need for broad training in the are as of injury hazards. The war 

year (1953) ra te per-tliousand str ength for accidental injuries (nonba ttle) *•

was 54.99, and dropped to 49.13 in 1954, a non war year. This change seen in 

table 5 may reflect procedures and personnel. Dominating the lists is the 

breakdown into the categories of (a) falls, athletics, environment, and miscellaneous injuries, (&) land transp ort, and (c) work-related injuries.

A comparison of the traffic death ra te per 100,000 in the population of the 7>

United States and per 100,000 average streng th in the Army is given in table 6.

The 1953 Army rate is 59.8 in comparison to 24.0 for the U.S. population. For 

the yea r 1954 the Army rat e is 53.4 as compared with 22.1 for the whole United 

States. In table 7 these data may be seen as ratios. The Army traffic death 

ra te per 100,000 is 2% times as high as for the U.S. population. The pa rt of 

the Army problem which occurs in con tinental United States is over three times 

as high in both years.

These data do not attem pt a system atic assessment of the picture of accidents 

involving militar y personnel. Indeed, much da ta necessary to accomplish
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 11 5

such an objective, although available, have not been published. Assessment of 

the current picture is not necessary to make the point that injuries to military personnel constitute a problem in national defense. The dat a not only support this contention, but also suggest strongly tha t furthe r intramural research is 

urgent.

Table 5.—N on& otfle injury admissions and rate s per 1,000 stre ngth for selected

cau sative agents, U.S. A rm y

Causative agent

1953 i 1954 i

Num ber Rate per 

thousand

Nu mb er Rate per 

thousa nd

Total, all agents_____________________ 84,290 54.99 69,740 49.13

Aviation________________________________ 1,385 .90 1,405 .99

Land t ranspo rt..................... ...... ......................... 14,485 9.45 11,295 7.96

Motor vehicle________________________ 14,190 9.26 11,030 7.77

Traffic accidents___________________ 12,315 

1,875

8.04

1.22

9,040

1,990

6.37

Nontraffic ac ci de nts ................ ............. 1.40

Railway; other land tra ns po rt. . _________ 295 .19 265 .19

Water transport .. . __ ________________ 255 

12, 995

140 

4,970

580

2,750

46, 730

.17

8.48

.09

3.24

.38

1.79

30.49

230 

10,595

145

2,635

560

4,610

38,265

.16

7.46

.10

1.86

.39

3.25

26.96

Machinery, tools, related agents_____________

Chemical warfare a gen ts___________________

Ins trumentalities of war___________________

Poisonings . . . ___ _____ .

Prophy lactic reactions and the rap eutic misadv entures _______ -__ _

Falls, athletics, environment, and miscellaneous injuries___ _____ ___________________

1

 A nnual re port of the Surgeon G eneral, “ Medical Statistics of the Un ite d States Army ,” 1953, pp. 210- 

212; 1954, pp. 224-226.

T able 6.—Traffic death rate s per 100,000 average streng th and per 100,000

population

1953 1954

Total, A rmy 1

 _________ _________________________________________ 59.8

86.5

31.4

24.0

53.4

72.3

31.3 

22.1

Con tinental United States__________ ___________________________

Outside continental United S tates________________________________

U.S. population 2__________________________________________________

1

 Annual report of the Surgeon General, “ Statistic s of the U.S. A rmy,” 1953, pp. 256-257; 1954, pp. 264-265. 

8

 “ Accident Facts ,” 1961, p. 58-59.

T able 7.—Ratio of traffic death rates per 100,000 of U.S. Ar my to U.S.

population

1953 1954

T o ta l, A rm y _ _________________________________ ________ . _____ _____. . . . 2.49 2.41

Con tinental United States . ________________________________ ____ 3.60 3.27

Outside continental Un ited S ta te s. ..________________________ _____ 1.31 1.42

U S population ____________________ . _________________________ 1.0 1.0

FROM A RESEARCH VIEWPOINT

Since my responsibilities concern traffic deaths and the concern is expressed by 

research, some comments from that point of view seem necessary. The most important factor determining what is offered to the public in programing for traffic safety is fear. Every organized interest is afraid that the U.S. Government will take over the running of its business or profession. The
116 TO EST ABLIS H A NATI ONAL AC CIDE NT PR EV EN TIO N CEN TE R

au to m ob ile in dust ry is afr aid so m e pr og ra m will h u rt th e sa le of c ar s Th e fuel 

in d u str y is afr aid peopl e wi ll he fr ig ht en ed off th e high way s. The loca l an d 

S ta te politici an s ar e a fr a id th ey will lose votes . S ta te adm in is tr ato rs ho ldi ng 

ap poin ti ve po sts are a fr a id th ey will no t he reap po in ted. The care er em plo yee s 

a re a fra id th e me mbers of th e le gis la tu re wi ll ha ve them tr an sfe rr ed to m en ial 

ta sk s. Pol ic ym ak er s all ov er th e co un tr y are afr aid to ta k e step s wh ich they 

kn ow w ill he effecti ve in so lv ing m uc h of th e tra ffi c co llisio n pro blem . Res ea rc hers a re a fr aid th a t in th e m os t-a ge nt -e nv iron m en t br ea kd ow n of th e tra ffic pr ob ­

lem , th ey ca n su rv iv e on ly if th ey eit her stud y on ly hu m an fa il ure , or show th a t 

en vir onm en ta l or ve hic le fa il u re is ultim at el y trac ea ble to peopl e. Not one of 

th es e poin ts of view is sensibl e.

I to o am afr aid . My fe ar is to h ear th e teleph on e rin g. F o r w ith it c omes th e 

ne w s th a t m ak es th e wor k h ard to fac e. Be fore ea ch ne w st ep ca n be ta ken in 

th e re se ar ch , som eone m ust lose his life in traffic. Th os e who ta k e c om fo rt in a 

pure ly p art is an po sitio n on traf fic sa fe ty shou ld com e to Bos ton, spen d a week on 

ca ll w ith ou r tea m, an d see a t fi rs t han d th e re ali ti es which const itute th e pr ob ­

le m . One who doe s th is ca n never go home an d ag ai n dea l w ith a traffi c de at h 

as a sta ti sti c ; it will be to so me de gr ee a pe rs ona l ev en t, a los s of hu man 

re so urc es .

W h at is being done al l ov er th e co un try is tr eati n g th e traf fic dea th alm os t as 

if noth in g h ap pe ne d. We s en d te le gr am s to fam ilie s to in fo rm them of a seve rely 

in ju re d pe de st rian , to av oid th e tr av ail of a pe rs on al co nf ro nta tion. W es tern 

Union de live rs tw o te le gr am s a t onc e, th e second sa yi ng th e m uch belov ed ge nt le ­

m an is d ea d. We no tic e th e d a rk cl ot hing t he m an w ea rs, but fa il to see th e blac k 

to p str eet. We see th a t th e p edest ri an has lo st an eye, bu t do no t no tic e th a t 

th e lu m in ari es in t he st re et a re h id den by th e su m m er fo lia ge .

T he dri ver wh o leav es th e sce ne, hi s q uarr y to die w it h o u t diag no sis an d 

w it h o u t tr ea tm en t, may ad m it hav in g bee n a m en ta l pati ent, an d ha ving ha d 

bla ckouts rece ntly. He will not be co nv ict ed of m an sl au ghte r, or leav ing th e 

scene. H e pa ys .$100 on a co nv ictio n fo r oper at in g to en da ng er , an d in a sh ort 

tim e h is lice nse is va lid ag ain.

W e offer ne ithe r th e dig nit y of hu man in fo rm at io n pr oc ed ur es , no r th e conso la tion of sou nd in ve st ig at io n so th e be reav ed will kno w th e fa cts o f th e te rr ib le 

ev en t. The men tal healt h re si due of th e tra ffic m or bi di ty and m ort al ity a re com ­

pel ling rea so ns th e Cen te r is ne ed ed .

T he m an ag em en t of th e traf fic death pro ble m in the U ni te d Sta te s is so inco m pe te nt th at it is ap pa llin g. The in ve stig at io ns are so su pe rf ic ia l th at little , 

if an y, of th e data re po rted nati o n all y is va lid . In ves tigat io ns go fro m unw arra n te d as su m pt io ns to fo re go ne c on clus ions w itho ut th e be ne fit of either ob se rv ati on o r ad eq ua te tr ai ni ng. P ro se cu tions are m an ag ed so as to minim ize the h u rt 

to th e liv ing, max im ize th e fa u lt s of th e d e a d : an d of te n to vi ct im ize a su rv iv or 

fo r th e ag gra nd iz em en t of th e in ves tigat in g dep ar tm en t. The wh ole proc ed ure, 

fr om c ollis ion to p en alty , is a n ati o n al disg race .

I sta rt e d ou t by sa yi ng th e fie ld is do m in ated by fe ar . The alt ern ati ve i s fact , 

in fo rm ati on wh ich is re le va nt, w hi ch is loca ted in a fr am ew ork which c on st itute s 

a tr u e pic tu re o f the prob lem. I am rem inde d of a tr u e s to ry of a ph ys ician wh o 

re tu rn e d to his ho sp ita l aft e r d in n er in th e ev en ing to re ce iv e in fo rm at io n on th e 

p ati en ts . An in te rn e re port ed a p ati ent w ith ec lamps ia and sa id sh e harl 63 

co nv ul si on s in ra pi d su cc es sion . He inqu ired , "W hat di d yo u do, D oc to r? ” 

T he re pl y was, “ I c ou nted th em .”

T he in te n t of H.R. 133 is to co ns id er ev er y kind of acci den t as br oa dl y as 

po ss ible. In or de r to cl ari fy th is in te nt, fo ur te rm s in co nc er t are ex plicit w ith 

re sp ect to th is in te n t: case, di ag no si s, tr ea tm en t, pr ev en tion . To includ e th es e 

in th e la ng ua ge of th e bi ll is to m ak e po ssible st udie s which will ke ep ac ci de nts 

fr om ta k in g th eir ult im ate toll. I en visio n an ac ci de nt re se arc h hos pi ta l de vo ted 

ex cl usi vel y to th is prob lem are a, as one se gm en t of th e C en te r fa ci lities . D ia gnost ic st udi es , ex pe rim en ta l su rg er y, am i ad va nc ed tr ain in g wo uld giv e ou r 

m ed ic al people ev er yw he re co mpe tenc e to fu rt h e r pre se rv e our hu m an reso urce s.

To re str ic t th e fu nc tion s of th e C en te r to "m ed ica l, clin ic al , an d be ha vi or al 

sc ie nc es ” wo uld me an th a t it s re se ar ch could be co nc erne d on ly w ith the pe rson 

w ho is in ju re d. Env iron m en ta l fa cto rs an d ag en t fa cto rs wo uld be specifically 

ex cl ud ed . All of th e en gin ee ring di sc iplin es wo uld be ex clud ed . All of th e 

v alu es de rive d fro m th e co llab or at io n of sc ie nt is ts of var yin g view po ints wo uld 

be lost. Th e move to lim it metho do logy an d su bj ec t m a tt e r is ca lc ul at ed to 

pro te ct th e comp osition an d str u c tu re of pr od uc ts. If le ad ers hip is to be effective . al l as pe ct s of th e pr ob le m s m us t be stud ie d. If re se ar ch is done w ith th e
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 1 1 7

in te re st s of the pu blic in mind, it ca n only he lp th e m anufa ctu re r, no t h u rt him . 

And if th e fe ar ex pr es se d in th e des ir ed lim itat io n w er e ex pr es se d in a co op era- tiv e re se arc h ad ve nt ur e, th e atm osp her e of th e sc ie ntist wou ld he vas tly im ­

prov ed . We ne ed an Acc iden t Pre venti on R es ea rc h Cen te r as a n ati o n al fa ci lity , po s­ se ss ing no pro pri eta ry in te re st in an y me tho d, mac hine , pr od uc t, or p ro cess: re pre se nting no ve ste d in te re s t; conc erne d w ith th e ne ed s of th e American peop le, an d ap pr oa ch in g th e pr ob lem s as in de pe nd en t sc ie nti st s, se rv in g th e pu blic in te re st . Th e C en te r m ust fu nc tion w ithi n th e bo un ds of th e bro ad es t adm in is tr ati ve policy, st udyi ng all pro blem s, utilizi ng al l th e di sc iplin es of sci ence, us in g al l metho do logies, te st in g al l hy po thes es , v ali dati ng al l fin din gs, an d th u s co ntr ib uting to our posi tion in th e world by contr ib uti ng to th e pro ­ vi si on s fo r ed uc ation an d hea lth and op po rt un itie s fo r a good ho me an d a good 

jo b an d a good life.

(R e p rin te d fr om th e H a rv a rd M ed ic al A lu m ni B u ll e ti n , C h ris tm a s 19 61 ]

De a t h by D ri vin g

THE HARVARD PROGRAM OF RESE ARCH ON FATAL HIG HW AY COLLISIONS

Alfr ed L. M ose ley, re se arc h a ss oci at e in l eg al med icine

[M r. Mo sel ey rece ived his hig hw ay re se ar ch tr ain in g iu th e H arv ard Schoo l •of Public H ealth unde r th e dir ecti on of Dr . Ro ss M cF ar la nd. Th e pre se nt st ud y w as develop ed a ft e r an in v it ati o n fro m U SPH S to su bm it a pr op os al fo r a st udy in a new ar ea . A su rv ey of th e ex is ting st udie s in dic at ed th a t high w ay de at hs w er e co ns idered to be a poin t on a co nt in uo us cu rv e. T he att em pt to 

sep ara te d ea th s ou t for an a naly si s led to t h is st ud y. ] A trem en do us am ou nt of publici ty m at er ia ls go on ra dio an d televisio n sta ­ tio ns , in to newspaiKH's an d m ag az in es , on to bi llb oa rd s, an d echo in hun dre ds 

of t housa nds of spo ken words . Ye t au to m ob ile dea th s co ntinue a t th e ra te of 104 a day th ro ughout th e yea r. W e s ta rt in horr or to re ad or h e a r ab out m ul tipl e death s in a ir c ra ft ac cide nts. B ut we ha ve ye t to eq ua l in any a ir c ra sh th e av er ag e dai ly m ot or ve hicle dea th to ll of th e ho lid ay pe riod s. In poin t of fa ct , th ere ha ve be en on ly 5 da ys in 10 years whe n les s th an 100 pe rs ons hav e been kille d in au to m is hap s in th e United 

Sta te s. Tw o and a h alf year s ago— a fte r 17 mon th s o f p re p ara to ry re se arc h ac tivi ty — “R es ea rc h on F ata l H ig hw ay Col liss io ns ’’ w as in it ia te d a t H arv ard unde r a 

re se a rc h g ra n t of .$809,820 from th e N at io nal In sti tu te s of H ea lth. The p ro gr am 

is now a t mid po in t in a 5- ye ar per io d. The pr og ra m is un iq ue in th e bro ad ne ss of it s sc ope; ac ci den t st udie s ha ve hit hert o been co nd uc ted on ly on ve ry circ um sc rib ed as pe ct s of a ut om ob ile fa ta li ­ tie s. To th e be st of our kn ow ledg e, th ere is no co m pa ra bl e st udy be ing carr ie d 

on anyw her e in th e wo rld . N ev er th el es s, th e pr og ra m has had m an y cr itic s wh o 

claim th a t such ex hau st iv e st udie s a re unn ec es sa ry . The ba si c view po int in th e re se arc h is th a t of a team of sc ie nti st s re pre se nt­ in g m an y disciplin es, ea ch lo ok in g inde pe nd en tly a t th e in div id ual cas e. T his proc es s is effecti ve in pr oduc in g di sa gr ee m en ts, which are in tu rn reso lved by 

ex per im en ta l, op er at io na l, or cl in ic al rese ar ch . Stu die s ta ke place a t th e sce ne, a t th e polic e st at io n, in th e ja il , in th e court ­ room . in th e m ort ua ry , in th e hosp it al, in th e hom e, a t th e pla ce of em ploy me nt, 

an d in arc hiv es of p ub lic re co rd s. For pu rp os es of gr os s des cr ip tion, th e team may be divi de d in to tw o grou ps . The oper at io ns grou p in cl ud es a mec ha nic, au to m ot iv e en gi ne er , tra ffi c en gine er , a n d hu m an en gine er. T h eir re sp onsi bilitie s are to ex am in e th e sce ne, th e veh i­ cle an d it s compo ne nts, ped est ri an s an d oc cu pa nts, an d pro per ty . The cl in ic al gr ou p is co nc erne d w ith th e physi ca l an d psyc ho logica l co nd itio n of ea ch pe rs on invo lv ed in th e cas e. T hi s gro up in clud es a pa th ol og ist, ch em ist, tech ni ci an , socio log ist , in te rn is t, p sy ch ia tr is t, op htha lm ol og ist, opt om et ri st , st ati st ic ia n, cler gy m an , an d at to rn ey . P a ti e n ts an d ot he r su rv iv ors an d dec ed en ts are ex am ­

ined d irec tly, when po ssible , an d re co rd s are u tilize d additio nal ly . Cases are us ua lly re fe rr ed by in sp ec to rs of th e re gis tr y of mot or ve hicles th ro ug h th e co mm un ication div is io n of the M as sa ch us et ts D epart m ent of Pub lic Saf et y. In som e in st an ce s, case s hav e bee n re fe rr ed by S ta te , loc al, an d MD C 

po lic e officers an d by m ed ical ex am in er s. Calls a re rece iv ed d uri ng co nt in uo us
118 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

on-call periods by telephone and by radio. (Research group communications 

are maintained by radio station KCG 787 at 42.96 megacycles located in the 

school.)

The most fundamental assumption held on the automobile death is that it 

occurs by accident. This view is an international one. It is false. It is worse 

than that. The view is an automatic barrier to intelligent observation concerning the problem. View, if you will, the public control program s:

1. Slow down and live.

2. If you drive, don’t drink, if you drink, don’t drive.

3. Obey the law.

4. Cool down before you drive.

If the problems and their solution are this simple, the total road deaths 

should be negligible, but this is not the case. The opinion this writer holds is 

tha t this longstanding problem constitutes a national disgrace.

Why is this problem in a state of disgrace? Fir st is the assumption that it is 

an accident. If chance is the dominant factor, the problem is not subject to 

control. Second, responsibility for investigation is often placed on police personnel who have little or no training, and consequently, limited interest. Third, 

many communities have infrequent cases, so th at no experience is accumulated. 

Fourth, medical examiners and coroners have not been responsible in their public tru st to do more than superficial examinations. (Perhaps as few as 60 of 

the over 500 fatalities in Massachusetts this year will be autopsied. No blood 

work will be done in more than 10 additional cases.) The problem of explaining the necessity for autopsies to families is an unhappy one of the medical examiner. This is one area where the task should certainly be covered by 

legislation to require autopsies in violent deaths, thus relieving him of the unnecessary burden. Fifth, investigations by groups other than police are slanted, 

so th at only selfish interests dominate. Sixth, research people have avoided the 

problem for two reaso ns: One is the image of the problem. If the problem is 

speed. “Slow down” ; if it is fatigue, “Stop and rest.” On the surface these seem 

to be simple problems, and their solutions seem to be simple. But they are not,

The second reason that research people have avoided the problem is the relation ship to politicians. Academic people reason that with ticket-fixing, payoffs, influence, consideration, and other epithets, only a researcher with a character disorder would attempt working on the problem.

One may have considerable faith , however, in the capacity of the American 

public to do the proper thing if enough facts are brought to their attention. 

What may be said this time on th e basis of 100 eases studied in depth?

VARIE TIE S OF AUTOMOBILE DEA THS

Cases, as we see them, may be divided into seven classifications based on the 

dominant characteristic of the cases. An additional principle to consider in this 

grouping is that causes are multiple. Many important deleterious factors occur 

simultaneously. Some cases demonstrate such importance in several areas that 

different persons will rate a case differently depending upon shades of interpretation. This classification system represents a new method of investigation 

in a field in which the geometry of the collision course has been the accepted 

method of classification.

ENVIR ON ME NTAL FAI LURES

Environmental failures concern the factors of the roadway and the environmental variables. A head-on collision, in the fog on Route 128 was precipitated 

by following the white line. At a temporary construction crossover, the lines 

had not been removed, although the construction need no longer existed. The 

crossover was still open. The vehicle entered the southbound lane, where the 

northbound vehicle was following the white line adjacent to the median. One 

driv er died. The other survived, in part due to the recessed post steering wheel 

design and in part due to excellent medical care.

This case was of interest in another way. For some time it has been our 

practice to attempt the prediction of injuries from the study of the collision 

course and the occupant path of body travel. The decedent in this case lived 

for only 90 minutes after admission to the hospital. The second driver was described as in “good” condition and able to go home in perhaps “3 days.” On the 

basis of our studies, however, we insisted that the patient might be more seriously injured than suspected and when the predicted injuries were reviewed with 

the physician, the patient was swiftly reevaluated and was correctly placed on
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 119

I ho dan ger list, wher e he rem ained for 10 days. He subs equently recovered, hut 

he would have succumbed had the original d iagn osis pre vaile d.

VEHICLE FAILURES

Our studi es have found a whole new grou p of traffic fatalit ie s which ar e due 

to mecha nical fai lur e of the vehicle. Hither to, this possi bility was larg ely 

unexplored.

Vehicle fail ure s are of two types. A driver went to sleep at the wheel and 

entered the median. When he applied his brake s, he pumped brake fluid ou t 

thro ugh a hole in the metal line along the re ar axl e housing. Once the collision course was sta rte d, the fau lty braking prev ented ade qua te driver cont rol 

and the driv er lost his life.

Vehicle fail ure s may also trig ger the collision course. A vehicle tra vel ing 

nort hbound on a numb ered rou te moved viole ntly across thr ee lanes to the- road - 

way edge, at which poin t th e driver reversed the direc tion, crossed the media n 

and was hit by a vehicle tra vel ing southbound. The collision course was due 

to a tir e which was defective. It had been rep aire d when it should hav e been 

disca rded . There are many more collisions within this categ ory tha n anyo ne 

has here tofore suspected, simply because ade qua te inve stigatio n was not 

available .

In both example s of vehicle failure, emergency situatio ns occurred which cou ld 

in some degree have been avoid ed by pri or emergency trai nin g. If the first 

dri ver had not atte mpted to regain the pavemen t, no d eath would have occurred, 

since he had been in a wide median wher e the re was noth ing to hit. If the 

second driver had been tra ined in how to maneuve r and control a car und er conditi ons of a blowout, the overcont rol in stee ring would hav e been avoidable. It 

is tra gic for a person to hav e his first blow out on the last day of his life. Em ergency training has been succ essfu l in many mi lita ry and civilia n ind us trial 

are as. Why should it not offer promise of aid in the “hum an er ro r” compon ent 

of th is problem on the hig hw ay?

EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS

Emotiona l problems do not appea r to be the tra ns ito ry type. The emotionalinvolvem ent case dem ons trat es deeply rooted histories. In one such case, four 

friend s had “stake d out ” the man because they tho ugh t his sta te of mind to be 

so poor th at “something ter rib le was in the making.” Fo r 4 weeks, they protected him from himself. One nig ht he lef t his girl fri en d’s house and star te d 

home. A combination of sh or t sight-d istance, high speed, an ice patch, and a 

steel pole ran g down the cu rta in on a dra ma in which only the time and place 

had ye t to be decided.

PATHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

Path ological conditions, illne ss, and toxic sta tes play imp ort ant roles. The 

diabetic driver taking his Ori nas e kills a ped estr ian before dawn in an unligh ted are a ; the ped est rian wears an extensive brace and car ries his nitro ­

glycer in. The driver who exhib its a shiftin g bilate ral exop horia kills a pedestri an who has severe bilateral cat aracts. The into xica ted driver kills the intox icat ed pede stria n and leaves the scene. How do the deficie nt driver and the 

deficien t p edestria n team up?

SUICIDES

Suicide s are atte mpted by both occupants and ped estr ians. The evidence of 

del ibe rate aiming at a tre e mi ght be overlooked if one sugge sted th at the in tent 

was to injur e, but not to a fa ta l degree. Supporting evidence in ped estrian 

att em pts includes notes lef t to explain victim’s suic idal intentions. How sha ll 

we und ers tan d the ped est rian who uses you and you r ca r to brin g about his 

de ath?

SUSPICIOUS FIND INGS

Suspicious findings con stit ute the first of thr ee fac tor s in a label which would 

be calle d murd er. Use of a mo tor vehicle is probably second to poisoning as a 

method, and more li kely to go undetec ted. One can reason abo ut means by whic h 

an observed event may have occurred. In two cases the w all of the rubb er tube 

carry ing brak e fluid to the f ro nt wheel wa s cut through w ith a sharp instrum ent . 

(One of these fat ali tie s had a line of brake fluid 35 fee t long leading up to the 

scene of th e cra sh. ) In anoth er case an im po rtant co tte r pin was missing fro m
120 TO EST ABLI SH A NA TI ON AL AC CIDE NT PR EV EN TI ON CE NT ER

th e st eeri n g sy stem . In an o th er ease a bal l pe in ha m m er h ad be en us ed to close* 

th e line s fo r b ra k e fluid al on g th e r e a r axle ho us ing. In st il l anoth er , th e me dica l ex am in er w as ad vi se d by han d- de live re d me mo of a di sc on ne ct ed va cu um 

ta nk, an em pt y m as te r cy lind er , a n d a di sc on ne ct ed b ra ke li ne in th e ve hic le in 

w hi ch a pr of es si on al man di ed . T h e me mo w as ne ve r ac kn ow led ge d, no r thein ves ti g ati o n co nt in ue d. (T o ge t to th e po in t w he re we ca ll a ca se sus pic iou s, 

we m ust fi rs t ha ve cl ea rly est ab li sh ed th e fa c t th a t th e de fe ct ex is te d pri or to 

th e co llis io n co ur se an d th a t it de fi ni te ly inf lue nc ed th e m an eu vera bil it y of th e 

ve hi cl e in th e collis ion co urs e. ) W e ha d pr ed ic te d 1 su ch ca se in 500, but th e 

in ci de nc e is f a r g re ate r th an th at.

In ea ch of th es e cases , we no te d a met ho d by whi ch th e ve hi cl e w as su bj ec te d 

to ta m pe ri ng . Pu bl ic offi cials di d n ot be lie ve th es e d ata , eve n w he n th ey we re 

d em o n st ra te d b y di re ct ob se rv at io n.

SO FIND IN G

H yp ot hes is do m in at es th e fe w ca se s in wh ich noth in g of dem ons tr at ed sig ­

ni fica nc e is le ar ne d. “A lo t of fa c ts an d no kn ow le dg e” may be an ap p ro p ri ate 

des cr ip tion . P er hap s our m et ho ds la ck pr ec isi on , or do no t co ve r en ou gh ar ea s. 

P e rh a p s o ur in fo rm an ts do no t su pp ly us w ith fa ctu al data . P erh ap s we a re 

fa ti g u ed a nd fa il to be pe rc ep tiv e.

NE W CO NT KI BU TION S TO METHODOLOGY

C on tr ib uti ons to me thod olo gy h av e deve lop ed duri ng th e st u d y : Th e ea rl y 

ca se s st u d ie d w er e re st ri cte d to fixe d- ob je ct co llisio ns . The re as on fo r th is was 

th a t th e re w ou ld ch ara cte ri st ic all y be on ly one oc cu pa nt , an d he w ou ld be de ad . 

T her e w ou ld us ua lly be no w itn es s. Thu s, we wo uld ha ve to de pe nd up on o u r 

po w er s of ob se rv at io n to d et er m in e w h a t m ig ht h av e h a p p e n e d : ( a ) The a na ly si s 

of la m p fila m en ts is us ef ul in det erm in in g w he th er th e la m p sy st em was fu nc ­

ti on in g in nig h t cases . (& ) B ra k e li ght filam en t def or m at io n is u se fu l in mak in g 

th e ju dgm en t th a t in a giv en ca se th e op er at or ap pl ie d hi s b ra k es be fo re th e 

co lli sio n. H e wa s th er ef or e not as le ep a t th e wh ee l a t th e tim e of collis ion . 

T h is m ea ns al so th a t th e ab se nc e of sk id or ti re m ar ks a t th e sc en e does no t in di ­

cat e th a t bra ke s wer e no t ap pl ie d, (c ) We ha ve fo un d “f o o tp ri n ts ” of th e 

b ra k e pe da l on th e sol es of sh oe s. T his m ea ns th a t th e d ri v e r’s fo ot w as on th e 

b ra k e a t th e tim e of co lli sio n, gi vin g in di ca tion of th e pe rc ep tion of da ng er an d 

re ac ti on to it. (d ) U ltra vio le t ex am in at io n of th e sc en e in h it -r u n dea th s aft er 

d ark n ess of fe rs he lp in lo ca ting p a rt s of len se s w hi ch flu or es ce , an d m ay be 

fo un d to fit a su sp ec t ve hic le. U lt ra v io le t ex am in at io n of ti re m ark s is he lp fu l 

in des cr ib in g how a ve hi cl e mo ve d in th e co lli sio n an d, in h it -r u n cases, th e 

c h a ra c te ri st ic s of a ti re which m ad e m ar ks le ft a t th e sce ne, ( c ) P a th of bod y 

tr av el fo llo w s an “exp ec ted p a th ” fr om th e ce nt er of se at ed po si tion to th e ce nte r 

of th e im pac t sit e. Fr om th is m ay be pr ed ic te d th e st ru c tu re s inv olv ed in th e 

pro du ct io n of in ju ries . W he n th e “ob se rv ed p ath ” of body tr av el di ve rg es fro m 

th e ex pe ct ed pa th , th e in di ca tion is th a t som e unus ual ci rc um st an ce do m in at es 

th e ca se , re qu ir in g spec ial in ves ti ga ti on . Ofte n th e fin ding is im p o rt an t ve hic le 

fa il u re . Se ve ra l fa ct ors see m to in flu en ce th e pat h of body tr av el a t th e mo me nt 

of im pa ct . The car bod y op po si te th e im pa ct si te te nd s to mo ve ve rt ic al ly : In 

o th e r w or ds , in a fr onta l co lli sion w it h a tre e, th e re a r bu m per m ay move hig h 

en ou gh in to th e a ir to li ft th e w hee ls co mpl ete ly off th e gr ou nd . If th is im pa ct 

is no t ce nte re d so th a t w ei gh t d is tr ib u ti o n is eq ua l on bo th si de s of th e im pa ct 

si te , th e ve hi cl e wi ll mo ve in an a rc (y a w ) ab ou t th e im pa ct si te . Th e co mbi na ­

tion of th ese tw o fo rc es ve xe s a po lic e office r be ca us e th e re a r wh ee ls ma y be 6 

fe et aw ay f ro m th e ir t ir e m ar ks .

T he th ir d fo rc e is ca lle d d ec el er at io n g ra die nt an d re fe rs to th e fa ct th a t 

dif fe re n t p a rt s of th e ve hi cl e d em o n st ra te dif fe re nt ra te s of de ce le ra tio n. The 

co n ta ct a re a of im pa ct stop s w it h g re a t ra pid it y as co m pa re d to ad ja cen t st ru ctu re s of th e vehic le. In o th er w or ds , th e p a rt th a t h it s th e tr ee sto ps w hi le 

th e re s t co nt in ue s to mo ve a sh o rt di st an ce . F u rt h e r ex per im en ta ti on wi ll lea d 

to a n u n d ers ta n d in g of ho w th is fa c to r affe ct s th e p at h of bo dy tr av el , as ind eed 

it do es . T he fo urt h fa c to r is th e te nd en cy of a pa ss en ge r to mo ve in a p at h 

p ara ll el to th e lon g ax is of th e ve hi cl e in mo tio n. Th e fif th fa c to r is th e co rio lis 

fo rc e. W he n th e fr am e of re fe re n ce of an ob jec t in mot ion is m ov in g ci rc ul ar ly , 

th e ob je ct mo ves in an a rc w it h re sp ec t to th e fr am e of re fe re nc e. Th es e pri ncipl es m ak e po ss ib le ad va nce an a ly sis of ve hicle s fo r oc cu pa nt im pa cts .
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 121

A HY PO TH ES IS

As th e re ad er co ns id er s th e ab ov e de sc riptio ns , lie may a rr iv e a t th e co nc lusi on th a t th is se em s ve ry d iffe re nt m ate ri al from th e co nc ep ts o f au to m ob ile d eath 

which he held. Th e pre se nt w ri te r vie ws the co lli sion death ca se as re la te d to 

da m ag e an d in ju ry ca se s in th e sa m e wa y th a t ca nce r is re la te d to th e comm on 

cold. C ontrar y to pre va ilin g op inio n, th e prob lems ha ve some co mpo ne nt s which 

are comm on, bu t th e differen ce s ov er ta ke th e si m il ari ti es quit e re ad ily. Thi s 

hy po th es is ho lds th a t se ve ra l di ffer en ce s betw ee n fa ta ls an d o th er ca se s may be ob se rv ed : F ata ls do no t te nd to oc cu r, as do in ju ry ca ses, a t (a ) th e sa m e tim e of da y or da y of week, (b ) in th e sa m e traffic loca tio ns , (c ) in th e sa m e co nd ition s w ith re sp ec t to tra ffi c co ng es tio n. Some comm on ly he ld vie ws do no t 

apply : m os t fa ta li ti es are no t ca us ed by <rf) speed, (c ) tra ffi c vi ol atio ns , (/) 

lack of co urt esy ; (ff) an d it is not recogn ize d a t al l th a t th ere are quali ta ti ve differ en ce s betw een nor m al w ear an d ca ta clys m ic fa il u re s of ve hicle com pom ents ; (h ) in som e ca se s th e hig hw ay is wrong ly bl am ed fo r a death th at w as 

ro ot ed in pri or ill ne ss or pa th ol og y, ( i) som e ca se s of “a cci den ts ” invo lve de liber at io n, su icide, or ta m pe ring , (j) in som e ty pe s of ca se s pre dic ta ble pe rs on al 

an d soc ia l c hara cte ri st ic s may be see n. The hy po th es is th a t au to m ob ile dea th s const itute a diffe re nt “d is ea se ” is im ­

port ant. If true , it mea ns th a t pu bl ic pr og ra ms fo r in ve st ig at io n an d co ntro l of 

fa ta ls an d nonfa ta ls will ha ve to be fa r br oa de r an d also specific fo r ea ch pr ob ­

lem . I t also mea ns th a t a gre at dea l of tra ffic en gi ne er in g acti vit y now ap pl ie d 

to co nt ro l th e dea th s may be co mpletely w as ted be ca us e th e pr ob lems are no t 

fa ctu all y re la te d to th e de sign of th e hig hw ay . Su icide an d ta m pe ri ng cases, 

fo r in st an ce , wo uld no t appear to invo lve hi gh way desig n.

RECOM MEXDAT ION

In ord er to serv e th e pu blic in te re st s an d th e in te re st s of ju st ic e, th e auto ­

mo bile death pro ble m m us t be upgra ded to th e lev el of re sp ec t fo r hu m an lif e. 

How ca n th is be ac co mplishe d? T he hy po thes is un de rlyi ng th e dea th in ves tiga tion sh ou ld be th a t a ho micide has been co mmitt ed . The re fo re , th e in ve st ig ation in to a traffic fa ta li ty sh ou ld be as thor ou gh as th a t ac co rd ed a m ur de r. 

The vali dit y of th is hy po th es is sh ou ld be te st ed by carr y in g ou t a st an d ard exam in at io n in ev ery case, an ex am in at io n which sh ou ld in cl ud e (a ) de ta iled 

ex am in at io n of th e sce ne by a traf fic en gine er, (b ) m ec ha ni ca l an d en gi ne er in g 

exam in at io n of th e ve hicle an d ea ch co mpo nent th e fa il u re of whi ch wo uld affect 

sa fe ty in mo tio n, (c ) po st m ort em de sc ript io n of th e exte rn al an d in te rn al in ­

ju ri es of th e de ce de nt, an d a det er m in ati on o f th e ca us e an d m an ner of de at h, 

to xi co logi ca l ex am in at io n of th e blo od , (d ) ph ys ic al an d p sy chia tr ic e xam in at io n 

of ea ch su rv iv in g d rive r, (e ) pers onal an d social his to ry o f ea ch pri m ar y perso n. 

The se ex am in at io ns shou ld all be re quir ed by sta tu te so th ere could be no ex ­ ce pt io ns to th eir ap pl ic atio n. T he fin ding s sh ou ld be pu bl ic reco rd s, so th a t 

ju st ic e an d fa ir pla y in cr im in al an d liab ility pr oc ed ur es wo uld be as su re d. To 

as k fo r th is de gree of co nc ern fo r th e los s of hum an lif e in an au tom ob ile ca se 

re quir es th a t high co mpeten ce a t th e pr of es sion al lev el chara cte ri ze thos e en ­

tr u st ed w ith th e in ve stig at io n.

FU RT HE R RESEARCH

Some prob lems re qui ring fu rth e r re se ar ch are ap p are n t: (a ) Em erge nc y 

tr ain in g pr oc ed ur es fo r so ft ti re s, pa nic sto ps, sk id ding , blow ou ts, los s of po wer st ee ring , los s of bra ke s m us t be w or ke d ou t fo r dri ver ed uc at io n ; (ft) th e id en tific ati on of th e dr iv er , whe n all oc cu pa nt s are ejec te d an d th ere a re m ul tipl e possibi lities , is no t soun dly m an ag ed and som e police depart m ents re se nt an y hin t 

of dis se nt again st a hast il y fo rm ed op in io n; (c ) su dd en dea th of te n follo ws th e 

no tif ic atio n of su dd en dea th ; (d ) se ve re ne ur os es or psyc ho se s eit h e r develop, or 

de ve lop to m at uri ty , a ft e r not ific at io n of su dd en d e a th : (e ) is th ere also a 

su per cl ottin g ag en t m anufa ctu re d by th e body whe n th ere a re tiss ue in ju ri es an d he m or rh ag e, which m ig ht l>e iden tif ied in hem or rh ag ic b lo o d : ( /) w hat is 

th e re al n atu re of th e re tr oacti ve am ne si as which a re ob se rv ed ? Ca n th e me m­ ory be re in st ate d by an y m ea ns ? The crim in al an d liab ility sta tu s of a pe rson 

may sh if t from susp ec t to defe ndant if one doe s no t ha ve suffi cie nt me mory to 

pr ot ec t himself, th e def en dan t m ay ap pe ar in an ex trem el y unfa vora ble light in 

an y dir ec t testim on y an d if so meo ne wish ed to ra il ro ad him in th e court ro om ; 

(d ) w hy are prov en sa fe ty de vi ce s such as rece es ed -pos t st eeri ng whe els , an d
122 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

seat belts rejected both by many members of the automobile ind ustry and by the 

motoring public?

The att itu de of the autom obile dea th problem by this researc h staff may be 

summarized by mentioning the difficulty of the work, the intricate complexity 

of the many variables, the prom ise for a better understand ing of the “disease,” 

and the high personal and profess ional motivation to con trib ute scientifically 

to i ts solutions. We have encountered many roadblocks which were removed by 

developing better methods. We have managed organized opposition by careful 

work, inte grity, and patience. We have rewarded cooperation by being cooperative. We have balanced the lack of assistance in high places by the genuine 

intere st and help offered by persons whose lives were directly affected by the 

cases. By these several mean s the natur e of the automobile dea th is slowly 

yielding to scientific inquiry.

Mr. Moseley. I speak from the point of view of a researcher whose 

responsibilities are concerned exclusively with looking into the automobile death problem. The committee is already familiar with what 

we are try ing to do. *

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Excuse me. Did you say automobile 

problems?

Mr. Moseley. Automobile deaths. Only deaths, n ot the rest of the 

circumstances. This is our only research area. *

All of our funds are tax dollars from the TJ.S. public contributed in 

a grant through theU.S. Public Health Service.

Now you might well assume tha t the major reason tha t I would 

have for appearing on H.R. 133 would be because as a researcher, I am 

interested in more research funds. But I am not here on a personal 

mission. I am a Tennessee hillbilly by origin and I come from a grade 

of people who believe you pay your own way or you do not get, paid.

So when the time comes when we are not doing sound things with 

our money, I hope the Public Health Service will come and take it 

back. And when we have no research proposals to offer, or that, are 

found to be in the public interest, I think they should give us no more 

money.

It is from this point of view that I speak.

I am here, on the other hand, to ask for help, and ask fo r help in a 

very simple way. The problems which we see are so intricate, so 

complex, they involve so many problems th at do not meet the eye, that 

it is of considerable importance that the best minds we can possibly 

get working with the broadest possible policies, the most extensive 

methodologies with no limitations as to material, or equipment, or 

concepts, or personnel, attack the various problems which are of 

concern.

I would like to make a comparison to show something of what the 

dollar interests are based upon in our experience over the last few *■

years in areas of concern to the Nation’s health.

In the 1959 proceedings of this committee you included in the record 

estimates which say that the research cost per polio death was $40,000, 

and per treated case was $10,000; per heart death $87, and for a treated *

heart, case $7.80; per cancer death $360, per treated case $130, and for 

aviation deaths $500,000 each.

At tha t time Mr. Roberts’ recollection was th at we were spending 

approximately $2.70 per automobile death and perhaps 40 cents or 

50 cents for nonfatal injuries.

Now in 1962 we could bring the first of these figures up to date.

Tha t is not necessary for our immediate purpose, but the outside esti-
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENT ER 123

ma te of what we are puttin g into traffic death s wou ld be $5 a case. 

Now if we tak e thi s am ount of m oney which is b ein g po ured into ou r 

researc h, we could say ei th er $5 for traffic death s an d practic ally 

nothing —Mr. Joh nso n ye ste rd ay used the term “m ills”—o n traffic 

injuries. Or we could rev ers e it and say almost no th in g on traffic 

death s an d perha ps 10 cents a case on traffic injuries . Now th is is a 

perfe ctl y fantastic lack of inv est me nt in a pro ble m of th e magnitud e 

we hav e here.

If you look at the news papers, when a ai rlin er in sch edu led domestic passenger services goes down with 60 or 70 or 80 people a board , 

you get some notion of the reactio n of the Am erican public, and the 

concern s th at make possible the investment the av iat ion indu stry and 

the Fe de ral Gov ernment have put into th at av iat ion safety. But we 

have been killing 100 peo ple a da y fo r every day exc ept 5 d ays in the 

las t 10 ye ars in auto mob iles, an d most of th e peo ple who are concerned wi th th is problem could not care less.

Th ere was concern in th is c ommittee yester day with the question o f 

how coordin ation migh t be ca rri ed out wi thin the Pu blic Hea lth 

Service fo r accident research of various sort s. I th in k th ere are tw o 

aspects of princ iple which m ight be applied here ra th er t ha n ma kin g 

any a ttem pt a t a r u le : (1) The re are certain typ es of accide nt problems 

which are going to be common to several different Fe de ra l agencies, 

certa inly no one wishes to have a duplication of effort on these pr ob ­

lem s; (2) the second one is th at certain pro ble ms will be of such 

mag nitud e th at w ith in the fra mew ork o f th e individu al govern me nta l 

de pa rtm en t the rese arch facilities are no t adequate to ha nd le them . 

Th ey w ill need someone else f rom whom to requ est help . I th ink these 

two principles can very nicely cover the means by which c oordinat ion 

can be accomplished w ith in th e F ed eral Go vernment.

In the detai led testim ony wh ich I have subm itted fo r th e rec ord 

there are two or thr ee figu res whi ch I th in k are wo rth looking at. 

Th ere is a pro blem in in te rsta te commerce, in tersta te tran sp or tatio n 

if you wan t to use a b road er t erm, which I t hi nk is o f concern to the 

Fe de ral Government. You take the Na tio nal Sa fety Cou ncil da ta 

fo r the las t 10 yea rs and you can show th at 1 out of ea ch 6 automobile 

de ath cases, and 1 out of each 10 auto mob ile acc ide nt cases at large, 

involve a dr iver who is a resid en t of a St ate othe r th an the one in 

which th e accident occurre d. Now by all def inition s of Fe de ral resp on sib ility this is a Fe de ral pro ble m which the St ate ma y not, cannot, an d is no t mee ting. I th in k this com mittee mu st come to grips 

with th at pr oblem an d do so me thi ng abou t it.

Per ha ps th e Rhodes bill ope ned up the begin ning wo rk to ale rt the 

St ates th at the Federal Governm ent is anx ious about th is prob lem.

I t hi nk th e problem w hich we p res ently face is a pro blem concerned 

with na tio na l defen se. Air. Schen ck is concerned th at we be very 

caref ul of o ur ex penditu res of m one y here, and he is absolute ly rig ht.

Dr. Fl an de rs D un ba r t ri ed to take the me aning of the loss of m andays at wo rk in 1941 and tran slat e it into concrete terms. She estima ted th at fo r the 4 m illion men who were injured and the 460 million man-days of tim e lost th at yea r, th at on December 8, 1941, we 

could have ha d 20 more ba ttles hips , 100 mo re destroyers , 9,000 more 

bombers, an d 40,000 m ore tank s ava ilable and at th e dis po sal of the 

Fe de ral G overn me nt as war materia l.

80624— e: •9
124 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

Our current rate is about 195 million injured people reported in 

the National Safety Council data, with something in the vicinity of 

360 million man-days lost, with an accumulated loss for the last 10 

years in the range of about 3.7 billion man-days.

With respect to the specific language of the hill, there seems to 

be some anxiety among the people making presentations to you concerning public information procedures. I have two comments to 

make on this: I think the Federal Government has the responsibility 

to inform the American public of what it is doing with its money. 

Second, any agency which either does research or which supports 

research should see to it tha t the materials accumulated which can 

be applied in the public interest are sent out to the public who can 

make use of them.

Judge Finesilver, from Denver, who spoke to you yesterday, made 

it very clear tha t any research data this committee was able to make 

available to him could be utilized in the city of Denver to help solve 

his problem. His poin t of view undoubtedly applies to many other 

persons who are interested in this whole problem.

With respect to the language elsewhere I have one comment. The 

attempt of this bill, as I understand it, is to study the whole trajectory 

of circumstances in the accident from the time it starts until it has 

gone to its final conclusion, whatever it is. I would thus suggest 

tha t between the terms “causes” and “prevention” in the early language of the bill, the term “diagnosis and treatment” or “emergency 

care” be included. I have some specific reasons fo r making this point 

which I will show you on some slides later, and one second reason 

which is worth mentioning here.

It seems feasible to me that within a reasonable period of time the 

ILS. Public Health Service Accident Prevention Research Center 

should have a completely equipped hospital in some major metropolitan area where it will have access to all types of industrial, home, 

recreational, and highway accidents, all inju ry problems, and there 

within the framework of sound clinical, research, surgical, and t raining setting, carry out detailed studies in cooperation with the local 

industries, with the local health authorities, the local enforcement 

authorities concerned with traffic and the like, and produce research 

documents which will aid in the capacity of every one to manage the 

problems at the local level.

This is essentially the material I wanted to cover from the documents that I have submitted. With the permission of the chairman 

I would like to show some slides to illustrate something of what my 

feeling is concerning the traffic death problem which is my particu lar 

area. I have selected cases to illustrate characteristics of the problem 

as we see it at this time, and the concepts are, of course, subject to 

change.

I would like to impress you that my feeling is that we have oversimplified the traffic problem to such a degree tha t there is little, if 

any, relationship between our talk and language about it and the 

realities of the problem. If “slow down and live” is the solution to 

the problem, obviously i t is simple. If alcohol is the problem, all we 

have to do is not dri nk and drive. If the matter is one of emotional 

circumstances, all we have to do is simmer down before we get into 

the car. If it is fatigue, then we rest. But we have given the public
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 125

tremendous amounts of information over the years in these areas, and 

the population data indicate tha t we are still killin g such a tremen­ dous number of persons that the concepts must have little, if any, relationship to the realities of the problem. I propose in these cases 

to show you what I mean by that. Now if at any time you would like to ask questions as we go along, 

I would be very happy to answer them.

Mr. Schenck. Mr. Chairman, before we get into the slides, may 

I ask a question of Mr. Moseley ?

The Chairman. Congressman Schenck.

Mr. Schenck. Mr. Mosely, I very much appreciate your statement 

and I think it is very good. We have heard tha t there have been dramatic increases in safety airline operations, and the amount of money that has been spent per death on airline investigations and so on as compared to automobile investigations is not at all adequate. Now in the airline industry we have I do not know how many but I would guess 150,000 pilots whose livelihoods depend upon their continuation to perform as a pilot, and they are closely supervised and licensed and checked out as to the type of airplane they can fly and so on. Now in the auto­ mobile field we have 76 million or whatever it is, drivers. How can you get supervision and the licensing problem and enforcement of 

automobile driving competence in some sort of comparable setup as 

the airlines and airline personnel must meet ?

Mr. Moseley. Mr. Schenck., I think tha t for a large part of this 

problem it has to be done within the framework of the individual States. And I think for as much as can be done tha t way, the Fed ­ eral Government should stay out of it. The States have plenty of prerogatives, they have methods already established for handling 

many of these things if they will do it. There is a p art of the problem which is the province of the Federal Government, and I think within this framework you can do a tre ­

mendous amount. I thin k if you accept the problem of the vehicle and the driver 

which crosses the State line as a Federal problem, the first thing to do in attacking this would be to assign directly to the center this task. The center should do research on feasibility of the management of this problem, and come back and report to this committee the ir findings. Then you could consider whether or not it would be sound and feasi­ ble and in the public interest, and self-supporting, to have a Federal driver’s license which would be required before any person could drive any vehicle across a State line; perhaps requiring physical, and if necessary, psychiatric, examination of this person, certification of the fitness of the vehicle to be on the highway, with Federal registration for the vehicle. There is an established principle in aviation, which is already func­ tioning successfully, to cover this. If I were a private pilot and never flew outside the area of metropolitan Boston, I would still have to be licensed by the Federal Government in orde r to fly tha t plane. And that plane would have to have a certificate of airworthiness provided by a Federal agency. I thin k this is in the public interest, and I think it is the responsi­ bility of this committee. I thin k this part of the problem is the re-
126 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

sponsibility of the Federal Government, which it should meet. And 

this is not going to be a popular idea, but this is my opinion about it.

Mr. Sciienk. Can you not assume that most automobiles will be an 

interstate commerce, driven in interstate travel ?

Mr. Moseley. I cannot give you a sound opinion about that. My 

feeling from surveying the published data for the last 10 years is 

that interstate travel in the passenger car is probably lower than it 

was.

Mr. Sciienk. Well, it would be quite a problem, would it not, with 

76 million drivers compared with 150,000 pilots?

Mr. Moseley. T do not think tha t has anything to do with it. If 

you want to solve the problem you must take whatever step is necessary.

Mr. Sciienk. Well, except that it increases the bureaucracy and 

Federal controls, that is all.

Mr. Moseley. Well, you can call it tha t if you like. However, if 

it were my son or daughte r who was crossing the street and killed by 

a drunken driver from another State, I would like to speak very forcibly of my feelings about it. In the absence of personal experience, I think I have to speak from what I know from the data that I 

see.

This is a tremendous problem. We see many, many military persons involved in our cases in metropolitan Boston, and we know a t 

first hand that this is a problem of national defense.

Mr. Sciienk. Thank you very much.

Mr. Moseley. This is a case with three vehicles involved. The 

vehicle which went out of control had a drive r and one passenger. 

Both of these persons were killed. The impacting vehicle had three 

passengers, one of whom suffered injuries w’hich were fatal on the 

29th day. The third vehicle had four passengers in it, all of whom 

survived without any severe injuries.

The vehicle was coming over the hill in the direction toward us as we 

look at this screen. The vehicle was traveling in the high-speed lane 

next to the median, crossed the curbing on the extreme right out of 

control. The driver straightened up (fig. 1, p. 131). You can see 

where the grass has died around the edge of the curbing. She then 

made a sharp turn to get back on the highway again.

In the process of doing this the vehicle went fu rth er out of control, 

made a very sharp turn across the median (fig. 2, p. 132) and was hit at 

an angle by a vehicle in the high-speed lane going in the opposite direction. Now the person driving this car was s trictly an innocent bystander, on his own side of the road, operating within the speed limit 

in a properly registered automobile and driving und er a valid driver’s 

license. He had every right to be where he was, doing what he was 

doing, when a missile came out of control (fig. 3, p. 132) and blocked 

his path. As the vehicle crossed the median, it was impacted at 

roughly the angle you see here by the second one, and while tha t collision was in process the th ird vehicle hit the second one from the rear. 

The arrow snows the direction of the motion of the vehicle, t

Here is a side view of the vehicle which went out of control, indicating the damage. The windshield came out leaving a large open 

area for ejection. The Cornell automotive crash inju ry people made 

a very strong point of this in their research. People do not believe
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 127

tha t the area is large enough. You could take any man in the room 

and put him in any of the current vehicles and he could go throu gh 

the windshield area with considerable ease. The problem of ejection 

is very much a p art of this case. The woman sitting along the r ighthand door impacted the structures there four times before being 

ejected.

There was severe damage to the front of the vehicle. This is the 

impacting the vehicle (fig. 4, p. 133). This is a recessed-post steering 

wheel which came as a result of the Cornell research (fig. 5, p. 134). 

The man who impacted this steering wheel lived for 29 days. It was a 

combination of the sound design of the steering wheel on the one hand 

and extremely careful and devoted medical care on the other. His 

death was from an embolus. If this had been a flat steering wheel 

design he would have been dead at the scene.

You cannot see this picture very well, but there are two head impacts 

in the windshield glass (fig. 6, p. 135). The one on the left is from a 

passenger and the one on the righ t is from the outside. We took 

some samples of hair from this glass, and samples from the patients 

in the hospitals and the people in the m ortuary and made an analysis 

and determined this was an impact made by the d rive r of the vehicle 

which went out of control. No one who was in this accident was aware 

tha t this had happened.

This is the primary cause of the accident (fig. 7, p. 135). The Clooking mark you see reversed in this photograph shows the interior of 

a tire. This tire had been repaired when it should have been discarded. Some kind of chemical has been applied freely on the inside 

of the casing to cover up the hole tha t was there, and the tire then 

gradually exhibited what we call a cut growth. The original damaged 

area began to enlarge and it enlarged finally to such a point tha t the 

tire suddenly lost its compression.

Well, in the scheme of things which led to the death of these three 

people and the damage of these three vehicles, the first thing tha t 

was wrong was that someone improperly repaired a tire tha t should 

have been discarded. The second thing that was wrong was that the 

driver had no knowledge about how to manage a vehicle under emergency conditions. And the third was tha t there was no protection 

beyond tha t provided by the manufacturer for the occupants of vehicles in case something went wrong.

Not all cases we see are accidents by any stretch of the imagination.

Here is a vehicle which went out of control and impacted a tree. 

The analysis of the vehicle showed th at the hose carrying brake fluid 

from the frame to the rig ht front wheel for energizing the brakes 

when you put your foot on the brake pedal had been lacerated deliberately by some person or persons unknown.

The last one of these which you see on the extreme right opens all 

the way down into the tube, so that when the person driving the vehicle puts his foot on the brake, all he did was pump brake fluid out 

into the street. Now’ we use the term “tampering” to apply to this 

type of case. We would like to call it “murder” but in order to do that 

we must be able to establish a motive and then a suspect. Neither of 

these two things can we do.

Here is another case in which the hose has been lacerated tw’ice 

and brake fluid was deposited in the street for an area of 35 feet long
128 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

when the man put his foot on the brake pedal. Two persons were 

killed in the case. No public official believes these data to be what 

they are.

Another case in which the tank in the b raking system was disconnected and the connecting mechanism was missing.

The master cylinder was empty and the connecting metal line to the 

brake hose to the right fro nt wheel was disconnected (fig. 8, p. 136).

It shows the marks of an instrument which was used recently to 

disconnect it and the thre ads at the bottom of the connecting area 

are clean so that this had no possibility for accumulation of road dirt, 

therefore indicating tha t this happened very, very recently.

(Fig . 9, p. 136.) Here is a flexible coupling in the steering system 

which is designed to take up road shock transmitted to the steering 

wheel in the system and also to minimize to some degree the amount of 

time in disassembly of the steering system for repairs. This, I believe, 

is a type of insane design. I see no possible justification for this. 

If this ruptures at any one of its four points, the driv er is without control of steering the vehicle.

This case came from a circumstance in which the police department 

requested assistance because they believed tha t someone had tampered 

with the steering mechanism in an attempt to establish an alibi for the 

driver. This case involved the death of two persons and a collision 

involving three vehicles. If you will look carefully above the extreme 

rig ht (fig. 10, p. 137) edge of the ruler you will see the imprint of the 

connecting bolt in the coupling. This appears at five different places 

in the coupling. It is not visible otherwise on the wall in this circumstance. But it is clear evidence th at this was in failure previous 

to the collision course.

It might interest you to know tha t this man, the owner of the 

vehicle, at the time felt tha t someone was attempting to take his life. 

And as I understand the story, he had this feeling with probably good 

reason. I should not attem pt to document this because I cannot prove 

it. But it was a matter of an elapsed period of 17 months or th ereabouts until the same man in a car of the same make came back to me 

for investigation of his car for failure of the same component the 

second time. He again had the feeling someone was making an 

attem pt on his life.

(Fig. 11, p. 137.) Those of you who read research data concerning 

suicides very often thin k that the person who is involved in taking his 

life is psychotic. Here is a slide from the Department’s files, which 

I borrowed, to show you that a person can in fact decide he is going 

io take his life, for what he considers to be good reason, decides upon 

a method and sits down and carries it out with considerable foresight 

and with considerable urge. This man wanted to kill himself. lie 

went out to the barn and sat down on the remnant of a stump with 

an ax in his hand and proceeded to chop holes in his head. You can 

see the number of blows which he delivered to his skull. Finally the 

ax cut one of the vessels and his death was due to bleeding.

(Fig . 12, p. 138.) Here is a vehicle which has gone into a tree after 

going 90 feet in an absolute straight line over a snowbank, correcting 

for the displacement in the vehicle for tha t collision course. The 

extenuating circumstances are not proof of suicide, bu t they suggest 

it so strongly th at no o ther reasonable conclusion can be accomplished. 

Many other cases of the same sort have occurred within our series.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 129

Pathologies play their role.

Here is a bumper injury to a 70-year-old man who was crossing the 

street (fig. 14, p. 139). He was 8 feet out from the curb. He had his right foot on the street, with his le ft foot in the air at the time he was 

hit. The street was a black-top street and there is no national standard on this particular detail—and a vital one. lie had a glass eye on 

one side. His whereabouts had been unknown for approximately 12 hours. He was wearing a dark suit. He was crossing the street in 

an area 70 feet from the intersection, in a bus stop location, and he 

was standing there in an area tha t had an ambient-like level of 9 footcandles when traffic was going on and less tha n 1 foot-candle when there was no traffic, with tremendous luminaires, but also tremendous 

trees which blocked the light so tha t it never got to the street. He 

was hit by a car in reasonably good condition, driven by a man who 

was living under considerable emotional pressure although not of a 

pathological nature and showed a very marked chronic fatigue. At the highway research board in Janu ary a representative of the 

Rand Corp, in California indicated the means by which computers 

are applied for the process of making long-range forecasts on designing vehicles. This is reported again in the Science Newsletter for the current week. The low look in car design seems a preoccupation.

View, if you will, the mark of the tire across this man's arm (fig. 

15, p. 139). The measuring instrument has been located here so that 

if there were a question of which tire crossed his body it would be 

possible to make an exact measurement from the photograph and then 

go back to the tire. But the stitches which you see in the chest is 

evidence th at cardiac massage, post mortem, was attempted in order 

to revive the man. This failed. He had been hit, bounced up into 

the air, landed on the car, moved out into the street by inertia shifts 

when the driver put his foot on the brake, and then run over.

Now all you have to do is take the measurements of the population 

of people under 15 and over 40, who are the primary members of the 

community involved in pedestrian accidents, and take the body diameters and see what you can do with them underneath a vehicle of the 

modern design with the low book. You will come out w ith a conclusion that someone, somewhere, ought to give the pedestrian a little bit 

of a chance. We have been so involved with the idea th at speed kills 

tha t we fail to look at the possibility that the pedestrian death is certain at any speed if he is run over. And certainly killing an adult 

requires no more speed than 10 or 12 miles an hour. So “Speed Kills" 

has no application to this problem for control purposes. We are dealing with something in the vicinity of 60 g.’s force to the pelvis on 

impact from the frontal sections of the vehicle, and forces which may 

go in the vicinity of 1,000 g.’s to the head when the person’s upper 

torso hits the upper structures of the vehicle. Now, the same procedures which have been applied so effectively 

by the automobile industry in steering wheel design, in the use of dissemination of information concerning seat belts, in crash padding on 

the dashboard and door locks th at resist opening can be applied to 

the problem of pedestrian protection. And I hope one of the things 

this center could do would be to work cooperatively with the automobile industry in accomplishing the basic principles on which this thing 

could be done. Our hope is a very, very menial one. Our hope is to
130 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

learn enough about these problems to make it possible for the pedestria n to survive long enough to get to the hospital where his injuries 

can be diagnosed. Then he has a chance.

(Fig . 16, p. 140.) You will note that one of the cornea is cloudy and 

the other is clear. This was the clue to the pressure of the glass eye.

(Fig. 17, p. 141.) This is an 82-year-old lady who was killed seven 

blocks away, 7 days away, under conditions of mild rain in the afternoon. She has very severe bilateral cataracts so her effective vision 

is w ithin a range of 3 or 4 feet. She has made it known to all persons around her that she believes it is up to the driver to protect her 

and she therefore has the right-of-wa^ and uses it. On this particular day she picked the right-of-way in fron t of a person who had 

shifting bilateral exophoria. By this, I mean one of his eyes rotates 

off to the side, and he is then a one-eyed driver. Then the eye will 

rotate back again and the other one will rotate out and he is a oneeyed driver on the other side.

In this circumstance, obviously, where you have a severe deficiency 

in the pedestrian and a severe deficiency in the driver, these things can 

team up to produce very severe trouble.

I might add for the record, the driver of the first car lived in Dorchester, very close by the scene of the pedestrian death. The driver 

of the second car lived in Montreal. The psychiatrist in the investigation here indicated tha t the ages of these two persons were very, 

very similar to the ages of parents of the drive r in the first car who 

was a brother to the driver in the second case.

I would like to show some slides, which will run the risk of offending you to show the problem we are dealing with is fraught 

with tragedy and frau ght with unhappiness. I am trying to show 

you in brie f a real point of view concerning what it is.

Here is a man who was hit by a vehicle and left to die in the street. 

After he was impacted he was dragged for 310 feet. Much of the way 

he was hung by the undercarriage of the vehicle while he fought to 

try to keep himself from being run over by it (figs. 18, 19, 20; pp. 141, 

142).

Here is a pattern imprint here, just above the left nipple, as you 

see in the picture, of one of the housings in the vehicle. And down low 

on the chest is a mark which came from other structure. We have 

at this time exhausted the one suspect vehicle which we had and suspect 

driver. He was taken to court, on criminal charges, aft er inquest, and 

the evidence was not sufficient to convict him. I thin k in all probabilities this man was murdered. I think the vehicle which hit him 

was at a dead stop when the pedestrian was standing in front of it, 

and the driver, probably intoxicated. I am inferring this from what 

I know about the collision course and from laboratory work on the 

case. The driver may well have intended to frighten the man by putting his foot on the gas pedal and running the engine a little bit 

to make him move, but with the automatic transmissions the vehicle 

simply moved forward and hit him. The driver of the vehicle came 

back after making a full circle around the block, moved evidence 

from out of the middle of the street to the curbing, and then went 

his way to become unknown.

The slides show the way he looked when the low look had finished 

with him. I submit we have some tremendous problems here which 

require tremendous cooperation between the governmental agencies,

132 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACC IDENT PREVENTION CEN TER

Figure 2

Figure 3
TO ESTABL ISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 133

Figure 4
1 3 4 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

F ig ure 5
TO EST ABLIS H A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTIO N CENTER 135

F igure 6

Figur e 7
136 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

F igure 8
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 137

Figure 10

Figure 11
138 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Figure 12

Figure 13
TO ESTAB LISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENT ER 139

Figure 14

80624—62----- 10
140 TO EST ABL ISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TIO N CENTER

F igure 16
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 141

F igu re 17
142 TO ESTAB LISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

F ig ure 19

F ig ure 20
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION 

CENTER

T H U R SD A Y , F E B R U A R Y 8, 19 62

H ou se of R e p r e se n t a t iv e s,

S u b c o m m it t e e on H e a l t h a n d S a fety

. of t h e C o m m it t e e on I nterst ate a nd F oreig n C om m er c e,

Washington, D.C

Th e subcom mitte met at 10 a.m., pu rsua nt to recess, in room 1334, 

New House Office Bu ild ing, Hon. Ke nneth A. Ro berts (ch airm an of

• the subcom mittee) pr esiding.

Th e C h a ir m a n . Th e su bco mm ittee will please be in orde r.

Th e C ha ir would like to stat e th at we have a numb er o f distingu ish ed 

witn esse s today, as we hav e ha d on the othe r day s, and we a re ho ping 

th at we will be able to co mp lete the hearin g today .

W itho ut rushing anyone we will try to proceed as ra pi dl y as we are 

able to do so.

I believe y ester day Mr. Moseley, of H ar va rd Un iversit y, was abo ut 

to finish h is testimony. Mr. Moseley, will you come arou nd ? F ir st o f 

all, I would like to th an k you for yo ur ap peara nce before the committe e, Mr. Moseley, a nd comm end you on the wo rk th at is being don e 

at H ar va rd U nive rsi ty and to tha nk you n ot only fo r yo ur appear ance 

ye ste rd ay and tod ay but fo r othe r appeara nces you have made before 

the committee.

Th ere is one phase of you r testim ony yeste rday th at I would like to 

com ment on. You sta ted th at you believed th at th is matter was of 

such sev erity th at we p ro ba bly should con sider the m at ter of Fe de ral 

licens ing of intersta te drivers. You may be fa m ili ar w ith th e fac t t hat 

I hav e introduced a bill w hic h would say to the S tates th at unless some 

type of compliance wi th Uni fo rm M otor Veh icle C ode is m ade, un de r 

my bill, T believe H.R. 4933, the Secret ary of Commerce would hav e the 

ri ght to prescrib e certa in req uir em ents, an d drivers who did no t meet 

those requ ireme nts would be in violatio n.

♦ Th is bill places the dr iv in g in interstate commerce on a dif fer ent 

plane from dr iving in in tras ta te , and I will say th is : Th at I th in k 

there is an awarene ss on th e p art of the St ates th at they mu st tr y to 

achieve some un ifo rm ity , an d if you are not fa m ilia r wi th the bill 

I migh t exp lain to y ou th at ch ap ter 6 o f the Uni fo rm Mo tor Vehicle 

Code s imply leaves the m at te r of p hysical an d men tal capacit y to the 

ap pr op riat e officer in the St ate.

In othe r words, t here wo uld be no Fed eral requ ire men t a s to ph ysical 

fitness, and the m atter of wh ethe r or not this ex am ina tio n would be 

by the fam ily physicia n or bv some St ate publi c he alth physician 

wou ld be left to the good judg men t of the State , the com mission er of 

143
144 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENT ER

vehicles, or I suppose a ny ot he r sim ila r official, p erha ps th e director of 

public safety . I w as ju st w onder ing w ha t you would t hink abo ut th at ty pe of ap ­

pro ach wh ich w ould not put th e Fe de ral Government in the licensin g 

fie ld; that is, as fa r as reven ue is concern ed, bu t would give us a look-see 

at the t yp e of driv er we h ave on ou r inter sta te highwa ys.

Mr. Moseley. My gen era l rea cti on to th is is th at th is rep res ent s 

a means by whic h to ac com plis h th e p rin cip le w hich is common to both 

point s of view , and it w ould ap pe ar t hat w ha t we a re all t ry in g to do 

is t o ge t t he ind ivi du al State s to t ak e more aggre ssive steps and more 

sound ste ps to meet th is pro ble m so t hat th e Fe de ral Go vernm ent can 

sta y o ut of it. Th e dat a I p res ent ed wou ld offer one more line of reasonin g to suppo rt th e con cept th at the problem is a big ger one th an is pre sen tly 

being pr op erly manag ed and if th e State s do no t do it th e Fe deral 

Go vernme nt will have to ste p in. Pe rhap s th is give s you anoth er tool in t he m otivation to get th e th in g done wi thin the St ates so t hat 

you can keep out of it.

Th e Chairm an. I might say at the out set of the com mittee’s work 

6 ye ars ago th at o ur first piece of legislati on that we s ponso red in the 

Con gress was the Bea mer res oluti on which gav e the consent powers 

to the States to e nte r into in te rs ta te compacts, and while at firs t af te r I intro du ced H.R. 4933 the re wa s quite a bi t of opposition to it and 

there sti ll is, ye t a good m any o f the State s I th in k are begin ning now 

to see t hat they mu st mak e a stro ng er effort in th at field, an d I have 

ha d some of the State officials writ e me recently sayin g th at they th ou gh t th is bill had good pos sibilities, certa inl y, in ge tting the 

State s to mo ve; and of course it has been, I w ould say, th e sense of the 

sub com mittee since its inc eption th at we w an t all of th is done locally 

th at w’e can get done. It seems to me, however, th at 6 yea rs is a lon g tim e an d I agree 

wi th you th at unless some thing is forth comi ng fro m the State s the 

pro blem is one in which we ma y well have to conside r th e necessity 

of Fe de ral actio n. Ag ain I would like to tha nk you, Mr. Moseley, fo r yo ur a ppear anc e 

and fo r yo ur fine p res entation . I th an k you fo r yo ur appeara nce before th e com mittee.

Mr. Moseley. Th ank you , Mr. Rob erts .

Th e Chairm an. I believe our ne xt witnes s he re toda y is D r. Prest on 

Wade, New Yo rk City. Dr . W ad e, it is a ple asu re to h ave you with 

us today. I believe I am co rre ct th at you are sp eakin g fo r the A me rica n Pu blic He alth Associa tio n; is th at correct?

STATEMENT OF DR. PRESTON WADE, AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH 

ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Dr. W ade. Tha t is rig ht . I am no t speak ing nece ssa rily fo r th em ; 

bu t a t th ei r suggestion.

Th e C hairm an. You ma y proceed as you de sire.

Dr. W ade. Th is is a sta temen t I prepa red which I ho pe will be b rie f 

eno ugh . Al tho ugh the medic al pro fession as a who le has always 

take n its pr op er res ponsibi lity in public he alth pro ble ms the pr ac ­

tition er of surge ry has trad itio na lly confined his interest to the care
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 145

of the patient and p articula rly in the case of accident victims has concerned himself with first aid emergency and definitive care.

It has been only in the past few years tha t members of national 

surgical societies have recognized their responsibility in accident prevention. This change in attitude is well demonstrated by the Joint 

Action Committee of the American College of Surgeons, the American 

Association for the Surgery of Trauma, and the National Safety 

Council.

This Joint Action Committee was formed at the suggestion of surgeons and was enthusiastically supported by the National Safety 

Council. The Joi nt Action Committee recognizes the need for cooperative efforts in accident prevention and the treatment of injured 

persons.

I happen to be associated with all three of these organizations and 

am a member and vice chairman of this committee, and it is therefore with interest and a sense of responsibility that I appear at this 

hearing to advocate the passage of H.R. 133. It is my belief tha t the 

establishment of a National Accident Prevention Research Center will 

fulfill a need for a centralized organization of accident prevention 

activities in the Public Health Service.

Although great progress has been made in research in accident prevention, there is a need for the establishment of an approp riate organization within the Public Health Service structure which would 

strengthen the role of leadership in protecting and improving the 

health of the population by expanding its accident prevention activities.

A facility in which basic research can be done would fulfill needs 

in this area. First, it would serve to attract young, new researchers 

into the field of accident prevention research. There are many research programs being carried out in the United States in this field, 

but in order to make f urther progress comparable to other areas of 

interest in medical problems it is necessary tha t younger men interested in the field be given an opportunity to develop.

Second, it would provide a central organization for research teams 

which would bring to this complex field of accident prevention research the pa rticular skills of a variety of different professional backgrounds—physicians, surgeons, physiologists, psychiatrists, engineers, 

and physicists.

Extramural research is of vital importance but intramural or 

directed research is also essential to fill the gaps in the individual 

center research, which is a type of extramural research. •

Third, an intramural research center would also provide a greater 

opportunity for translating more rapidly new knowledge developed 

by researchers into applicable techniques, equipment, and programs. 

The accident prevention problem is of such a complex nature and involves so many different disciplines that no one interested group can 

now be expected to evaluate and bring together all of the important 

findings in every research program.

It is my belief tha t great progress will be made in this field of 

public health by the establishment of this research center, not only by 

reason of the intram ural basic research which would be developed, but 

most particularly in aiding and supporting extramural research.
146 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

It would also serve, to coordinate the efforts of many diversified 

groups to prevent unnecessary duplication of effort and disseminate 

up-to-date information in every field.

This is the end of mv prepared statement and I would respectfully 

supp ort this bill.

The Chairman. Doctor, the Chair would like to say that since the 

work of this subcommittee began the members of your profession officially and individually have been very helpful to our committee. One 

of the first visits we made was out to Chicago where we met Dr. Mason 

who was, and still is, T believe, in an official capacity with the medical 

profession.

T know that T speak for all the members of the subcommittee in 

saying that we are very grateful to the medical profession for its foresight and vision in this particula r work. It has been a very pleasant 

association and one th at I think has been very beneficial to our committee’s work, and I am grateful to you.

I know what a busy man you are, and I know that it is a sacrifice 

to come down here to take 2 or 3 days out of y our work to appear and 

to give us your blessing, and the Chair would like to tell you I am 

deeply grateful to you, sir.

Dr. Wade. I appreciate very much your feeling that we have been 

cooperative.

The Chairman. I would like to emphasize one thing which you said 

in vour statement, and tha t is th at you see no interference or threat 

to present activities by the creation of this center as proposed by the 

bill.

Dr. Wade. No: I do not. It would seem to me tha t it would serve 

a purpose to help present work that is going on, and I do not see t hat 

it would interfere at all.

The Chairman. Tha nk von again. It has been a pleasure to have 

you this morning.

Dr. Wade. Thank you.

The Chairman. Oiir next witness is Dr. Clyde M. Berry, who will 

be introduced by our colleague from Iowa, the Honorable Fred 

Schwengel.

Air. Schwengel. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee 

studying the needs for an accident prevention center as a part of the 

U.S. Public Health Service, I welcome this opportunity to appear 

before this subcommittee in order to introduce a constituent of mine. 

Dr. Clyde M. Berry of the State University of Iowa, who wishes to 

offer testimony.in suppo rt of this proposal.

So that all of you will be aware of Dr. Berry’s qualification to speak 

with authority in this field, I feel th at a few words about his background, training, and experience are in order.

Dr. Berry is presently serving at the State University of Iowa as 

associate professor in the Department of Hygiene and Preventive 

Medicine and as associate director of the Institu te of Agricultural 

Medicine at the College of Medicine there.

Dr. Berry is a product of Midwest rural America, having been 

born in Posey, Ill., and spent his youth in southern Illinois. He attended a one-room country school, and taught a one-room country 

school. He attended a small high school and taug ht science for 2 

years in a small high school.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER 147

He attended the University of Illino is and received an advanced 

degree in biochemistry, and has advanced degrees from the State 

University of Iowa in chemical engineering and industrial hygiene.

During the war he was a commissioned oflicer in the Public Health 

Service, Division of Industral Hygiene. He late r established an industrial hygiene program in the Central Medical Department of 

Esso Standard Oil Co. Five years ago he went to the S tate University of Iowa to help establish a research program into those health 

and accident hazards which arise out of, and are peculiar to, modern 

Iowa farming, he has been intensely interested in all accident prevention activities. This has included membership in the Farm Conference of the National Safety Council and the Program Area Committee of the American Public Health Association.

This convinces me, as I am sure it does you, tha t Dr. Berry can 

speak with autho rity on the need for the establishment of an accident 

prevention center. It is an honor and a privilege to introduce him 

to this subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF DR. CLYDE M. BERRY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, IN ST ITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL MEDIC INE, STATE UNIVERSITY OF

IOWA, IOWA CITY, IOWA

Dr. Berry. Than k you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Schwengel. I am very happy to be here. It is a personal and a professional 

honor to have an opportunity to add my knowledge and any experience, associated with the activity in which I am now engaged which 

may be relevant in a particular area which could be useful to you and 

this committee.

I would like to acknowledge the interest tha t you have displayed 

in this area over the last decade and compliment you, sir, for it.

The Chairman. Tha nk you.

Dr. Berry. I have filed a statement which I think is largely selfexplanatory, but in view of the testimony of yesterday and this morning there are several amplifications that I would like to make. In 

indicating tha t approximately one-third of the hospital admissions 

are related to accidents and their care, I should like to point to the 

Bayne-Jones report of a few years ago which pointed out that we 

were facing a critical shortage of medical personnel and th at the c urrent rate of production of physicians in the United States is a t the 

rate of about 6,800 per year.

By 1970 it was estimated that we would have need of about 8,700, 

which means th at we can anticipate a shortage of about 1,900 physicians per year in order to meantime the same ratio of physicians per 

population which currently is about 132 per 100,000.

Now, then, if we were to utilize medical training facilities at the ir 

maximum we might possibly close this gap to the extent of possibly 

700 additional physicians per year, which still leaves a physician gap 

for the 1970 population of about 1,200 physicians per year.

This, tra nslated into medical schools, according to the Bayne-Jones 

report, figures out to be between 14 and 20 additional medical schools. 

This then gets to be a very expensive aspect of the medical needs of 

the United States, and if there is then a possibility of making better 

utilization of the existing medical facilities and personnel, both pres-
148 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

ent and in the future, throu gh the reduction of accidents, it would 

seem to me th at this is a particularly relevant point to be considered 

by this committee.

There is the point tha t I raise in my statement with respect to the 

economics involved in the loss in tax revenue, and I would add to the 

statement tha t there is diverted and being diverted into stones and 

steel in the construction of medical facilities materials which might 

very well be diverted into items which will add to our gross national 

product and increase our stan dard of living and otherwise contribute 

to the state of being of the United States, our economic health and 

our physical and mental welfare.

I have been just a little bit disturbed over the failure to recognize 

the missing emphasis which may arise out of the recognition of the 

steps which are involved in problem solving. If then we have here 

a problem which we recognize as being expensive in the form of death 

and in medical care and its drain on medical facilities, then we are 

seeking a solution.

Well, step 1 then is the recognition of the problem. This we have. 

As to the solution, the answer is th at for which we are seeking. Between those two steps are the second step and the third step, the second step being the gathering of data or perhaps the generation of 

data where adequate information does not now exist.

The thir d step is the manipulation of those data, either mathematically or putting it into a program so th at a solution emerges. Since 

we do not now have a solution, then I think we m ight look at step 2 

and step 3, and in my opinion one of the missing links is the inadequacy of new data upon which to prepare action programs which can 

result in a decrease in the number of accidents which we are now 

having, so that with the availability of an accident research center, 

then information will be evolved which should go f ar toward providing those data upon which we can progress toward a solution.

In the preceding testimony the question has been discussed that here 

would be an opportunity for the tra ining of personnel, the availability 

of resources, which are not available to the extram ural researcher. 

In the Institute of Agricultural Medicine we have an ongoing activity in the study of farm accidents and in the Institute of Agricultural 

Medicine we also have an interest in other health problems which arise 

out of, and are peculiar to, farming, and particularly in Iowa, and 

those two areas are in the area of infectious diseases, as animal disease, those animal diseases that are transmissible to man, and the 

exposure to toxic chemicals.

We have had available to us and have used research facilities in the 

Public Health Service for the trainin g of people. We have had some 

of o ur beginners in these research areas go to Atlanta to the facilities 

of the Communicable Disease Center to learn techniques, to gain information, which then they can use upon their return to us.

This sort of thing might conceivably come out of an accident prevention research center. We have been able to borrow field equipment, ligh t meters, noise meters, ventilation measuring equipment, 

from the Cincinnati Research Activity Operations Facilitiy of the 

Occupational Health Division of the Public Health Service. There 

is no comparable facility in th e accident prevention field to which we 

can turn, so that for the extramural researcher who does not have
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 149

the competence or the facilities initially to move as rapidly as he 

might the presence of a research center within the Public Health 

Service would be tremendously helpful. The question was raised with respect to the possibility of going 

into debt, borrowing money, to engage in this activity. I think I 

would approach tha t in the same way tha t I would to a student who 

might come to me and ask if he should borrow money to gain an education. My answer would be an unqualified “yes,” as the rewards to 

society would be amply justified. It would return many, manyfold 

and 1 feel personally and professionally tha t the advantages which 

would accrue would be largely parallel in such an approach.

My final point would re late to the acceptance of gifts from p rivate 

sources to the Public Health Service, and here I go back to a personal 

period of my professional life when I was with the Public Health 

Service in 1941 and reported for active duty at the National Insti ­

tutes of Health. There were five buildings on one side of the hill and one on the other. The one on the other was the National Cancer Institute. I 

was very much interested in how this came about and the story I was 

told was that Mr. Wilson, a private citizen, had died of cancer and 

his widow had provided t he grounds of the estate to the Public Health 

Service with the provision or with the overtones th at a research activity would be initiated into the cause and prevention of cancer.

From this very small initial effort generated by the concern of a 

private citizen we now have not only the National Cancer Institute, 

as it now stands, but also the other Institutes of Health, as we see them 

on the campus out at Bethesda. That, sir, concludes the remarks tha t I would like to make in addition to the statement which I have filed with you.

(The statement referred to above follows:)

Need fob U SPH S Accident P revent ion Resea rc h Center

(By Clyde M. Berry, Ph. D., associate professor, Department of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, and associate director, Inst itute of Agricultural Medicine, College of Medicine, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa)

a. medical in te re st in preven tion of accident and dis ease

Curative medicine, the use of medical and paramedical skills, to return an individual to a state of health such that he can enjoy life and return to his normal activity in society, is an established and respected area of medicine. Within the past generation an increasing amount of eiuphasis has been placed on the prevention of those conditions that are disabling or reduce the physical and mental performance of the individual below his optimum. Accident victims 

come to the medical profession only for curative treatment. The prevention of disease through immunization (smallpox, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and, more recently, measles) is desirable from a medical and public health viewpoint. Failure to prevent infectious disease brings the patient to the physician for curative treatment. Preventive medicine is taught in medical schools. The public accepts this approach. The 

public supports it. It is understandable that, if certain diseases are preventable and certain acci­ dents are preventable, the medical profession is vitally concerned in the existence of a body of knowledge, experience, and techniques that can reduce the disability 

associated with either disease or accident. Medical resources, personnel, and facilities, are currently inadequate in the United States. Population growth is outstripping the rate at which medical schools can train new physicians. It is urgent tha t increased effort be made to keep this gap between needed services and services available as narrow as pos-
150 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

sible. Accident prevention may be one of the most effective means of keeping 

the medical load within the capabilities of the Nation’s medical resources.

B. CUBBENT DEMANDS ON MEDICAL SEBVICES AS A RESULT OF ACCIDENTS

It is obvious that a dead person is no longer in need of medical care. Over 

90,000 persons are killed in accidents each year. It should be observed, however, th at some medical services are diverted to this group prior to death. Many 

require a great deal—and die in spite of the complete mobilization of all emergency medical services.

More important, however, are the surviving 38 million requiring medical care 

and the 10 million (estimated) emergency room visits. One out of every three 

hospital admissions is for accidents. Approximately 1.7 million persons are 

hospitalized each year for treatment of accident injuries. Translated another 

way th is is equivalent to about 16.5 million hospital bed-days, to 50,000 hospital 

beds, and 68,000 full-time medical and paramedical personnel. For perspective 

on these national figures it might be pointed out tha t this is equivalent to the 

annual hospitalization of 60 percent of the total population of the State of Iowa. 

The number of beds involved is in excess of those available in whole of tha t State.

C. THE POPULATION SEGMENTS MOST AFFECTED

It should be particularly noted that accidents affect the younger segment of our 

population. They will carry their disabilities longer. They may earn less during th eir working lifetime. The national health survey recently estimated that 

16.5 million children are injured each year with 10 million days of bed disability. 

If we are prepared to accept 15,000 accidental deaths among children under 15 

years of age we must also accept the 224,000 impairments caused by injuries. 

About 60 percent of these injuries occur in or about the home. How can one 

medically ignore accidents when i t is the leading cause of death in each 5-year 

increment from age 1 through 34?

Older persons, those over 65 years of age, who have made their contributions 

to our country and to our society and who should be privileged to enjoy their 

golden years, are particularly susceptible to accidents. This group suffers more 

than 25 percent of the fata l accidents even though they account for less than 

10 percent of the population. Over two-thirds of these accidents occur in the 

home. The above two groups are offered as specific examples of population 

segments where the major problem seems to be home accidents and the medical 

problem is substantial. Their health must be of concern to public health agencies 

because of the scope of the problem. One could choose other examples and come 

to the same conclusion.

D. TH E COST OF ACCIDENTS

The National Safety Council estimates that accidents cost (attributable to 

injuries) at least $8 billion per year. The medical expense alone is in the range 

of $1 billion. Wage loss ($4 billion) and overhead cost of insurance ($3 billion) 

account for the rest of the $8 billion figure.

Less tangible, and I have no estimates on the amounts, are loss of tax revenue. 

Excessive medical bills are tax deductible. Earnings are reduced with a concomitant loss of taxable income. The total tax bill is increased, with a narrowed 

base, as expenses mount for compensation, rehabilitation, and indigent medical 

care from tax-supported medical facilities when the financial resources of the 

individual have been exhausted.

Also less tangible is the loss in future earnings of those killed in accidents. 

Surely each of the 15,000 children killed each year would earn at least $100,000 

during his lifetime. Many would earn more. This loss in future earnings will 

then be a t least $1.5 billion—and this is occurring every year.

E. ACCIDENT PREVENTION NEEDS A FOURTH “ E”

Any knowledgeable person in the field of accident prevention can quickly list 

the traditional three “E’s”—engineering, education, and enforcement. Each is 

predicated on the assumption that there is an adequate body of information upon 

which to take appropriate action. I would add a fourth “E.” I would add 

exploration.

If I have made a convincing case for the existence of a medical problem and 

if I have a cogent argument that this is a preventive medical problem, then I 

submit that it is a public health problem. It is serious. It is costly. It has
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 151

not yielded significantly to date , in my opinion, because the re are inadeq uate 

data upon which truly effective control prog rams may be designed.

F. NEED FOB A U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

We have state d th at the re is a need for exploration—for resea rch. The re is a 

need to bring together, in the U.S. Public Hea lth Service, those knowledges and 

skills th at will make possible a multidisciplinary a tta ck on some of the multitude 

of problem s rela ted to accidents and partic ula rly those associated with hum an 

factors.

I have mentioned the problem of childhood accidents. I could ask : “Wh at are 

the safety implications associa ted with the progressive development of the 

infan t and child?” Researc h in this area could be expected to reduce the numb er 

of childhood poisonings and perhap s improve the picture with respe ct to postadolescent male drivers.

I have mentioned the problem of accidends in the over-65-age group. I could 

ask : “Wh at are the influences of impairment, disease, stress, and medication 

on the accident potential of our senior citiz ens?” Rese arch in this area could 

be expected to point up special needs of this group. It might be nutritio n, the 

design of living quarters, ligh ting , or others.

Ex tra mu ral research grants, in my opinion, do not provide the complete 

answ er. These researc h stu die s are initiated by independ ent investiga tors. 

They reflect his intere st and skills. Facilities are freque ntly a limiting factor. 

It is difficult to assemble a competent multidisciplinary team because competent 

rese arch es are often diffident over their tenuous employment status. They may 

fear th at gra nt supp orts will not be large enough or over a sufficiently long 

period to achieve solid re sults.

An intram ura l accident prev ention research effort within the U.S. Public 

Health Service is a missing link, and the esta blishment of such an effort— 

personnel and facilities—is endorsed. A U.S. Public Health Service Accident 

Prev entio n Center could provide badly needed leadership and coordination. 

Consultation and technical sup port would be available . It could teach special 

skills relevant to an accident prevention program in anoth er organization and a t 

anoth er location. Truly, this is “seeding.”

Research studies could l>e initiated that are beyond the resources of the individual resea rclier or a small group of investiga tors. Or long-term studies, not 

otherw ise feasible by extra mural researchers, may be car ried out. Career 

rese archers, some with esoteric professional specialties, could be brought together for mutual effort. An inevitable byproduct of bring ing professional 

tal ent together from widely divergent fields is th at of inte llectual cross-fertilizatio n with consequent wider horizons for all.

This is not the place to attempt more than an indication of what might be 

included in an intram ura l res ear ch effort, or wh at might be expected from it. 

The im portant point to be m ade is tha t it is needed.

G. SUMMARY

I would summarize the above very tersely. The curre nt accident picture 

justifies concern over its medical implications, now and in the futu re. It is an 

urgent public health problem. Research is badly needed if satisfactory progress is to be made. Ex tra mural resea rch programs, while extremely valuable, 

have inhere nt limitatio ns. An intram ura l research effort on accident prevention and within the str uc ture of the U.S. Public Health Service is urge ntly 

needed.

The Chairman. Dr. Berry, I want to thank you for a most interesting statement and I thin k your answer to the problem of should we 

go in debt or borrow money for this activity is very apt and is one of 

the best answers I have heard. I think that, dealing as you do in field 

of agricultural research, you know of the great benefits that have come 

to agriculture through money that we have spent in not only pesticides, 

but plant and animal diseases, and I have no opposition as fa r as I am 

personally concerned to that type of activity.

I think it has been wonderful and has perhaps made America the 

greatest agricultural producer in the world. The thing that is para-
152 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

doxical to me is that when tha t comes up before the Congress there 

are very few questions about the amount or purposes and usually 

those appropriations pass without too much effort, but it seems we 

keep our hogs and cows on a little higher plane than we do human 

beings, as fa r as spending the money to rehabilitate people and keep 

them out of the hospitals and keep them from getting killed.

I do not know why that is true, but I plan to place in the record 

the billions we have spent in agricultural research. It was one of my 

pleasures this past fall to visit Auburn University at the dedication 

of their new animal and pla nt disease research facility, and there is 

invested more money in equipment and buildings there than will be 

spent on this particu lar bill. Tha t is just one of the land-grant 

colleges, so I again would like to thank you for your answer to this 

matter of the cost.

Of course we are concerned with cost, but if we could keep some of 

the 38,000 or 40,000 people tha t we kill every year alive we could 

pay for this activity in a very short time and avoid all of the human 

pain, and suffering, and heartache th at comes with one of these tragic 

occurrences.

I again appreciate your appearance here and I thank you very much 

for your statement.

Mr. Nelsen?

Mr. Nelsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wish to add a welcome to my neighbor to the south for his appearance here today and 

I might comment th at in the hearings certainly the objective of the 

coordination of the findings in research is a laudable objective. I 

think tha t there are those on the committee who have previously made 

statements, for example, referring to the many educational programs 

going on and we find great duplication; and sometimes the same 

result could be obtained by first an examination of wh at we are doing, 

how much overlapping we have, and perhaps we could have a consolidation of efforts and perhaps achieve the objective th at you seek 

and those who might approach it on a conservative basis.

We are all trying to get the same end result with the best possible 

results at the least possible cost of course, and I want to add my 

thanks to you for your testimony.

It was my understanding tha t Congressman Schwengel would be 

here. I know he meant to be, and if he does not arrive before you 

leave, at least you know he wanted to be here.

The Chairman. Than k you.

Dr. Berry. Thank you.

The Chairman. Our next witness is Dr. Edw ard Press, Public 

Health Director, Evanston Department of Health, Evanston, Ill. 

Dr. Press.

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD PRESS. PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR, 

EVANSTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EVANSTON, ILL.

Dr. Press. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Nelsen, I am Dr. Press, a p hysician, the third one you have had in the last 2 days. I am in the 

public health field, like Dr. Hutcheson of Tennessee, being the public 

health director for the city of Evanston, Ill., but my original background is in the field of pediatrics, a baby specialist, and I am formally
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 153

representing the American Public Health Association, whose accident 

prevention committee I chair.

I am also, as I mentioned, a pediatrician, and I am chairman of 

the accidental poisoning subcommittee for the American Academy of 

Pediatrics and have in the course of those activities started, or helped 

to start, the first poison control center in Chicago back in 1953, and 

since then—I do not know if you gentlemen are familiar with it—it 

has grown quite a bit and there are over 400 of these poison control 

centers.

The American Public Health Association, as I believe you know, 

is a nationwide group and in addition to its own unit there are 48 

State affiliates and three regional branches, so that in addition to the 

13,000 members of the American Public H ealth Association, there are 

25,000 others in these State and regional branches, and all of them are 

involved in the resolutions which they pass.

I have in the appendix to this statement selected 10 resolutions 

passed since 1952 th at have to do with accident prevention. I am not 

going to read them to you, as they are too long, but one of them in 

1956 is particula rly relevant and tha t is on the first page of my statement there. I would like to read three or four lines from that, and 

this is a resolution passed back in 1956.

Th at consideration be given to the advisability of esta blishing within the 

Federal Government, a national accident prevention cen ter to coordinate the 

activities of various accident preven tion agencies in order to improve the safety 

of the people of the United States, through conducting research, investigations, 

experiments, and dem onstrations r ela tin g to the cause of a nd m eans of preven ting 

accidents.

You have had a lot of statistics in the field of accidents so that I am 

not going to burden you with many others, although there are two 

points in that area I would like to make. One is in reply to a question 

tha t Mr. Schenck raised yesterday about the cost of accidents and the 

cost of a man’s life.

Accidents in 1959 caused 400 million days of restricted activity. 

Now, some of those were c hildren who could not go to school, but 

many of them were people 'who could not go to work, and so there is an 

economic loss. They caused 100 million bed-days, where people had 

to take to the bed, with a substantial portion of them in the hospital, 

and if a third of that 100 million was in the hospital you can see the 

hospital bill involved.

Finally, he had a question about the money value of a man’s life. 

Louis Dublin, formerly with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 

wrote a book with just that title, “The Money Value of a M an’s Life,” 

and, as you gentlemen know, it depends on the man and how long he 

lives, but as I remember it, the average was somewhere about $70,000 

to $80,000 or $90,000 per person; and accident prevention, although 

it is the first cause of death in people age 1 to 25 years, heart disease 

and cancer kill more older people than accidents do.

Nevertheless, as far as productive years of life, from the economic 

standpoint, accidents kill them at a younger age, so that if you assume that a man is productive up to age 65, and th at is being increased, 

and you figure the productive years of life lost through accidents, 

and this has been done by Mr. Dickinson of the American Medical 

Association quite a few years ago, accidents then lead cancer and heart
154 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

disease in the loss of prod uc tiv e years of a ma n’s life . So much for 

statistic s on it.

I wo uld just, like to make two points , both of which are sort of 

oriented towa rd accidents in child ren , which is my special field. One 

has to do with wh at could really be called an epidem ic of accidental 

lead poisoning. The city of Chicag o, in 1959 and 1960, recorded 350 

cases of lead poisoning, prac tic ally all of them child ren , and one of 

those ye ars (1959) 17 child ren die d of it and the o ther (1960) 28 ch ildren , an d in a good many of the rem ain ing 300, th ei r brain was affec ted by th is lead and often they became me nta lly retarded . Some 

of them are doomed to spe nd the rest of th ei r years in a mental insti ­

tutio n, an d then no t only do you have the emotio nal tra um a, bu t it is 

also a cos tly thing.

The re is a m ode rate am ount of research go ing on in acc ide nt pre ventio n, bu t I feel the re is no t ne arly enough, both intram ur al and ex tramu ral . Th ere are gaps in res ear ch. We know th at most of the children ge t lead poison ing b y ea ting these chips of pa in t which contain 

lead, wh ere these o ld houses a nd tenem ents have been rep ainted on the 

insid e; b ut why some c hil dren w ill eat these chip s o f p ai nt and bite on 

the win dow sills, while others ri ght alon gsid e of them, th ei r bro the rs 

and sisters, will no t; we do not know. Th ere is a gap th at the agency 

cal led fo r in II.IT 133 might well add ress its elf to.

In th e field o f lead p ois oning alone t here are defin ite gaps. I do not 

th in k th ere is one labo ratory ou t of a hu nd red in th e Un ited Sta tes 

th at can do a dire ct qu an tit ative tes t for lead in the ur ine and blood. 

Th ey get d iffere nt resu lts. Many of them do not hav e experien ce with 

it. If there were a Na tional Ac cid ent Pre venti on Ce nte r, I have a 

feel ing th at some of these ch ild ren th at have been d ying of lead po isoning not only in C hicago but in ma ny o lde r cities, includ ing Baltim ore , 

New Yo rk, and Ph ila de lphi a, would, throug h co rre lat ed effort of 

ph ysici ans and toxicologists, an d chem ists, and epid emiolo gists, have 

a much be tte r chan ce of not suc cum bin g to this. Th e second point I wante d to make is from the sta nd po int of was hing ma chine w rin ger injur ies , som eth ing I h ave been wo rking on now 

fo r s everal y ears . Ma ny of u s th ink th at the fully a uto mati c washing 

ma chine s hav e com pletely rep lac ed the old wr inger type, hu t th at is 

no t tru e. There are about 17 m illion stil l in existenc e and each year 

over 600,000 new ones are sold, and survey s have show n th at about 

100,000 child ren , and a sim ila r am ount of adult s, sti ll at the present 

tim e get th ei r hands, or a rms, or o ther p ar ts o f their bod ies caug ht in 

wr ingers, and there is an othe r field where rese arch can be helpful.

I am cu rren tly work ing on a research pro jec t. Th ere are two types 

of sa fety mechanisms in these wrin ge r mac hines, one of which all of 

the m have, w hich is a ba r wh ich you have to push wi th yo ur hand s to 

get the pounds of pre ssu re off and th at releases the thing. There is 

an othe r one which is an “in stinctive” safet y release, wh ere if you r 

finger gets ca ug ht an d you pu ll back f ou r pounds of pressure will stop 

the rolle rs. I have a fee ling t h at t hi s “ins tin ctive” re lease is pro bab ly 

a lo t sa fe r tha n t he o ther release. I als o hap pe n to be cha irm an of a Com mittee on Haz ar ds to Children 

fo r St an da rd s, and so if we can pro ve th at th is “in sti nc tiv e” release 

is b ette r th an the o the r release, whi ch is a research pr ojec t we sta rte d 

in Ev an sto n, in conjunction w ith Chicago , b ut w ith no financial assist-
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 155

ance; then we may recommend a revised standard. I would not be 

surprised if some of you gentlemen here or in the audience know of 

persons who have caught their hands in a wringer.

The final point I want to make has to do with a partnership of voluntary and official or tax-supported agencies. As you know, the National 

Safety Council, which is an excellent agency for whom I have 

unstinted praise, is a voluntary agency in the field of accident prevention.

I have been a member of that agency for many years and I know it 

does an excellent job, but the amount of funds that it has and the 

amount of funds in the whole field of accident prevention compared 

to funds in these other major killers of persons, like heart disease, 

and cancer, and arthritis, is pitiful.

This table on page 4 of my testimony has selected five fields tha t 

are major causes of death and disability in the United States. Accidents, as I told you, are the leading cause among persons 1 to 24 

and as far as productive years lost, they are the major cause. Yet 

look at the relatively minute amount of money spent in extramural and 

intramural research.

I feel tha t the existence of the voluntary agency, such as the National Safety Council, or such as the Heart Association or the Mental 

Health Association, is an excellent thing in our society, but I do not 

feel th at that should replace concentrated and expanded effort on the 

Government’s part. It is my feeling that, too, with our advance in 

science, and industry, and technology, atomic energy, airplanes, automobiles, submarines, outboard motors, practically on every rowboat, accidents are bound to increase if we do not do something about 

it.

I feel if the same brains and money that develop these conveniences 

in our culture were devoted more thoroughly to efforts to coordinate 

and increase research th at we would be bound to be paid off in results.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The fu rth er statement of Dr. Press, together with related materials, 

follows:)

Statement of the American P ublic Health Association, by Edward P ress, 

M.D., M.P.H.

I am Edward Press, a public health physician and pediatrician currently public health director of the Department of Health for the city of Evanston. Ill., 

and chairman of the Accident Prevention Committee of the American Public 

Health Association. I represent the APHA in support of H.R. 133 for the establishment of a National Accident Prevention Center in the U.S. Public Health 

Service.

During the last 15 to 20 years I have written a variety of scientific articles 

on public health aspects of accident prevention including a book on “Accidental 

Poisoning in Childhood” published by the American Academy of Pediatries. I 

was chairman of a committee tha t organized and developed the first poison control center in this country, in Chicago in 1953 (there are now over 400 of these 

centers throughout the United States, Canada, and in a few foreign countries). 

I am also chairman of the Subcommittee on Accidental Poisoning of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I am speaking now in my capacity as chairman of the American Public Health 

Association’s Accident Prevention Committee. This association is an organization of about 13,000 public health physicians, dentists, nurses, engineers, health 

educators, etc., with 48 State affiliates and 3 regional branches tha t include an 

additional 25,000 members. The association, during its annual general assemblies passed 10 separate resolutions on various aspects of accident preven8 0 62 4— 62 ------ 11
156 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

tion since 1952. One of these (in 1956) is of direct relevance to the bill under 

discussion. It resolved: “Th at public health agencies assume active roles in all types of accident prevention programs—” and “Th at consideration be given to the advisability of establishing within the Federal Government, a natio nal accident prevention center, to coordinate the activities of various accident prevention agencies in order to improve the safety of the people of the United States, through conducting research, investigations, experiments, and demonstrations relating to the cause of and means of preventing accidents.” Other details of this and the remaining nine resolutions will be found in appendix A attached to th is document. I am not going into a lengthy elaboration of stati stics demonstrating the im­ portan ce of death, disability, and economic loss to the Nation from accidents ; nor shall I give numerous details of the variety of accidents which lead all causes of death in children, ages 1 to 24 years, accidents tha t in 1959 have killed over 92,000 persons, injured 45 million, and caused 400 million days of restricted 

activities and 100 million days of bed disability.1

 I am sure none of the committe e question the importance or extent of this cause of death and disability. The bulk of these accidental deaths and injurie s are associated with a variety of technical, industrial, and scientific advances tha t have brought so many benefits to us. I am convinced that proper application of the technical and scientific know-how tha t developed the hazards of automotive accidents, electri­ cal and even atomic accidents, can be harnessed, to a much greater extent than 

heretofore to uncover their causes and methods of prevention. I feel confident tha t Dr. Luther Terry, the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Hea lth Service, representatives of the National Safety Council, and of many othe r State and local safety groups, will provide fur the r detailed documenta.- tion of the seriousness of the accident problem and of the need for intensified and expanded efforts in this area. Rather than resta te in voluminous fashion, dat a similar to tha t which others will present to you, I would like to give two or three specific examples of how such an Accident Prevention Center might be 

able to help, taken from fields of my own interest and experience.

“EPIDEMICS” OP ACCIDENTAL LEAD POISONING IN CHICAGO

There were 305 persons with lead poisoning reported to the Chicago Board of Health in 1959 and 1960 combined. Of these 17 died in 1959 and 28 in 1960. A substantial percentage of those that lived suffered permanen t brain damage, some of whom will be doomed to a life of mental deficiency for the rest of th eir years. Similar cases of lead poisoning have been occurring in Chicago for many years and in Baltimore, New York, and many other older cities. We know tha t most of these cases can be traced to children who eat chips of dry pain t containing lead and from inhaling lead fumes or dust particles from plas ter coated with leaded paint. However, the question of why some children will eat paint while others do no t; how to develop reliable accurate, quan tita­ tive tests for lead in urine and blood tha t can be duplicated and are available easily, and the relationship, for example in Chicago, between a specific area where most of the eases of lead poisoning come from and slum appearance or 

highway construction has only very recently been determined. It is quite probable tha t had a national accident prevention center existed 7 or 8 years ago, the epidemiologic work on lead poisoning t hat has been done in New York. Baltimore, and Chicago, would have been much more closely cor­ related ; experienced, well train ed chemists, physicians, toxicologists, and epi­ demiologists would have analyzed the various factors to a much greate r and more detailed extent than occurred. Not one laboratory in a hundred can do an accurate test for lead in blood or urine. If such a center existed, they might have developed nationwide laboratory services, research and epidemiologic sur­ veillance facilities; as the Communicable Disease Center in Georgia has done in the case of polio, in the case of infectious hepatitis, and in the ease of influ­ enza. They might thus have saved many children from deaths or from years 

of mental deficiency in State institutions.

a

 Figures from the Developmental Research Section, Division of Accident Prevention, U.S. Public Health Service, November 1961, based on d ata f rom the N ational Office of Vital Sta tis tic s and the Nati onal He alt h Survey.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 157

PREVENTION AND TRE ATM ENT OF IN JU R IE S FROM HO ME WRING ER W ASH IN G MAC HIN ES

The U.S. Public Health Service estimates tha t there are approximate ly 100,000 injuries to children from the wringers on home washing machines t ha t occur annually and a similar number among adult s in the United States. I suspect tha t several of you on the subcommittee have had a relative or a close friend whose arm or other pa rt of their body has been caught in the wringers of a washing machine. Only a few months ago a child in a neighboring suburb (Arlingt on Heights) caught his sweater in the wringer and was choked to death 

when it was pulled tight arou nd his neck. Appendix B includes a newspaper clipping on this case and a leaflet on wringer accidents which took 4 or 5 years to develop. In my opinion, had a national accident prevention cente r existed, not only would this leaflet have been developed much earlier, but a safety project which only now is getting under­ way might already have made a substantial impact on these injuries. The project seeks to determine wheth er most of these wringer injuries may be pre­ vented by a special type of “instinctive” safety release which automatically stops the wringers as soon as there is an instinctive pull-back on the rollers when the fingers are caught. Because of the lack of adequate financing and personnel, among other things a project to determine the efficiency of this safety mechanism has been delayed for several years and is only now beginning as a 

joint project between the Evanston and Chicago Health Departments. The fiscal resources av ailable on a national scale for the problems of accident prevention are pitifully limited. The budgets for several tax-supported and voluntary national health and safety agencies are shown in the table below which clearly indicates tha t acciden t prevention efforts have been treated as a 

sort of fiscal stepchild.

Budge ts of selected tax-supported and {voluntary) non-tax-supported national

agencies in the area of health and safet y

[In millions]

Extram ura l 

research 1

In tram ur al 

research 1

Othe r

activ ities

Tot al Vol unta ry 

agen cies1

Arthr itis a nd Metabolic Diseases______ _ 58.0 10.0 13.0 81.0 4.1

Can cer. ___________________________ 64.0 15.0 59.0 138.0 34.4

H e a rt .. ________________________ 85.0 9.0 39.0 133.0 27. 7

Me nta l He alt h_______________________ 45.0 9.0 54.0 108.0 5.7

Accid ent prevention .................. ........ . ........ 1.9 .3 1.7 3.6 *5 .7

1

 Bud get for fiscal 1962 of th e National Insti tu tes of A rthriti s and Metabolic Diseases, Cancer, Hea rt, 

and Me nta l Hea lth, respectively.

s

 A rth riti s and Rhe umatism Fou nda tion, American Cance r Society, America n Hea rt Association, Nat ional Association for Men tal Hea lth, an d the National Safety Council, respectively; figures for the 1st 4 for th e fiscal year of 1960 from “V olu nta ry, Health a nd Welfare Agencies in th e Uni ted Stat es,” Rob ert H. Ham lin, M.D., stu dy director, Cit ize n’s Committe e, Rockefeller Fou ndation, Schoolmaster’s Press, 

New Y ork, 1961. * Na tional Safety Council exp enditur es for 1960 ($2,300,000 of this repre sents costs of publica tions and 

ma terials).

PA RT NE RS HIP OF VOLU NTARY AND OFFICIA L (TAX-SU PPOR TED) AGEN CIES

You may hear statements from others appearing before you tha t in the area of the development, collection, and transmission of publications and safety programs, there already is a nation al voluntary agency, the National Safety Council, that with congressional sanction is active in this area. This is en tirely true, and this respected and experienced agency is doing an excellent job. I have for years been a member of their home safety conference and have un­ stinted praise for their efforts a nd their trained professional staff. Nevertheless, this is a voluntary agency, appro priate s and expends no tax funds and its fiscal resources, especially those available for research and field consultation, are relatively limited. I am confident that the U.S. Public Healt h Service Accident Prevention Center supported by tax funds would supplement and strengthen the efforts of the National Safety Council jus t as the programs and services of the Inst itut e of Arthr itis and Metabolic Diseases are used to achieve the same objectives as the Arth ritis and Rheumatism Foundation and the American Diabetes Association or those of the Cancer Institu te supplement the services of the American Cancer Society. In a like manner scientific projects under the
158 TO ESTA BL ISH A NA TIO NA L ACCIDENT PR EV EN TI ON CEN TER

ae gi s of th e co ng re ss io na lly c h a rt e re d N at io nal Ac ad em y of Sc ien ce s are su ppl em en te d an d en rich ed w it h o u t h arm fu l co m pe tit io n o r un due du pl ic at io n by 

th e U SPH S In sti tu te s w ork in g on si m il ar pro blem s.

Gen tle m en , one of th e p en alt ie s of pr og re ss as so ci at ed w ith te ch ni ca l ad ­

va nc es, m ec ha ni za tion an d el ec tr if ic at io n is th e in cr ea se in th e ex te nt an d 

n a tu re of po te nt ia l ac cid en ta l in ju ri es. You ha ve it in y our po we r as re pre ­

se n ta ti v es of th e peo ple wh o a r e su bje ct to th es e in cr ea si ng ly co mp lex ac ci de nt s 

to he lp tu rn som e of th e sc ie nt if ic pu blic h ea lt h re so ur ce s of th eir Gov er nm en t 

to th e ir aid an d pr ot ec tion . A cc id en ts now act a s th e “c a p ta in ” of al l ca us es 

of d eath of pe rs on s fr om ag es 1 to 24. Th e A m er ic an Pub lic H ea lt h Assoc iatio n 

ho pe s th a t yo u will see fi t to re co m m en d th is pi ec e of le gi sl at io n.

T h an k y ou.

APPENDIX A

Res o lu ti o n s of t h e A m er ic a n P ub li c H ea lt h Ass oci ati on

19 52

HO ME AC CIDENT PRE VEN TION PROGRAM

W h ere as home ac ci de nt s c o n st it u te a m aj or nati o n al h ealt h pro ble m ; an d

W h er ea s th e pu blic h ealt h n u rs e h as un iq ue oppo rt unit ie s fo r pr ev en tiv e ed uc ation in th is a re a : T he re fo re be it

Re solv ed , T h a t th e A m er ic an P ub lic H ealt h A ss oc ia tio n ur ge s loc al pu bli c 

h e a lt h n urs in g ser vi ce s to g ive in cr ea se d e m ph as is to t his as pec t of th eir p ro g ra m ; 

an d be it fu rt h e r

Re solved , T h a t ot her pu bl ic h ealt h w or ke rs be en co ur ag ed to si m il ar ly in ­

cre ase ho me ac ci de nt pr ev en ti on pr og ra m s.

19 55

PRE VENTION OF IN JU R Y AND DEATH DUE TO MOTOR VE HI CL E ACCIDENTS

W h ere as m ot or ve hi cl e ac cid en ts ha ve bec om e a m a jo r h azard to pu blic 

h e a lt h , sin ce ap pr ox im at el y 1 m ill io n pe rs on s a re in ju re d an nual ly in th e 

U ni te d S ta te s, of w hich be tw ee n 35 ,0 00 an d 40 ,0 00 di e a s th e re su lt of m ot or 

ve hi cl e a c c id e n ts ; a nd

W her ea s th e ob je ct iv e of th e Am er ic an Publ ic H ealt h Assoc ia tio n is to 

p ro te ct and p ro m ote p ub lic an d p er so nal h e a lt h ; a n d

W her ea s tr en ds in cu rr e n t re se ar ch in di ca te th a t a su b sta n ti a l pr op or tio n of 

d e a th s an d in ju ri es co ul d be pr ev en te d by a lt e ra ti o n s and im pr ov em en ts in 

de si gn of m ot or ve hi cl es an d re la te d ac ce ss or ie s an d by uti li zati o n of proi>er 

re s tr a in in g d ev ic es : T her ef ore b e it

Res ol ve d, T h at th e A m er ic an Pu bl ic H ealt h A ss oc ia tio n rec om me nd s th e 

fu r th e r de ve lopm en t of m ot or ve hi cl e ac ci de nt pre ve nt io n pro gr am s an d en ­

co u ra ges th e ex te ns io n of th e ef fo rts of th e au to m ot iv e en gin ee rs an d m an uf ac ­

tu ri n g co m pa ni es di re ct ed to th e pr ev en tion of in ju ry an d de at h, an d th a t a 

co py of th is re so lu tio n be se n t to th e re sp ec tiv e m an u fa c tu re rs an d en gi ne er in g 

as so ci at io ns .

19 55

EN DO RS EM EN T OF POISON CONTROL CENTERS AN D HE ALT H DEPA RT ME NT PAR TIC IPA TIO N

IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT

W h er ea s th e g re a t v ar ie ty an d w id e us e of n a tu ra l and sy nt he ti c ch em ical 

an d ph ar m ac eu ti ca l pr od uct s to day in in du st ry , fa rm s, and ho me s co ns titu te , 

th ro u g h ac ci de nt an d m isus e, an im port an t prob lem of pu bl ic h e a lt h ; an d

W her ea s poiso n co nt ro l cen te rs a re be in g es ta bl is he d in a nu m be r of ci ti es 

o f th is co un tr y to pr ov id e physi ci an s an d ho sp ital s w ith p ro m pt in fo rm at io n on 

d ia gnosi s an d tr e a tm e n t; an d

W her ea s it is es se nt ia l fo r th e pro pe r st ud y an d co nt ro l of po iso nin g th a t in ­

fo rm ati o n on ca se s be co llec te d sy st em at ic al ly an d us ed to pr ev en t oth er ac ci ­

d e n ts or m is u se : T he re fo re be it

Res ol ve d, T h at th e A m er ic an Pub lic H ealt h A ss oc ia tio n en co ur ag e th e de ­

ve lo pm en t of poi son co nt ro l cen te rs an d ur ge h ea lt h dep art m en ts to ac tive ly 

p a rt ic ip a te in th e de ve lo pm en t of th e ir se rv ic es to se cu re ep idem iolo gic d ata co nce rn in g po iso ning an d to est ab li sh pr ev en tive m ea su re s fo r th e hea lth pr ot ec tio n 

of th e com mun ity.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER 159

1956

EXTENSION AND COORDINATION OF ACCIDENT PREVENTION ACTIVITIES

W her ea s ac ci de nt s ra nk fi rs t in th e United S ta te s as th e ca use of dea th in pe rs on s 1 to 35 yea rs of age , an d fo urt h as th e cause of death am on g al l ag e gr ou ps , and in 1955 ca us ed 93,(MM) de at hs , an d di sa ble d fo r a day or long er an est im ate d 9 mi llion pe rs on s, of wh om 320,000 w er e i>erman en tly d is ab le d ; and W he re as ac ci de nt pr ev en tion pro gra m s of al l type s ha ve d is ti n ct hea lth as pe ct s 

an d th ere fo re shou ld be ac tivel y su ppo rt ed by h ealt h ag en cie s; an d W he re as th e effo rts to solve th e m an y com plex pr ob le m s invo lved in pre ven ting 

ac ci de nt s a re in need o f c o o rd in ati o n : T he re fo re be it

Res ol ve d, T hat healt h ag en ci es as su m e ac tive ro le s in all ty pes of ac ci de nt 

pr ev en tion pro gra m s; an d be it fu rth e r

Res ol ve d, T hat co ns id er at io n be gi ve n to th e advis ab ility o f est ab li sh in g w ithi n 

th e F edera l Gov ernm en t a N ational Acc iden t Pre ven tion C en te r to co or di na te th e acti vit ie s of var io us ac cid ent pr ev en tion ag en cies in o rd er to im prov e th e sa fe ty of th e people of th e U nited S ta te s th ro ug h co nd uc ting re se ar ch , in ves tiga­ tio ns , ex pe rim en ts, an d dem onst ra ti ons re la ti ng to th e ca use of an d mea ns of 

pre ven ting ac cide nts.

1957

ACCIDENT PREVENTION

W her ea s ac ci de nt s are no w th e le ad in g ca us e of dea th in all ag e gro up s from 

1 to 35 ; an d W her ea s ac ci de nt s ki ll m or e ch il dre n th an all di se as es com bin ed ; an d W her ea s ac ci de nts are th e g re ate st sin gle ca use of los s of pro du ct iv e yea rs 

of l if e ; an d W her ea s ac ci de nts co st th e N ation mo re th an $10 bi lli on a y e a r ; an d W her ea s pu blic hea lt h dep art m en ts can , by th e ap plica tion of pre se nt kn ow l­ edg e. m ak e a sign ifi ca nt co ntr ib uti on to a de cr ea se in th e pre se nt annual to ll 

of a cc id en ta l death s an d in ju ri es : T her ef or e be it

Res ol ve d, T hat S ta te an d lo ca l hea lth dep ar tm en ts give hig h pri o ri ty to th e ori enta ti on an d tr ain in g of st af f mem be rs in ac ci de nt pr ev en tion princ ip le s and te ch niq ue s a nd in augura te S ta te a n d lo ca l ac ci den t pre ve nt io n pro gr am s as r ap id ­

ly as av ail able fu nd s an d p er so nnel w ill pe rm it.

1958

USE OF SEAT BELTS IN AUTOMOBILE

W her ea s th e effectiven ess of se at be lts in min im izin g th e de gr ee of in ju ry an d th e nu m be r of dea th s re su lt in g from traffic ac ci den ts h as be en de m on st ra te d : 

T her ef ore be it

Res ol ve d, T h at th e Amer ican Public H ea lth Assoc iatio n urg e F ed er al ag en cies 

an d th e S ta te an d te rr it o ri a l h ealt h officers an d oth er in te re st ed gr ou ps of th e se ve ra l S ta te s an d te rr it o ri es of th e United S ta te s to en co ur ag e th e eq uipp ing of al l officia l cit y, co un ty, Sta te , an d F ed er al au to m ob iles w ith se at be lts which m ee t ac ce pt ab le sta n d a rd s; and th a t ev er y effo rt be m ad e th ro ugh te ch ni qu es of healt h ed uc at io n to en co ur ag e th e w id er us e of se at be lts by th e ge ner al pu blic 

in ea ch S ta te a nd t err it o ry .

1958

BEHIN D-T HE-WI IEE L DRIVER TRAINING

W her ea s th e effecti ve ne ss of be liind -th e-whe el d ri ver tr ain in g has been co nclus iv el y dem on st ra te d : T here fo re be i t

Res ol ve d, T hat th e Am er ic an P ublic H ea lth Assoc iatio n ask th e S ta te and 

te rr it o ri a l healt h officers and o th er in te re st ed gro ups to co op er at e w ith d ep art ­ m en ts o f ed uc at io n an d oth er S ta te a nd local gro up s an d ag en ci es t o mak e b eh ind- the- whe el dri ver tr ain in g opport unit ie s av ai la ble to all hi gh sch oo l st udents ; to en co ur ag e th e de ve lopm en t of be hind -the -w he el d ri ver tr ain in g co urse s, m ee tin g minim um st an d ard s of effe ctiv en es s, fo r all pe rs on s pri or to th e gra nti ng of an o pera to r’s pe rm it, to al l lic en se d opera to rs wh o desi re to ta k e su ch co urses, an d to al l lice ns ed ope ra to rs reco m men de d by th e co urt s fo r su ch trai nin g.
160 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

1959

FU LL-T IM E DIRECTION OF AC CIDE NT PRE VENTION PROG RAMS IN STATE HE AL TH

DE PA RTME NTS

Whereas accidents which cause more than 90,000 deaths per year are the 

fourth cause of all deaths in the United States and the first cause of death in age 

groups 1 through 35; and

Whereas injuries resulting from accidents are of even greater consequence 

than the aforementioned deaths ; and

Whereas much existing knowledge concerning the prevention of accidents and 

accidental injuries is not being applied and many gaps in our knowledge as to 

the causes and prevention still exists ; and

Whereas the programing of accident prevention activities has been retarded 

by the lack of full-time personnel assigned to accident prevention : Therefore be it

Resolved, That the American Public Health Association again request all State 

health departments to inaugurate and maintain accident prevention programs 

including accident prevention research ; and be it further

Resolved, That each State health officer is urged to appoint one or more fulltime staff members to promote, develop, and coordinate accident prevention projects and activities with adequate financial resources.

DATA ON COM POS ITIO N OF PRODUC TS FOR POISO N INF OR MA TIO N AN D CONTROL CENTERS

Whereas poison information and control centers must maintain index files 

with up-to-date information regarding toxic constituents of substances which 

may produce accidental poisoning; and

Whereas the National Clearing-House for Poison Control Centers is unable with 

present resources to assemble all the information needed for these indexes; and

Whereas there is particular need for adequate information regarding the constituen t elements of cosmetics and household components: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That all concerns and industries which manufacture these products 

be urged to release routinely to the National Clearing-House for Poison Control 

Centers detailed information regarding composition of their products and percentages of constituents in advance of appearance on the marke t; and be in 

further

Resolved, That national indu stria l associations be urged to collaborate in this 

effort; and be it further

Resolved, That the relevant Federal agencies and the Appropriation Committees 

of the U.S. Congress be urged to provide the National Clearing-House for Poison Control Centers with the financial and administrative resources necessary 

to prepare and distribute comprehensive listings of information about toxic 

constituents of manufactured products.

1961

ACC IDENT PREVENTIO N TE AC HIN G IN EN GINE ER ING SCH OOLS

Whereas industrial practices embrace various aspects of safety and are translating accident prevention principles into practice on a large scale; and

Whereas strengthening of systematic instruction in accident prevention in curricula of schools of engineering would insure the better indoctrination of future 

plant management personnel with good safety attitud es: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the American Public Health Association endorses the concept 

of including systematic instruction on accident prevention in the curricula of all 

colleges of engineering.

A PPEN D IX B

Com man dm en ts for Wring er Safe ty

(By Edward Press, M.D., public health director, Evanston Health Department) 

1. Do one thing at a time

Concentrate on the job at hand—washing clothes. If you let your mind 

wander, try to cook or help a child while operating the washer, you are more 

likely to have an accident. The wringer is more likely to catch a finger, strand 

of hair, or loose clothing.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 161

Try to do the laundry when you’re free of o ther household chores. No one’s busier than a housewife—but no one’s more valuable, so give yourself a break. If children are around, and you must leave t he washer—even for jus t a mo­ ment—turn the switch off and pull the electric plug from the outlet.

2. Check the wringer’s safety release Test the release each time you st ar t washing. Be sure it works properly. Practice releasing it until your action will be instinctive in case of accident. Every member of the family old enough to understand should be f amiliar with 

tha t release mechanism. Use the safety release in case of accident. Do not reverse the rollers.

S. Keep children away Your washer is not a toy, but the wringer can be dangerous. Warn the chil­ dren to s tay away from it and never let them play with it or operate it.

4. Dress appropriately fo r the job you’re doing Wear a hai r net or cap when you are working around the wringer-washer. Be sure your clothing, whatever you wear, has no loose sleeves or belt-end or 

trim which might be caught in the wringer.

5. Check the floor area of your home laundry Be sure tha t the floor near the wringer-washer is dry, providing no dange r of your slipping. There’s particul ar danger that i t can become slick with soap and wate r or other slippery substances you may be using. This is an important accident prevention measure in general, but partic ularly 

so if you use a wringer.

6. Consider replacement f or increased safety As the rubber rollers on your washer become worn, they will not wring your clothes adequately. That ’s the time to replace them. DON’T j ust keep tightening the rollers. If circumstances permit and y our w ater supply is adequate, replace the wringer machine with a fully automatic one. It is s afer than the wringer type. But in case your’re caught: Trip tha t safety release immediately. Shut off the electric current. Call your doctor a t once.

Wh il e Wait in g for th e Doctor

1. Elevate the injured hand or ar m and apply cold compresses. 2. If the skin is broken, cover the inju ry with a sterile bandage. If none is at hand, a freshly laundered towel may be used to wrap the injure d par t of the 

body. 3. But th is is not enough. Medical attentio n is needed at once. The fingers or arm caught in the wringer may look normal, but it is very possible th at underlying muscle o r bones may be seriously damaged. Swelling and more serious effects may occur later. Doctor’s telephone number__________________ Hospital’s telephone number__________________ Every housewife owes it to herse lf and her family to read this leaflet care­ fully. Discuss it with your family. Then post it beside your wringer-washer 

in case of an emergency.

[Chicago Tribune, February 11]

Boy Strangled by a Wringer— Sweater I s T wisted Lik e a Tou rn ique t

A 4-year old boy died yesterday after one of his arms was caught in a washing machine wringer in his home, and a sweater was twisted around his neck, 

apparen tly strangling him. Michael Sokolski, 726 N. Chicago Avenue, Arlington Heights, was pronounced dead in Northwest Community Hospital an hour afte r arrival. Surgeons had opened his chest to massage his hear t in a n attempt to revive him. The boy, was one of five children of Joseph and Pauline Sokolski, was being minded by a sister, Christine, 14. His mother had gone to a Chicago hospital where her siste r had undergone surgery.
162 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

PLAYING IN BASEMENT

M icha el w en t to th e bas em en t w hi le his si st er w as ho us e-cle an ing, aft er get ­

ti ng h er pe rm ission to pl ay w ith his tr ain . li e a ppare ntl y tu rn ed on th e was hing 

mac hi ne .

C hri st in e w en t dow nst ai rs to re pla ce a blo wn fu ze an d fo un d her br oth er 

lyin g n ear th e w as he r. Sh e ca lled th e teleph on e opera to r wh o sum mo ned 

police.

P atr o lm an Nor man Bus se who re sp on de d to th e ca ll w ith his part ner, P atr olm an Dou ga ll, sa id he w as m et a t th e do or by C hrist in e w ho sh ou te d th a t he r 

bro th er w as de ad in th e ba se m en t.

BOY STILL ALIVE

B uss e sa id th e boy w as st il l aliv e, bu t a wo olen sw eate r he had bee n w ea ring 

w as tw is te d ar ou nd hi s ne ck like a to ur ni qu et . One of his arm s was ca ugh t in 

th e w ri nger up to th e sh ou ld er . Bus se reas on ed th a t th e ac ci de nt oc cu rred 

w he n th e sw eate r was ca ug ht i n th e w ring er .

B us se us ed a bu tc he r kn if e to cut th e sw ea te r aw ay fr om th e boy. An inh a la to r and am bu lanc e w er e su m m on ed an d th e boy was ru sh ed to th e ho sp ita l. 

H e ne ve r re ga in ed co ns ciou sn ess.

The Chairman. Thank you, doctor. I appreciate the fine statement you have made and I think you touched on some matters which 

have not been commented on before, particularly in this illustration 

you used about the wringer-type washing machine, and also lead 

poisoning; but there are oth er areas such as the lawnmower accidents 

which are taking a very big toll every year.

Of course, we went through the experience with the plastic-type 

bags and, as you point out, the new recreational activities which are 

expanding every year are going to cause, I think, a tremendous rise 

in accidents in many fields. 1 could not agree with you more that this 

has been a field tha t has been tremendously neglected, so I want to 

compliment you on your statement and tell you how much I appreciate 

the fa ct that you helped make a record for this bill.

I thin k particularly the chart where you show the budgets of selected tax-supported and voluntary non-tax-supported national 

agencies will be very helpful, the one on page 4.

I than k you very much. Are there any questions, Mr. Nelsen ?

Mr. Nelsen. I was wondering as to the American Public Health 

Association or the affiliates with this association—I am just curious 

about its background, how extensive it is, who belongs, and so forth.

I)r. P ress. Yes, sir. The American Public Health Association is an 

association of primarily professional people in public health. They 

would be doctors, public health nurses, public health nutritionists, 

public health engineers, public health dentists, and so on, that are 

working for health departments and voluntary health agencies.

There are about 13,000 members of the American Public Health 

Association. Then they have these State affiliates, like the Illinois 

Public Health Association, or the Minnesota Public Health Association, and in Minneapolis, for example, there will be a meeting of a 

regional branch which is called the Middle States Region of the 

American Public Health Association, and it just happens that this 

will be this June. Tha t is a region of several States.

In addition to the 13,000 members of the American Public Health 

Association there are 25,000 members of these 48 S tate affiliates and 

3 regional branches. When they pass a resolution like this one, tha t
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 163

consideration be given to the advisability of a National Accident P revention Center, this is done in their general conclave, which is held 

once a year.

There are about 150 members of the governing council. Many of 

them are elected, one representing each of the State affiliates, and 

they have an open reading and discussion in a way, on a much smaller 

scale, similar to your House of Representatives and there are some 

for and some against. These over the last 10 years are resolutions 

that have survived the debate and controversy, and this one in 1956 

bears specifically on this problem.

Mr. Nelsen. Thank you.

The Chairman. Mr. Rogers?

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Doctor, I have enjoyed your statement, 

too. It has been very helpful. Would you think it would be advisable 

to expand the language of the bill to include not only the study of 

the cause and prevention of accidents, but also to include the diagnosis 

and treatment of accidents ?

Dr. Press. Would the language of the bill exclude it at the present 

time in your opinion, Mr. Rogers?

Mr. Rogers of Florida. There have been some suggestions tha t it 

might and it has been testified by some that they thought this language 

might be helpful to make sure that you get a complete trajectory 

of the problem from beginning to end.

Dr. Press. The treatment, and Dr. Wade, whom, incidentally, you 

heard before with the joint committee, which includes surgeons tha t 

specialize in the treatment of traum atic accidents, American College 

of Surgeons and National Safe ty Council is primarily concerned with 

treatment, is important; but it is in a little different area than the 

cause and the prevention.

The first aid treatment, I think, would be important, and perhaps 

the medical treatment. I think that my answer, as I am thinking, 

would probably be “ Yes”. In this case of wringer injuries, for example, you will notice that, the last page of my statement has a newspaper article about a little boy who got his arm and sweater caught 

in a wringer. It went up to his armpit and he was then choked to 

death. This just happened a few months ago in a suburb of Chicago 

and that, same pamphlet tha t you see back there, although it stresses 

prevention, does on the last page have something about first aid tre atment. In a way, treatment is p art of the prevention of the ill effects 

of an accident.

I would say tha t if the language prohibits it, other language should 

be put in, but that there would be other agencies, and that would be 

the area of coordination. The coordination would, we hope, not result 

in duplication. Tha t would be the only reservation, but I think it 

is important because especially early treatment has an important 

effect on final results.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Do you think it might be a good idea to 

set up this National Accident Prevention Center almost as we set 

up the National Institutes of Health, like one of the Institutes there, 

such as the cancer work is done, so that there can be a complete coordinating body for all research ?
164 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

Dr. Press. I would like to see it set up something like either one 

of the Institutes or perhaps the Communicable Disease Center which 

is in Atlanta, Ga. If there is, say, an epidemic, if you want to call 

it tha t, of lead poisoning, or an epidemic of wringer injuries, or an 

epidemic of inhalation of fumes when the new automatic drycleaning 

machines come out, for example, then you can send out people, epidemiologists, if you want to call them, policemen, so to speak, and 

find out why are there a lot of wringer accidents.

On this epidemic of lead poisoning, they found when we looked 

into it t hat most of the people who died and who had lead poisoning 

lived right along the area where the Congress Street superhighway 

was being built and what happened was there was a slum clearance 

project. They were tearing down old tenements. They had been 

repainting with cheaper pain t, and so when they platted the areas 

where these children had lead poisoning they found they practically 

were p latting the superhighway in which project they tore down the 

tenements.

Of course it took a little while to find it out, but if we had something 

like a Communicable Disease Center devoted to accidents, perhaps 

when they first started, 4 or 5 years ago, they would have found it. 

Instead of waiting 3 years to find it out, we might have been able to 

find it out the first year and then have taken steps to prevent it.

So I feel th at there should be an organization like either the Institutes or the Communicable Disease Center that can act as a coordinator 

of the efforts, as well as do intramural research if necessary. I would 

not see them doing a lot of it, but just as they do research in the Heart 

Ins titute and in the Cancer Institute, if necessary I would like them to 

to be able to have the facilities and then I would also like them to act 

as a clearinghouse for the universities.

Southern Illinois University, Northern Illinois University, and the 

University of Illinois, for example, I know do some work in accident 

prevention. I am not sure tha t each one of them knows w’hat the other 

is doing and in the field o f accidental poisoning there are a lot of 

areas.

Even though I am in this field I think each week I learn something 

I did not know and should have known, and so I see a double function, 

coordination and intram ural and extramural research.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you. You have been most helpful. We 

appreciate it very much.

Dr. Press. Thank you.

The Chairman. Our next witness will be Dr. William Haddon, 

director, epidemiology residency program, Department of Health, 

State of New York, Albany, N. Y.

Dr. Haddon, I would like to say that I know of the fine work you 

have done in your State and it is my understanding tha t you have 

been of considerable help to Governor Rockefeller in the effort that 

has been made in your State to do something about this tremendous 

problem, and we are certainly appreciative of your interest in this field 

and for your appearance here today.

You may proceed with your statement.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 165

STATEMENT OF DR. WIL LIAM HADDON, JR., DIRECTOR, EPIDEM IOLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE

OF NEW YORK, ALBANY, N.Y.

D r. H addon. T hank y ou , Mr. Cha irm an . Be ca use of th e le ng th of 

th e pr ec ed in g t es tim on y d u ri n g th e pas t 2 da ys I wou ld like to s ubm it 

my stat em en t fo r th e re co rd w ith yo ur p er m ission an d lim it my comm en ts t o sev eral of t he poin ts wh ich it c on tains, and als o to an y qu es ­

tions you m ig ht ca re to ask.

T he Cha irman . W it hout ob jec tio n your st at em en t will appear in 

th e record.

(T he statem en t re fe rr ed to above fol lows , an d th e at ta ch m en t su bm itte d ma y be fo un d in t he committee re co rds.)

Statement of William Haddon, Jr., M.D., New York State Department of

Health

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I first wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today in support of the proposed legislation. I am testifying as a member of the staff of the New York State Department of Health, whose commissioner is Dr. Herman E. Hilleboe. In that department I am responsible, under a program approved by the American Board of Preven­ tive Medicine, for the training of physicians entering careers in public health research. From 1957 to 1961 I was director of the driver research center, an interdisciplinary accident research group administered by the New York State Department of Health in cooperation with the State department of motor vehicles. It is through my experience in both of these positions that I am very 

familiar with the issues under discussion. As a department and as public health workers, we are concerned with ac­ cidents because of their continuing and exceptional prominence as a cause of death, injury, disfigurement, and disability. In the United States today, acci­ dents are the most frequent cause of death, for all ages between 1 and 35. They are the fourth leading cause of death in the total population, exceeded only 

by hea rt disease, cancer, and vascular lesions of the central nervous system. More than one-half of all deaths among those aged 15 to 25 are caused by accidents, and among males in this age group accidents cause over 60 percent 

of all deaths. The cost to the United States from accidents of all types is staggering, no matter which dimension of the problem is considered. In addition to the more 

than 90.000 killed each year, approximately 46 million persons are injured, according to the national health survey, the only scientifically based study of the magnitude of this problem. Each year accidental injuries alone resu lt in more than 420 million days of restricted activity, and approximately 110 million days of bed disability. At a time when we are attempting to maximize our national productivity, we are losing almost 110 million workdays per year. These totals clearly indicate that either we do not now have the answers to this problem, or that, if we do, they are not being successfully applied to its solution. In addition, with our increasing national recognition of the problems of providing adequate medical care for the ill and injured, and also of providing rehabilitation services for those with the resultant disabilities, these totals assume a new significance. If we are to succeed in reducing these end results with their manifold costs in human suffering and economic waste, we must for the first time squarely face the issue of learning to understand and prevent each of the many types of accidents which continue to result in these losses. The numbers of persons killed in accidents of all types have, on a per capita 

basis, shown but relatively small decreases from decade to decade, although accidental deaths of some types, for example, those involving streetcars, have 

substantially decreased. Even with respect to motor vehicle accidents, where we are led to believe tha t we ar e making substantial progress, the situation has shown little major change in recent years, despite many claims to the contrary. 

While it is true that there have been decreases in the accident rate per vehicle mile driven, the true and more meaningful measure of the burden we are carrying, namely, the number of motor vehicle accident deaths per capita, has shown
166 TO ESTABLISH A NATIO NAL ACCIDENT PR EV EN TION CEN TER

but re la tivel y s m all c ha ng es in rec en t y ea rs . F or e xa mpl e, w e a re losing annual ly 

a t pre se nt ap pr ox im at el y 21 per so ns ki lled fo r ea ch 100,000 mem be rs of th e 

po pu lation , a ra te which we fi rs t re ac he d in 1927.1 * In ad ditio n, we do no t know 

w heth er or no t th er e ha ve be en an y de crea se s, or in cr ea se s, in th e nu m be rs of 

pe rs on s in ju re d in m ot or ve hi cl e ac ci de nt s duri ng th e sa m e pe rio d. In sh ort , 

al th ough su bst anti al pro gr es s has been mad e w ith re sp ec t to ce rt ai n as pe ct s 

of th e problem , fo r ex am pl e, th ose co nc erne d w ith hig hw ay de sign an d ve hicle 

m ec ha ni ca l re liab ility, we have m ad e ve ry li tt le pr og re ss w ith re sp ec t to th e 

unders ta ndin g of th e hum an fa cto rs conceded by all co nc erne d w ith th e su bj ec t 

to be of m aj or im po rtan ce in th e ov er whe lm ing m ajo ri ty of su ch ac cide nts.

W h at li tt le ac ce pt ab le w or k h as been do ne w ith re sp ec t to hu m an fa cto rs in 

hig hw ay and oth er ac ci den ts h as come ve ry la rg el y fr om pr of es sion al an d acade mic gr ou ps ou tsid e of th e ver y m an y en fo rc em en t, lic en sing , an d en gi ne er in g 

ag en ci es cu st om ar ily co nc er ne d w ith th is su bj ec t. Su ch gr ou ps , fo r ex am ple, 

th a t whi ch I he ad ed duri ng re cent ye ar s, ha ve dem onst ra te d clea rly th a t th e 

co nc ep ts an d metho ds de ve lope d by pu blic hea lth w ork er s an d by thos e in 

coll ate ra l disc iplin es are hi gh ly ap pl ic ab le to th e s tu dy of ac ci de nt s. Th ey ha ve 

al so de m onst ra te d th a t whe n su ch tech ni qu es are ap plied, ne w an d us ef ul under ­

sta n d in g is br ou gh t to th e su bj ec t. As an ex am pl e of th is , I wish to su bm it fo r 

th e re co rd a re p ri n t of our re port , ju s t pu bl ishe d in th e Jo u rn al of Chron ic 

D isea se s, de m on st ra ting th is poin t w ith re sp ec t to fa ta l pedes tr ia n ac ci de nt s.’

A lth ou gh such ac ci de nt s had be en w ith us fo r mor e th an a h alf ce nt ur y, it is 

re m ark able t h a t no on e of t h e g ro up s giv en re sp on sibi lity fo r th eir under st an din g 

and pr ev en tion ha d co nd uc ted an y sc ientifically ac ce pt ab le re se ar ch de sign ed to 

d ete rm in e th e way s in whi ch th ose kille d differed from th ose wh o thou gh si m ila rl y ex po sed to th e sa m e h azard s w er e not so inv olved. W he n we complete d th e 

fi rs t in ve st ig at io n of th is ty pe w e w er e ab le to do cu men t th e ex istenc e of m ajo r 

di ff er en ce s betw ee n pedest ri ans ki lled an d th ose no t invo lved , dif ferenc es of 

co ns id er ab le pe rtin en ce to th e de ve lopm en t of ra ti onal co un te rm ea su re s. W e 

hav e also now complete d th e fi rs t in ve st ig at io n of th e w ay s in wh ich dri ver s 

kille d di ffer from si m ilar ly ex po se d dri ver s no t invo lved in ac ci de nt s, an d ha ve 

al so fo un d ve ry larg e di ffer en ce s. 3 *8 The se are m er ely tw o in di ca tion s, no t on ly of 

th e pote ntial profit to be obta in ed th ro ug h th e ap pl ic at io n of th e metho ds and 

kn ow -how of th e pu blic h ealt h pr of es sion , but also of th e fa c t th a t we h av e ju s t 

not be en ge ttin g th e answ er s fr om th e gr ou ps her et ofo re re sp on sibl e fo r th es e 

m att ers . It is un re as onab le to pr es um e th a t th e m ain te nance of th e pre se nt 

sta tu s qu o will su dd en ly le ad to re du ct io ns in our pre se nt, su bst anti all y st a ti c 

acci den t bu rden s.

W ith re sp ec t to m ot or ve hi cl e ac ci de nts, it he lps to pl ac e th e prob lem in. 

pe rs pe ct iv e to men tio n th e per ce nta ges of th e te ns of m ill io ns of vehic les m an ufa ctu re d each de ca de in th e U nited S ta te s which will, duri ng th e pe riod s of t h eir 

us e be inv olved in in ju ry or fa ta li ty pr od uc in g ac ci de nt s. As Dr. Ja m es G od da rd, 

Ci vil A ir Su rge on, Fed er al A vi at io n Agency (w ho h as te st ifie d in th e pas t be fo re 

th is c om m itte e) an d I re ce ntly p oi nt ed ou t, 4 p er ce nt o f al l ve hi cl es m an ufa ct ure d 

su bs eq ue nt ly st ri ke ped est ri ans, an d in ad di tion , be tw ee n one- qua rt er an d twoth ir d s of such ve hicles a re invo lv ed in ac ci de nt s in which th eir oc cu pa nt s are 

in ju re d, in m an y ca se s fa ta ll y , by be ing th ro w n eit h er th ro ugh th eir op ened

1

 T he nu m be r of pe rson s ki lled by m oto r ve hicles pe r 100,0 00 po pul at io n du ri ng re ce nt 

y ears has bee n as follo ws :

1945 _____________________________ ____ 21.2

1946 ________________________________ 23. 9

1947 ________________________________ 22. 8

19 48 ____ _____________________________ 22. 1

1949 ______________________ ________ ___21. 3

1950 __________________________________ 23. 0

1951 _________________________________ 24. 1

1952 _________________________________ 24. 3

1953 _______________________________ _ 24. 0

1054 ______________________ _ ________ 22. 1

1955 ________________________________ 23. 4

1956 ____________ _____________________23. 7

1957 _________________________ _______ 22. 7

19 58.________________________________ 2 1 .3

1959 ________________________________ 2 1.5

1960 ________________________________ 21. 2

So ur ce : “A cc iden t F acts ,” 1961 ed ., N at io nal Saf et y Co uncil , Ch icag o.

8

 H ad do n, W., Jr. , Valien, P. . M cC ar ro ll. J. R., an d Um be rger, C. J.. “A Con trolled 

In v est ig ati o n of th e C hara cte ri st ic s of A du lt P ed es tr ia ns F ata ll y In ju re d b y Motor Ve hic les 

in M a n h att an ,” J. Ch ron. Dis. 14 : 6 (D ecem be r) 1961 .

T his w or k wa s a jo in t u n d ert ak in g of th e D rive r Res ea rch C en te r an d th e D ep ar tm en t 

of Publ ic H ea lth, Co rnell U niv ers it y Me dical College, w ith th e co op er at io n of th e New 

Yo rk City Po lic e D ep ar tm en t an d th e office of th e ch ie f med ical ex am in er .

■a M cC arroll. J . R., an d H ad do n, W.. Jr. , “A Con trol le d Stu dy of F a ta l Au tomob ile 

Acc id en ts in New York C ity, ” J. Cho n. Dis. in press.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIO NAL ACCIDENT PR EV EN TI ON CE NT ER 167

do ors or ag ain st th eir h ard in te ri o r su rf ac es .4

 T his spe cif ic si tu ati on h ard ly 

su gg es ts th a t we now ha ve th e re se ar ch an sw er s which we need, or, th at, if we 

do h av e them , th a t th ey a re bei ng su cc es sful ly ap plied. In yet ot her ac ci de nt are as, th ere is li tt le ev iden ce th a t we are m ak in g su b­ sta n ti a l pr og re ss in unders ta n d in g th e so ur ce s of ou r prob lem. F or ex am pl e, w ith r es pe ct to childho od a cc id en ts , fa lls am on g th e eld er ly , dr ow ning s, an d sp ort s in ju ri es, we know ve ry litt le , al th ough we a re all cert ain ly aw ar e, fo r ex am pl e, of th e mor e th an tw o dozen fo otb al l dea th s duri ng re ce nt m on th s. In fa ct , th is en ti re su bj ec t of sp ort s in ju ri es has bee n so li tt le in ve st ig at ed th a t th e sc ientifi c in ve st ig at io n of sk iing in ju ri es in whic h we are now co op er at in g un der contr act w ith th e U .S. Pu blic H ea lth Ser vi ce w ill b e th e fi rs t wor k of it s ty pe in th e en ti re 

fie ld of sp or ts in ju ri es . T he li tt le re se ar ch no w underw ay w ith re sp ec t to th e hum an an d m ed ical fa cto rs in ac ci de nt s of all ty pes is al m os t to ta ll y unco or di na te d, an d th ere is al m os t no scientific acti vit y w ith re sp ec t to la rg e se gm en ts of th e ac ci de nt prob lem, includ ing some of th ose wh ich I hav e ju st men tio ne d. R es ea rc h fa cil it ie s an d ad eq ua te ly tr a in e d scientific pe rson ne l are in m os t are as sc ar ce or no ne xi st en t. A de qu ate li b ra ry reso ur ce s es pe cially de ve lope d fo r th is p u r­ po se a re fo r mo st pra cti cal pu rp os es co mplete ly unav ai la ble to al l but sm al l gr ou ps in a few ce nt er s. T here is no sc ientifi c jo u rn al de vo ted ex clus ively to ori gin al re se ar ch art ic le s co nc erne d w ith th is su bj ec t, an d it is do ub tful th a t suffi cie nt wo rk of quali ty is now un de rw ay w ith re sp ec t to such med ical an d hu m an fa cto rs to fill th e pag es of a sin gle mon th ly jo u rn al of high st andard s. T his pr ob lem is part ic ula rl y diffi cu lt be ca us e of th e obsc ur ity of th e so ur ce s in which th e re su lts of mos t of th e sc ientifi ca lly ac ce pt ab le re se ar ch co mplete d to date has bee n pu blishe d, and is ac ce nt ua te d by th e fa c t th a t such re port s a re oft en lo st in th e flood of sa fe ty pro pa ga nd a issu ed by sp ec ial in te re st 

grou ps . N at io na lly, as a ge ne ro us ly hi gh es tim at e, th ere are pro ba bl y not mor e th an 50 sc ie nt ific al ly tr ain ed re se arc h w or ke rs w ith ad eq uat el y br oa d ex pe rien ce in th is field, an d only a handfu l of re la tive ly sm all gr ou ps a re now en gaged in ac ci de nt rese ar ch . W ith few ex ce pt io ns th es e are po or ly fu nd ed , an d are th em se lv es no t only sh o rt of pe rs on ne l, but also of th e re so ur ce s wh ich wou ld 

gre atl y fa cil it ate th eir wo rk. The se co nd iti on s te st if y fu ll y to th e path eti c in ad eq ua cy of ou r ex is ting nati onal reso ur ce s fo r u nders ta ndin g an d ra ti onall y de al in g w ith th is m ajo r pr ob lem. Unless we wish to ad m it th a t we are sa tisf ie d w ith our pre se nt sm al l pr og re ss , an d w ith ou r sm al l re se ar ch ex pen diture s per in div id ual ac ci de nt vi ct im in co mpa ris on w ith our ef fo rt w ith re sp ec t to oth er ca us es of dea th , we mus t fa vo r th e de ve lopm en t of re so ur ce s of th e ty pe s prop osed in th e le gi sl at io n un de r cons id er at io n. W e kn ow from our p a st ex pe rie nc e w ith su ch o th er hu m an aff lic tio ns as TB an d polio th a t co or di na te d, med icall y di­ re ct ed , an d well fin anced ef fo rts pa y off. We also al re ady kn ow th a t ac cide nts a re ve ry su sc ep tib le to th e sa m e ge ner al ap pr oa ch . I t is fo r th es e m an y re as on s th a t we su pp or t th is m ea su re , si nc e it wo uld , fo r th e firs t tim e in th is co un try or ab ro ad , mak e po ssible th e nati onal co or di na tion , su pport , an d de ve lopm en t 

of ac ci den t re se ar ch an d pre ven ti on ac tivi ties .

T han k you.

Dr. Haddon. I will not recite for yon the figures which you have heard repeatedly as to the exceptional and continuing prominence of this cause of death, disfigurement, and disability; nor will I add to the comments of my two predecessors this morning with respect to the millions of working days which we are losing per year. I would say, however, that the totals which have been cited clearly indicate that either we do not now have the answers to th is problem, or that if we do have them they are not being successfully applied. The question has been repeatedly raised as to whether or not we, as a nation, can afford expenditures of this type. I think we, as a

4

 G od da rd , J., an d Had do n, W., ,Tr., “A n In tr oduct io n to th e Discu ss ion of th e Ve hic le in R el at io n to Highw ay S af et y,” J o in t Co nference on Aut om otive Saf et y, E val uat io n of Aut om ot iv e De sig n an d Res ea rch. W es t Poin t, May 196 1, to be pu bl ishe d by th e Assoc iatio n fo r th e Aid of C rip pled Chi ld re n an d Con su mer s Un ion .
168 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

na tio n, can not afford no t to mak e expenditures of th is type. Substan tial F ed eral fu nd s are now go ing dir ectly to the care of th e i njured 

no t on ly du ring their im me dia te hospit alizat ion , b ut also in connection 

with th ei r subsequ ent reha bilitation.

Lar ge por tions, as has alread y been ind icated th is mo rning, of the 

fu nd s being expended, fo r example, un de r the Ilill-B ur to n Act are 

go in g fo r hospital constru cti on necessitated by the exc eptional prom ­

inence, fo r exam ple, of acc ide nts amo ng the eld erly. It will prob ­

ab ly be t he m isfortune o f some of us in t his room to, in ou r later ye ars, 

be th e victim s of acciden ts of th e t ype so common i n th at age group.

Th ese are accidents, as you know, which involve exc eptionally long 

ho sp ita l stays with bro ken hips, for exam ple, w ith all of th e ma nif old 

comp lic ati ons which this involves. Th is is not a pre tty business.

I wo uld also lik e to say t hat we a re be ing led to believe in this country 

by m any pub lic announcem ent s th at we a re making substan tia l pr og ­

ress in e ach o f the several ar ea s und er consideration .

F o r exam ple, we are to ld th at the mo tor vehicle accident pictu re 

is showing progressive an d a pprec iab le imp rovement. I would m erely 

in t his connection call yo ur att en tio n to the fact that t he tru e measure 

of the bu rdens to our pop ulation, th e tru e m easure of th e b urd ens from 

acc ide nts inv olving moto r veh icle crashes, is the nu mber of pers ons 

kille d pe r cap ita. Has th is shown any impro vem ent ?

Th ere h as been no consistent pi ctu re as f ar as we can detect. Dur in g 

th e last decade or tw o we h ave been losing a nn ually appro xim ate ly 21 

perso ns fo r each 100,000 m embers of the p opula tio n. Th is was a rate 

which we first reached in 1929. We h ave exceeded it. We have gone 

as high as 20 or so perso ns kil led pe r capit a, bu t con sider wh at has 

happ ened since the end of W or ld W ar II . Th e figures are in the 

footn ote o f my prep ared sta tem ent.

To pic k off a few of these, in 1945, fo r example, we killed 21.2 fo r 

every 100,000. Our rate increased and came down again in 1949 to 

21.3; in 1954, 22.1; in 1958, 21.3; 1959, 21.5; an d in 1960, the last ye ar 

fo r which I had figure s available , 21.2.

Thi s ha rd ly suggests th at we are ma kin g subs tan tia l pro gre ss in 

th is p ar ticu la r area. It also, again fo r this par ticu la r area, suggests 

th at if we do hav e the answers the y are not being applied. I would 

maintain th at we hav e some of the answ ers, bu t even these are not 

being appli ed and th at we need, as you know, more rese arc h to find out 

exact ly wh at is go ing on an d wh at we can do about it.

Ac cid ent s of this typ e h ave been an exceptio nal and p rom ine nt cause 

of de ath fo r more th an a ha lf- ce ntury, as mentioned by so many of 

us here. Th is is be gin ning to be a very long -st an ding problem.

Th e b asic questio n in dise ase research or in acc ide nt research is how 

do th e people th at exp erie nce such events differ fro m those who do 

no t? In the polio field it was the question of wha t infectiou s age nt 

did polio cases have th at ot he r people did not? Th is is the basic 

que stio n. We had killed alm ost one and one-h alf millio n people in 

the Uni ted State s and in ju re d probably in the hu nd reds of million s 

befor e an y one had con ducte d a scientifically ade quate stu dy of the 

ways in which peop le inv olved fa tally in mo tor vehicle accidents, 

ei th er as pedestrian s or as drivers, differed from those who drove by 

the sam e places, or who wa lke d by the same places, at the same time 

of day, and so f o rt h ; an d who were not so invo lved , the basic question 

ag ain in accident and d isease research .
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 169

With associates at Cornell University Medical College, as footnoted 

in my prepared statement, we have conducted such research and we find major such differences of considerable pertinence to the problem.

We asked ourselves why did we need to lose V/2

 million people before we asked these research questions and sought the ir answers. Let me mention one more statistic with respect to motor vehicle accidents. I think it places the problem in a bit of perspective to men­ tion the percentages of vehicles manufactured which during their sub­ sequent periods of use are involved in accidents in which they either strike pedestrians or in which their occupants are injured. This is the sort of statistic which, surprisingly enough, is not told to the American people. With Dr. James Goddard, I believe well known to this committee, civil air surgeon of the Federal Aviation Agency, I calculated several months ago what these percentages were. Four percent of the vehicles manufactured, during thei r subsequent periods of use injuriously or fatally strike pedestrians; 4 percent, 1 in 25. When you look at the long lines of vehicles coming out of our plants it is remarkable to think that 1 in 25 of them will be involved 

in such events. Between one-quarter and two-thirds of such vehicles are involved in accidents in which their occupants are injured, in many cases fatally, either by being thrown through their inappropriately opening doors, a story with which you are quite familiar, or by being thrown against their inappropriately hard interior surfaces; between one-quarter and 

two-thirds of the vehicles manufactured. This again hardly suggests th at if we have the answers they are being applied. Now, there are many other accident areas. We have just heard about lead poisoning, a tragic problem, an expensive problem, and there are many others. With respect to childhood accidents of other types, falls among the elderly, drownings, and sports injuries, we know almost nothing. In fact we do not know really how to prevent the more than two dozen trag ic high school and college football deaths which we have had during the past several months; another 

tragic situation. This whole area has been so little investigated that the study under a very small contract of $3,600 from the Public Health Service, which we are conducting of skiing injuries, is the first such study begun in the entire area of sports injuries of all types: $3,600. Tha t is how little work has been done previously. There is very little research now underway with respect to the human and medical factors in accidents of all of these types. It is almost totally uncoor­ dinated. There is almost no scientific activity with respect to large segments of the problem; including some of those which I have mention, and many others. Research facilities and adequately trained scientific personnel are in most areas of the country scarce or nonexistent, and I am certain tha t this would apply to some of the areas represented by the mem­ bers of this committee. There is no scientific journal devoted ex­ clusively to original research articles concerned with this subject ; in comparison literally with the hundreds or thousands in the medical area, and it is doubtful whether there is sufficient work of quality now underway with respect to such medical and human factors to fill the 

pages of a single monthly journal of high standards.
170 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

This problem is particu larly difficult because of the obscurity of 

the sources in which the results of most of the scientifically acceptable 

research completed to date have been published, and it is accentuated 

by the fact tha t such reports are often lost in the flood of safety propaganda issued by special interest groups.

Nationally, as a generously high estimate, there are probably not 

more th an 50 scientifically train ed research workers with adequately 

broad experience in this held, and only a handful of relatively small 

groups are now engaged in accident research. These are almost without exception poorly funded and are themselves not only short of 

personnel, but also of the resources which would greatly facilitate 

their work.

I think that it is obvious that these conditions testify fully to the 

pathetic inadequacy of our existing national resources, and I might 

interject here and point out that the situation internationally is no 

different, and that we have an opportunity in this respect to lead the 

way, so to speak, in the understanding of this essentially worldwide 

problem.

We have come to think of it as a problem of the postindustrial 

society of the Western World. This is no longer a tenable position. 

There is a paper being published by Dr. John Gordon, professor 

emeritus at the Harvard School of Public Health, in about 2 months 1

repo rting works supported by the Rockefeller Foundation in the 

Punjab, in rural semitropical India, in which they have for the first 

time looked to see whether accidents are prominent in such areas. 

The answer they get is tha t they are just as prominent as a cause of 

death and morbidity as they are in the Western World.

They are so prominent that they are, even with many tropical diseases, and with tuberculosis, approximately the sixth cause of death, 

even in areas of that type. So essentially we have an opportunity 

here and I think it would be tragic if we did not take this opportunity.

It is for these many reasons tha t we, as a department and individually, support H.R. 133; since it would for the first tune in this 

country or abroad make possible the national coordination, support, 

and development of accident resarch and prevention activities.

Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Haddon. The Chair, and I am 

sure the committee, appreciates your statement very much. I am not 

going to ask you any questions. I think your statement is to the point 

and it is helpful to the committee, and I simply want to thank you for 

your appearance.

There may be some questions by the other gentlemen of the subcommittee?

Our next witness will be Col. John Paul Stapp, Brooks Air Force 

Base, San Antonio, Tex. Colonel, it is a pleasure to have you come 

to the committee today. We always welcome your appearances. 

We have always found you extremely helpful to the committee.

I thin k the first appearance you made was when we held a hearing 

on seat belts in 1956 or 1957 and it was a very fine piece of work you 

did in tha t hearing. We have followed your work, your testing of

1

 G or do n, J. E., Gul ati. P. V., an d W yo n, J. B., “T ra um at ic A cc id en ts in Rur al Tr op ical 

R egio ns: An Ep idem iologica l Fie ld S tu dy in Punj ab , In dia .” Am er ican Jo u rn al of Me dical 

Scien ces , M ar ch 1962, in pres s.
TO ESTABL ISH A NATIO NAL ACCID ENT PR EVENTIO N CEN TER 171

training devices, and the work you have done with reference to how 

much punishment the human brain will stand.

I am also pleased to know that in, 1 believe, the balloon ascent which 

was made by the Navy commander, of 102,500 feet, 1 believe it was, 

you had a great deal to do with the efforts to prepare not only the information, but a lot of the physical parts of that successful experiment.

A good bit of your work has been utilized in the work at Cape 

Canaveral and other bases, and you have had lots to do with our 

successful trips by Commander Shepard and Captain Grissom and 

certainly we hope in the next one by Colonel Glenn.

It is a real pleasure to welcome you here and you may proceed 

as you desire.

STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN PAU L STA PP. BROOKS A IR FORCE BASE, 

SAN ANTONIO, TEX .

Colonel Stapp. Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts, and members 

of the Committee on Health and Safety.

To begin with, I am presently assigned as Chief Scientist, Aerospace 

Medical Division, Air Force Systems Command, stationed at Brooks 

Air Force Base, San Antonio, Tex. My commander is Brig. Gen. 

Theodore C. Bed well, Jr.

From the standpoint of research, accidents remain the neglected 

epidemic. When we consider how effectively research has brought 

about two ways of preventing pioliomyelitis, two different vaccines, 

and how this is going to curb the dread and damage of this disease, 

we can anticipate a great deal more for the effects of research on our 

neglected epidemic of accidents.

Furthermore, we speak of death and taxes as being inevitable; 

but they are not mutually inevitable. When death occurs, we no 

longer collect taxes.

Last year, according to the report of a previous witness, 92,000 

people died from accidents in this country. If we figure $1,000 of 

income tax per person as the loss through these deaths, this crop 

failure is costing us $92 million a year, and surely would justify the 

cost of even reducing it by 10 percent.

We can consider how much more anxiety would be immediately 

manifest over the death of 92,000 citrus trees, which might get disaster 

area treatment and immediate help. We also lose through 46 million 

people being injured and disabled.

I will not attempt to estimate tax losses, personal losses, or others 

in such a large variable figure, but it is bound to be a good deal more 

than the $92 million that I postulate for the 92,000 deaths, so that 

there is a good economic basis for investing in the saving of citizens 

of this country, considered only as taxpayers and not from any other 

standpoint.

Getting down to cases on direct losses to our Government occurring 

in the U.S. Air Force, I have these figures submitted by the Biometrics Division of the Surgeon General’s Office of the U.S. Air Force, 

dated February 6,1962.

In 1960, 454 deaths from motor vehicle accidents; a cost is assigned 

of $31,500 per death, givin g a total of $14,301,000. We had 5,557 

military personnel hospitalized for a total of 172,940 days.

8 0 6 2 4— 62 -------12
172 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

The Chairman. That is Air Force alone?

Colonel Stapp. Air Force military alone, not dependents. Fo r 

these an assigned cost of $30 a day comes to $5,188,200; in 1961, the 

first three quarters, 237 deaths at the assigned cost of $31,500, equals 

$7,465,500; hospitalized military personnel, 3,834, for 99,724 days at 

$30 a day comes to $2,991,720.

The Chairman. Was th at the first quarter?

Colonel Stapp. Fir st three quarters of 1961.

The Chairman. 1961 ?

Colonel Stapp. Yes, sir. Comparing aviation accidents and motor 

vehicle accidents, in 1960 we had in the first three quarters 656 aviation accidents and 3,919 motor vehicle accidents; t ha t is 6 motor vehicle accidents for each air craft accident. In the first three quarters 

of 1961, 619 aviation accidents to 3,834 motor vehicle accidents, or a 

ratio of 6.2 car accidents per aircraft accident.

Our total Defense Department loss in the 5 years from 1955 to 1960, 

according to Air Force ground safety, is $127 million on motor vehicle 

accidents. This is a direc t cost out of the Government budget and 

anything that can be done to reduce this cost is a direct saving to our 

Government.

We were able to do about 3 years of automobile crash research at 

Holloman Air Force Base in which we used salvage vehicles whose 

motors were beyond redemption, and we used anthropomorphic dummies and human volunteers. There our special contribution was 

unique because experiments on human volunteers are quite limited in 

any other place except in the Armed Forces.

With these human volunteer experiments, as we testified in August 

of 1959 before this committee, we were able to establish higher human 

tolerance limits to restraint by seat belt than had previously been 

estimated on the basis of experiments with dummies.

We exposed human volunteers to belt loads of 4,800 pounds during 

deceleration of 27 times grav ity incurred in less than 1 foot distance 

from 18 miles an hour. Our data was supplied directly to the Society 

of Automotive Engineers through the seat belt committee, of which 

I have been a member since 1956, and tha t data has been used in 

establishing their standards for automotive crash protection seat belts.

This data has also been freely made available to any and all other 

agencies th at wanted to use it. The approaches of all organizations 

to safety through public information, through statistics, through 

offering safety awards, throu gh admonition, and encouragement to ­

ward safety, are all very commendable and have an appreciable effect 

on the deterrence of accidents.

However, if we were to halt all research in medicine the practice 

of medicine would still be a good thing, but one of its resources for 

advancement, its p rincipal resource for advancement, would be dried 

up. . . . .

Likewise, an organization dedicated to promoting and fostering 

research on accident prevention, treatment, and reduction of casualties 

would be a fountain source for admonishing and advising public relation agencies in helping to improve their work.

It would also be a source of standards for industry. It would develop new treatment for the medical care of accident cases and it 

could even be a source of valuable information for legislation in traf ­

fic codes.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CEN TER 173

I have one pet personal project here, which is, and this is certainly not original, tha t a unified national traffic code adopted by every State would certainly facilitate both the obedience and the enforcement of traffic laws. This, of course, is within the province of other people 

to work on. Aft er spending 12 years in human research on impact and mechan­ ical force tolerance as related to aircra ft and automobile accidents, I very strongly endorse the creation of an agency for accident prevention, treatment, and research. I have every confidence in Chairman Roberts and his committee in their selection of agencies or an agency for accomplishing this work and in the wisdom of Congress in following their recommendations. This is the end of my statement and I am prepared to answer questions.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Colonel Stapp. I would like first of all if you would go back to your beginning in this field a nd tell us something about how and why the Air Force be­ gan to study the effect of accidents on the Air Force and how you started out, what your ideas were, and authorization for it, and tell us a little bit about the program which you conducted for some time.

Colonel Stapp. In 1945, several Defense Department agencies in the Navy, Army, Air Force Corps, and Civil Aeronautics, came together on the mutual problem of airc raft accident losses, particu­ larly in train ing accidents, and to consider certain evidences gathered from aircra ft accident investigations which showed that proper pro­ tection of the occupants might reduce injury and loss of lire. When engineers were approached with this data, they wanted quan­ titative answers about human tolerance to mechanical force so that these could be used as design criteria for the seats, restraints, and 

cockpits of aircraft. A 2,000-foot replica of a V -l launching track had been constructed in the desert at Rogers Lake, now’ known as Edwards A ir Force Base, Calif. This was surplus at the end of tha t experimental program and available for a rocket sled research program where the rocket sleds could be accelerated to the same speeds as flying aircra ft and then with powerful mechanical friction brakes decelerated abruptly through the same speed change as observed in a ircraft crashes. Such a sled was constructed by a contractor after a competitive bid, the Northrop Airc raft Co. Between March of 1947 and June of 1951 we accomplished 254 experiments; 73 of these with human volunteers, 88 of them with chimpanzees anesthetized for the experi­ ment, and the remainder with anthropomorphic dummies, in order to arrive at voluntary tolerance limits, beginning-of-injury limits, and 

even lethal limits of abrupt deceleration. At the same time we worked out optimum body positioning and optimum crash restraints for protecting the sled occupants against 

these abrupt decelerations.

The Chairman. As a result of these studies, you came to the conclusion th at seat belts and restraining devices would give the human occupants of a vehicle greater protection than w’ould be afforded 

otherwise?

Colonel Stapp. Without seat belts or comparable restrain ts on our sleds, the experimenter, r ather than the experiment, w’ould have come 

to a conclusion.
1 7 4 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

The Chairman. What was the greatest force tha t you discovered 

could be withstood by a human volunteer ? I believe you had one 

particular experiment that, you mentioned a few moments ago where 

you had a human volunteer.

Colonel Staff. Yes, sir; in one experiment the sled was decelerated 

from 154 miles an hour to 34 miles an hour in 31 feet with a peak 

force during one-quarter of a second of 8,000 pounds, or 4 tons; and 

this was with restraints consisting of shoulder straps, chest belt, lap 

belt, and tiedown straps from the buckle, tha t is, the buckle of the 

belt to the seat pan. This restraint system, exactly as we used it, is 

now used in the Mercury astro naut couch for holding down the 

occupant.

The Chairman. This inform ation has been developed there with 

your experiment?

Colonel Stapp. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. You also did some work in automotive crashes. 

How did you obtain the automobiles? Were they purchased by the 

Air Force, or how did you obtain them ?

Colonel Stapp. We called th e Air Force salvage yards, not just for 

vehicles that no longer could be operated, but for those that had completely irredeemable motors, because we could tow the vehicles for 

the crashes; and therefore we did not even take automobiles off the 

salvage market.

The Chairman. About what was your cost per fiscal year? What 

ranges ? From what low to what high did it run ?

Colonel Stapp. Between $30,000 and $50,000 a year, including two 

university contractors that we supported in some developments, some 

of which were patentable.

The Chairman. That type of work has now been eliminated?

Colonel Stapp. One of the contractors is now being supported by 

the National Institutes of Health with a good deal of increase over 

the modest help which we were able to give him. Th at is the Univei-sity of California at Los Angeles.

The Chairman. But the Air Force is no longer doing this particular type work that you carried on ?

Colonel Stapp. No, sir; we are not.

The Chairman. Because of lack of appropriations ?

Colonel Stapp. That and lack of authority or authorization to do 

it, and preoccupation with other problems.

The Chairman. The results were made available to all the branches 

of the services that you mentioned ?

Colonel Stapp. Yes, sir; through technical reports.

The C hairman. And to other agencies of the Federal Government ?

Colonel Stapp. Yes, sir. We prepared some suggested Federal 

standards for GSA in 1956.

The Chairman. Thank you, again, Colonel Stapp. We appreciate 

very much the fine contribution you have always made to the work 

of th is committee.

Mr. Nelsen ?

Mr. Nelsen. I was wondering about the comparisons as to accidents, 

the 6-to-l ration. Of course there were more automobiles, were there 

not, involved in that study than there were airplanes involved or individuals; or was this comparison made strictly vehicle to vehicle?

Colonel Stapp. These were just totals.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 175

Mr. Nelsen. So actually that comparison would not exactly be a fair 

one on a 6-to-l basis ?

Colonel Staff. No, except tha t in the A ir Force we spend so much 

more on accident prevention research on the aviator than we do on 

the same man when he is driving his car.

Mr. Nelsen. Yes, I understand. Thank you. I enjoyed your 

statement very much.

Colonel Stapp. Thank you.

The Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Rhodes?

Mr. R hodes. No questions.

The Chairman. The gentleman from Flo rida ?

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colonel, I appreciate your testimony. Do you see a need for a coordinating agency 

to supervise all of the research on accident prevention in the governmental departments?

Colonel Staff. Yes, sir, although I would like to make it clear it is 

a m atter of policy of the Defense Department that we leave the selectio n of such an agency to your committee and have full confidence 

in your judgment.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Would you think it might be feasible to set 

up an accident research institute similar to the way we have done it 

with cancer and with heart at the National Institutes of Health, and 

be a coordinating body for the Government ?

Colonel Stapp. Such approaches justify themselves with the results 

that they have produced and I should think th at we could extrapolate 

to the accident situation and say tha t we could do a t least as well.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You think some approach along that line 

would be helpful ?

Colonel Staff. Yes, sir, I am quite in favor of such an approach.

Mr. Rogers of Florid a. How did you coordinate the work you were 

doin^ with similar work done by other governmental departments at 

the time you were doing the work ?

Colonel Staff. Before we even attempted to sta rt any automobile 

accident research work we spent 3 months in sending around our selected project officer to coordinate with all agencies and get their 

concurrence.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Do you know how many agencies he had to 

contact ? Do you recall offhand ?

Colonel Staff. He contacted all the Air Force agencies, and Navy 

agencies, Army, U.S. Public Health Service, and even certain extragovernmental agencies, such as the National Safety Council.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. But there was no one place t hat he could 

go to have a coordinated program?

Colonel Staff. It took 3 months.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. It took 3 months?

Colonel Staff. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Thank you very much, Colonel.

The Chairman. Thank you again, Colonel Stepp.

Colonel Stapp. Than k you.

The Chairman. At this point we have four more witnesses, or perhaps five. I would like to know if all of you gentlemen, Mr. McCrary, 

Mr. Sheehe, Dr. Schreiber, Professor Borkenstein, and Mr. L atimer 

can come back at 1:30 and be available to the committee at 1 :30 ? Is 

that agreeable?
176 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

Fine. The committee will stand in recess until 1:30 in this same 

room.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Thursday, February 8, 1962, the subcommittee was recessed, to be reconvened at 1:30 p.m. the same day.}

AFTERNOON SESSION

The Chairman. The committee will come to order.

Our first witness this afternoon is Dr. V. Eugene McCrary, president of the Maryland Optometric Association. We will be glad to 

hea r you now.

STATEMENT OF V. EU GE NE McCRA RY, O.D., PR ES IDEN T, MARYLAND OPTOMETR IC ASSOCIATION, COLLEGE PARK , MD.

Dr. McCrary. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my 

name is V. Eugene McCrary. I am an optometrist, practicing in College Par k, Md. I am also president of the Maryland Optometric 

Association, a member of the board of examiners in optometry for 

the State of Maryland, and an optometric consultant to the industrial 

vision program of the TJ.S. Naval Research Laboratory here in the 

Nation’s Capital. My appearance here is as trustee consultant to the 

Department of National Affairs of the American Optometric Association.

As the result of the testimony of D r. Alfred Rosenbloom, dean of 

the Illino is College of Optometry, in support of optometry’s amendments to H.R. 4999, you are well aware of th e size and objectives of 

the organization which I represent, the minimum educational qualifications required to practice optometry in any pa rt of the ITnited 

States, the services which our profession renders to the Armed Forces, 

and the need for more optometrists to serve the visual needs of both 

the military and the expanding civilian population. These subjects 

will not be included in this presentation.

The economic cost, sustained by this Nation by reason of accidents 

(the vast. majority of which are preventable) is tremendous and fully 

justifies the establishment of a national accident prevention center by 

the Federal Government. I want to emphasize tha t one of the most 

tragic accidents which a person can suffer involves the loss or serious 

impairment of their vision. However, the question being considered 

bv you gentlemen here today is the prevention of accidents. We are 

all aware of the old saying, “An ounce of precaution is worth a pound 

of cure.” Defective or impaired vision is a contributing factor in a 

great number of highway and industrial accidents, as well as those 

connected with hunting and other outdoor activities.

Ninety percent of the decisions which must be made by an automobile driver come to his attention through his eyes. The same is true 

of o ther forms of transportation . How often do we hear the explanation, “I didn’t see him ;” or, “I didn’t see it,” following an accident. 

The speeds involved in highway travel and particularly those in air 

travel require a response to a visual warning to be made in a split 

second. The effects of glare on the vision of the d river or pilot, both 

day and night, are subjects which have been and are being intensively 

investigated by members of our profession, but as yet standards have
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 177

not, been completely established for determining the glare tolerance 

of individuals. Our profession is not only concerned with the examination of eyes 

and analyzing their visual functioning and the subsequent prescribing 

of lenses, visual exercises, and developmental visual guidance. We are 

also vitally interested in prop er lighting, colors which can serve as 

warnings of danger, visual implications of the size and shape of 

lettering, interrelationship o f vision and body posture, and other factors which contribute not only to safety in transportation but in the 

factory, in sports, schools, and in the home. These things which I have mentioned pertain to the sight of the individual. There is also the example of protective and corrective eyewear. This facet of vision care has developed p rimarily in the field 

which is known as industrial vision. Management has found th at eye 

accidents can be greatly reduced, if not entirely eliminated, by the use 

of corrective-protective eyewear made of glass that will not shatter. 

They have also found t hat the visual correction incorporated in this 

type of eyewear improves visual capacity, increases employee efficiency 

and decreases waste. This type of eyewear is also being used for boys 

and girls who are required to wear glasses which, if equipped with 

ordin ary lenses, may be broken on the playground or in the rough-andtumble of every day play.

Broken limbs will mend, lost teeth may be replaced by bridgework, 

but if the sight of an eye is destroyed by accident, there is practically 

nothing th at can be done to replace it.

The activities of our association are carried on through departments 

and committees. Among those which have to do with accident prevention are the committees on motorists’ vision and highway safety, occupational and industrial vision, contact lenses, research, standards, 

vision aid to the partially blind, vision problems of children and 

youth, and visual problems of aeronautics and space.

The profession of optometry endorses the concept contained within 

this bill. We feel th at if it is enacted, a National Accident Prevention Center can render a valuable service to the American public. 

Our profession is dedicated both to the improvement and the preservation of the vision of our fellow citizens. Fo r this reason, I am authorized to appear here today to urge the passage of the bill now under consideration and to express the hope that when the National 

Accident Prevention Center is established, a place will be found in 

it for one or more members o f our profession in order tha t we may 

continue and expand our services in ministering to the visual welfare 

of our fellow citizens.

The Chairman. I appreciate your appearance here today. I know 

of the kind of work tha t your association has done in the primary 

and secondary grades in school, in an effort to try to discover the effects of bad vision and to get as early a history as possible of the children in schools.

I wonder if you have any idea how many States require a scientific 

examination of drivers’ vision a t the present time, either for the issuance of a new license or for a renewal of a license ?

Dr. McCrary. I would say th at all of the States require, to a greater 

or lesser degree an investigation of an individual’s visual capacity, 

so far as his ability to operate a motor vehicle is concerned. There
1 7 8 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

is quite a difference in te stin g perfo rm ed in the various S tates. Some 

States will require a m inimu m vision correction , sp eaking in t erm s of 

visu al acu ity, of 20/30 , wh ere as in oth er State s, such as m y own St ate 

of Marylan d, it requires a minim um of 20/70 , which is a pr etty good 

ga p betw een States’ req uir em ents. It is my un de rstand ing th at all 

State s do require some fo rm of exa min atio n, or, at leas t, a cursory 

cer tifi cation as to an in di vi du al ’s visual ability to ha nd le t he dr iving 

sit ua tio n.

Our asso ciation feels ve ry str on gly th at this is a productive are a 

in wh ich to work, as fa r as a ny aspec t o f h igh way accid ent prev ent ion 

wo rk is concerned, because we know th at thro ug h th e yea rs visual 

pro ble ms chan ge in th ei r nat ur e and in th ei r sev erity.

I have had the experience of h aving nearsighted s tude nts who were 

pa tie nts of mine who wou ld en ter the fre shma n ye ar of college and , 

pe rhap s, be able to rea d 20/30 , th at is, th ei r visual acu ity, and in a 

few ye ars be up to 20/100 o r 20/200, so th at vision is sub jec t to changes 

due to the various strains an d stresses th at occur du ring the ag ing 

process, and so forth.

For this reason we feel ve ry stron gly th at a r eex am ina tion perio dically is most im po rta nt, th in ki ng in terms of prevention.

Th e Chair man. Do you know o f a ny S tate w hich h as a color bl indness tes t in connection w ith the renewal of d rivi ng licenses ?

Dr. McCrary. I cannot specific ally nam e one State. I am sure 

th at some Stat es do require a colo r blin dne ss test.

Th e C hairma n. Does M aryl an d require th is test?

Dr . McCrary. No.

Th e Chairma n. I am un de r the imp ression th at most o f the States, 

fo r th e renewal of a license, do not req uir e it. F or example, in my 

own St ate of Ala bam a, you can get your license each year, by the p ay ­

me nt o f $2.50, and t hat is it.

Tha nk you aga in fo r yo ur s tate ment. We ap prec iate you r coming 

lie fore us.

Dr . McCrary. It w as a plea sure to be here.

Th e Chairman. Ou r next witn ess is Mr. Gordo n II . Sheehe, pr ofessor at Mic higan St ate Un iversit y. I t is a ple asu re to welcome you 

here. I apprec iate yo ur bein g here today .

STATEMENT OF GORDON H. SHEEHE , PROFESSOR, MICHIGA N STATE 

UN IVER SIT Y

Air. S heeh e. Mr. Ch airm an and mem bers of the com mittee, I am 

Go rdo n II. Sheehe, profes sor at Mic higan St ate U nive rsity and form er 

di re ctor of the hig hw ay traffic saf ety center. Sin ce the diss olution 

of th e cente r Ju ly 1, 1961, m y tit le has been hea d of the traffic cen ter 

pr og ram. Th is cha nge in title and role reflects th e financial crisis 

at ou r univers ity which called fo r drastic cu rta ilm en t of some pr ogram s. A t presen t, some of the diverse activitie s in acciden t pre ventio n an d traffic improvem ent are being con tinued on a lim ited scale, 

and efforts are b eing made to o bta in financ ing to ree sta blish the h ig hway traffic safe ty center and its fu ll pro gra m. I ma ke this expla nat ion 

pr inci pa lly because it relates to one of the matters I wish to pre sen t 

to you.

My comments are offe red as my own opinion , bas ed upon 25 yea rs 

of w ork in the traffic a nd saf et y field, and especially 6 years experienc e
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 1 7 9

in directing a university highway traffic safety center. I am confident tha t I express the viewpoint of members of Michigan State University associated with the highway traffic safety center.

I shall first give my views about tlie bill, H.R. 133. The objectives of 

the bill are excellent. There is a great need for a national accident 

prevention center to carry out the functions specified in the bill. 

Federal funds for needed research, which directly and indirectly will 

help prevent accidents, are necessary. Safety research has long suffered from financial malnutrition.

I should like to mention two features of the proposed National Accident Prevention Center plan which might not be in the best interests 

of the total accident prevention effort nationwide, which requires the 

collaboration of many groups and agencies. One relates to function 

No. 5, involving an information center which would “collect and make 

available through publications and other ap propriate means information as to, and the practical application of, activities carried on under 

this p art.”

There is a need for a correlation and information service on accident prevention research which is not now being met. So I am in 

accord with this objective of the plan. But I am concerned lest the 

information center would eventually, if not soon, duplicate what is 

being done in closely related areas. As one example, I shall refer to 

the collection of accident data and publication of it by the National 

Safety Council as well as the informational materials the council 

produces pertaining to programs advocated to prevent certain causes. 

I am confident no one would wish by what might seem competitive 

action to discourage the continuation of endeavors of such agencies 

or the financial support of them by private fund donors who might 

think such programs or services were no longer needed because the 

National Accident Prevention Center would take them over.

The second feature which might cause problems pertains to the 

establishment of the National Accident Prevention Center in a department of the Federal Government. Would not the National Accident Prevention Center foster more harmonious and collaborative 

effort as well as encourage the several national offices, governmental 

departments, independent research organizations, and State and local 

official and nonofficial agencies to do more research and development 

work if it were set up in an independent agency, such as the National 

Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences?

I am seeking, as you see, to avoid the possibility of discouraging in 

any way research and development effort on the part of any agency 

or institution, and at the same time to provide the means for financing 

research and the interpretive, correlation, and information services 

needed. I am assuming, I hope not erroneously, th at Federal funds 

could be provided for the Center if it were set up in an independent 

agency.

If I am not in error, then it would seem th at the National Accident 

Prevention Center, in an independent agency with a strong advisory 

board, such as proposed for the National Center, would be a strong 

force for achieving collaboration and supporting research funding 

not only for the National Accident Prevention Center but also as 

warranted for governmental agencies interested in doing more research appropriate for them to do.
180 TO ESTABL ISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

It is with some hesitancy th at I voice these views, for I expect that 

this committee has already considered these points and concluded that 

the proposed plan is not subject to these possible hazards.

Another matter I wish to present to the committee pertains to 

using research findings. It is not enough to determine the causes, 

circumstances, and conditions producing accidents, and to supplement 

this research effort with correlation and information services. It is 

equally important if accidents are to be prevented to determine what 

techniques, approaches, motivational appeals, equipment, et cetera, 

are needed to remove the accident producing causes, conditions, et 

cetera. Accident prevention requires the development of action programs and projects which incorporate the results of research and then 

testing the ir effectivness. This applies to every means of preventing accidents whether it be public safety education, driver education, changing social attitudes, enforcement or drive r license 

administration.

This developmental work must be carried on in collaboration with 

those responsible for the activity whether they be educators, driver 

license people, enforcement officials, public information specialists, 

social action groups, or medical people. Most administrative and 

operating people are not able to translate scientific da ta and findings 

and develop modified or new techniques or programs incorporating 

them. There is, therefore, a need for people who understand research 

terminology and methodology, and who understand the objectives and 

methods of the various accident prevention control or persuasion 

activities to bridge the gap between research and governmental or 

social action by developing pra ctical programs and techniques based 

upon sound research.

While on this point of the kind of people needed and the process 

involved in effectively using the products of research, I should emphasize the scarcity of researchers sufficiently oriented to and interested in the problems which collectively generate the accident toll. 

There is great need for interesting more researchers in these problems 

and training graduate students to become accident prevention researchers in the future.

Isolated researchers working on single small projects will not suffice. 

Establishment of groups of researchers, each working in a favorable 

setting, will be conducive to multidiscipline and team research, to 

study of larger parts of the tota l problem, and will provide the setting 

and opportunity for better training of additional researchers.

One very im portant means of developing this kind of research and 

development staff is the creation of safety education, research and 

services centers in universities. Not only are universities a natural 

setting fo r these activities, but many of them, especially State universities and land-grant educational institutions, are interested in helping 

solve the problems affecting the people of their respective States. 

Furthermore, most of these institutions have good rapport with State 

and local agencies whose help is needed both in the data collection 

phases of research and in the experimental testing of programs or techniques developed as a result of research findings.

As this relationship between researchers and the accident prevention action people is fostered in some places and improved in others, 

better research will be accomplished, and what is equally important,
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 181

the action people will become more interested in research findings 

and in utilizing them in modifying existing accident prevention methods or experimenting with entirely new approaches in their functional efforts toward accident prevention. In Michigan, for example, 

millions of dollars and man-hours are being expended annually on 

public safety education, driver education, enforcement, driver licensing 

activities, etc., in the traffic accident prevention field, not to mention 

tha t which is expended in trying to prevent fires, home accidents, 

recreational accidents, etc. Many of those engaged in all these accident prevention activities would like to know how effective are their 

activities and would like to have the continuing assistance of researchers in determining this and in helping improve techniques and programs of accident prevention.

To develop this relationship and to assure real benefits from it 

requires a permanence of the research and development program that 

exists in very few places now. To encourage more research and development work carried on in conjunction with operating agencies, 

there must be financial support on a permanent basis, which will assure 

both the university people involved as well as the accident prevention 

action people of opportunity to work together on knotty problems over 

a period of years if necessary. University faculty people need to be 

assured tha t research benefiting accident prevention is wanted and 

that there will be a need for their assistance in this field throughout 

their professional lifetime. Otherwise, they will devote their energies 

to other fields in which such opportunities are well known.

A university safety center can and should do many things to help 

prevent accidents. Some of these are :

1. Research and development, surveys and special studies focused 

upon the basic causes of traffic accidents and other traffic problems, 

the social and economic considerations in obtaining safe and efficient 

highway movement, the psychological aspects of driver behavior, 

improvement of techniques and discovery of new ones for overcoming 

traffic problems, and the development of the means and factual basis 

for better planning and administration of traffic movement and 

accident prevention.

You will note tha t I seem to be emphasizing traffic accident pre ­

vention. I do not mean to minimize the need for prevention oi all 

types of accidents. What I say about research and other needed activities to help prevent traffic accidents applies well to prevention of 

other types of accidents.

2. Educate students for career work in all phases o f accident prevention, such as teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate 

level, research, technical work, and administrative responsibilities in 

agencies responsible for some aspect of accident prevention.

3. In-service training thro ugh short courses and conferences of 

those presently employed and having some responsibility for safety 

and accident prevention matters, such as teachers, police, judges, engineers, driver licensing personnel, public information specialists, and 

safety organization managers.

4. Field assistance to both official and nonofficial agencies at the 

State, county, and community levels—extension type work—offering 

counsel to State and local agencies on their problems, helping them 

with special studies or surveys, helping them plan and execute acci-
182 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

dent, prevention activities, and assisting local citizen safety 

committees.

5. Information and materials services through operation of a library service of publications, films and instructional materials; 

preparation of manuals; development of public education materials 

suitable for newspapers and radio and TV presentation.

This brief explanation may suffice to indicate the many ways in 

which a university safety center can be effective in helping prevent 

accidents. If no university in a State provides these services, a necessary part of the accident prevention effort will be missing. University people can provide the non political, nonbiased assistance and 

leadership which is respected and wanted. They can be the energizers 

and idea people needed to stimulate and assist many groups in 

improving their accident prevention methods.

My plea today is t ha t you take into account the need for helping 

develop and support financially university safety centers which will 

have the many kinds of people needed for the various accident prevention activities I have briefly outlined. The staffs of these centers 

should include extension specialists, statisticians, sociologists, psychologists, engineers, and specialists in education and training, public administration, enforcement, communications arts, urban planning, and so forth, interested in and oriented to the problems underlyin g accidents, and the practical governmental and social means of 

solving them.

A national accident prevention center as proposed is needed, but so 

is its counterpart, in almost every State. Its State counterpart, as I 

have indicated, could and should engage in activities beyond research 

and development if marked progress in accident prevention is to be 

achieved.

Staffs of safety centers in State universities could and should provide the continuing assistance needed in all aspects of the accident 

prevention program throu gh close contact and working relationships 

with the State and local governmental and social groups responsible 

for action.

I propose tha t serious consideration be given to providing Federal 

financial aid on an assured continuing basis to encourage and help 

State universities establish and maintain safety centers. Land grant 

colleges for decades have had this kind of supp ort for research and 

extension in the field of agriculture. Now motor vehicle transp ortation and traffic accidents have become such a serious public problem 

that similar support seems warranted. Though traffic accidents are 

only a part of the total accident problem—although a sizable part— 

university safety centers would be more than justified if they dealt 

only with traffic safety problems. However, with adequate staff and 

financing, safety centers could provide assistance in the prevention of 

all types of accidents.

Safety centers to be really effective must have an adequate number 

of competent people at work and must have adequate facilities, equipment, and operating funds. This calls for realistic appropriations 

and sizable amounts. In the more populous States, an annual budget 

of $400,000 would be needed. In Michigan this would mean a per 

capita investment of 5 cents. Universities hard pressed to provide 

educational opportunities for the ever-increasing number of students
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 183

cannot be expected to allocate scarce dollars to the entire support of 

safety centers out of their regular operating funds. Therefore, if 

centers are to be created and continue effective work, special appropriations or grants are needed. 1 believe State legislators would pro ­

vide the tax dollars needed for safety centers if matching Federal 

funds were to be made available. All people of a State are affected 

by traffic accidents, either directly or indirectly. Since traffic accidents are such a universal public problem, their prevention will benefit 

all people. Therefore, I maintain tha t tax dollars are warranted for 

support of safety centers in universities in addition to a national 

accident prevention center. I should add that I am a member of the Traffic Safety Education 

and Research Committee of the American Association of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges, which with the help of the Automotive Safety Foundation and the National Commission on Safety E ducation has been making a study of university safety centers. We find 

tha t a number of universities through their centers, bureaus, or institutes already are giving attention to prevention -of accidents and fires 

or to transporta tion problems. There is no common pattern in the 

way their efforts are organized, the extent of their activity, or the size 

of the budget for the activities. Pennsylvania State, Purdue, New 

York University, Michigan State, Northwestern, Texas A. & M., and 

University of California have rather extensive programs. Other 

universities and colleges in Ohio, Oklahoma, Illinois, Iowa, West 

Virginia, California, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Florida either have 

incipient safety centers or through some departments of the university 

are offering safety courses but doing very little research or extension 

work.

The report of this study by the association will be completed in two 

months. Its purpose is to encourage more universities to set up safety 

centers and provide them some guidance in doing so. If some means 

such as I have suggested to help finance proposed university safety 

centers is provided, the establishment of more safety centers will soon 

become a reality.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss these urgent matters 

with you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sheehe.

Do you believe that the establishment of the center as proposed in 

II.R. 133 would lead to or result in the establishment of safety centers 

in more States than now have the centers established ?

Mr. Sheehe. I'm not sure that I know what financing the National 

Accident Prevention Center would provide, or what limitations there 

would be upon the uses of its funds. I am told by the Public H ealth 

Service people that, a t the present time, though they have funds which 

are available to university people interested in doing worthy research, 

funds are not available for the establishment of centers and maintenance of their staff's. In order to encourage the growth of centers 

I think some practical provision will have to be made for some matching Federal funds for the centers as I proposed in my earlier remarks.

The Chairman. Do you think the fact that most States do not 

establish these safety centers is due to a lack of financing or a lack 

of interest on the part of the States ?
184 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

Mr. Sheehe. I think it is both, Mr. Roberts. I know of a dozen 

States in which there is high interest in setting up a center, but financing proves to be the crucial problem.

I think it is fair to say that during the last legislative session in 

the State of Ohio and the State of Pennsylvania tha t financing of 

the proposed centers was the crucial problem. Many people in each 

of those States seemed to be desirous of having a full-scale center^ 

but when it came down to priorities in the use of the limited funds, 

safety centers came out second best, apparently.

The Chairman. It appears to me that the people in the States feel 

that the voluntary organizations are taking care of this need and that 

there is no need for S tate effort in tha t respect. Do you feel that is 

the situation ?

Mr. Sheehe. That may be the case in some States. But, i t is quite 

evident in our own State of Michigan, and in other States where I 

know what is going on, th at these voluntary efforts alone are not 

enough.

It is quite apparent there is great need for better information, more 

reliable data for research, plus the development of the ideas generated 

from research into action programs, and then a social action program. 

There was some talk here a few minutes ago about driver licensing 

requirements in response to your questions concerning the extent of 

the testing of vision by driv er licensing agencies throughout the 

country. That is a typical example of the kind of shortage. But in 

order to get a State to adopt a sound system of testing vision requires 

considerable social action type of work in th at State so that the people 

will support that kind of requirement, plus the cost o f putting in the 

kind of equipment in the testing station. We have tha t sort of problem in Michigan. Improving driver licensing standards is one of our 

big problems. It is not that many people are not desirous of having 

better driver licensing and, particularly, vision tests, but the question 

is one of getting the a pprov al for the dollars necessary for the equipment and the training of the people to conduct these tests.

And this points out the need for the people in rura l areas and the 

communities saying to their legislators, “we wish to see this done at the* 

expense even of something else in our State.”

The Chairman. May not one of the reasons be for a lack of public 

support for better licensing tha t a good many people feel they are 

qualified to drive—is it not due to that, perhaps ?

Mr. Sheehe. I think so. Some but not all people have a mistaken 

notion that driving is the simplest of tasks, and requirements that they 

undergo certain tests and education seems to them somewhat uncalled 

for.

The Chairman. Do you feel that driving is a right rather than a 

privilege?

Mr. Sheehe. No; but many people feel tha t way.

The Chairman. Of course, we recognize that for many it is a means 

of making a living, and any restriction on that means would cripple 

them financially and limit their activity in their field.

Mr. Sheehe. We have pressure exerted upon our legislature in 

nearly every session to minimize or even cut out the point system 

which we have had in effect in the drivin g improvement work in 

Michigan for more than 6 years.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 185

This is a manifestation o f the point you are making. Many drivers 

are constantly trying to protect their so-called r igh t even when they 

have a record of many violations in the central driv er record file. The problem we are concerned with at the moment then is building up enough understanding and support among our people, so that those who would set back the little progress we have made will not succceed. This is one of the things I have attempted to emphasize—that what we need is statewide and. grassroots kind of implementation programs and support of porgrams. It does not come about j ust through news­ paper or radio activity alone. It is based on research, yes, b ut then we have to obtain social action which will support these necessary 

activities.

The Chairman. I s it you r opinion then, Mr. Sheehe, that in identifying our efforts on a National Accident Prevention Center basis with other effort tha t there is a real chance th at we could cut down the 

number of deaths and other injuries in this field ?

Mr. Sheehe. I am confident of that.

The Chairman. I want to thank you very much for your appe arance and your statement. Do you have any questions, Mr. Rogers?

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Mr. Sheehe, I noticed tha t you suggested 

tha t it might be perhaps wise to have an independent agency ra ther than just to have an accident prevention center in one department. 

The purpose in that was to seek coordination of all of the activities of the Government as well as those within the independent agencies; is 

that correct ?

Mr. Sheehe. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You were the director of the traffic safety 

center for 6 years, were you not?

Mr. Sheehe. Yes.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. What accomplishments do you feel were

made by such center ?

Mr. Sheehe. We were active in the five kinds of areas in which I 

stated university centers can engage, and in which i t was appropriate for them to engage. It is most difficult to calculate the number of lives saved or injuries prevented by the contribution of any one of the members of a State’s accident prevention team. I would not like to claim tha t the highway traffic safety center had any greater part than other agencies in the reduction we achieved in Michigan since 1955 in the number of traffic deaths. In 1955 there were 2,016 people killed in Michigan. In 1958 it was as low as 1,382, a phenomenal reduction in 3 years. Since that time the number of deaths has been gradually increasing again, but the death rate on a 100 million miles basis has remained low, between 4.7 and 5 as contrasted with the 

former figure of 7.1 in 1955 and previous years. In addition to the creation of the highway traffic center, the legislature in November 1955 also established universal high school driver education and authorized 200 more State police. A statewide speed limit was enacted. Our highway building program began to develop 

more rapid ly. So it would be impossible for me to say th at the center was responsible for this much or that much of the accident reduction.

I could describe in terms of activity what we did. We believe tha t 

each of our activities were a contribution.
186 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I wondered if you could submit for the 

record information which m ight be helpful to the committee, tha t is, 

to some of the activities that you carried on.

Mr. Sheehe. I will be happ y to do so. At an earlier time I did 

send to Congressman Roberts our last fiscal year report of activities, 

which is rather extensive. I will be happy to provide additional 

copies.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Was your traffic center financed through 

tax dollars or did you have gran ts made to you—just how was it 

financed ?

Mr. Sheehe. It was financed almost entirely from tax dollars. 

Initial ly it was by an appro priation earmarked for the center from 

the legislature to the university, but in the last 3 years the center 

budget came out of the university’s general appropriations.

In addition to that, we have received grants from the Public Health 

Service for specific research projects. We also had a contractual 

arrangement with the highway department for a cooperative research 

program which utilized road moneys as well as Bureau of Public 

Roads matching dollars. We have had very limited contributions 

from p rivate sources. Each year we have had one Automotive Safety 

Foundation fellowship for a student pursuing g raduate work in highway traffic administration and we received small gran ts from the 

Michigan Interindustry Highway Safety Foundation for television 

programs.

This Michigan foundation each year also has provided $5,000 and 

the Allstate Insurance Foundation $2,500 for scholarships for teachers to come to Michigan State for basic and advanced study in driver 

education. Those moneys did not go to the center, but to tiie teachers 

for tuition and partial defrayment of the expense of room and board.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Is there a need for training personnel in 

this field in research?

Mr. Siieehe. Tremendous. This is one of the great shortages now 

and in addition to the scarcity of traffic researchers there is a shortage 

of other kinds of safety personnel. Whenever there is a vacancy on 

any of the national association staffs or a vacancy in a safety council 

or a vacant administrative post in a driver licensing agency, there is 

frequently no one available with the proper background, training, 

and so forth.

We can do some good, obviously, by inservice training of existing 

people, but we have a great need to train today for 10 years hence 

the young people who have the capabilities and the interest to be the 

professional traffic people and technicians of the future.

In addition I have spoken in mv presentation about the need for 

educating “development’' people. It is one thing to have research, 

but the gap between researchers and their product and the action 

people and their kind of work is a tremendous one. We need “development” people who can bridge this gap, who can see the problems, who 

can understand research and make application of research findings 

by developing action programs or projects at least on a pilot and 

experimental basis and subjecting them to tests of effectiveness. This 

kind of person has got to be developed. Where shall we do it except 

in a setting where there are people interested in doing this. Safety
TO ESTA BLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER 187

centers would have the staff necessary for train ing the “developers” of 

the future.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Thank you very much.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sheehe.

Our next witness is Air. Robert J. Schreiber, executive director of 

research, Public Service Research, Inc., Stamford, Conn.

Air. Sciireiber. Alay I submit the statement of Dr. Jacobs and myself for the record and summarize it ?

The Chairman. Yes; you may.

Air. Schreiber. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman. Yes.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT J. SCHREIBER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

OF RESEARCH, PUBLIC SERV ICE RESEARCH, INC., STAMFORD,

CONN.

Dr. Schreiber. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am 

sorry that Dr. Jacobs was not able to be here, but he had to be out of 

town.

I come before you today as an “angry young man.” AVe have been 

in the accident research field for some 10 years and we are rath er angry 

and getting very lonely, not seeing much progress being made.

This committee, plus the en try of the Public Health Service into the 

field in the relatively recent years, has been the only glimmer of hope 

which we have seen on the horizon.

AVe know that we have had, generally, little accident research in the 

past 20 or 30 years. AVe have achieved relatively little new knowledge. 

The same rigorous standards which are applied before a public health 

program is accepted are rarely applied in accident prevention and 

control.

One might inquire why it has required so much effort to reach this 

conclusion, why we are so lonely, why there are not more people doing 

research.

The reason for this is tha t there are no career opportunities in 

accident research. In our organization, we have trained, I would 

guess, between 10 and 15 scientists. AVe have lost some o f these to the 

defense activities, to teaching positions, and to other kinds of activities because we could provide no continuity in their career in doing 

accident research.

Dr. Haddon, who spoke here today, has left the field, and as he told 

you, is now runnin g a program in preventive medicine.

The only place where such career opportunities could exist is in 

some sort of center. AVhere that center is is usually unimportant, but 

in this particu lar case I thin k it has great relevance. The Public 

Health Service has long been a leader in health research activities 

and has stimulated research of many kinds in the universities throughout the country. The establishment of an accident prevention center 

within the Public Health Service, I believe, would do much to stimulate the establishment of similar centers (perhaps on a smaller scale) 

and specialized activities in other organizations throughout the 

country.

The Public Health Sendee, I am sure from its past experience, has 

not usurped the functions of other agencies. The Public Health 

80624—452-------13
188 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

Service, in my experience, has furnished a service to other agencies 

and has not endeavored to control the activities of either State, municipal, or voluntary health organizations.

We feel very strongly th at this bill should be enacted. I feel, personally, that although the cost of research—any kind of research—is 

high, the returns which we get for it would be very large, indeed.

One of the previous witnesses mentioned tha t we might have to go 

into debt, that is, increase the national debt, to pay for this. And like 

some of the other previous witnesses I have no concern on that point 

at all, because it will benefit the future population. If it will benefit 

mv children and my children’s children, I am willing to go into th at 

debt.

Other witnesses have referred to duplications of functions of this 

agency with other agencies. I fear very little of that. The Public 

Plealth Service has many activities related to those in other agencies, 

but I have rarely, if ever, seen a case of where they have been accused 

of duplication.' The national voluntary cancer organizations, the 

heart associations, and so forth, work extremely well with the Public 

Health Service.

In addition, the Public Health Service’s interest in certain kinds 

of medical activity relates to, but do not duplicate those of the Federal 

Aviation Agency and other governmental agencies. This one governmental organization has a history of service without duplication 

which is, probably, unparalleled in most governmental organizations.

The problems of inform ation exchange for a researcher are problems which concern me personally. And as some of the previous 

speakers have mentioned, it is extremely difficult at this time to find 

out what is going on in other organizations, to find out who is doing 

what kind of research, and to lay your hands on it. It is published 

in a wide variety of journals, ranging from the American Journal of 

Psychology at one extreme, to the Journal of Chronic Diseases at the 

other. No one, to my knowledge, is familiar with all of them. And, 

as stated earlier, we must maintain a great deal of effort to find out 

what people are doing.

The gap between research and action which Mr. Sheehe mentioned, 

I think , is an important one. I think it is one which must be bridged. 

We researchers are oftentimes guilty of not providing our research 

results in a manner which the action people can understand. We have 

been very lax in this regard. However, I think that this can be 

modified and the situation can be improved by the establishment of 

an organization, one of whose primary functions is to interpret 

research information for the practitioner, in the same way tha t the 

Public Health Service inte rpre ts research results on cancer, on tuberculosis, and communicable diseases, et cetera. The Public Health 

Service sees to it tha t this information gets into the hands of the 

general practitioner. If. does not necessarily do so by disseminating 

that information directly, but by providing it to the professional 

associations of the practitioners. The Public Health Service could 

operate in accident prevention in the same way.

This concludes my remarks. I would like to thank you for the 

opportunity to make them.

The Chairman. The C hair would like to state to you that at times 

the work has been rather frustrating. There were five of us who
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 189

started out on the lonesome trail. We, certainly, agree with you that 

it has been a very fru strating experience. I am not putting a garland of roses on the members of the committee, but I well remember 

that we came out with the safety belt report, which received a lot of 

comments and the like.

I do feel that we are now’ beginning to perceive some excess in the 

reception of this on the pa rt of the public and certainly the people in 

your field in realizing tha t this committee has proposed something 

tha t is necessary.

I might say th at I have been encouraged a lot by the strong support I have received from the gentleman from Florida. I know tha t 

you have been in this, I believe you said for about 10 years.

Dr. Schreiber. Yes.

The Chairman. I am glad to have had vour support and endorsement of this bill. I thin k that the bill will accomplish a great deal. 

Undoubtedly it will mean tha t it will pay its costs many times over in 

benefits received.

Do you know of any tr ain ing center for people of your ability and 

training to get into this field of accident prevention w’ork?

Dr. Sciireiber. No, sir. I do not. In fact, this is one of the problems we have, because we would like to add some people to our staff, 

and w’e just cannot find them. We can find people with doctorates 

in various academic disciplines, but with no exposure to the unique 

problems of accident research. This is not new to public research 

people, as a cancer researcher, for example. Just fresh out of school 

in microbiolog}’, must work in the field and learn the peculiarities of 

the field. There is no place where this further training can be obtained, to my knowledge. On a grant or project basis, yes. There 

are some opportunities. We employ people to work on research proj - 

ects, to work on grants, as well as do the universities, but these are 

not career opportunities, and are not devoted to training young 

people. They are essentially hand-to-mouth kinds of existences, and 

this is not conducive to attracting people into the field.

The Chairman. I s it your opinion tha t it is going to take a good 

many years of intense research work to get a breakthrough in this 

problem?

Dr. Sciireiber. Yes, sir; I do. I think that it would be a mistake 

to assume th at the establishment of a center would produce results 

within a few years, in the same sense that, I am sure, your illustrious 

predecessors in Congress did not believe that the National Cancer 

Institute w ould produce a cure or the prevention of cancer in a few’ 

years. It is a tough problem that w’e have had for a long time, and 

we are going to have for a considerably longer time unless some 

imaginative and bold action is taken.

The Chairman. I s it not true tha t in practically all of the scientific 

programs, say for example the immunization program, eliminating 

polio and other scourges of mankind tha t we have had to go through 

a period of resistance and opposition, and finally we began to show’ 

people tha t it could be done: is that not true of this program?

Dr. Sciireiber. This has been mv observation. I hope this is the 

end of that period of existence, in this particu lar case.

The Chairman. I hope you are right. I certainly thank you again 

for your statement.
190 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Mr. Nelsen.

Mr. Nelsen. Mr. Chairman, I certainly feel tha t there is a need 

for consolidation, as mentioned. I am just wondering i f there is any 

report on the amount of research work tha t is being done; and if 

there is, is there any possibility that there may be areas where a compilation of these statistics can be accomplished, whereby we can at 

least get started ?

I do not know whether you can answer the question, but I think 

it would be well for the committee to ask the staff to accumulate as 

much information as possible, so th at we might examine the work of 

other agencies who are now conducting research in other areas, to 

see what needs to be done to accomplish the objectives of th is bill.

I am sorry I missed your testimony, but I wish to welcome you and 

to thank you for putting in your appearance here today.

The Chairman. The Chair would like to say, with reference to the 

query of the gentleman from Minnesota, tha t it is the chairman’s 

intention to call up the department heads, at least their representatives, of all of the interested Federal agencies, to try to find out what 

they are doing in the field of accident prevention, how much money 

they are spending, what programs they have under way at the present 

time, and what programs they propose.

I think that would produce helpful information, and that will shed 

some light on this proposition.

The gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Mr. Schreiber, what exactly does your organization do ?

Dr. Sciireiber. We are involved in a number of research problems 

of public health and public welfare. One of the major ones is 

accident prevention research and accident causation research. We 

are a contract research organization working primarily with funds 

from outside of our own walls.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Are you doing any research for the Government ?

Dr. Sciireiber. Yes, we are. Of our accident research over 10 years 

of time, over 90 percent of it was supported by Federal funds, I would 

say.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How many personnel do you have?

Dr. Sciireiber. We have approximately 20 professional persons on 

our staff.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. What particu lar projects are you doing now 

for the Government ?

Dr. Sciireiber. We are currently engaged in examining the bases of 

an analysis of the driver task.

We have recently ceased operations on two other projects supported 

by the Public Health Service, one on the accident inducing characteristics of motor vehicles, the effects of power steering, power brakes, 

optional features, and so forth , and another one on the evaluation of 

advanced drive r training for fleet motor vehicle operators.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Do you have laboratory facilities?

Dr. Sciireiber. We do, indeed, sir.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 191

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You feel tha t it would be wise for us to approve a research center where we would also have research carried 

on?

Dr. Schreiber. Very definitely, because this would provide the continu ity of career opportunities that we cannot as a contractor provide.

Afr. R ogers of Florida. How many research laboratories are there, 

would you say ? Like yours ?

Dr. Schreiber. Ours is the only one of its kind in the sense tha t we 

are the only one that is a priv ate organization, not a tax-exempt organ­ ization. There are approximately six or eight groups throughout the country who are well known for accident research, and who have had 

continuously over some years some projects going on.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Do you coordinate any of your work with 

the National Safety Council ?

Dr. Schreiber. We supply them with an abstract of our research 

programs or projects upon request, approximately every year, when 

we are requested to do so.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. They request you to do so ?

Dr. Schreiber. Yes. They send a blank form to be completed.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Are you aware of what projects are going 

on?

Dr. Schreiber. Thro ugh the National Safety Council ?

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Yes.

Dr. Schreiber. Some of them we have found throu gh the National 

Safety Council, but there are many other sources. As a matter of fact, tha t information is not complete in this regard. We obtain some help from the Bio-Sciences Information Exchange which sup­ plies abstracts of research sponsored by some Federal agencies. Ou r best source of inform ation is from communications with individual research people. Incidentally, this hearing has proved very valuable to me because I have been able to talk with researchers here. I have learned about a number of studies that I did not know of before this.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. There is a definite need for coordinating 

this effort, you feel ?

Dr. Schreiber. Very definitely.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Do you think tha t research should cover 

not only the cause and the prevention, but also the diagnosis and 

treatment in the accident field?

Dr. Schreiber. Diagnosis and treatment of those injured?

Mr. R ogers of Florida. To get the whole action field.

Dr. Schreiber. I would say that the activities of the Center ought 

to ran ge from very basic research, at one end, into the kind of human behavior, for example, which leads people to do things, to what I would call countermeasure research, at the other end, where, on the basis of research results and cooperation with various jurisdictions, accident prevention techniques would be tried and rigorously 

evaluated to see if they worked. I thin k the entire area of activity should be covered by such a 

center.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. Thank you so much.

The Chairman. Thank you.
192 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

(The prepared statement of Robert J. Schreiber and Herbert H. 

Jacobs follows:)

Sta tem en t of R obert J. Sc ii r eib e r, E xe cu tiv e D irector of R es ea rch, an d

H er be rt H. J aco bs, Sen io r R es ea rch Sc ie n t is t, P ub lic Servic e Rese arch,

I nc., Sta mfo rd , Co n n .

i . in tr od uc tion

We are in favo r of the pas sage of H.R. 133. The nat ion al accide nt problem 

ha s grown to such prop ortions th at bold and imme diate action is required. 

Howeve r, we are rese arch people and will, there fore, confine our comments to 

a bri ef discussion of how this bill will affect accid ent rese arch , and traffic acciden t re sea rch in p arti cular.

I I . CU RR EN T ST ATE OF AC CI DE NT RE SE ARC H

It is generally agreed th at we have learned relative ly lit tle about accident 

cau sation in the last 20 to 30 yea rs. Our knowledge is insufficie nt to have much 

hope abo ut an immedia te reduction in accide nt incidence.

Secondly, it is gener ally agr eed th at we know rela tive ly litt le about the 

effectiveness of specific acci den t prevention progra ms. The rigorous stan dar ds 

whic h are applied before a public heal th prog ram is accepted are rare ly applied 

in acciden t prevention and control.

There are a number of rea son s for these two problems. Fir st, accident 

cau sation is a very complex problem. In addition to the problems posed by 

ina deq uate data which ari se due to the fac t th at investi gators can rare ly observe an accident, the single mos t imp orta nt complexity is th at accidents are 

proba bly not caused by a singl e fac tor or even a small grou p of them. His ­

tori call y, it is this la tte r problem which has been the ma jor pi tf al l; most acciden t research has been devoted to finding a single huma n chara cte ristic which 

differe ntia tes between persons most likely to incu r acci dent s and those who 

are lea st likely. We know now th at this searc h for the “magic bullet,” a 

measure of accident proneness, is not v ery likely to be successful.

One might inquire why it has requ ired so much effort to come to this conclusion. In fact, not very much effort has been expended. Most of the studie s 

in the lit eratu re have been ca rri ed out by scie ntist s who have had only a 

per iph era l intere st in accid ent preve ntion. They gene rally occupy positions as 

profess ors of psychology, of engin eering, etc. Almost none hold professorshijis 

of acciden t prevention or safe ty. Accident resea rch is not a very respectable 

professional discip line; the re ar e no degrees granted in it, no scholarly journals 

of it. It is, at best, a spar e-time occupation for all but a few. At professional 

society meetings, it is difficult to find even a half a dozen scientists inter ested 

in discussing it.

As a resu lt, unti l the Public He alth Service began its sup por t of accident 

research, the s tudie s were gen erally small and not very bold. This has changed 

som ewh at in the las t few years, but the basic problem sti ll exists. Although 

res ear ch gra nts provide “proje ct” opportunities, they do not provide career 

opportu nities. A jun ior man ma y work on accident rese arch thi s year, but nex t 

ye ar when the study is complet ed, he’ll probab ly he involved in something unrelat ed to accidents. In short, acc iden t rese arch is a pre car iou s way to earn a 

living.

This kind of resea rch effort will provide bits and pieces of knowledge which, 

in time, will provide the kind of background thi s field badly needs. However, it 

is an unco ordin ated approach. Many imp ortant problems are not being studied. 

Fo r examp le, consider the problem of exposure: we know th at 100 miles of 

dri vin g in Arizona is diffe rent from the same distance drive n in New York City. 

Un til we can tre at this differ ence qua ntit ativ ely, we are not going to be able 

to pro gre ss as rapidly as we would like. Another examp le is the effects of 

alc oh ol; the re is ample evidence th at alcohol is involved in a disp orportion ately 

large num ber of accidents. We don ’t know abo ut causation , however. Does the 

alcohol caus e the accident, or does the person on his way to an accident stop for 

a drink ? In a rese arch pro gram like the c urr ent one, if no one chooses to study 

these problems, they may not be stud ied.

Our second conten tion de alt wi th the paucity of accid ent preventio n evaluation. We know very litt le abo ut the effectiveness of rou tine an d common accident 

prev enti on programs such as point systems, periodic physical exam inations, high
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 193

school driver education, and many others. We believe these programs help, but 

we do not have rigorous evidence. For the most part, accident prevention programs are controlled by the States. In each State government, many departments have an interest in accident pre­ vention ; for example, consider the following partial li st : attorney general, court system, State police, motor vehicle department, highway department, safety 

coordinator, safety commission. The people in charge of the programs in these departm ents are conscientious; they w ant to use the most effective methods of accident control. However, they are not research people and research people have very littl e to tell them. Re­ search people have devoted very little effort to the evaluation of programs. This is beginning to change, but the rat e of change is painfully slow.

III. THE BOLE OF A NATIONAL CENTER IN BESEABCH

The establishment of a national center could do a great deal for the problems we have cited. Its primary role will be to stimulate much more and better research. Specifically, it could provide career opportunities for research scien­ tists. This would have several effects: first, it would induce more students into the field; second, it would give scientific respectability to accident research and thus encourage universities and other research organizations to establish similar recognition. A national center could carry out a sustained program of research, completely covering one area before moving on to the next. It could provide an organized assa ult to supplement the fragmented program now in 

existence. A very important research function of the center could be the provision of a plan of research involving the voluntary cooperation of the States. (Public Law 85-864, the Beamer resolution, permits a compact among States for the purpose of accident prevention.) This would encourage the large-scale field experimen­ tation needed to evaluate accident prevention programs. In short, the establishment of a national center staffed by high quality re­ search people and stimualted by the intellectual boldness th at characterizes the Public Health Service can do more to promote the eventual control of accidents 

than can any other recent proposal.

IV. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON H. B. 13 3

First, we believe tha t the term research should appear in the title of the center, in order tha t the connotation not be that of a Federal agency directing accident prevention. As I understand the inten t of the bill, such a center would he a service agency and not one which controls local efforts. The term “national” in the center’s title may imply some conflict with other Federal agencies which have accident prevention programs (e.g., the Federal Aviation Administration) ; although this is outside our area of competence, we 

suggest that this implication be considered. We would suggest tha t item (4) in section 382 (provision for grants-in-aid) be amended to include contract authority as well, if such authority is not covered by section 382(6) or section 386. In the course of intramural research, it is almost a certainty tha t some research projects might best be carried out by outside groups, if for no other reason than their proximinty to an accident situation of interest or because the outside organization might possess unique resources. In section 384: We suggest tha t some persons on the Accident Prevention Advisory Board be persons with accident research background, so they will be able to advise other members of the board on the feasibility and advisability of various research efforts. This need not be included in the text of the bill.

V. CONCLUSIONS

We urge the passage of this resolution. Its deficiencies are minor ones and 

its benefits are major ones. Although a national center is needed now, it is important to appreciate tha t the effects of the center on the national accident toll are not going to be ap­ preciable in the next few years. Just as the National Cancer Institute has not yet “solved” the cancer problem, the accident prevention center is not going to “solve” the accident problem in just a few years. Many years of hard work will be required. However, without the center, it would require a very much longer time, if indeed the incidence of accidents would ever be controlled.
194 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

The Chairman. Our next witness is Mr. Robert F. Borkenstein, 

chairman of the Department of Police Administration of Indiana 

University.

Mr. Siieeiie. Mr. Borkenstein asked me to announce that he would 

not be able to get back. He had another conflicting appointment. 

He would like to have his prepared statement inserted in the record.

The Chairman. Very well, tha t will be done.

(The prepared statement of Robert F. Borkenstein is as follows:)

Sta tem en t of R obert F. B o r k e n s t e in , Ch a ir m a n , D epa rtm en t of P oi ce Adm in is t r a t io n , I ndia na U niv ersi ty

This presentation is intentionally limited to one facet of the total accident 

prevention program because it is the only one with which I am intimately 

acquainted.

The explosive growth of the American highway transportation system has 

generated problems that in terms of property loss approach catastrophe and 

tha t in terms of loss of life certainly constitute an epidemic. It is the charge of 

traffic policing agencies to move this mass of man and material as rapidly as 

possible in reasonable safety. This obviously has not been satisfactorily accomplished in spite of sincere efforts by traffic police officials to use the information, tools, and police power available to them.

Few social problems reach as many people in their everyday lives as safety 

in motor transportation. Involvement in a crime is highly unlikely but participation in a motor vehicle acciden is never over a few feet away. Yet, like so 

many great problems, little is actually known about the fundamental causes. 

Salving the sore is about as far as the remedy goes. Most of the accidentprevention panaceas applied today have no lasting effect, or partially solve the 

problem by impeding the rapid flow of traffic, thereby defeating the very purpose of regulation. Of course, there are exceptions to this in which imagination and intelligent ideas have been applied.

There is urgent need for more fundamental information that will put real 

meaning into efforts to prevent accidents through traffic regulation. The areas 

of driver behavior, driver training, fundamental accident causes, penology in 

traffic offenses, and traffic laws based on scientifically developed evidence including the eliciting of voluntary compliance, all warran t careful study.

The coordination of organizations capable of recognizing the problems and of 

investigating them systematically is urgently required. Moreover, such coordination must encourage the development of research teams tha t can stay 

together for continuity over years. The lack of such continuity limits the 

ability to interest higli-caliber scientists to engage in this type of research.

It is not enough to permit the agencies faced with the problems to try to 

solve them empirically from their limited and often biased points of view. It 

is not enough to permit scientists with little knowledge of the complex “real 

world” of the subjects they are studying to try to solve them in heir laboratories 

independently. These must be a central agency capable of supporting those 

organizations capable of producing valid information and that can bring this 

information to the attention of those who can translate it into action programs 

useful on the firing line of traffic policing.

We are in the process of developing an undergraduate course in this very 

area in the face of a real dearth of research information.

There are vast untouched factfinding resources ready to tackle these problems 

in private and university organizations. Intelligent direction by a coordinating 

organization could focus the accumulated information on the problems by 

acting as a clearinghouse and disseminating agency. The Department of Police 

Administration at Indiana University has a definite interest in such information 

as part of the body of scientific evidence teachable in a logical way to present 

to f utu re police officials.

For these reasons, as well as our interest as American citizens in our national 

welfare, we are most enthusiastic over the possibility of the establishment of 

a national accident prevention research center.

As longtime members of police agencies and now as members of an academic 

institution, we recognize the need of one for the other. There must be liaison 

between them and an agency such as the one proposed could effectively be 

just that.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 1 9 5

Th e Chairma n. Our n ex t witn ess is M r. J . Aus tin L atim er, counsel 

fo r th e A uto mo tive Serv ice Ind us try Ass ociatio n.

We w ill be glad to he ar you now.

STATEMENT OF J. AUSTIN LATIMER, COUNSEL, AUTOMOTIVE 

SERVICE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Latimer. Mr. Ch airm an , gen tlem en of th e com mittee, th an k 

you fo r the op po rtu ni ty to appear. My nam e is J . Au sti n Lat im er 

an d I am a pr ac tic ing lawye r in the city of W ash ington , an d have 

been fo r the las t 20 years . I ap pe ar here toda y as counsel fo r th e 

Au tom otive Serv ice In dust ry Association.

Th is statem ent is ma de on behalf of the Au tom oti ve Service In ­

du stry Association, loc ate d at 168 N orth Mich iga n Ave nue , Chicago, 

Ill. A SIA , as it is kno wn, is a nonprofit trad e asso ciation ser vin g 

man ufacturers, wholesalers, warehouse di strib utors, an d reb uilders 

of autom otive pa rts , equip me nt, tools, sup plies, accessories, chemical 

an d refinishi ng mate ria ls, with mem bers hip affiliatio ns of o ver 10,000 

firms, rep res entin g ne arly a ha lf mi llio n people, employed in th e 

autom otive afterm arke t.

Obviously , as an ass oci ation in the a uto mo tive se rvic e field, we have 

bo th an in dividu al’s in terest and stake in high wa y saf ety , as well 

as a pro fessional concern . O ur t housa nds of firms an d members an d 

th ei r fam ilie s mak e up a gre at segm ent of t he motor ing public. Our 

associ ation's safety slo gan ha s long been “H ig hw ay Sa fety Is O ur 

Business.”

I t is ou r segmen t of th e autom otive business which , since t he e arly 

da ys o f the auto indu str y, ha s contr ibu ted so mu ch to hi ghwa y safety 

by mak ing ava ilab le th ro ug h the years prod uc ts wh ich hav e become 

st an da rd equipm ent on tod ay ’s motor vehicles—item s such a s the windshield, the he ad lig ht, ta illight, direction signal s, ho rns, windshield 

wiper s, and so on. Li ke M arc oni and his r adio, c ertain circles scoffed 

at some of these item s an d actio n was d eferred fo r years, before they 

were accepted.

We have a lon g histor y of inter est in leg islati on pe rti ne nt to the 

moto r vehicle and its appurte nances. T hat ex pla ins ou r interest in 

ap pe ar in g at this he ar in g on H.R. 133, becau se it ma y well affect the 

res earch necessary , the c oo rdi natio n d esirab le, a nd the stim ula tio n long 

overd ue to cut the needles s sla ug hter o n ou r hig hw ays.

As you know there are man y gro ups active in sa fe ty work, with a 

long lin e of “cred its ” to wThom the y contrib ute or wi th whom the y 

coo perate, as well as stu dies the y hav e ma de of th e ma ny fac ets of 

autom otive safety . We a re not devo ting ou rselves to dr iv er educa tion, 

althou gh we fav or it ; we are no t wo rki ng a ctively fo r impro vem ent s 

in the veh icle re gistr ation m eth ods nor highwa y engin eerin g, althou gh 

we ad mit changes m ay be des irable. We are no t develop ing co unteragents fo r the dr un ke n dri ver prob lem, mu ch as we oppose it an d 

ma ny othe r accident pro ble ms. We are devoting ourselv es to a conce ntrated effo rt to fo ster Sta te reg ula ted perio dic moto r vehicle inspectio n, because mo tor vehic le maintena nce an d the inhe rent safet y 

values therei n, is so me thing we know abo ut.

Sl ig ht ly over 37 mi llio n moto r vehicles, 3 to 9 ye ars old were on 

ou r hig hw ays at t he end of 1960, co mpared wi th 29.7 millio n 5 ye ars
196 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

earlier. Today’s automobiles are soundly engineered and sturdily 

built, b ut as with any machine, wear and constant use inevitably take 

the ir toll in safety and efficiency.

The mechanically unsafe car has always been a contributing cause 

to highway accidents and i t will grow in tha t role as the vehicle registration increases through the years ahead. Among the 18 States and 

the District of Columbia which already have periodic motor vehicle 

inspection, studies have revealed as high as 55 percent of the vehicles 

inspected are unsafe because one or more parts affecting safe-driving 

conditions required immediate attention.

The U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Public Roads suggests 

that vehicle condition plays a more important part in accidents than 

has been believed. We know7 tha t in the reportin g procedure of traffic 

accidents, unsafe vehicle conditions have not been given proper recognition as a contributory cause of traffic accidents. There are a number 

of reasons for this, including:

(1) Vehicles are often damaged beyond the point of determining 

the ir true condition at the time of accident;

(2) Accident investigations tend to concentrate on the driver and 

driving conditions;

(3) Many investigators are not trained to recognize evidence of 

unsafe vehicle conditions;

(4) Accident reporting procedures in different States are not 

uniform;

(5) Drivers are reluctant to admit maintenance neglect, fearing 

assertion of contributory negligence in civil law suits;

(6) Vehicles are often defective because of the lack of proper 

inspection.

The expansion and improvement of our highway system is increasing ; the number of motor vehicles on the highways is increasing, more 

and more people are driving more frequently and longer distances. 

The problem of highway safety is growing and destined to grow for 

years.

There will be additional burdens placed on the many fine organizations in the field of safety. The time, effort, and moneys they will 

need to continue and to expand their efforts will become more and 

more burdensome.

Fo r tha t reason the establishment of a central clearinghouse under 

Federal Government auspices, to coordinate all the manifold aspects 

of probing the causes of highway accidents and their prevention, could 

be beneficial.

It would be easy to say to this committee that any action taken by 

any group, be it private, municipal, State, or Federal Government, 

designed to prevent traffic accidents and thereby save lives, prevent 

injuries to persons and to property would thus save the taxpayer a 

staggering burden, and so is to be commended.

However, we urge strongly upon this committee th at the members 

consider the possibility of duplication by the proposed National 

Accident Prevention Center of activities already being performed and 

responsibilities assumed by such organizations. We heartily oppose 

unnecessary duplication, and waste of taxpayers’ moneys.

In the field of proper periodic motor vehicle inspection legislation 

the research studies to implement it, there is much room for help with 

little danger on overlap of responsibility or activity.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 197

Many Federal agencies and officers have already become aware of 

the problem of inspection and have endorsed the principle of periodic 

motor vehicle inspection. Among them are Secretary A. Ribicoff 

(H EW ), and President Kennedy's own Safety Committee, headed 

by William Randolph Hearst, Jr .

Knowing that this committee's purpose is to construct legislation in 

the public interest, and knowing tha t since 1900 we have killed well 

over 1,300,000 people on our highways, injured countless millions, and 

tha t unless something is done about it 700,000 of our friends, neighbors, 

relatives, and business associates, will meet death on the highways by 

1975, we respectfully urge the committee to consider the effect of any 

legislation in the safety field on the needs of the Nation for periodic 

motor vehicle inspection. It is a herculean task and we do not wish 

to demean any of the fine private and State or Federal organizations 

which have worked long and hard in this field. We do know that the 

goal of effective periodic motor vehicle inspection is yet a long way 

off and that it is, strictly speaking, vital for many Americans living 

and as yet unborn.

The Chairman. Tha nk you, Mr. Latimer. I appreciate your appearance and your statement. I believe that you are the first witness 

to testify on the matter of periodic motor vehicle inspection.

I am sure tha t you would agree with the chairman tha t this is 

primarily a State matter, with which the chairman agrees. However, do you not feel that in this accident prevention center work, 

that many of the same goals which your organization would like to 

reach could well be stimulated and aided by the creation of this, in 

the Public Health Service?

I believe tha t many of the findings and results of the research work 

would be found in this work, would make a strong argument for not 

only periodic motor vehicle inspection, but also for inspection of the 

drivers, as well.

Again I want to th ank you for your statement.

Mr. Nelsen.

Mr. Nelsen. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman for 

his statement. I wish particularly to refer to page 4, where you 

pointed out the possibility of duplication, and suggested tha t we 

should proceed carefully to examine the possibilities of duplication.

In our hearings on the educational bill, we found, I think, that 

there were some 60 different agencies involved in educational work 

in the programs we presently have. And at the present time I thin k 

there is an effort being made to find out just what we are doing and 

what duplication there is.

In this particular field, I commend you for your observations, because the thing that I want to be sure of is tha t we are not doing a 

lot of the same thing s in different areas, and possibly by proper organization and attention, we can do the job without additional expense of any consequence, and probably do a better job, as the chairman pointed out.

The intention is to gather all of the information possible.

I want to thank you for your statement, because I do think that 

the preventing of accidents on the highways can be helped, because 

many of them are because some automobiles are in such mechanical 

condition that they are not properly controllable, and that they cause 

many of our accidents.
198 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

The Chairman. Mr. Rogers of Florida.

Mr. Rogers of Flor ida. Mr. Latimer, I was impressed with the 

fact tha t the programs you are carrying on in trying to bring about a 

regulated periodic motor vehicle inspection is a worthy one. I believe that you said th at you are pretty much concentrated on this pro ­

gram now.

Do you have a research work going on ?

Mr. Latimer. Yes. I am not conversant with the exact details of 

it. I know tha t there is considerable research going on in connection with our association. We are a national trade association with 

a membership composed of wholesalers, distributors, manufacturers 

in the field. A great deal of research is going on.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How much of your budget would you say 

is devoted to research ?

Mr. Latimer. I will be very happy to furnish that information, 

Mr. Chairman. I do not have it with me. Our headquarters are in 

Chicago. Tha t would be there, and not here.

I represent them almost entirely in a legal and legislative capacity.

Mr. Rogers of Flor ida. If you can furnish tha t to the committee, 

I think that would be very helpful, and give us perhaps a little run ­

down on some of the research you are doing in this field, so th at the 

committee might be aware of it.

Mr. Latimer. I will be very happy to do that.

(The information was not furnished for the record.)

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I wondered what you had particularly in 

mind when you mentioned duplication?

Mr. Latimer. Well, I think tha t Congressman Nelsen touched on 

it about as well as I could by simply saying this—and this is from 

myself, personally; it is not from the association—I think there is 

a tendency too often for the individual and every citizen, whether 

he is an automobile driver or not, is a taxpayer—there is a tendency 

too often for the individual citizen not to reaiize th at every tax dollar 

spent, whether it is local, State, or Federal, t ha t a proportion of th at 

is going to come out of his pocket; and therefore, I think tha t there 

is a constant need for everyone to emphasize the importance of not 

overlapping, because overlapping, featherbedding, or whatever you 

want to call it, usually results in unnecessary expenditures.

I am not prepared to say, and I did not imply, tha t there was 

anything necessarily in H.R. 133 t hat would cause overlapping, but 

I think what we were tryi ng to do was to point out the need of constantly watching for that type of thing.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I would certainly agree with that. We 

would not want to spend money doing the same thing more than once.

I wondered if you had any specific item in mind when you made 

this point?

Mr. Latimer. I have no specific item in mind.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. It is just a general statement ?

Mr. Latimer. A general statement. And if we have any specific 

item in mind, we will attach that to the other information.

Mr. Rogers of Florida . Tha t will be very helpful, because certainly we would not want to get any duplication. Of course, it is 

my thought tha t this is the purpose of the bill, to try to prevent 

duplication, even in governmental departments, to get in an orderly 

program and to get all of the information available.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 199

The State university centers would have more knowledgeable information on what is going on, so that if one State is doing research in a 

particular field, it would not be necessary for this State No. 2 to take 

up exactly the same research.

So I think the purpose you bring out is probably one of the main 

items of the bill. I agree with you. We want to do away with d uplication, so far as we can.

Than k you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Latimer.

Mr. Latimer. Than k you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the 

committee.

The Chairman. I would like now to call Mr. Moore to present a 

statement.

Mr. Moore has been of great help to the committee on many occasions. I think one of the first trips the subcommittee made was to 

the automotive trade research project at Cornell University. Mr. 

Moore was in charge at tha t time.

It will be a pleasure for us if Mr. Moore will come around and make 

a statement to the committee.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. May I add a remark to tha t which the 

chairman has made about Mr. Moore and his fine work.

I remember very well your research at Cornell University. The 

information received from you was most helpful to this committee.

I want to say tha t I am sorry I have to leave, but I will read your 

statement in the record.

STATEMENT OF JOH N 0. MOORE

Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I am 

the former director of the Cushing Research at Cornell University, 

consultant on cockpit design, chief of the crash research of the U.S. 

Air Force, director of the flight safety research, and I now earn my 

living as a consultant in the safety field.

I have been privileged by education and by a sense of obligation 

to concern myself with a very important national problem. I do not 

propose to talk this thing to death.

I believe the predecessor witnesses of this committee have amply 

stated the magnitude of this problem on a national level. There can 

be no controversv or argument about it.

W e are engaged in a struggle for survival, and that struggle is going to be primarily solved by the resources we have and the primary 

resource we enjoy in this country consists of human beings.

We are now in our complex system of mechanization treating this 

resource. We now thoroughly recognize that this is a national medical problem. We have no place to go, and we have no place to belong.

When I described myself as a former researcher, I am telling the 

literal truth.

We need to observe th at there are three ways that we know to solve 

problems, and this testimony was given before this committee when 

we discussed research needs in just one aspect of this overall problem 

tha t is being considered by this bill.

We solve problems by finding facts. We analyze those facts, and 

we utilize that information. And if in this particularly complex 

field dealing with man and a mechanized environment we do not have
200 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

a na tional agency to do this, i t is my personal, deep and abiding conviction tha t we should have done so many years ago—but that we did 

not do so years ago is no reason for not doing it today.

I would give you my personal endorsement based on many years of 

active research and dedication to the way of living in which I hope 

to raise all of my own that this is necessary. It borders on national 

disgrace t hat we do not have such a facility.

1 would, in view of my personal bias, encourage the extension of 

the terminology of the bill to include accidents and inju ry prevention, 

because we in the medical field—and I use the term “we” in the medical field rathe r liberally, because I am not a physician, although my 

education has been there and my work has been there—we in the 

medical field many times find it expeditious to control the results of 

these events before we can find the causes, but this should never prevent us from looking fo r the final cause.

We have heard some of the most unusually well-qualified, dedicated 

people I have ever been privileged to be associated with, appear befor t this committee the last few days. We may have some disagreement as to the mechanisms by which we go about this task, but I believe that it must be undertaken and the techniques which Colonel 

Stap p described this morning, and the data which I was privileged 

to work on for the A ir Force for many years, are now being applied 

to other segments of our problems.

We are dealing with problems tha t are on the order of magnitude 

tha t warrants continuity, to get to a place so tha t you will not deal 

with tired and discouraged people like me.

I do not intend that I shall leave this field.

I feel gravely responsible for a great many young men whom I 

tried to train in this field who have become discouraged and have 

left it. I know that there is no problem th at man’s mind can conceive 

of tha t cannot be solved, b ut he needs to be fed and he needs to be 

clothed and he needs to have some professional dignity.

There are many skillful people who would devote their time to this 

national problem if there existed a center of continuity, which is not 

in existence at any place today.

I thank you, sir, for indulging yourselves by letting me appear.

I apologize for my vocal presentation. It may be I have worn my 

voice out crying in the wilderness. I do not think so. I think that 

this is the end of the wilderness and th at the passage of this particular 

piece of legislation could no more to encourage and strengthen our 

activities in this field, to conserve our most important national commodity, human beings.

Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Moore. We appreciate your statement.

Air. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Roberts. I have a statement here from Mr. John H. Venable, 

director of the State of Georgia Department of Public Health, which 

I shall rea d:

Dear Congressman Roberts : I am writing in supp ort of H.R. 133, which provides, among other things, for the establishm ent of a national accid ent prevention 

center.

We in public health have been concerned for some time about the morbidity 

and mo rtality arising from acciden ts which should he preventable. However, 

too little is known about the effectiveness of our p resent procedures, even though
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 201

many of these could be effectively evaluated within a sho rt time at relatively 

low cost. We would, therefore, app reciate whatev er supp ort you may be able to give this bill in an effort to curb this unnecessary group of illnesses and deaths.

Mr. R oberts. The C hair would like to announce th at at the proper 

time, notice will be given as to futu re hearings. The Chair hopes to have representatives of other departments of Government affected by this legislation to appear, to give us some statement as to what accident prevention activities they are now engaged in, and other pertinent data. The Chair will at this time state that the subcommittee will stand 

in recess until a date to be announced. We would like, before concluding, to thank all of you, especially those of you who have helped us make a fine record of these hearings. We thank all of you. I know tha t some of you have come from long distances and at personal sacrifice. The members of this com­ mittee appreciate that and tha nk you. I hope to see you on another 

occasion. (Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION 

CENTER

TUESD AY , F E B R U A R Y 20 , 19 62

H ou se of R ep re se nt at iv es ,

S ub co mmitte e on H ea lt h and S af et y of t h e

C om mit te e on I nt er st at e and F or eig n C om mer ce ,

W ashington, D.G.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, 

New House Office Building, Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding.

The C h a ir m a n . The Subcommittee on Health and Safe ty is meeting this morning to continue hearings on Il.R . 133, to establish a national accident prevention center.

We have heard a number of public witnesses urge the need for an 

expanded Federal safety research program.

Some of the Government agencies; however, did not share the 

enthusiasm expressed by these witnesses.

The Department of Commerce was one of the Federal agencies making an adverse report on this bill. In a letter to the committee, the 

Department s aid :

Since legislation was first proposed to establish a national accident prevention center within the Public Health Service, the need for such a center, insofar 

as traffic accident prevention is concerned, has been met by the establishment 

of the Interdepartm ental Highway Safety Board and the Office of Highway 

Safety.

The subcommittee is interested in having a detailed repo rt on how 

the need has been met and what these two organizations have done and 

are doing. To give us this information, we have with us this morning 

Mr. D. Grant Mickle, Deputy Federa l Highway Adm instrator, Bureau 

of Roads, Department of Commerce, who is accompanied by Mr. 

Charles Prisk, of the Bureau of Roads staff.

STATEMENT OF D. GRANT MICKLE, DEPUTY FEDERAL HIGH WAY

ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED

BY CHARLES PRISK, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS

Mr. M ic k l e. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I 

am D. Gra nt Mickle, Deputy Federal Highway Administrator, 

Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Commerce. This, Mr. 

Chairman, is my first appearance before you and I welcome the 

opportunity.

I am here to present some of our views on highway safety and 

specifically on Il.R. 133, the bill to establish a national accident prevention center in the Public Health Service. My remarks are deS0624— 62------14 203
204 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

signed to amplify the views previously expressed by the Department 

on this bill in a letter of February 6, 1962, from Acting Secretary 

Edward Gudeman to the Honorable Oren Harris, chairman of the 

House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. My statement will also cover the questions you have since raised concerning 

the Department's position on highway safety, the important Held to 

which your committee has made significant contributions during 

recent years.

The central objective of the Bureau of Public Roads is to administer 

the Fede ral highway program in such a way that safe and efficient 

highway transportation service will be the result. With wisdom and 

foresight, the Congress has consistently passed legislation that has 

held us to this objective for nearly 50 years.

As a result, highway safety always has been of grea t concern in 

many of our activities. Current problems in operation of streets and 

highways rival the highway improvement program in importance and 

are closely related to the planning of future highways. Evidence 

of this concern is found in the Bureau’s research into highway safety, 

which has been increasingly directed toward this area. The special 

emphasis you have been giving to this and other aspects of highway 

safety with which the B ureau is engaged is a notable public service.

Now, with respect to your first question, the highway safety research presently underway in the Bureau of Public Roads is largely 

oriented to highway design and traffic control, but related considerations of vehicle characteristics and performance and human factors 

are an important element. One significant study currently under 

contract and nearing completion is a comprehensive library-type research project that will bring together in concise form published as 

well as unpublished findings of projects th at relate traffic accidents to 

highw ay and roadside features, signs, signals, markings, and similar 

elements of highway improvement. From a systematic research undertaking of th is na ture, must useful 

knowledge will be made more generally available, but, what seems a 

gre at deal more important, we shall be able to identify more readily 

the deficiencies in present knowledge, and thus more intelligently plan 

fut ure research. The highway safety research conducted by the Bureau of Public 

Roads does not normally involve part-time employment of consultants. 

Safety research is perform ed by contract with private research firms, 

universities, foundations, and others, and cooperatively with State 

highway departments, and through them with Sate motor vehicle, 

police, and public health departments. Fo r special research investigations such as those tha t are probing the practicality of automatic 

highw ays and others experimenting with closed circuit television for 

safer and more orderly management of traffic on expressways, our 

research projects often employ highly skilled industrial specialists.

In independent research, the Bureau naturally has direct supervision and control, but in oth er cases provides only the technical advice 

and assistance needed to assure a successful research effort.

You r second question relates to our accomplishments in safety research in the last 2 or 3 years. A major project accomplishment was 

the 1959 report on “The Federal Role in Highway Safety,” nearly 

5,000 copies of which have been sold by the U.S. Superintendent of
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER 205

Documents. This report contains the findings of a number of sig­ nificant safety researches conducted by the Bureau of Public Roads in response to a congressional directive, as well as results of other safety research underway in our normal program. A national conference on driving simulation to explore the values for research of simulation techniques was jointly arranged by the Bureau of Public Roads, the Public Health Service, and the Auto­ motive Safe ty Foundation about 1 year ago. We are following the developments in this area closely through an interdisciplinary committee of the Highway Research Board. Another accomplishment, the culmination of many years of re­ search, is represented by the “1961 Manual on Unifo rm Traffic Con­ trol Devices,” which sets the national standards for street and high­ way signs, signals, markings, and other devices necessary to the safe management of traffic. While this does not represent the effort of the Bureau of Public Roads research alone, the committee leadership and staff works was almost wholly within the Bureau and a very substantial research contribution was made. The major research for a somewhat similar manual developed and just now being re­ printed in its second edition for the Interstate System was based on research independently conducted by the Bureau of Public Roads. Up until recently we have had very few professional employees devoting the ir entire time to highway safety, but there have been approximately 30 engineers, several psychologists, and other sup­ porting personnel who are employed by Public Roads on projects where safety is a major objective. The best estimate that can be made of our annual expenditure on highway safety in recent years is $1.75 million, and research expenditures have been approximately 

one-half that amount. Your third question relates to our plans for the next fiscal year. Less than 2 months ago, a major reorganization occurred in the Bureau of Public Roads, and for the first time an Office of Highway Safety was established as a principal part of the Bureau structure. This new Office brings together components of the Offices of Re­ search, Administration, and the Bureau personnel assigned to the President’s Committee for Traffic Safety. In the coming year, we shall be giving more emphasis to the identification, conduct, and application of highway safety research, to the gradual centralizing in the Office of Highway Safety of appropriate functions previously dispersed in other offices of the Bureau, to the development and pro­ motion of standards conducive to increased safety, and to a combined effort with other Federal agencies to use official programs and re­ sources more intensively and systematically for the advancement of 

highway safety. The Interdepartmental Highway Safety Board, mentioned in your fourth question, was created by Executive order du ring the previous administration. Early in 1961, plans were initiated for reorganization of the Bureau of Public Roads, and from the outset it was contem­ plated that the central staff for the interdepartm ental board would be located in the proposed Office of Highway Safety. Approval of the reorganization was not given until December 6, 1961. Since that date the Office of Highway Safety has been formally established and plans are going ahead now for a meeting of the 

Board in the very near future.
206 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

The Office of Highwa y Sa fe ty is ju st be ing org ani zed b ut is already 

leadin g an im po rta nt prog ram fo r the Burea u in the n ati on wi de pr omotion of t he new “M anu al on Uni fo rm Traffic Control Devices.” A 

series of 13 reg ional conferences has been o rganized with t he American 

Mu nic ipa l Ass ocia tion, the Nationa l Asso ciation of Co unty Officials, 

and the Am erican Associa tion o f St at e Hi gh wa y Officials, in coopera ­

tion with ot he r o rganiza tio ns h av in g majo r intere sts in s afe ty.

In ad ditio n, the Dr iver Reg ister Service act ivity, which is now a 

par t of the new Office of Hig hw ay Safet y, is inc rea sin g its services 

to the St at e mo tor vehicle de pa rtm en ts by ass isting th em w ith advice 

on dr iv er license records an d pro ced ure s. I am sure you have a particu lar in terest in this functio n of the Office o f Hi gh wa y Sa fety because the activ ity is a result of leg islation recommen ded by your 

com mittee.

Ne arly all State s are par tici pat in g and the nu mb er o f requests from 

the St ates fo r searches of the Reg ister is inc rea sin g ste adily, which 

sug ges ts som eth ing of the fu tu re fo r this fun ction. Consideratio n 

is being giv en to useful res earch th at will be possible as the records 

available a ttai n a sufficient level as to qu an tity a nd quality .

Th e Office of Highwa y Saf et y also pla ns to dir ect special effort 

towa rd a num ber of high pr io rity are as th at have been rec ently id entified by the Presiden t’s C om mittee fo r Traffic Sa fet y. Pe rh ap s most 

fund am en tal among thes e relates to basic impro vem ent in acciden t 

records, star ting with the kind o f re po rti ng the ro utin g o f in form ati on 

an d findin gs, accident ana lysis, an d the multitud e of use ful appli catio ns th at are valu able to achie vin g safer hig hw ay tra ns po rta tio n.

We look forw ard in this new Office to widenin g ou r conta cts with 

all officials, nonofficial groups, the au tom otive indu str y, an d oth ers with 

legitim ate int ere st in acc ide nt red uction. Th e grow ing volume of 

ma il on hig hw ay safety m at te rs now rea ching Pu blic Ro ads is an 

indicatio n o f the bread th of public concern t hat exists in this im po rta nt 

pro blem. I t would h ardl y ben efit ou r p ublic res ponsibi lity in the area 

of Fe de ral hig hw ay a dm in istra tio n to neglect to stu dy, an d wherever 

poss ible, to work to reduce th e hazards th at arise in the use of 

hig hw ays.

In question 6, the re is ref ere nce to possible inter fer ence between 

the Nationa l Accident Pr ev en tio n Cente r proposed in IT.R. 133 and 

the In terd ep ar tm en tal Highw ay Sa fety Bo ard . A rec ent rep ort of 

the Dep ar tm en t of He alth, Ed uc ation, and W elfare on IT.R. 133 

addre sse d to Ch airma n H ar ri s allud ed to the ir concern over the “ possible issue of dupli catio n of au th or ity and res ponsibi lity of oth er 

Fe de ral agencie s.”

W e are qu ite ready to agree th at rese arch int o high wa y saf ety can 

be an d is high ly pro ductive when pursu ed from discip lines other th an 

engin eerin g. It is ou r sinc ere fee lin g th at gr ea ter success than we 

hav e yet. realize d in the so lution of the traffic acc ide nt pro ble m is most 

lik ely to res ult from a be tte r joinin g of the competence ava ilab le in 

the physica l, social, and medic al sciences. Th is is th e root of our 

belief th at an interd ep artm en tal effort would be desirab le.

In respon se to question No. 7, the h igh way saf ety r ese arc h pro gra m 

of the Bu reau of Public Ro ads is coo rdinat ed with the w ork of oth ers 

th ro ug h libera l pa rti cipa tio n in the hig hway safet y efforts of man y 

official and nonofficial organizatio ns. We are assiste d g re at ly by meet-
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 207

ings with and advice of technical committees of the Highway Research 

Board, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the American Public Works Association, the National Safety Council, the American Bar Associ­ ation, the American Association of State Highw ay Officials, the Society of Automotive Engineers, the American l^sychological Association, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 

and other similar organizations. In addition, the Bureau of Public Roads has, since 1957, had a 

member on the Accident Prevention Study Section for the review of gra nt applications on highway safety research projects of the National 

Institutes of Health. Sources of research information available to us include our highway 

transporta tion library, widely acknowledged as the finest in the world, the summary materials available in the Accident Prevention Division of the Public Health Service, the reports of the National Safety Council’s Research Correlation Service which, incidentally, is sup­ ported in part by Public Roads funds, the excellent publications, bib­ liographies, and other references of the Highway Research Board, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and similar professional organizations both in the United States and overseas. The Bureau of Public Roads has been represented in several recent 

international conferences dealing with the development of improved scientific approaches to highway safety, and we find that the need for fully adequate communication among safety research personnel is 

a pressing one. With regard to your n inth question, I believe tha t wasteful duplication of research can only be fully avoided by a closer tie of commu­ nication among those concerned. This purpose will be one of those served by a joint staff named by the departments and agencies com­ prising the Safety Board. One of the defects noted in our 1959 study of highway safety activities in the Federal Government was the near lack of communication among Federal officials with highway safety responsibilities. The joint staff serving the Board will be a device for exchange of research inform ation and plans, which should forestall the very real difficulty you foresee. Your final question asks whether we are satisfied with the present situation as to the availability of information on safety research. We are not. However, through our Office of Highway Safety, through the Interdepartmental Highway Safety Board, throu gh an expanded effort in the National Safe ty Council’s Research Correlation Service, 

a good start can be made to overcome this fault. Because of the diverse, sophisticated natu re of modern methods for improving highway safety, we believe tha t every feasible avenue should be pursued to bring new knowledge to the large audience concerned with its best 

application. As previously noted, Secretary Ribicoff in his letter to the committee recognizes an area of possible duplication of efforts. The Secre­ tary states tha t the legislation should clearly provide tha t the responsibilities assigned to the Public Health Service do not supersede or repeal the authorities of other Federal agencies for accident prevention activities within their own areas of responsibility. The bill as it is presently written does not, we feel certain, make 

this clear. As indicated in the report of the Department of Health,
208 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

Education, and Welfare, we have a mutual concern in this area— 

which, as I have already stated, is one in which Federal agencies could 

work together to considerable advantage.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mickle. How long have you been 

with the Department?

Mr. Mickle. I ioined the Bureau of Public Roads on November 1, 

1961.

The Chairman. And how long have you been in the field of highway accident research?

Mr. Mickle. I was with the Automotive Safety Foundation since 

June 15,1943; about 18 years, sir.

The Chairman. In the reply contained in your statement you make 

the statement that you feel tha t the need for the Accident Prevention 

Center has been met by the establishment of the Interdepartm ental 

Highway Safety Board, or substantially to that effect. I am trying 

to find your statement now. I want to be correct in reading it back 

to you.

No; it is in the letter from the Department. Do you have that 

before you, the letter addressed to the chairman of this committee,. 

Mr. Harris?

Mr. Mickle. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. You say, and I quote:

Since legislation was first proi>osed to establish a National Accident Prevention Center within th e Public Health Service the need for such Center as far as 

traffic accident prevention is concerned has been met by the establishment of 

the Interdepartm ental Highway Safety Board and the Office of Highway Safety.

In what ways do you think the establishment of tha t Highway 

Safe ty Board and the Office of Highway Safety meets the problem 

that the Center would be directing its attention to ?

Mr. Mickle. We believe tha t the Interdepartmental Highway 

Safety Board can serve as a very effective coordinating agency among 

all Federal groups involved in highway safety. It will provide an 

opportunity for all Federal programs to be brought together under 

one cordinating body and will provide an opportunity for interchange of information for the determination of research needs and 

then assigning the actual research work to the appropriate department 

of Government that can best handle that area of research.

The Chairman. Has this Board held a meeting ?

Mr. Mickle. No ; it has not.

The Chairman. When do you think it will meet ?

Mr. Mickle. As I said in my statement, Mr. Chairman, the Office 

of Highway Safety was just approved in the Bureau of Public Roads 

on December 6 and it is the in tent that the Office of Highway Safety 

will serve as the staffing for the Interdepartmental Safety Board since 

the Secretary of Commerce is the chairman, and it is hoped tha t we 

can have a meeting of that Board very, very soon.

I cannot give you a precise date, but it is planned to have one very 

soon, within the next few weeks.

The Chairman. Will this Board be concerned with the medical 

and clinical research and the causes of accidents ?

Mr. Mickle. Insofar as the Board will have on i t representatives 

of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; yes, sir.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 209

The Chairman. Is the Department to be represented by medical 

and clinical people?

Mr. Mickle. The Board has on it the representatives of all the 

Federal agencies tha t have an interest in highway safety, and that 

area th at yon are discussing would be represented by the Health, E ducation, and Welfare people who would be on the Board.

The Chairman. Do you agree that there is a need for research in 

the field of the causes of accidents ?

Mr. Mickle. I am sorry, sir, would you repeat the question?

The Chairman. Do you agree that there is a need from a medical 

and clinical standpoint for research into the causes of accidents?

Mr. Mickle. Yes, indeed.

The Chairman. How could you possibly say tha t this need has 

been met by the establishment of a Board which has never even held a 

meeting?

Mr. Mickle. I th ink in response to that point that we would assume 

that research in the area th at you have mentioned would continue to be 

carried on by the appropriate Federal agency, which in this case I 

suppose would be the Health, Education, and W elfare people.

The Chairman. Do you not think it would be a little bit nearer correct to say that the need may be met, instead of saying “has been met ?n

The Secretary is Chairman, you say, of the Board but he has been in 

office over a year now and not even a meeting has been held of this socalled Board.

Mr. Mickle. Yes, sir; I would accept that.

The Chairman. Would you accept that correction, that it may possibly somewhere out in the future be met by the formation of this 

Board ?

Mr. Mickle. I certainly would; yes, sir.

The Chairman. What are the approaches, or will be the approaches, 

let us say, since it is not in being, of this particular Board other than 

what you outline as an exchange of information ?

Mr. Mickle. Mr. Chairman, this work will be carried on under the 

direction of our Office of Highway Safety, as I have indicated, and 

with your permission I would like to ask Mr. Prisk to describe tha t 

activity to you because he will be the man directly in charge of handling it for the Bureau.

The Chairman. We would be glad to have that.

Mr. Mickle. Thank you.

Mr. Prisk. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I 

would sta rt by saying that this Interdepartmental Highway Safety 

Board was intended to be fully representative of all of the interests of 

the Federal Government in the highway safety problem.

The actual members of the Board are high-level officials in each of 

the departments, and in addition to those persons there is provision 

for organization of a staff of persons technically competent representing each of the agencies also on the subject of concern to that agency 

insofar as highway safety is involved.

The program of the Board, of course, I think would properly rest 

as one fo r determination precisely by the Board, as was suggested in 

the statement ; but I would say th at initially we would like to see what 

each of the agencies is concerned with in the highway safety field at 

the present time, attem pt to find out where there are areas of mutual
210 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT P REV ENTION CENTER

interest, where there are deficiencies in the present program and activity at the Federal agency level, and then attem pt to work through 

this technical staff and lat er the policy level and make recommendations which would be appropriate for meeting these deficiencies.

This would take account certainly of research needs, which I think 

is one of the very natural acts and ways in which the Federal Government can be of assistance.

The Chairman. Mr. Prisk, would not most of the approaches of 

such a Board be along the lines of statistical and applied research?

Mr. Prisk. I thin k they need not be. It would oe my hope tha t 

full capabilities of any of the Departments could be applied. This, 

in some cases, would involve, certainly, what we refe r to very often 

as basic research, as well as applied research. I thin k we would perhaps be doing a disservice to the field, however, to say that most of 

the problems in the highway safety field are of an applied nature. 

I mean the problems are there. They await the need for solution.

The Chairman. Would you not be concerned primarily with the 

work of the Interstate System of Defense Highways as to safety control, and control of traffic signs and signals, the proper type of engineering, and some automatic controls? That would be your concern 

primarily, would it not, the field of interstate highways?

Mr. Prisk. This would be the interest of the Department of Commerce very largely.

The Chairman. Under the law you would be restricted primarily 

to the Federal highway system ; is tha t correct ?

Mr. Prisk. Yes; but I would point out tha t this Board is not a 

Commerce board. This is an interagency board.

The Chairman. I recognize that. I am talk ing about the aspects 

of the Commerce jurisdiction.

Air. Prisk. Yes; you are right.

Air. Schenck. Air. Chairman, will you yield for a question there?

The Chairman. Let me finish this line of questioning.

Air. Schenck. I am jus t wondering if you meant to limit your 

questions to the 90-10 highways?

The Chairman. Of course anything to which the Federal Government contributes.

Air. P risk. Federal-aid highways?

The Chairman. Fede ral-aid highways. Going back to my question 

on the Interstate System, how many thousand miles of highways would 

we be talking about actually ? Some 41,000 miles ?

Air. Prisk. 41,000.

The Chairman. From your knowledge of the number of miles 

comprising our municipal, county, primary, secondary, and Interstate 

System, how many million miles of roads, streets, and highways would 

we be talking about on which vehicles move ?

Air. Prisk. Of course our total road network is about 3y2 million 

miles, and this is what you speak of. The Federal-aid systems are 

concerned with about 780,000, I believe it is, of highways throughout 

the country, but there are very important carryover effects from these 

more important highways to other highways, both in urban areas and 

in rural areas.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 211

The Chairman. And to go back to the original statement of 41,000 

miles, when do we hope to complete that system ?

Mr. P risk. By 1973.

The Chairman. 1973. And even when completed it will be a mere 

fraction of the total of 3,699,000 miles of roads, streets, and highways 

actually on which this problem is presen t; is that correct ?

Mr. Prisk. A fraction, but a most important fraction if considered 

in terms of the service that is provided, because this system, even 

though it is only a little more than 1 percent of our total mileage, will 

carry 20 percent of the total traffic.

The Chairman. Twenty or more percent.

Mr. P risk. Of the total highway travel in the Nation.

The Chairman. Actually is not true from your study of the high ­

way safety problem that perhaps a larger percentage of our deaths 

and accidents occur on roads over which the Department of Commerce 

would have very little, i f any control ?

Mr. Prisk. Well, you have limited the discussion to the Intersta te 

Sytem, and in addition to the 41,000 miles there are many, many miles 

of highways over which the Department of Commerce does have some 

control and so this 20 percent of total travel and the P/G percent of 

the actual highway mileage that I speak of represents only a fraction 

of the total concern that the Department of Commerce would have 

in the highway situation.

The Chairman. Do you have any projected figures as to how much 

the death and accident toll might be reduced by the completion of the 

Fede ral system ?

Mr. Prisk. Yes, sir. We have made a recent estimate th at completion of the Interstate System will result in a saving of 5,200 lives 

annually by the year 1973.

The Chairman. And upon what do you base that, estimate, with the 

knowledge that we are increasing the thousands of drivers every year 

and increasing the number of vehicles every year? That could very 

well explode tha t estimate, could it not?

Mr. Prisk. These factors you mention have been taken into consideration. The estimate of future travel has been projected from studies 

in the Bureau of Public Roads and has been used for calculation of 

these estimates. I might say that the saving of these 5,200 lives is an 

extremely conservative figure viewed against those of the National 

Safe ty Council, which are somewhat higher, and those that have recently been released by a prominent consultant who estimated that in 

excess of 9,000 lives would lie saved by this same means.

The Chairman. Do you have that study tha t could be supplied the 

committee ?

Mr. Mickle. Do you mean the consultant’s report, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Mickle. I thin k a copy of that could be obtained for the record 

if you would like to have it.

The Chairman. I think that the committee -would like to have that 

included for study by the subcommittee.

Mr. Mickle. I might point out it was not made for the Government, 

so, therefore, we will have to see if we can obtain a copy for you, but 

we will make every effort to.
2 1 2 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER 

(The report referred to above follows:)

Anticipated benefits in 1980 of completed interstate sy st em 1

Item

Location

Total

Urban Ru ral

Miles of annual travel on interstate system (billions )_______ 188.0 107.5 295.5

Operating cost savings (billion dollars). _________________ $4 $1.1 $5.1

Tim e cost savings (billion dollars)_______________________ $5.5 $1.1 $6.6

To tal savings (billion dollars) ______ _________________ $9.5 $2.2 $11.7

Hou rs saved (billions)_________________________________ 3.4 .6 4

Lives saved ____________ ______ ______________________ 3,760 5,805 9,565

* Source: Calc ulated from 1980 trav el d etailed in app. A, w ith Intersta te System completed.

The Chairman. One more question before I leave that field. Do 

you have any idea whether this Board or the Office of Highway Safety 

which is being set up in the Department of Commerce has any plans 

for basic medical or clinical research into the causes of accidents?

Mr. Mickle. Our own Highw ay Safety Office ?

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Mickle. None directly, no, I think not, none directly. This 

would be an area outside of the Bureau of Public Roads.

The Chairman. Recently in a hearing before this committee we 

had a statement by Dr. Robert J. Schreiber, executive director of 

research, Public Service Research, Stanford, Conn., on February 8, 

who said tha t one of our problems is a shortage of research workers 

and one reason we do not have more people doing research is that 

there are no clear opportunities in accident research. He said that 

the establishment of a National Accident Research Center would provide such career opportunity, thus stimulating and promoting research.

How would the program you propose meet this problem of providing career opportunities ?

Mr. Mickle. The Interdepartmental Highway Safety Board, as I 

have previously stated, is intended to bring about coordination among 

the Fe deral agencies interested in highway safety and any one of the 

agencies tha t is engaged in safety research presumably would provide 

opportunities for these research workers. Tha t would include the 

Bureau of Public Roads, th e Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare, and other agencies of the Government,

The Chairman. Are you training any research workers now?

Mr. Mickle. We are recruitin g additional people in the Office of 

Highway Safety and are continuously putting on training programs 

for all of our personnel in all of the fields of the Bureau’s activity.

The Chairman. However, are these people accident research 

workers ?

Mr. Mickle. We have about 30,1 believe.

Mr. Brisk. These are the ones currently.

The Chairman. About 30 that are on now ?

Mr. Mickle. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Could you supply us a list of those workers with 

their duties and salaries?

Mr. Mickle. Yes, sir.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 213

(The list referred to above follows:)

Technical personnel engaged partime in highway safety research,

as of Jan. 31,1962

Nam e and ti tl e: Sa lary^

C. M. Billingsley, transpo rta tio n economist-------------------------------$10, 635

Daniel F. Bridges, research psychologist---------------------------------- 5, 355

Stanley R. Byington, highwa y research engineer---------------------- 8, 955

Arthu r A. Carter, Jr., high way research engineer--------------------- 11,155

Ha ry D. Cashell, Chief of Concrete Branch ------------------------------- 12, 210

Pa ul J. Claffey, high way research engineer----------------------------- 11,155

Edwin M. Cope, economist---------------------------------------------------- 13,250

Dee W. Cozan, researc h psychologist--------------------------------------- 9, 475

Richard Desrosiers, highway resea rch engineer------------------------- 7, 560

William G. Eliot III, supe rvisory highway researc h engineer------ 11, 935

Ric hard C. Hopkins, electrical engineer--------------------------------- 11,935

Carl F. Izzard, Chief, Hydra ulic Research Division------------------- 15, 030

Malcolm F. Kent, tra nsporta tio n economist----------------------------, 11,155

David R. Levin, Chief, Highway and Land Admin istratio n Division_______________________________ 14, 380

Nathan Lieder, survey sta tis tic ian---------------------------------------- 10, 635

W.D. McCarthy, tra nspo rta tio n economist--------------------------------- 8, 955

Ric har d M. Michaels, supe rvisory research psychologist------------ 10, 895

Dlav K. Normann, Deputy Director, Office of Research------------ 15, 775

F. William Petring, Supervisory highway researc h engineer-------- 11, 935

Lawrence D. Powers, high way resea rch engineer---------------------- 8, 955

Carl C. Saal, supervisory highway traffic research engineer-------- 14, 055

C. L. Shufllebarger, high way research engineer----------------------- 11, 155

David Solomon, high way traffic research engineer--------------------- 11,155

G. P. St. Clair, sui>ervisory highway research enginee r--------------- 15, 030

Burton W. Stephens, research psychologist------------------------------- 6, 435

Asriel Taragin, Chief, Traffic Performance Branc h------------------- 12, 990

Samuel C. Tignor. high way resea rch engineer---------------------------- 7, 560

Richard A. Tompkins, highway research engineer--------------------- 6, 765

George S. Vincent, supervisory bridge engineer----------------------- 13, 510

William D. Whitby, highwa y engineer technician ---------------------- 7. 560

Robley Winfrey, Chief, High way Needs and Economy Division----- 15,030

The Chairman. How many has the Department of Commerce 

traine d ?

Mr. Prisk. I think we would have to check for tha t information. 

I do not have it available.

The Chairman. I would like to have th at for the record, if we may.

Mr. Mickle. We will get the information for you.

(The information referred to above follows:)

Of the personnel associa ted with the highway safe ty research effort, at least 

12 employees have received or are currently receiving tra ini ng or supp ort for 

tra ining through the De partm ent of Commerce.

The Chairman. How many of your people are currently engaged 

full time in accident prevention research ?

Mr. Mickle. I would like to ask Mr. Prisk again, to answer that, 

if I may, sir.

Mr. P risk. I think the best answer I can give to that is that we have 

essentially no people that are engaged full time on accident prevention research, but that almost from top to bottom in terms of our 

entire operation, research, and in other areas, there is a doctrine of 

safety that is being practiced which gives respect to the need for new 

knowledge and the desirability of applying new knowledge to going 

programs.
214 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

The Chairman. Where would a scientist interested in accident research go to do research with some expectation of a career in this 

field? Where would he go in the Federal Government at the present 

time?

Mr. Prise. We meet a great many of them. I am sure th at this 

would depend on the interest. There has been, as was mentioned in 

Mr. Mickle’s statement, a close connection between the Bureau of P ublic Roads and the accident prevention grant program of the National 

Institutes of Health, and we have seen many persons who have come 

to tha t source as a means of support for their research undertaking.

We have similar contacts with research workers in the Bureau of 

Public Roads and have financed work of particu lar interest to us 

through our own funds.

The Chairman. But none of these people is in the the medical or 

clinical field ?

Mr. Mickle. None in the Bureau of Public Roads.

The Chairman. How do you get research results to the Public 

Hea lth and State people at the present time, or how would it be done 

under this Inte rdepartmental Highway Safety Board ?

Mr. Mickle. How do we get information to them, the results of 

the research ?

The Chairman. The health people and State people who are concerned with this problem at the local level.

Mr. Mickle. This would be handled by each of the individual government agencies, again pointing out that the Interdepartmental 

Safety Board is merely a coordinating activity and tha t the direct 

work in medical research would continue to be the responsibility of 

the Institutes of Health. Research in the areas of accidents and 

their relationship to highway design or traffic control would continue 

to be the responsibility of the Bureau of Public Roads.

Accident research that might have a bearing in the field of labor, 

or the field of agriculture, or the Post Office Department, would continue to be handled by those individual agencies and the In terdep artmental Safety Board would be largely a coordinating activity and a 

means of learning what areas of research were being carried on by 

the various departments and agencies; but the responsibility for research in each of these areas would continue to be the responsibility 

of the individual agencies.

The Chairman. Well, would you agree tha t there is very little 

coordination among the departments of the Federal Government at 

the present time ?

Mr. Mickle. Yes, indeed. We so stated. That is what we hope 

to correct through the Interdepartmen tal Safety Board.

The Chairman. Could you give us any idea of how this Interdepartm ental Highway Safety Board will be staffed and how many 

people will be on the staff ?

Mr. Mickle. At the moment the Executive order specifies that the 

chairman shall be the Secretary of Commerce, and it is our intention 

tha t the staffing would become*the responsibility then of the Department of Commerce and more precisely the Bureau of Public Roads. 

May I quote from the Executive order ? It states:
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 215

Such assistance— 

this is staff assistance—

may include detailing employees to the Board, one of whom may serve as 

executive officer, to perform such functions consistent with the purpose of this 

order as the Board may assign to them.

That we interpret to mean tha t as more staffing is required staff 

personnel could be drawn from the various Government agencies tha t 

comprise the Board.

The Chairman. If they are drawn from the Public Health Service 

who would take the places of the people who are doing the work in 

accident research in the Public Health Service?

Mr. Mickle. I assume th at they would detail only a limited number 

of people to the Board to begin serving in a coordinating capacity, not 

in a direct action capacity. The direct action, the research activity, 

normally the function of the Institutes of Health and the Dep artment of Health, Education, and Welfare, would continue to be in tha t 

agency, such as research and highway work would continue to be in 

the Bureau of Public Roads.

I do not think this is a substitute for the activity of the various 

departments. That is what I am trying to say, I think.

The Chairman. Last A pril, when we had the Department up here, 

the Bureau submitted for the record a list of eight automobile highway 

safety investigations being conducted by the Office of Research, Bureau of Public Roads, and this is to be found on page 263 of the 

hearings.

As I understand it, the Bureau was conducting these investigations 

with its own personnel, or has it farmed them out under contract?

Mr. Mickle. This, of course, was testimony presented when I was 

not with the Bureau and again I would like permission to ask Mr. 

Prisk to answer the question, if I may.

The Chairman. Can you give us th at answer, Mr. Prisk?

Mr. Prisk. I would appreciate the last part of your question, Mr. 

Roberts.

The Chairman. In the hearings last April, and at that time I 

think we had quite a bit of talk about this Board and it was not in 

a much better state of formation at that time than it is today, you 

did state tha t the Bureau had a list of eight automobile highway safety 

investigations being conducted by the Office of Research, Bureau of 

Public Roads.

Do I understand tha t these investigations are being conducted by 

the Bureau with its own personnel, or has farmed them out under 

contract?

Mr. Prisk. These projects are conducted in various ways. The 

particu lar eight that you refer to I am afraid I cannot identify directly, but we work in terms of administrative funds with formal 

research contracts, with private research firms, with universities, and 

with other organizations and individuals.

Actually there is autho rity in the legislation to contract with anyone 

able and competent in this field. These particular details on those 

eight contracts I would be glad to get for you. As I remember, 

Batelle Memorial Ins titu te is one of these where there is some important work being done with respect to the need for communications 

between vehicles on the highway. That would have an important
2 1 6 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

effect, I think, respected by industry, on the design of turn signals 

and other lighting equipment needed on the vehicle.

There are a number of other projects of this sort undoubtedly included among those eight. If you would like the detail I will see 

that you have it.

The Chairman. Could you give us a list of the results that have 

been obtained by these investigations and what disposition has been 

made of the reports made to the Bureau ?

Mr. Prisk. We shall endeavor to supply that.

The Chairman. I would like to also have the cost of each project 

that has been farmed out.

Mr. Prisk. This is in the vehicle safety field that you refer to.

(The information referred to can be found in the committee files:)

The Chairman. Last A pril I asked about the progress being made 

in getting the Uniform Traffic Code adopted and was told that certain 

steps had been taken to breathe new life into the project with an 

enlarged budget. We went away with the feeling tha t there was 

definite hope for progress within the ensuing year.

I wonder if you can give us a rundown briefly on the major accomplishments in that direction during the past year?

Mr. Mickle. Again I would like to ask Mr. Prisk to answer that 

question, if I may.

Mr. 1 ’risk. The accomplishments, I think, can be summed up in 

this way: That committee has employed a new executive director, a 

highly competent person, to head the small staff tha t is maintained 

here in the Washington office, the headquarters office, of that committee. A number of subcommittees have been organized to deal with 

important fields of driver licensing, vehicle equipment, traffic control 

devices, rules of the road, and other areas of concern in the Uniform 

Vehicle Code.

Each of these committees has been activated and to a very considerable extent revitalized through the arrival on the scene of this new 

staff director. I would assure you th at the upswing th at has occured 

in the committee’s activities has been appreciated by the sponsoring 

organizations to the extent th at there has been some additional support 

pledged to the activity of this committee and tha t I am sure, with a 

meeting coming up on the 21st of March of this group, there will be 

still more accomplishment recorded at that time.

Working committees are all ready to report and the major revision 

of the code, I would say, is in prospect. It was last revised in 1956.

The Chairman. It seems to me th at the test might be not so much 

in the appointing of a director and the a ppointing of subcommittees, 

but what States have laws substantially in agreement with chapter 6 

of the Uniform Motor Vehicle Code which relates to driver licensing. 

Have you made any progress in that field ?

Mr. Brisk. I do not have that information.

The Chairman. You do not have that information ?

Mr. Prisk. No.

The Chairman. As a matter of fact, you do not know of a single 

State that has passed a law saying that we will conform to chapter 6 

of the Uniform Motor Vehicle Code, do you ?

Mr. Brisk. I am sure there is continuing progress in this. I cannot 

name a Sta te; no.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 217

The Chairman. Tha t is all the Chair has at the present time. Mr. 

Schenck ?

Mr. Schenck. Thank yon, Mr. Chairman. I am very interested 

in some of these answers. 1 think you indicated the number of p ersonnel you now have in the Bureau of Public Roads working on 

safety, did you not ?

Mr. Mickle. Yes, sir. I have indicated tha t we had something in 

the order of 30 people who work on safety activities at some time or 

another. That is not full time, of course.

Mr. Schenck. Can you give us an indication of how much the 

budget has spent for this purpose ?

Mr. Mickle. Do you have the budget figure for the current year? 

The total budget, as indicated in the testimony, is about $1% million for safety activities, in tota l, and about half of th at, it could be said, 

is devoted to research in safety.

Mr. Schenck. By the Bureau ?

Mr. Mickle. By the Bureau; yes, sir.

Mr. Schenck. I think you also pointed out tha t the various other 

agencies of Government are doing their own research by their own 

specialists in various ways and tha t this interdepartmental board is 

merely a coordinating vehicle to bring this information together.

Mr. Mickle. Yes, sir.

Mr. Schenck. And possibly to discuss expansion of that?

Mr. Mickle. Ia m sorry.

Mr. Schenck. To discuss the possibility of expanding what might 

be done by individual departments?

Mr. Mickle. Tha t is correct, sir.

Mr. Schenck. I think you also indicated th at there are some 41,000 

miles of interstate highways in the process and tha t in the meantime, however, you are making substantial contributions to States for all 

other types of highways within the States ?

Mr. Mickle. All other Federal-aid highways within the States; 

yes.

Mr. Schenck. That would include p rimary, secondary, and farmto-market roads?

Mr. Mickle. Yes; and urba n extensions.

Mr. Schenck. Is your safety research also related to the problems 

on those kinds of roads ?

Mr. Mickle. Yes. The safety research and the work done in highway safety is not confined to the 41,000-mile system. As a matter of fact, as Mr. Prisk pointed out, the Interstate System is inherently 

designed so as to provide the maximum amount of safety. He gave 

you figures indicating the projected saving in fatalities tha t will 

accrue when the system is completed.

This comes about by virtue of the kind of design that the Interstate System has, limited access feature, the separation of grades, and 

the separation of opposing movement of traffic, the elimination of pedestrians, and all those things, so it is inherent in the design of 

tha t system th at it will be the safest that can be conceived of.

Where the real effort need to be put forth in the safety research 

field, in the safety activity in general, is on the rest of the system 

where we do not have those built-in safety features, and I mentioned 

in the earlier statement tha t one of the activities currently underway
218 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

is the carrying forward of the standards that are prescribed for modem sign signals and markings in the new “Manual on Unifo rm Traffic 

Control Devices.”

Tha t activity will go beyond just the Federal-aid highway system.

We are hopeful, by improving th e signs and marking on the Federalaid highway system, t hat that in itself will encourage the counties 

and the cities to step up their activities in this field, and these standards are applicable just as much to the local county road and the local 

city street as they are to the Federal-aid highway system, so th at 

this activity is one that we hope will spread over the entire highway 

network.

Mr. Sciienck. Does this Interdepartmental Safety Board have any 

connection with the activity going on by and in individual States 

by the ir own offices, their highway departments, their highway patrol, 

and so on, and similar agencies within cities? *

Mr. Mickle. No; it would not. The Interdepartmental Safety 

Board would be a Federal activity and the work going on through 

the police organizations, and the motor vehicle administrators, and 

the traffic engineering groups, and so on, would be the responsibility 

of those particular officers in the individual States and cities. It 

would be hoped that research and information developed by the 

Interdepartmental Board would be made available to these other 

groups in the cities and States, however, as information.

Mr. Schenck. Tha t leads rig ht into my next question. IIow do 

you make tha t available to all these other interested public officials?

Mr. Mickle. It would have to come about through working directly 

with the ir organizations, with the ir national organizations.

Mr. Schenck. You mean such as the American Municipal Association ?

Mr. Mickle. Yes, sir; and the Internatio nal Association of Chiefs 

of Police, and the American Motor Vehicle Administrators, and the 

American Association of State H ighway Officials, Institu te of Traffic 

Engineers, all of the organizations tha t would have an interest in 

this field.

Mr. Schenck. I am not certain just to what research and development this figure applies, bu t apparently there is some $12,365 million 

in the 1963 fiscal year budget requested by the President for research 

and development programs. Do you know anything about the possible percentage or part of that that is assigned to traffic safety ?

Mr. Mickle. I would only know about that part tha t would be in 

the Bureau of Public Roads, and in the appropriations fo r the Bureau 

of Public Roads the law provides tha t iy 2 percent of the appropriations shall be reserved for research and planning. I do not have 

a breakdown of the percentage tha t is assigned to research and the 

percentage assigned to planning because there is an overlap in those 

terms. It is hard to distinguish sometimes what is planning and what 1

is research or vice versa; but the budget for fiscal 1963 of the Bureau 

of Public Roads lias an increase in it for research generally and for 

highway safety by virtue of the creation of this Office of Highway 

Safety in the Bureau.

I can get you the information regarding the amount tha t we have 

in the budget, but I would have to have it broken out of the budget.

Mr. Schenck. By dollars?
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 219

Mr. Mickle. By dollars for safety activity, for safety research. It 

does not show tha t way in the budget precisely but we could break 

it down for you if you would like.

Mr. Schenck. During the course of your testimony we were also 

handed here a report by the Michigan State University Highway 

Traffic Safety Center for the 1960-61 fiscal year, a rather complete report containing some 25 pages. This report, I believe, refers to the 

fact tha t they have had certain grants from the Bureau of Public 

Roads to make certain research studies and they indicated tha t in this 1960-61 fiscal year they will spend some $317,000 for highway traffic 

safety and research. Do you have any idea how much is being spent 

by other universities in total on this sort of thing ?

Mr. Mickle. No, sir; I do not. I think this is one of the areas of 

information in which we are lacking. There is not available at the 

moment any such information. We would hope tha t this again might 

be a function of the Board to try to obtain this kind of information, 

but it is not available at the moment as fa r as I know.

I would like to ask Mr. Prisk if he knows of any, if I may.

Mr. Schenck. There really is, therefore, no total picture of the 

amount being spent by universities, Federal departments, State governments, municipal governments, and so forth in the interest of traffic 

safety ?

Mr. Mickle. Not unless a figure of tha t kind can lie obtained from 

the research correlation service of the National Safety Council, which does attempt to bring together information on all traffic safety research being conducted thro ugho ut the country. I do not have a figure with me, but I am quite sure that they attemp t 

to bring this information together from time to time.

Mr. Schenck. Certainly all the testimony indicates that there is 

careful attention being given to this very, very necessary field because 

of the high number of fatalitie s and injuries on the highways, and 

perhaps this work ought to be stepped up. How do you tran sfer what you learn in your research over to the 

driver of the vehicle on the highway to make him more careful?

Mr. Mickle. That is the $64 question, sir. The information that 

you try to get to the driver is of such a diverse and varied character 

tha t it is ha rd to say any one specific way is the way to do it. You 

try to bring to him through the licensing procedure; for example, 

knowledge that you have gained through research of how license 

examinations should be made and having improved the licensing procedure, then you apply that thro ugh the motor vehicle administrators 

in the ir procedures where they are examining drivers. You bring to 

the drive r the benefit of research in improved signs, and marking, and 

signaling by these series of conferences that I mentioned that bring to 

the States, and the counties, and the cities new standards of traffic 

control devices.

Having done that, the driv er gets the benefit of those improvements. 

Education is another way you bring information to the driver, but 

you do not do it in any one single way. It is a variety of means with 

many, many groups and agencies working on the problem.

Mr. Schenck. I would just like to say at this point that it has been 

my very great personal privilege and pleasure to work extremely 

closely with the chairman of this subcommittee, my distinguished 

80624— 62------ 15
220 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

friend and colleague, the Honorable Kenneth Roberts, ever since the 

formation of the first Committee on Highway Traffic Safe ty back in 

1956. Our subcommittee has worked diligently and hard under the 

capable leadership of the chairm an to develop a lot of information in 

a lot of different areas of mechanical devices on automobiles, highway conditions, driver’s license laws, the need for uniform traffic laws, 

uniform placement of signs and signals, and so on.

I thin k we ought to pay a very special tribute to my very good 

friend and colleague here, Congressman Roberts of Alabama, for the 

very splendid work that he has done, and I know how very deeply he 

is interested in this whole subject, as I am also.

I can well appreciate tha t the bill he has proposed has a great deal 

of merit if it will save lives and reduce injuries. However, I am also 

a little dubious about the function of the Federal Government in 

developing a research program on traffic safety with the primary pur ­

pose of providing for some researcher or some traine d person a job 

and an opportunity to do research.

It would seem to me that those opportunities ought to be provided 

in the private field of the automotive industry, and in the allied industries, and in the colleges, and in the several departments which 

are included in your Interdepartmental Safety Board. I just 

don't agree with my good friend here, and I say it in a most kindly 

way, that the function of the Government is to develop employment 

opportunities for researchers who have an idea they want to work in 

this field.

Mr. Mickle. Mr. Schenck, I have known also for many years 

of the fine work of the chairman in this field and share your high 

opinion of the value of the job tha t he is doing.

Mr. Schenck. I have greatly enjoyed your testimony and appreciate your coming to the committee.

The Chairman. Of course the chairman would not be human if he 

did not appreciate the compliment of the gentleman from Ohio and 

of course what the witness said also.

I might say that it seems to me that the big problem that we have in 

this field has been pretty well illustrated here by the testimony of the 

witness and that is th at we are spending a gre at deal of money, but it 

seems to me that we are using a very big load of shot and nearly a 

shotgun approach instead of using a scalpel. We are scattering our 

load all over the country and we are not accomplishing much.

We keep killing people by the thousands and injuring bv the millions, and it seems to me that w’e are too much concerned with the 

effect and too little concerned with the causes. I know tha t the Departmen t of Commerce has been interested in tryin g to get the States 

to achieve some uniformity by adoption of the Uniform Motor Vehicle Code. The Department of Commerce has long advocated that 

the States do just that.

As has been brought out here—I think it was first advocated back 

in 1924—we are just simply not doing the job, and it has been my 

experience that the doctors, physicians, and medical scientists, and 

technicians are quite concerned about the tremendous cost and the 

tremendous wastage, particularly in the lives of our young people. 

What good does it do to spend billions of dollars to educate our young 

and then waste their lives out here on the highways?
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 221

It seems to me we are paying too big a price for rapid transportation. It seems to me th at if the States are content to allow incompetent and inadequate drivers to be licensed year after year without 

even a superficial physical examination, it is time tha t we say to the 

States, “You can let them drive on your highways, but you are not 

going to put them out here on Federal highways when they cannot 

see, and cannot hear, and cannot drive, and keep killing people in 

other States.”

I am as much of a States rights advocate as any man on this subcommittee, but I do not thin k that we should use the philosophy of 

government that is not accomplishing results. I think tha t we have a 

right, certainly when we are supplying 90 percent of the money for 

this Inte rstate System to say to the States tha t “You are going to 

put drivers on these highways who are competent,” and the only way 

you are going to do th at is to make the same approach tha t we make 

in the field of cancer, and arth ritis , and mental health, and all the 

other things which plague humanity ; tha t is, to find out something 

about what causes this waste of human life.

Mr. S chenck. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for ju st one question 

at th at point, because of what you said ?

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Schenck. I wonder if Air. Mickle has any thou ght on whether 

or not we should have a Federal automobile drivers’ license law, since 

most people at one time or another drive in interstate commerce.

Mr. Mickle. We have never felt that a Federal drivers’ license law 

was perhaps the answer to it. With all due respect to the chairman, 

the approach, it seems to me, would be in the direction of improving 

generally the driver licensing procedures, get them more uniform 

in the States, and none of us is satisfied with the progress that is being 

made.

I agree with the chairman on that. We need all the help we can 

get to move this whole program along faster, but to improve the 

driver licensing procedures in the individual States, the administration of it would be easier at the State level than it would at the Federal level. I think that again the matter of States’ responsibility 

should remain at the State level.

The Chairman. I do not w ant to get into another bill, but I think 

there is a misunderstanding. Some reference has been made here 

to II.R. 9443, which is my bill, to require that States adopt some type 

of phyisical examination, that is, by complying with chapter 6. It 

does not contemplate any Fede ral license whatsoever. It simply says 

tha t the States will leave it in the hands of the commissioner of vehicles, or other similar State agency and he can prescribe any type of 

examination by the pertinent physician or any way he wants to 

handle it.

It simply says that unless the States do comply with chapter 6, 

a man holding a license from tha t State cannot drive on an interstate 

highway. It does not contemplate issuing a Federal license. We 

have followed this procedure and are following it already in the 

Interstate Commerce Commission because they require physical examinations of drivers who drive trucks, and it is just as easy for a 

passenger vehicle to become involved in a collision with a truck or 

with other vehicles.
222 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

It is just as easy for tha t to happen as it is for a truck to be involved, 

and it seems to me it simply does not make sense to follow the procedure there and not follow it throughout our system of vehicle 

laws.

The gentleman from Florid a.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. Tha nk you, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed 

the testimony this morning. I am very much concerned about this 

Board. In 1960, when we were going through the questions on the 

research and what is being done in our field of traffic highway safety, 

we were told, “Well, we are going to form a Board,” so in December 

of 1960,1 think, an Executive order came out.

Las t year we went into it and they said, “Well, we have a Board 

for it. We just have not met,” and now again this year we still hear 

tha t the solution for all these problems is still this Interdepartmental 

Board. It still has not met.

I am afra id I do not have very much confidence in the ability of 

this Board to do very much; particularly when it does not meet. 

Let me ask you this about this B oard: When is it to meet ?

Mr. Mickle. As I indicated earlier, it is the inte nt to have the 

Board meet very, very soon. I cannot give you the date because 

one has not been set.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Who can? I thought your secretary was 

Chairman of this and would be the one to initiate the call for the 

Board.

Mr. Mickle. The Board is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce.

Air. Rogers of Florida. Yes.

Air. Mickle. As I mentioned earlier, the Office of Highway Safety 

in the Bureau of Public Roads was created just a t the end of the year 

and at the moment its staff is very, very limited, and because of staff 

limitations we just have not been able to put together the necessary 

paperwork to call the first meeting, but it is intended that the meeting 

will be called within weeks. That is the closest I can give you on it.

Air. Rogers of Florida. I am surprised because wTe have been into 

this. I am surprised tha t you have this staff difficulty because we 

went into this problem last year, but you did not join the Department until when ? November of 1961 ?

Air. AIickle. November, th at is right.

Air. Rogers of Florida. AVhat staff do you propose for this ? What 

actual plans have you made for staffing this Interdepartmental Board ? 

Do you have anything on paper?

Air. AIickle. Of the Board it is contemplated th at the staff for the 

Chairman will be provided by our office, by the Bureau of Public 

Roads.

Air. Rogers of Florida. The staff for the Chairman. You mean the 

Secretary of Commerce ?

Air. AIickle. Tha t is correct, in his activity and in his function as 

Chairman of the Board.

Air. Rogers of Florida. And what do you contemplate he will need?

Air. AIickle. I will have to ask Air. Prisk, if I may.

Air. Rogers of Florida. AVhat have you drawn up ?

Air. P risk. What we have drawn up is essentially a plan of action 

for our own participation in the Board, which would line up with 

some of the objectives th at have been helcl up by the President’s Com-
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 223

mittee for Traffic Safety, which are pretty much the essentials of the 

action program of tha t Committee. More specifically, the kinds of things t ha t we are thinkin g in terms 

of are people who would have specific abilities and competence in the 

area of accident records and reporting. This was one of the things 

mentioned in the testimony this morning. These are the kinds of high 

prio rity areas that we propose to staff.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. That is whom you would put on this Bo ard ; 

is th at right ?

Mr. Prisk. Yes. These are the kinds of contributions tha t we 

would back up the Board’s work with.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I do not thin k you have gotten my question. 

I thought you said you were going to set up a staff for the Board.

Mr. Mickle. I think, sir, tha t the image of this Board is perhaps 

not clear.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I agree with you there 100 percent.

Mr. Mickle. It is intended tha t the Board shall be largely a coordinating activity.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Yes.

Mr. Mickle. As such then it is not contemplated th at it will have a 

large staff or budget.

Mr. Rogers of Flor ida. How many? How many staff members 

would you have ? That is what I am trying to get at.

Mr. Mickle. Therefore, to staff the actual detail of preparing 

agenda, for preparing repo rts on the activities of the Board, and whatnot, probably not more than one or two people out of our office would 

be assigned to this activity, but the Executive order provides for each 

of the other Department that are members of the Board to also supply 

people and we cannot determine what those other Departments will 

supply until we have had the first meeting to find out what the programs each of the other agencies are concerned with and how much 

personnel they will be able to assign to the Board’s activities.

My own personal view’ is th at it probably would not be more tha n 

one person from each of the other Departments, because it is a coordinating activity and not an action group.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. In other words, the Chairman of the Committee has as yet no plans for a staff of how many people should be 

contributed by the other Departments?

Mr. Mickle. It is very difficult to organize staffiing of the Board 

until we have had the first meeting.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. There is no suggestion ?

Mr. Mickle. We are suggesting a t least one person from the Bureau 

of Public Roads.

Mr. Rogers of Florida . At least one. Well, certainly you would 

have to have one I presume if you are going to have coordination.

Mr. Mickle. You could have part-time, of course, but we do not 

contemplate that.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Do you contemplate full-time people?

Mr. Mickle. Full-time man.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Where will they be housed ?

Mr. Mickle. In the Bureau of Public Roads.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Do you have sufficient space now ?

Mr. Mickle. Oh, yes.
224 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

Mr. Rogers of Florida. So there is no problem of housing one member from each of the various departments?

Mr. Mickle. I am sorry. I did not follow your question. The housing of the man supplied by the Bureau of Public Roads would be 

housed by the Bureau of Public Roads. The people supplied by the 

other departments would be housed in their own agencies.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How are they going to get together and coordinate if they are spread all over Washington? You are not going 

to have a very coordinating group, are you ?

Mr. Mickle. Through meetings.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Thro ugh meetings?

Mr. Mickle. Oh, yes.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How often do meetings have to be held?

Mr. Mickle. We anticipate once a month.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. In other words, the staff is going to meet 

once a month ?

Mr. Mickle. No, the Board itself would meet once a month.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How often would the staff meet ?

Mr. Mickle. I)o you have any plans on that, Charlie, specifically?

Mr. Prisk. I think conceivably the staff in the early going would 

meet much more frequently.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. How many times?

Mr. Prisk. Perhaps they might meet continuously for a week or 10 

days.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Where are they going to meet if you do not 

have any place for them to meet?

Mr. Prisk. We have plenty of accommodations for meetings.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You have no problems there?

Mr. Prisk. No problems at all.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. What are they going to do? Is this Board 

going to decide what fields of research it will engage in ?

Mr. Mickle. Will they decide what fields of research should be 

engaged in?

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Yes.

Mr. Mickle. It depends on the reports from each of the departments; yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Will they be the ones who actually decide 

what p riorities should be put on what research ?

Mr. Mickle. Well, no. You see, generally the action program will 

be carried on by the individual agencies of Government.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. What good will the Board do, then ?

Mr. Mickle. To provide a forum in which each of the agencies are 

informed about what the others are doing.

Mr. R ogers of Florida. In other words, this is just a Board to kind 

of get together and say, “I am doing this and you are doing this?”

Mr. Mickle. It is a coordinating activity.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. With no authority to set prior ity of 

research ?

Mr. Prisk. I think through agreement between the heads of the 

departments it would be possible to get a certain amount of priority.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Suppose they do not agree?

Mr. Prisk. I mean to the extent that they do agree.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CEN TER 225

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Then you might be able to get something 

done?

Mr. P risk. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I realize this is not your doing. It has to 

be the secretaries and so forth, and so fo rth; but I have absolutely no 

confidence in the Board and I do not think the secretaries of the 

departm ents will have time to come together and devote the necessary 

effort, energy, and coordinating abilities to get a real program going 

in research, and I think this is just a sop to the Congress and I hope 

that perhaps we can come out with this legislation which can give 

us a coordinating agency. I cannot possibly conceive of these busy 

men who are secretaries of departments coming togeth er once a month 

and bringing about any program of coordinated research and putting 

the necessary emphasis on the various fields that should have priorities 

set.

I do not see how they will have time to do it and certainly I do 

not see how we could do it with one member from each department 

who will come in and maybe meet a few times together. This is perhaps the great field tha t we have neglected in research, and, as I 

understand it, your research program is more concerned with engineering. highway safety, is that not true?

Mr. Mickle. That is correct.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You are not concerned so much with the 

medical program?

Mr. Mickle. No; tha t is correct.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Or various other phases, but it should be 

coordinated and where you are doing a particular thing, if this coordinating agency, now in the Public Roads they are doing it on 

highway engineering and this is the project they have. Now we need 

in conjunction with that a research program on how the drive r is 

affected here, or the psychological influences, and so forth.

It seems to me that this could be a great coordinating agency to put 

prior ity in those fields where research is really needed and stop a great 

deal of duplication. I hope the Department will get off this idea of 

the fact tha t this is going to be a utopia due to the fact that we have 

an Interdepartmental Committee, which has never met and as far 

as I can determine for which no plans are definitized yet, even as to 

its operations, I just cannot conceive of it doing much good.

I hope we will try to develop something else. Let me ask you this. 

If you cannot furnish these figures now you perhaps can furnish 

them at a. later time for the committee. I would like the figures of 

your budget for research in your highway safety program for the 

last 3 years and your anticipated budget coming up. I know you say 

your highway safety program now is about $1,750,000, of which onehalf is devoted to research.

I would like to know what the other half is used for and what 

programs are being covered in this research to which I guess you are 

devoting almost $850,000. I would like to know if you do have any 

part-time consultants, and who they are, and what work they are 

doing. I understand too now that you have about 30 engineers that 

are doing work in highway safety work now in your department.

Mr. Mickle. They are not all engineers, I do not believe.
226 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

M r. P r is k. P a r t of th e ti m e, pro fe ss io nal p eo p le ; yes.

M r. M ic k l e. W e w ill su p p ly t h a t in fo rm ation.

(T h e in fo rm ati on re fe rre d to fo llow s: )

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bure au of P ubl ic R oads, 

Washington, D.C., March 8, 1962.

H ou se Com mi tt ee on I nt er st at e and F oreign Comm erce,

New House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Sirs : The attached material is being submitted to you in response to Mr. 

Rogers of Florida who made the statement “I know you say your highway safety 

program now is about $1,750,000 of which one-half is devoted to research. I 

would like to know what the other h alf is used for and w hat programs are being 

covered in this research to which I guess you are devoting almost $850,000. I 

would like to know if you do have any part-time consultants and who they are 

and wha t work they are doing.”

In answer to these requests we submit to you the following information:

1. Referring to Mr. F. C. Tur ner’s lette r of March 6 addressed to Hon. Kenneth 

A. Roberts, which you discussed with Mr. P risk by telephone, the projects under 

heading C are conducted through contract agreement with the following organizations :

(1) the Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio

(2) Applied Psychology Corp., Arlington, Va.

(6) Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.

(8a and 8b) Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Buffalo, N.Y.

(8c) Purdue Research Foundation, Lafayette, Ind.

(9) National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, cooperation with the Automotive Safety Foundation, American Automobile 

Association, National Safety Council, and others.

2. The attached list shows the names of the part-time consultants employed 

in connection with the highway safety program. As you will note most of these 

consultants received only their transportation costs and per diem. Only three 

received any fees.

3. The $1,750,000 referred to on page 225 is an average figure for fiscal years

1961 and 1962. The 1962 distribution is as follows:

Drive r Register_____________________________________ ,_____ $100, 000

Presidents Highway Safety Conference------------------------------------- 150, 000

Research by Bureau of Public Roads personnel--------------------------- 379, 000

Research contracts by other organizations conducted for the Bureau

of Public Roads__________________________________________ 290,281

Research contracts by State highway departments and conducted 

with other organizations by State highway departments involving 

Federal funds (1% percent planning and research funds but not 

including approximately $250,000 State matching fun ds)----------- 584,941

Totals______________________________________________ 1,804,222

Attached are tables showing the amounts spent for research separated by (1) 

research conducted by Bureau of Public Roads personnel, (2) contracts the 

Bureau of Public Roads has w ith other organizations and, (3) the State highway 

departments including contracts with other organizations through the use of the 

Federal 1% percent funds. These projects are approved by the Bureau of Public 

Roads.

I hope this is the information necessary for you to complete the publication 

of th e proceedings.

Sincerely yours,

O. K. Nob ma nn, Dep uty Director of Research.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CEN TER 227

Part-time consultants utilized in connection with the Bureau of Public Roads,

highway safety program

Per diem Tra nsp ortat ion

Fees

William H. Colv in: Chief clerk, Driv ers License Division, Secretary of Stat.A’s Office., Springfield, Ill __________ _____ __________ $46.25 $103.10

Mr. Colvin repre sented region 3 of A merican Association of Motor 

Vehicle A dministrators, and was recommended for attendan ce by the Washing ton office of AAMVA. Also an au thor ity on electronic da ta 

processing and d river license records. Glenn V. Carmichael: Traffic Inst itu te, No rthwe stern U niversity, Evans- 27.25

Mr. Carmichael is a nationally known expert on drive r licensing and related fields. Staff member of Traffic In stitu te, Northwestern University. James P. Econom os: Director, traffic court p rogram, American Bar Asso- ciation, 1155 Ea st 60th St., Chicago, I ll-. .. - __ ________________ (>) (>) (1)

Mr. Economos is an authority on motor vehicle law in the Sta tes and 

territories. How ard B. Fletcher: Business manager, Inter natio nal Association of 

Chi ef s of P olice . M ills B ui ld in g. W ash in gto n. D .C _ _ __________ (>) (’) (*)

Well kno wn law enforcement official and au thor ity on enforcement, 

identification matters, a nd enforcement record. Paul Mason: Private consultant, Sacramento, Calif______ _______ 50.00 278.00 $100

Priva te consultant, formerly director of Moto r Vehicle D epa rtm ent 

of California, and well-known autho rity on motor vehicle law and 

compacts.

K P P p pIp - D ir ecto r dri ver licpnsp di vis io n, R.alp igh , N .C 41.05 37.10

Dire ctor, driver license division. Rep rese nted region 2 of AAMVA. Reco mmended for attendan ce by Washin gton office of AAMVA. 

Directs m odel manual driver license record division. A. J . Sherwood: Assistant director, enforcement, motor vehicle division, 

S ta te H ous e, T re n to n , N J _ _____ ___ _________ 34.95 16.20

Mr. Sherwood represented region 1 of AAMV A. Recommended 

for atte ndanc e b y Washington office of AAMVA. 61.00 236.20

Mr. Williams represented region 4 of AAMVA. Recommended 

for atte ndanc e by Washington office of AAMVA.

« No charges.

Part-time consultants utilized during 1961

Pa ul Hill: Assistant general manager, Nat ional Safety Per diem an d trav el (probably one trip).

Council, Chicago, Ill. J. Sta nna rd Baker: Northwestern University Traffic Do.

Institute, Ev ans ton , Ill. Ed Kirb y: Na tional Safety Council, Chicago Ill ----------- Do. Gordon Sessions: Public relations, Silver Spring, M d___Worked 10 days in 1901 and received approx­ imately $450. Appointm ent term inated Mar. 

10,1961.

Dr. Joh n J. Conger: Professor and head , Div ision of Trav el and per diem $200.

Chemical Psychology, University of Colorado,

Denver, Colo.

Part-time consultants utilized during 1962

Dr. Ralph Richardson : President, Board of Education , 

Los Angeles, Calif.

John A. Kane, Jr.: President, Board of Educa tion, 

Syracuse, N.Y.

Law ton Smith: National Safety Council, Chicago, Ill----

Dr. Joh n J. Conger: Professor and head, Division of 

Chemical Psychology, University of Colorado, 

Denver, Colo.

April 12, 1962, St. Louis, Mo. Dri ver education 

participating as panel members at the annu al 

meeting of the N ationa l School Boards Association.

Do.

Paid travel and per diem for certain trips in 1962; 

receives only transp ortation and per diem.

Received approximately $300 in con sultant’s fees 

in 1962.
228 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

1. Research conducted by Bureau of Public Roads personnel

Tr affic co ntr ol an d sa fe ty : 28 st udie s___________________________________________ $80, 000

T o es ta blish oper at io na l pra cti ces fo r get ti ng th e maxim um u ti li ty and. 

sa fe ty fr om ex is ting st re ets and hi ghw ay s, to im prov e tra ffi c co nt ro l devic es, 

to det er m in e th e eco no mic val ue of ac ci den ts , an d to pr om ot e nati o n al an d

in te rn ati o n a l unif or m ity in ve hi cl e re gula ti on an d traffic co ntro l.

H um an fa cto rs : 8 st udie s______________________________________________________ 53, 000

T o det er m in e th e effic ienc y an d re li ab il it y of dr iv in g an d tra ffi c oper at io ns 

an d to ap pl y mod ern ps yc ho lo gica l te ch ni qu es to th e de ve lopm en t of new 

m an -m ac hi ne re la tions th a t will im pr ov e th e op er at io n of th e tr an sp o rt ati o n 

sy st em .

Traffic per fo rm an ce : 14 st udie s________________________________________________ 107, 000

T o in vest ig ate traffic per fo rm an ce an d be ha vi or as re la te d to th e tra ffic 

carr y in g ca pac ity an d ge om et ric de si gn fe atu re s of th e high way fa cil it y in ­

cl udin g au to m at ed ve hicle an d hi gh w ay sy stem s.

Motor ve hi cle pe rfor m an ce : 23 stu d ie s________________________________________ 64, 000

To st udy th e oper at in g and pe rf orm an ce ch ara cte ri st ic s of all ty pe s of 

m oto r ve hicles un der var yin g opera ti ng co nd itio ns fo r th e ap pli ca ti on to 

hig hw ay an d ve hicle de sign , hi ghw ay sa fe ty prob lem s, an d im pr ov em en t of 

re gula to ry co ntro ls.

In str u m en ta ti o n re se ar ch an d develo pm ent: 7 st udie s____ ,______________________ 75, 000

T o in vest ig ate th e us e of el ec tr onic s fo r weigh in g ve hicles in motion, 

co ntr ol of traffic , au to m at ic hi ghw ay s, and no ise ab at em en t an d to pr ov id e 

sp ec ial el ec tron ic an d el ec tro m ec ha nic al in st ru m en ts , not av ai la bl e com ­

m er ci al ly , fo r re co rd ing ba sic d a ta fo r st ud ie s of tra ffic ope ra tion s.

Subto ta l, tra ffic oper at io ns re se arc h _____________________________________ 379, 000

2. Research by the Bureau of Public Roads through contracts with other

organisations 1

Per fo rm an ce of m etal bridge ra il s— th eore ti cal an d anal yti ca l st udi es an d Im pa ct

te sts on br id ge ra ils—-C orne ll U n iv ers it y________________________ _____________ $20, 000

De velop m at hem at ic al mo del of dyn am ic lo ad in g of hi gh way pa ve m en t an d to

obta in ex per im en ta l d ata di re ct ed a t vali dati ng th e m at hem at ic al mod el— Co rnel l A er onau tica l L ab ora to ry ______________________ ________________________ 30, 731

Uni fo rm st a n d ard s fo r re gis tr ati on an d ti tl in g of m ot or ve hicles— AA MV A______ 5, 000

D et er m in at io n of th e va lue of tr avel ti m e fo r dri ver an d oc cu pa nts of pri vat el y

ow ne d au to m ob iles — Sta nfo rd U niv ers it y_____________________________________ 34, 3 44

Ne eds an d m etho ds fo r im pr ov in g co m m un ic at io ns be tw ee n dri ver s— B at el le

M em orial In sti tu te _______________________________________________________ ___ 24 , 000

Dev elop m en t of cr it eri a fo r evalu ati ng ve hi cle gu idan ce an d co nt ro l sy st em s—

Ap plied Ps yc ho logy Cor p_____ ,__________________________,____________________ 24. 000

Per fo rm an ce char ac te ri st ic s of co m m er ci al ve hicles— U niv er si ty of W ash in gto n_ 28 , 561

H um an fa c to r cri te ri a ne ce ss ar y fo r de si gn of a si m ula to r_____________________ 14, 0 00

Va lue of co mmer cial ve hicle tim e sa ve d re su lt in g from ro ad im pr ov em en t— Tex as

A. & M_______________ ,______________________________________________________ 16, 770

H ydra uli cs of cu rb op ening in le ts — B a u er Eng in ee ring , In c_____________________ 6, 000

Hig hw ay Res ea rc h Bo ard— NA S_______________________ ________________________ 86, 875

T o ta l____________________________________________________________ ________ 290, 2 81

1

 M os t of th es e pr oj ec ts are a ls o co ndu ct ed fo r pu rp os es oth er th an hi gh w ay sa fe ty .

r
3. Research conducted by State highway departments including contracts with other organizations through the use of Federal l'/i-percent fund s

State le ttin g the contract Title of project Contractor Account

Arizo na................ ....................... . ............. 1st phase of accident experience related to control of access............................................... (I ). .......... ............................................. . $20,000 36,000 50.000

11,000 20,000 9,000

12,700

8,600

15,000 7,500

24,800 28,000 264,880 31,850

10,000 8,000 27,000

180,000 20,000 2,100

17,500

5,000 23,300

2,900 500

Do........................................................ Highway delineator placement cost st ud y........... . . .................... (i)............................................................. California...................................... ............. Value of minor improvemen ts____________ ______________ (i)............................................................. Con necticut........ . . ..................................- Highway delineation and illumination stu dy ________________ (i)........ .................. . ................................ District of Columb ia________________ Accident cost study ___________________ ________________ . ... (i).......... .................................................. Georgia....................................................... A stud y of traffic flow on the Atlanta expressway syste m______ Georgia Institute of Technology.. ___ Illinois........................................... ............. Widths and cross sections for medians of divided highw ays............ University of Illinois................. ........... Do.......... . ............................................ Lane use controls....................................................... . Northwestern Un iversit y.__ _______ Do.................................... . .................. 85 percentile speed stu dy _____ _____________ __________ (i)................................... .

D o .. .. .................................................. Left-hand on-and-off ramps for expressways a nd freeways........... Northwestern Un ive rsity__________ Do......................................... . ............. Vehicular speed regulation........................ ...................... University of Hlinois . Kan sas.................................. . ............. ....... Pav ement edge m arking researc h.......... ............. ........... (i).......... .................................................. Mic higan...... ..................................... ........ Television traffic surveillance a nd control stu dy .............. (i)............................................................. Do................................................ ........ (1) Fundamental characteristics of traffic flow (2) quality of traffic flow (3) effectiveness of lane control signals. The study of the application of electronic devices to traffic control Michigan State University . Nebra ska .................. ......................... ........ Radio Corporation of Am erica ______ New Jersey .......................... ..................... Traffic signal capacity stu dy............. . ................................. (i)............' .............................................. New Mexico.............. ................................ Economic costs of motor vehicle accidents....... . .......................... (i).......... . ....................... ......................... New Y ork.............................. .................. . Full-scale dynamic tests of highw ay b arrie rs. .___ ______ Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory......... ___do___ ________ ______ _________ Do............................. ..................... . Nig ht visibility of highw ay pavement surfaces_______ _______ North Carolin a......................... . ............... Research stu dy F—Investigate the simulatio n on a digital computer of rural highway configurations and the movement of traffic. Research stu dy B—Investigate the effect of Intensive commercial roadside develop­ men t on traffic operations in N orth Carolina. Shoulder use st ud y........ . .......................... ...................................... North Carolina State College . ___ Do......................................................... ___ do____ ______________________ Oregon...................... ................................. (I)............................................................. Tex as.................................................... ...... Intersection illu min atio n................... . .................................................. Texas A. & M _ . _ ______________ Washin gton ................. . ............................ Tra nsp ort benefit stu dy ...................... . ........................... University of W ashington..................... Wyoming.................................................... Shoulder delineation stu dy .................................................................................................... (t).......... ..................... ' ..........................

To tal........................................................................ 835,630

1 S tate highw ay dep artme nt personnel, $584,941 (70 percent).

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 229
230 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Projects conducted by the Office of Research

G en er al are a o f re se ar ch

N u m b er of 

st udie s

E sti m ate d 

co st o f saf et y 

re se ar ch i n

fiscal yea r

1963

P hysi cal rese ar ch :

C hem ic al, ph ys ico- ch em ic al, a n d an a ly ti cal pro per ties of h ig h w ay m ate ri als __________________ ____ ________________________________________

P ro te cti v e p ain ts a n d traf fic m a rk in g m ate ri als _________________________

B it u m in o u s b in ders ____________________________________________________

D es ig n an d pe rfor m an ce o f co ncre te p av e m en ts _________________________

P ro p ert ie s of ce m en ts , ag gr eg at es , a n d co ncre te _________________________

So il te st m eth ods an d d a ta ev a lu a ti o n ____ _____ _______________________

So il a n d m at er ia ls s u rv ey s...........................................................................................

Phy si co -c he m ic al p ro per ties of so il m a te ri als ___________________________

So il m ech an ic s____________ ____________________________________________

F le xib le p av em en ts __________________________ _________________________

C om pact io n of soi ls an d s oi l-ag gr eg at es _________ _______________________

B it um in ous p av em en ts ________________________________________________

B ri dge de sign a n d pe rf orm ance ........... . .......................................................... ..........

Use of ra di oi so to pe s for th e e v a lu ati o n a n d co nst ru ction co ntr ol of h ig h ­

w ay m ate ri als ________________________________________________________

D es ig n an d m anufa ct ure of spe ci al e q u ip m e n t n ee ded for va ri ou s r es ea rc h

ef fo rt s____________________________________________________ ______ _

H ig h w ay pla nn in g:

R es ea rc h as so ciat ed w it h h ig h w ay p la n n in g o per at io ns_________________

U rb an tr an sp o rt ati o n re se ar ch __________________________________________

M on it o ri n g form al co ope ra tive re searc h ________________________________

H ig h w ay n ee ds a n d ec on om y:

S tu d ie s of ch ar ac te rist ic s of m o to r veh ic le ow ner sh ip an d u se ___________

E ng in ee ring ec ono m y_______________ _____ ________________________ ____

H ig h w ay tr an sp o rt ati o n e c o n o m ic s .. ............ .................................................. ..

H ig h w ay c onst ru ction e co n o m ic s...... ......... . ..........................................................

H ig h w ay tax at io n an d f in ance ............................ .............................................. ..

C on st ru cti o n p ra c ti c e s.. ............................................................ ..................... .

M ain te n an ce pra ct ic es. .................... ............................. ..............................................

P ro ducti on st udi es b y ju n io r e n g in e e rs ............................. ....... ....................... ..

H ig h w ay m an ag em en t pra ct ic es a n d pe rf or m an ce s................... .......................

P er so nnel p ra ct ic es an d pro ced u re s............... ........... . .............................................

H ig h w ay p ro gr am p la n n in g __________'................................ ............. .....................

Ser vi ce liv es b y s urface ty p es a n d s y ste m s...........................................................

H ig h w ay syst em i n v e stm en ts ..... ..................... ................................................ .

H ig h w ay c os ts a nd e conom y....................■.•_.............................................................

R es ea rc h re po rt s:

D is se m in ation of inf orm at io n a n d p u b li cati o n o f re port s an d b u ll eti n s o n

th e re se ar ch w or k of th e B u re a u ....... ........... .............................. ..................... ..

Tra ff ic o per at io ns:

P ro je cts w it h st udie s in w hic h s afe ty is t h e p re dom in ant co ns id er at io n:

Tra ffic c on trol an d safe ty ........................................................ . ...........................

H u m an fa ct or s..... ................... ................................................................................

Pro je cts w it h st udie s in w hic h safe ty a n d oper at io ns ar e ap pro x im ate ly 

eq u al co nsi de ra tio ns :

Tra ffic p erf o rm an ce.. .............................................................................................

M o to r vehicle per fo rm an ce .............................................................................. —

In str u m e n ta ti o n re se ar ch a n d d ev elo p m en t............ .....................................

Pro je cts w it h st udie s in w hic h safe ty is an i n d ir ect co nsi dera tion: H ig h ­

w ay tr an sp o rt o per at in g fa ct ors........................................................................... ..

H ig h w ay a n d la nd a d m in is tr ati o n :

R ig ht- of- w ay a cquis itio n r esearc h ______________________________________

H ig h w ay a d m in is tr ati o n an d m a n a g e m e n t- .............................. ........... ..............

H ig h w ay law s re se ar ch _______________ ________ _______________________

Eco no m ic i m pact of h ig hw ay i m p ro v e m e n t........ ........... —-------------------------

H y d ra u li c res ea rc h:

H y d ro lo g y ................................................ .............................................................. ..........

Sm al l dra in ag e str u ctu re s............................................................................................

H y d ra u li cs o f b ri dges_________ ,_________________________________________

H y d ra u li cs o f c hannel s_________________________________________________

E ngin ee ri ng e co no m y in dra in age str u c tu re s_____ ______________________

S ed im en t re s e a rc h .. _____ _____________________ ____ _____________ ______

11

6

12

Id

10

7

10

13

9

7

5

9

6

10

1

8

4

i $5 ,000 

*18,0 00

** 5, 00 0 

» > 10,000

>37,000

*15,0 00

> 10,000

6 ..........................

2 ..........................

6 *2 ,000 

3 ..........................

5 .................... ..

9 .............. ............

8 * 30,000

1 ..........................

7 .................. ..

8 ............ .............

7 *2 ,000

6 ..........................

5 ........ .................

3 ...................... .

28 93,0 00

8 60,000

14 60,000

23 50,000

7 45,0 00

13 10,000

8 * 2 ,000

7

5 > « 1 0,000

7 ...........................

3 ...........................

4 ...........................

4 ...........................

2 *5 ,00 0

3 ...........................

4 ...........................

T o ta l 469,000

Se e th e fo llo wi ng :

1

 In clu d es on e or m or e stu d ie s in w hic h sa fe ty a n d o th er co nsi dera tions are of app ro x ­

im ate ly equal im p o rt an ce - __________________:____________________________________ $219,000

* I nclu des 1 or m ore stu d ie s in w h ic h sa fe ty Is th e p re d o m in an t co n si d era ti o n _______ 221 ,000

3

 In clu des 1 or m ore s tu d ie s i n w h ic h sa fe ty is a n in d ir ect co n sid era ti o n ______________ 29,0 00

T o ta l................................................................................................................................................... 469,000
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 231

T ra ffic S afety R es ea rc h

In addition to the projects conducted by the Division of Traffic Operations, 

the following studies relating to traffic safe ty are conducted by iiersonnel of 

■other divisions:

Chemical reactions between ice-removal chemicals an d con crete1 *

Development and pro perties of reflective elements in traffic lane marking 

m at er ia ls 1

Accelerated laboratory tes t for evaluatio n of traffic marking materials’

Perform ance of various c lasses of traffic m arkin g m at er ia ls 3

Development of roughness st an da rd s3

Development of sk id-resistanc e standard s *

Protection of concrete ag ainst disintegration by na tural weathering and salts 

used in snow and ice rem oval1

Improvement of skid resista nce of riding su rfac e of concre te3

Landslid e investigations usin g geophysical test m eth ods1

Full-scale testing of bridge ra il s 3

Spacing of ramps and intercha ng es 1

Sta ndard s for secondary and local ro ad s1

Determ ination and eva luation of the factors—economic, social, and governmental—that contribute to an d control highway u sa ge 3

Personnel man ua l3

Urb an sufficiency ra ting3

Right-of-way acquisition proc edures research 1

Application of police pow er to tra ns po rta tio n1

Lau d use planning and control at freeway approach and interchange are as 3

Roadway draina ge 3

Study of h eadlight reflections in snowstorm s3

Train ing films for highway maintenance employees 1

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I thought, in your statement on page 4 you 

sa id:

But there have been approxima tely 30 engineers, seve ral psychologists, and 

oth er supporting personnel who are employed by Public Roads on projects 

where safety is a major objective.

Mr. Mickle. You are right.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. If you do not have 30 engineers, you might 

tell us just what projects they are working on, what projects these 

psychologists are working on. Mr. Schenck brought out the fact tha t 

maybe this is going to create a lot of jobs, but I think also a coordinating agency might even reduce them, since it might not be necessary to 

have so many psychologists in the Bureau of Public Roads if we have 

psychologists in Public Health that could work on a coordinated research program.

So that these are even possibilities of perhaps saving money for 

the Government by a stric tly well-run coordinated project. I think 

every one is agreed that there is a definite lack of communications, as 

you bring out in your statement on page 8. Do you have w ithin your 

Department now any people on full-time work for accident prevention research?

When I asked the question last year you stated there were none. I 

am wondering if there are any this year on full-time accident prevention research within the Department ?

Mr. P risk. I would say not.

1

 Studies in which safety and othe r considerations are of approximately equal Importance. 3

 Studies in which safety is the predominant consideration. 3

 Studies in which safe ty is an ind irect consideration.
232 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Mr. Rogers of Florida. You still do not ?

Mr. F risk. Yes.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Thank you very much. Thank you.

The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Florida and the Chair 

would like to say that certainly I could not agree more with the 

gentleman from Florida in his statement about this so-called In ­

terdepartm ental Highway Safety Board. This committee feels very 

close to the Department of Commerce. We handle a good many 

major pieces of legislation affecting the Department of Commerce.

I followed very closely the study that was made under the Federal 

appropriation of I believe around $200,000 and which ended in the 

1959 report on the Federal role in highway safety. It seems to me 

tha t it was a very admirable piece of work tha t was done. If I 

remember correctly, the document even mentioned the fact that they 

thought tha t we could improve somewhat the structure of the vehicle, 

but it seems to me that every time we send down a bill having to do 

with safety research, trying to get an adequate breakthrough we have 

been faced with an adverse report from their Department.

There is nothing personal in what I have to say, Mr. Mickle, and •

Mr. Prisk. It, is a policy that apparently has been followed not only 

in this administration, but in the other administrations.

It would seem to me tha t in coming here to this committee—and 

we thin k this is a pretty good committee; it was established, I believe, about No. 2 when the Congress established its committees— 

the Department could come up with a little better answer than saying 

that these matters can be referred to a board which has never even 

met, which so far as I know has no established policy other than 

you say it is going to be a high-level l>oard where Cabinet members 

will meet, or delegate someone to meet, and I would like the Secretary 

to know this.

It is my feeling th at we w’ould like a little deeper and more penetratin g look taken at the legislation we send down there. I do not 

say that you have not the right to make an adverse report,, but it 

seems to me that in coming here with an answer like, well, referring 

to some nebulous Board, is a very poor answer to the questions that, 

this committee has.

Again I want to emphasize there is nothing personal in my remarks. I recognize you gentlemen are doing your very best and I 

have the highest regard for you. I have known Mr. Prisk for a long 

time. I know’ he does a fine piece of work, and I am sure, Mr. Mickle, 

you are doing your job; but it is disconcerting when a committee, 

tha t has been in this field now for 6 years and has heard witnesses ♦

from every field of endeavor, comes up with a bill tha t we think 

is well-considered, is met with this idea of just let’s p ut it over here 

in the old rolltop desk and pu t the top down and let it rest.

That is not the kind of an answer I think the Department should r

make.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. I want to say, too, of course, there is nothing personal in this either because, we have great respect for you gentlemen and the work you are doing. I think you have done an excellent job in engineering highway safety. The great progress you have 

made has been excellent; but we are thinking of moving and coordinating a greater area here in research, which I thin k is needed. I
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 233

think it is necessary to impress on the Secretary how strongly this 

committee feels. We will have to have him up here and I think it 

would be wise to let him know that, but we are going to have to move 

ahead quickly in this field because there is so much to be done. I 

think we are going to have to move quickly and I am sure this committee intends to.

Mr. Mickle. Your views will be transmitted to him.

Mr. Rogers of Florida. Thank you.

Mr. Mickle. Mr. Prisk would like to make a comment, if he may, 

Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. We are glad to have it, Mr. Prisk.

Mr. Prisk. I appreciate all you say and having attended a great 

many of these hearings, I think most of your hearings since 1956, 

that have been held here in Washington, at least. I have great appreciation for the background of your remarks as well as for the contributions, I am sure, t hat the committee in its operations has made.

I do not think anyone is more interested than our people in the 

Bureau of Public Roads in seeing th at something is done about this 

highway safety problem. This extends not through me alone, or Mr. 

Mickle alone, but certainly through many of our people, certainly 

through our Federal H ighway Administrator.

A g reat deal of the work tha t we do, however, is aimed at the facilitation of traffic movement as well as its safety, and we, in effect, are 

working to provide highway transportation that is in fact safe. The 

research that is performed, and I have a list before me here of some 

of the 1963 projects in which safety has been identified as a primary 

consideration, is p art of a 5-year program of research in the Bureau 

of Public Roads, and there are other projects where safety is considered approximately in equal consideration with this matter of 

providing for better movement on the highway and less congestion.

Then there are projects in which safety is an indirect consideration, 

and T submit tha t it is extremely difficult to support any one figure 

tha t you might want to pick out of here by these arguments as to 

whether or not this is a safety project, or whether or not it contributes to the public comfort, or something of this sort.

This is the difficulty we find ourselves in as we talk about highway 

safety research with your committee. I think there is a desire to do 

a great deal. I think we have done a f air amount o f research in the 

highway safety field. We certainly are desirous of doing a great deal 

more. Prospects fo r 1963 are good to do much more and you certainly 

have our heart with you in your work.

The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. Again we appreciate your 

appearance before the committee.

Tomorrow we will hear witnesses from the Department of Labor, 

Mr. Charles Donahue, Solicitor of the Department; to be accompanied 

by Mr. Motley, Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards.

The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 o’clock tomorrow 

morning in the same place.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Tuesday, February 20, 1962, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene a t 10 o’clock the following day, 

Wednesday, February 21,1962.)

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION 

CENTER

WED NES DAY, FE BRUARY 21, 1962

H ouse of Representatives,

Subcommittee on H ealth and S afety, 

of the Committee on I nterstate and F oreign Commerce,

Washington, D.G.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding.

The Chairman. The committee will please be in order.

We meet again this morning to continue the hearings on H.R. 133, 

a bill to establish a National Accident Prevention Center in the Public 

Health Service. We understand that various segments of the Department of Labor have been involved in such activities as the Presiden t’s Conference on Occupational Safety, the Federal Safety Council, as well as p roviding leadership to the national occupational safety program. With us to present the views of the Department of Labor is Air. Charles Donahue, Solicitor of the Department. We would like to know how your Department performs these functions, what progress has been made in the occupational safety field, and what your Dep art­ ment feels has been its contribution toward the reduction of accidents. Also, we are interested in any research projects you have engaged or participated in and the extent of your participa tion in numbers of 

personnel, types of disciplines, and amount of money expended. I might say at this point in the record, Mr. Reporter, I would like to introduce a letter, dated February 19, 1962, addressed to the chair­ man from Air. Goldberg, Secretary of Labor. I will not read it all. 

He says:

I have asked Charles Donahue, Solicitor of the Department, to appear before 

your subcommittee in accordance with your request. I regret very much tha t I personally will be unable to be present since it appears most likely I will be making an appearance before the Appropriations Committee of the Senate to testify on behalf of the Department’s budget 

requests.

Yours sincerely, Arthur J. Goldberg,

Secretary of Labor.

(The complete text of the letter referred to follows:)

U.S. Department of Labor,

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, February 19, 1962.

Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Roberts : This is in reply to your letter of Februa ry 12,

in which you requested that a representative of the Department testify before 

8D624 0 — 62------ 16 235
236 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

your subcommittee rega rding H.R. 133. a bill to establish a National Accident 

Prev ention Center.

I have asked Charles Donahue, Solicitor of the Department, to appe ar before 

your subcomm ittee in accordance with your request. He will be accompanied 

by Ar thu r W. Motley, Dire ctor of the Bureau of Labor Standa rds.

I reg ret very much th at I personally will be unable to be present since it 

app ear s most likely I will be making an appearance before the Appropriations 

Committee of the Senate to testify on behalf of the Department’s budget requests. 

Yours sincerely,

Art hu r J . Goldberg,

Secreta ry of Labor.

The Chairman. Mr. Donahue, it is a pleasure to have you, as the 

Solicitor of the Labor Department, and if you would introduce the 

gentlemen with you so the reporter may have their names in the 

record, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES DONAHUE, SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF

LAB OR; ACCOMPANIED BY FRAN K S. McELROY, DIVISION OF

IND US TR IAL HAZARDS, BUREA U OF LABOR STATISTICS ; AND

ROB ERT D. GrIDEL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR SAF ETY , BURE AU

OF LABOR STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. Donahue. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly a pleasure for me to be here, too. May I introduce the two 

gentlemen who are with me? On my right is Mr, McElroy, of the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, who is in charge of g athering facts and 

figures concerning accidents and their causes.

On my left is Mr. Gidel, who is Assistant Director of the Bureau 

of Labor Standards in charge of their various safety programs.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Donahue.

Mr. Donahue. Mr. Chairm an, Secretary Goldberg, as you know, 

has already written to the committee concerning the bill which is of 

major concern of this subcommittee, II.K. 133, and has expressed his 

agreement and the Department's position generally in favor of the 

ob jectives and the principles of the bill.

It is my purpose in coming here today instead to address myself to a 

request of the subcommittee sent to the Secretary of Labor under 

date of February 12, 1962, in which several questions were asked concerning the operations and the activities of the Department of Labor 

in the field of accident prevention and in the field of safety.

Fo r the purpose of replying to th at letter, we have prepared and I 

have submitted to the committee, and I assume you have before you, a 

statement which tries as best we can to answer in some detail each one 

of those questions.

In order not to impose upon the time of the committee, I would like 

to submit this statement for the record for your perusal in reading 

and then describe perhaps briefly in my own words the various activities in which the Department is presently engaged.

The Chairman. Without objection, Mr. Donahue, that will be made 

a part of the reed'd.

(The statement referred to above follows:)

Sta tem ent of Cha rl es Don ah ue , Solicitor of Labor

Thank you for the opp ortu nity to app ear before this subcommittee today to tell 

you of the activities of the De partm ent of Labor in the saf ety movement. The
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 237

prev entio n of accide nts and th ei r deleterious effects on both the indi vidu als concerned and the Nati on is inde ed a ma tter of serio us conce rn to the Depar t­ ment of Labor, as well as th is subcommittee and its disting uish ed chair man . We ar e pleased to pa rticip ate in these hear ings and to discuss this problem 

with you. This subcommittee's hea rin g hav e been helpfu l in focusing nationa l atte ntion on the fac t th at acci dent al inju rie s constitu te a ma jor proble m in the United 

State s. The Depa rtme nt of Labor has long been concerned with accid ent preventio n. The congres sional manda te establ ish ing the Departme nt char ged it with the re­ spon sibility for improving the work ing conditions of the wrage ear ner s of the 

Unite d State s, and occupational safety is an inte gra l pa rt of its function . We are concerned with the intole rab le effect of the work acci den t on the individual and his family—from the simple accid ent when a work man stumb les in the hall to the dis ast er accident such as the fire on the ai rc ra ft ca rrier Constellation in 

1961 in which 50 persons peri shed and 150 were seriou sly inju red. Da ta compiled by the Burea u of Labor Sta tist ics indi cate s th at some 2 million perso ns experien ce disabling work inju ries each year resulting in almo st 14,000 

dea ths a nd untold misery and har dsh ip. We ar e also concerned wit h the estim ated 170 million man-d ays lost each yea r by the inju red workers as a result of work acciden ts—an irre trie vab le loss to the development of the Nati on’s economy. Moreover, the direct and ind irect expense of such acciden ts cost this co untry almo st $ 4 ^ billion annually. The se figures do not rep res ent the inevitable minimum of ann ual ind ust rial casualties . Exp erts in the field of ind ustrial accident prev entio n are agreed th at ind ust ria l accid ents can be gre atly reduced. Safe ty exper ience shows th at the gre at majori ty of all acci den ts are preventa ble. Whe re sound safety meas­ ures hav e been adopted, the re has been a sub sta ntial decrease in accid ental inju ries . As a consequence the Dep artm ent of Labo r has developed a program of field research, development, trai nin g, and con sulta tion in the field of occupa­ tional safety. I would now like t o discuss the safe ty activit ies of the De partmen t 

of Labor.

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

The Bur eau of Labor Stati sti cs is the maj or compiler of work inju ry statist ics in the United States . The Bu reau ’s work in thi s field sta rte d on an interm it­ ten t basi s well before the tu rn of the centu ry and was form alize d into a con­ tinu ing progra m about 1907. The basic purpose was then , and still is, to service the occupational safety movement by providing comprehensive infor ma­ tion abo ut the incidence and causes of work inju ries . The se data are basic tools in the planning of any occupatio nal safety program and cons titute the most comprehensive national mate ria ls for app raisal of tre nds in work inju ry occurrence and for the evalu ation of the success of public and priv ate safety 

programs. On the basis of the inform atio n which it compiles, the Bureau of Labor* Sta tistics serves as a consu ltant to Federal, State, and municipa l bodies which have autho rity to conduct or enforce occupational saf ety programs, as well as to many indivi dual companies, pri vat e and profe ssion al organizations, and unions which need fac tua l mate ria ls for plann ing and prom oting inte rest in the ir occupation al safe ty programs. The Bureau's data in thi s field are also widely used fo r safety ins tru ction in public schools and colleges. The primary products of the Bu rea u’s resea rch program includ e annual est i­ mates of the tota l volume of disa blin g work inju ries in the Unite d States and the res ulting economic lo sse s; a qu art erl y compilation of work injury frequency rat es in monthly deta il for each of 138 manufactu ring ind ust ries; and annual inj ury freque ncy and severity rates in 205 ma nuf act uring and 115 nonm anu­ factu rin g ind ustry classifications, which requ ires the vol unt ary part icip atio n 

of 80.000 e stablishm ents e ach year . In addition , the Bureau cond ucts special one-time stud ies of pa rti cu lar aspects of wor k-in jury occurrence for which accident preven tion ists have indic ated a need. Thes e programs identif y the problem are as on which effective safe ty prog ram s should be c oncentr ated and indic ate the kind s of engineer ing research 

needed to provide hazard-fre e workp laces. The budget allocation for these operation s in fiscal 1962 is 37 full-time posi­ tions with tota l costs of .$265,128. No research gran ts or con tracts are made. The activities of the Bureau of Labo r Sta tist ics ar e closely coordinated with the activities of the National Saf ety Council and Federal, Sta te, municip al, and
238 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

private agencies o pera ting in this field. The Bureau refra ins e ntirely from collecting d ata on occupational acciden ts in the industries covered by other Federal 

agencies, such as railway tra nsporta tio n covered by the In terstate Commerce 

Commission, and Federal employment covered by the Burea u of Employees’ 

Compensation. Data compiled by such agencies are picked up for inclusion in 

the Bu reau’s reports. We believe duplication of activities has been avoided by 

mainta inin g establishing jurisd iction al lines and through close interchange of 

data .

Inform ation on occupational safet y research is currently being widely distrib uted to all of the many segments of Government and ind ust ry except small 

businesses. Despite inten sive efforts, few small establishments have dire ct contac t with the safety movement. However, the President’s Conference on Occupational Safety is making some progress in bringing sa fety a wareness to th is group.

BURE AU OF EM PLOYEES’ COM PENSATION

Stati stical studies and res ear ch programs are conducted by the Bureau of 

Employees’ Compensation to develop information needed for the administration 

of Feder al workmen’s compensation. These studies also develop data essential 

for an effective safety program in the covered employments. Occupational safety 

studies, as well as special studies made at the request of a Fed eral agency, are 

adjun ct to the adm inistrativ e and operatin g statistics and research program of 

the Bureau.

It is estimated that app roxima tely 15 percent of the time of the Bureau staff 

engaged in its sta tistical prog ram is devoted to the compilation of reports of 

accident experience developed fo r saf ety programs in the Fed eral service. This 

would be equivalent to an annual cost of about $25,000. It should be noted, 

however, th at tne approved budget for fiscal yea r 1063 inclu des an increase of 

$37,000 for employment of seven add itional employees to expa nd statistical research activities and pro ride more detailed studies of inj uries to Federal employees.

BUREAU OF LABOR STANDARDS

The Bureau of Labor Standard s, out of 23 offices, conducts field and office research on technical safety problems on a day-by-day basis. It ha s approximately 

180 persons and a budget of $2 million i>er year supp orting its consultation services in the field of accident preventio n. It works w ith all 50 States, which States 

expend some $12 million pe r y ear in helping provide a safe environm ent in workplaces, and with all Federal agencies and the 100 Federal safe ty councils throughout the country. The Bureau of Labor Standard s has regulatory authority over 

ship rep airing and longshoring act ivities in all the Nation’s por ts under Public 

Law 85-742. Present resea rch act ivities include the problems of design, testing, 

and certification of cargo gea r on merchant vessels, the problems of testing and 

gas free ing of hazardous environment, the control of hazardous cargoes, problems of preserva tive coatings, design and construction of iwillets, problems of 

containerization, mechanization, the use of radioactive sub stan ces; and new 

technology in methods, processes an d work practices.

This researc h and development work is translat ed into technical bulletins, 

training mate rials, educational pamphlets, and codes and sta nd ards which can 

be utilized nationwide.

All occupational safety programs are coordinated with other agencies, public 

and private, to prevent duplication of effort. The Bureau maintains constant 

liaison on committees, conferences, conventions, and other working groups of 

the National Safety Council, Burea u of Labor Statistics, Dep artm ent of Health, 

Educatio n, and Welfare, Nation al Mutual Alliance, Association of Casualty & 

Sure ty Companies, Associated General Contractors, Inc., hea dqu arters of the 

AFL-CIO , international headquarters of numerous unions, Manufacturin g Chemists Association, American Petroleu m Institu te, Atomic Energ y Commission. 

Fed eral Rad iation Council, Nuclear Standa rds Board and subgroups, including 

other boards and working committe es of the ASA. ILO, ISSO, CIS, and many, 

many other national and intern ati onal groups which are inte rested in projects 

being und erta ken in the broad field of protecting the wage ea rner at the workplace. By bringing all such intere sted partie s in on researc h and development 

projects we eliminate duplication of efforts as much as is pra ctic ally possible.

The Bureau utilizes many sur ces of information regarding safety research. 

The sources of information include the American Standard s Association, the 

insurance companies and asso ciations, colleges and universities, Sta te and public
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 239

organizations, the National Safety Council which has nearly 30 industrial com­ mittees and groups, research organizations of the international labor organiza­ tions, the technical pajjers produced by the engineering and professional societies and associations, the many Government agencies which a re constantly develop­ ing and publishing information, and the work done by key industrial 

corporations. The youth employment haza rds program also conducted by the Bureau of Labor Standards is aimed at reducing work injuries to youth. Under this pro­ gram, the Bureau (1) makes investigations, as provided under the Fair Labor Standards Act, to determine which occupations are too hazardous for minors and warran t the mandatory 18-year age minimum for employment, (2) develops, in cooperation with the Departm ent of Agriculture and farm organizations, rec­ ommended safety practices for the thousands of minors under 18 employed as paid workers in agriculture, and (3) develops advisory safety practices for 

the protection of youth employed in other areas. Moreover, the work of the Department of Labor in the field of occupational safety here in the United States has attracted international attention. In con­ nection with America’s mutual assistance programs throughout the world, a steadily increasing number of specialists have been sent by their countries to America in order that they may see at first hand the progress being made in occupational safety in the United States. In addition, a number of these coun­ tries have invited employees of the Bureau of Labor Standards to participate in their national trade fairs—on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Recently, the Inter-American Development Bank, a corporation made up of representatives from 20 countries of the Western Hemisphere, has instituted safety programs in those countries where its funds are being advanced for the growth of industry.

WAGE AND HO UR AND PUB LIC CONTRACTS DIV ISION S

The safety and health provisions of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act require the observance of minimum standards of safety and health in industrial establishments performing on Government contracts within the scope of the act. These provisions are administered by the Wage and Hour and Public 

Contracts Division. The staff of the divisions devoted to this work consists of nine safety engineers heading up a cooperative Federal-State enforcement program. The direct budget of the divisions for these engineers is approximately .$140,000 per year. As an operating agency, the divisions do not conduct a formal primary research program themselves. They rely on other agencies and participa te in a broad spectrum of research programs in the safety and health field as the needs of the inspection program indicate. For example, staff engineers are members of several American Standards Association committees which develop standards. Two examples are cranes, derricks and hoists, and textile safety code. In 30 States inspections are made by investigators of the divisions who are trained safety and health inspectors. Since investigations for safety and health are conducted as part of a coordinated investigation program under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Public Contracts Act, no separate figures on 

expenditures are available. In 20 States and the District of Columbia inspections are made by the inspec­ tion staffs of State departments of labor pursuant to agreements with the Depart­ ment of Labor. In addition, in fields where specialized Federal agencies are better equipped to conduct inspections under certain types of Government con­ tracts. the divisions have made agreements with these agencies to perform such inspections. Examples would be the agreement with the Federal Bureau of Mines to conduct inspections of coal mines and an agreement with the U.S. Public Health Service for assistance with any problems concerning health. 

WOM EN ’S BUREAU

Information on the health and safety standards for working women estab­ lished by the States is compiled by the Women’s Bureau. On the basis of this information, recommended standard s for employment of women are developed. These standards are included in publications of the Women’s Bureau. In addi­ tion, technical assistance on proposed legislation and regulations is provided 

State labor departments upon request. This program is part of the activities of the Women’s Bureau which is charged with the responsibility for improving the working conditions of wage-earning 

women and promoting their welfare.
240 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Mr. Donahue. Thank you, sir. First, I would like to mention the 

activities of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These activities actually 

go back to a time even before the Department of Labor was created, go 

back to the earlier part of the century, I believe around 1907, when the 

Bureau first started collecting figures concerning the quantity and 

quality and causation of various accidents and injuries connected with 

work and employment.

That activity has been extended and expanded over the years. It 

is carried out by visiting and interviewing factories and places of 

employment and employers in those places, in entering and going over 

their records, either the records which are kept for workmen’s compensation purposes or for any other purposes in an effort to pinpoint the types of accidents which are occurring in industry, industry 

by industry, and also in an effort to find out what did it.

The Bureau of Employees Compensation carries on the same type 

of research and factfinding function with respect to two additional 

statutes; namely, as to Federal employment, with respect to which 

they administer unemployment workmen's compensation, and also as 

to activities under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act, 

under which the Bureau has the important responsibility of insuring 

tha t workers receive compensation for injuries occurring along the 

waterfront and in longshore occupations, a field which is not subject to State regulation and which is exclusively reserved for Federal 

jurisdiction.

The Bureau of Labor Standards has had several functions in the 

safety field over a long period of time. First, the Bureau had a singula r interest in trying to promote safety and accident prevention in 

places of employment throughout the Nation. This was primarily 

a promotional and an educational function which still continues on an 

expanded basis today.

In other words, an expert staff has been gathered together in the 

Department of Labor and that staff has the purpose of insuring the 

adequate and effective use of State laws and their improvement by 

purely voluntary means; and, secondly, of conducting safety courses 

for State inspectors and compliance officials in State agencies; and, 

third, in engaging in research of an engineering character and of a 

physical material character, as distinguished from a medical character, concerning the cause and cure of industrial accidents and the proper development of standards to be applied in work places for the purposes of insuring safety and preventing injury or death.

The Bureau of Labor Standards also has one additional very important function and that is for the past 2 years, approximately speaking, it has been cloaked with the authority to develop and enforce codes 

for safety in longshoring and maritime waterfront occupations. It 

has developed some 23 field offices which have the primary function of 

insuring compliance with these codes in and on ships along the waterfront and in ship repair facilities along the waterfront.

A function which runs hand-in-hand and arm-in-arm with the 

Longshoremen's and Harbo r Workers’ Compensation Act itself, and 

just as that act is designed basically to provide benefits making up 

for injuries occurring in work along the waterfront, so the safety 

provisions of the act are designed to prevent those very accidents 

and to prevent the calamity of injury which may occur on the waterfront and be compensable under the other provisions of the law.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 241

There is a fourth function in the Department of Labor which also directly affects matters of safety and th at is the administration of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, which applies to manufacturing 

and Government supply contracts. As the chairman undoubtedly knows, the Walsh-Healey Act ap­ plies to all Government contracts for supplies and manufacturing and furnishing those supplies in excess of $10,000, and the act itself covers wages and hours and working conditions, and as a part of the work­ ing conditions the act itself provides that the place of employment in which these Government contracts are performed shall be safe for 

t he workers who are performing the work. It says that compliance with State law shall be prima facie evidence 

of compliance with the requirement of the Walsh-Healey Act. It hastens to add, however, that the Secretary of Labor has the authority to establish certain additional norms and standards which must be conformed to in the perform ance of the contract. These norms and standards have been set and where they set a high er standard than that which is provided for under the State law, then those norms or 

codes would apply. A final type of activity which is being carried on by the Depart­ ment of Labor is vested in the Women’s Bureau, which fo r very many years, ever since its creation in I believe about 1920, has been con­ ducting research into the peculiar needs of women, providing for them safe and healthful work places and practices in industry and insuring, for example, that the ir hours are not unduly long and that they do not have to engage in physical activities which may be injurious to their physical well-being. Those, in summary. Mr. Chairman, are the activities which we presently engage in. They are important responsibilities which are characteristically vested in labor departments, whether in the Federal Government or in labor departments in the various State governments 

throughout the country. They are activities which I believe are very properly carried on bv the Department of Labor and which I think should be recognized and respected in any legislative action which the subcommittee should choose to take: and therefore, T might suggest that, while we believe that the subcommittee and the chairman is undertak ing a very neces­ sary legislative action in proposing and promoting the legislation be­ fore the subcommittee, and we have every sympathy for i t: we believe (hat this salutary measure, like any salutary measures, when first in­ troduced is often in broad and general terms, and that is understandablv so from manv points of view. We recognize that those general terms of course are freouently, if not al wavs, tailored with the use of commonsense and discretion by the congressional committees considering them, and we would suggest in the course of that necessary committee action that consideration be given to various amendments which will insure at the same time that the important work suggested by the bill could go forward and that that important work would not conflict with, overlap, or duplicate existing and necessary additional and other functions of the Federal 

Government. I thank the chairman and the members of the committee for your time today, and we would be glad to answer any questions which you 

may have.
242 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Th e Chairman. Tha nk yo u, Mr. Solicitor. I th in k you have done a 

very fine job in presentin g th e scope of activities eng aged in by the 

De pa rtm ent of Lab or. Th e Cha ir is gr ateful to you fo r the co ntr ibutions you have made and th e inf orma tio n which y ou hav e furnis hed 

for the benefit of the c ommittee. The Ch air can ce rta inly appre ciate 

th at th ere m ay be some c hanges which yo u would like to sug gest.

I m igh t say th at they shall certainly be considered and well received 

by the subcommittee when we star t con sidering this bill in executive 

session.

Th e Cha ir is very anxio us th at we avoid any dupli catio n, or overlapp ing, or double ex pe nd itu re of the taxp ay ers’ fund s and we cer ­

tain ly sha ll endeavor to see th at the final dra ft of the bill is such that 

it can be supporte d af te r consid era tion o f those factors.

Now , in the indu str ial field, do you know of any Government research which goes on as to vario us typ es of ma chine ry that, unless 

pr op erly saf eguarde d, could be d anger ous to a n employee ?

Mr. Dona hue. The answ er to th at is “Ye s,” Mr. Ch airma n, and in 

or de r to present the de tails of Gov ernment activ ities in research in 

the a rea you describe, I would like to call u pon Mr. Gid el.

Mr. Gidel. In ou r sta temen t, Mr. Ch airma n, we po int out that the 

Bu reau of Labor St an da rd s is constantly draw ing on the knowledge 

th at is being developed by ma ny, man y org aniza tions. We have consta nt liaison with worki ng gr ou ps of such o rganiza tio ns as the Am eri ­

can St an da rd s Associa tion, an d its variou s subcommittees, the insu rance com panies, and th eir associatio ns the various indu stria l corpo ratio ns who are represe nte d on some 25 to 30 committees of the N atio nal 

Sa fety Council, and with ou r own tech nica l grou ps an d comm ittees 

which Aye form to deve lop sta nd ar ds and tech nical inf orma tio n on 

such things as safe op erati on of machinery, the contr ols o f hand lin g 

certa in typ es of ma ter ial s, ce rta in typ es of methods and processes, 

and the like.

Th ere is no one source th at we go to because t he re is constan t work 

bei ng done in all of thes e sources. Th ere are technical bulletins b eing 

publi shed constantly by th e Na tio nal Sa fety Council, the insu rance 

organiz ati ons, by ou r own organizatio n, and it is a day-b y-day Avorking 

relatio ns hip o f this so rt th at Ave rely on to come up w ith the ansAvers in 

the are a of tech nica l da ta an d inf orma tio n Avhich w ill prevent injury 

to Avorkers.

Th e Chairma n. Th en pr im ar ily in yo ur Avork Avith the variou s 

St ate agencies you are con cerned with tech nicians, an d wi th in fo rma tio n, an d wi th methods, an d not wi th medical or clinical research 

in th e field of acc iden t p rev entio n ?

Mr. Gidel. Th e one are a Ave do not concern ourselves with is the 

medical an d clinical asp ects of effects of the env ironm ent along this 

line on the worker. We do rel y on the Publi c Hea lth Service, the 

Dep artm en t of Hea lth , Edu ca tio n, and Welf are , an d other medical 

and clinic al sources fo r th is ty pe of inf orma tio n, an d when we have 

a pro ble m such as this Ave ask these sources for th e dat a the y hav e and 

then fro m t hat try to de ter mine the e ngineering, a nd the ope rational, 

and metho ds con trols fo r pr ev en tin g in ju ry to the Avorker at the 

Avorkplace.

Th e Chairman. Do you haAre wi th you, or could you sup ply for 

the rec ord , the numb er of perso ns pe r ye ar who meet death in their 

occ upatio n ?
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 243

Mr. Donahue. The Bureau of Labor S tatistics would be very glad 

to furn ish that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. I would also like to have with tha t the number of 

industrial accidents, and with it the estimated cost in days out of work, 

days in the hospital, medical cost, and so forth, if you have those 

figures ?

Mr. Donahue. Is tha t available, Mr. McElroy ?

Mr. McElroy. Mr. Chairman, we regularly prepare in the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics annual estimates of the total volume of disabling 

work injuries with a breakdown in terms of deaths, permanent impairments, and temporary disabilities. We supplement these estimates with estimates of the total number of days of inability to work 

which result from those particular injuries.

We do not have dollar-cost estimates. Insofa r as I know there 

are no really comprehensive dollar-cost estimates other than those 

which are issued by the National Safety Council. The Safety Council does issue a dollar-loss figure broken down in terms of direct costs 

to the employer and indirect costs resulting from the accidents which 

are absorbed through other groups than the employer. This would 

include the loss to the worker, the overhead cost to insurance companies, and so on, but we in the Government do not have a dollarcost figure, nor do we have a figure on numbers of days in hospitals, 

but we do have, as I say, an estimate of the number of days lost 

because of work injuries.

I have a copy of the release presenting these figures for 1961. I 

can give that to the stenographer for the record now.

The Chairman. Very well. Without objection that will be included in the record.

(The release referred to above follows:)
244 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

NEWS (r,„„ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

A rth u r J. G o ld b erg , S e c re ta ry

For Rele ase; Wednesday AM Ed itio ns USDL 5029

February 7, 1962

Estim ated Bureau of Labor S ta ti sti c s

Work In ju ri es, Frank S . McElroy

1961 Telephone: 961-2318

Work In ju ri es Dec line Sligh tly in l? 6 l 

Deaths and disa bling in ju ri e s re su ltin g from work ac cide nts declinec 

in 1961. There were approxima tely 13,500 death s, and abou t 1,930,000 

di sa bl in g in ju ri es, according to pre lim ina ry estim ate s pre pared by the 

U.S. Department of Lab or's Bureau of Labor S ta ti sti c s. In I960 there 

were 13,800 deaths and 1,950,000 disa bling in ju ries *

The sl ig ht decline in in ju ri e s and deaths, with employment hold ing 

a t about the same average le vel as in I960, re su lte d in lower in ju ry 

ra te s. Disa bling in ju ri es occ urred a t a ra te of 30.1 pe r 1,000 workers 

in 1961, compared with a ra te of 30.1* in I96 0. The only othe r lower 

ra te on rec ord was 29.6, in 1958. The death ra te was 21 pe r 100,000 

workers in 1961, which was below the previous record of 22, th at had 

pr ev ai led fo r the pa st 3 ye ar s.

Each of the in ju ries inc lud ed in the se estim ate s disabled th e 

worker fo r a t le ast 1 fu ll day or more. In ad ditio n to th e 13,500 

de at hs , approximately 80,500 in ju ri es re su lted in some permanent physica l impairment, ranging from the p a rti a l lo ss of the use of a fing er or 

toe to complete in ab il it y to work a t any ga infu l employment. The gr ea t
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 245

majority (1,836,0 00), however, were only temporary in nature and re su lte d 

in no permanent i l l eff ects . These la tte r in ju ri es averaged about 17 days 

of d is a b il it y per case.

Al toge ther, these work in ju ri e s and deaths re su lted in abo ut UO Billion 

man-days of dis abil it y during 1961. When the fu ture ef fe ct s of the deaths 

and permanent impairments ar e evalu ate d and added to the immediate lo ss , 

the to ta l w il l amount to app rox ima tely 163 m ill io n man-days of d is a b il it y . 

This is equiv ale nt to a yea r's fu ll-t im e employment of abo ut $25,000 

workers.

The pr in ci pa l decreas e in in ju ri es occurred in man ufactur ing. Average employment and to ta l hours of exposure to Job in ju ri es decreas ed 

abou t 3 pe rc en t. The in ju ry ra te fo r 1961 was about h percent below th at 

fo r I960 . The re su ltin g estim ate of 375,000 in ju ri es was abo ut 6 perce nt 

below the I960 to ta l.

In ag ri cu lture , mining, tr an sp ort at io n, and pu bli c u til itie s there 

were modest decreas es in the number of in ju ri es, par al le ling fa ir ly 

clos ely the declines in employment.

In ju ri es in co nt ract co ns tru ction remained v ir tu all y unchanged, though 

there was a U perce nt decli ne in employment. As a re su lt , i t is estimated 

the in ju ry ra te was up abou t 5 pe rc en t.

Trade showed vir tu all y no change in ei th er employment or in ju ri e s.

Increased employment in fina nc e, se rv ic e, and Sta te and lo cal government re su lted in modest increases in the volume of in ju ri es, withou t any 

appreciab le change in in ju ry ra te s. In ju ri es in Federal Government 

employment decreased sl ig htl y.
246 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

B3TDUSD MTJXHH GT DISABLUO WORK HJ D1 II8 BI WD0STB3 DITISICI, 1^57 to 1961

In du stry d iv ie ia c and

type o f d is a b ili ty

To ta l dis a b li n g in j u r i e s ......... ..........

Agr ic ultu re V ............

Mining V .............................................

Con tra ct o oca tr ue t i cm y .............

Manu facturing 7 / ................ .............

Tr an sp or ta tio n and pu blic

u t i l i t i e s y ..................................

Trade y ... 7 ............................

Fl ns no e, as m a s , ga ve rane nt,

and si so a ll a a so u a in d u st rie s .

Os a tb s 2 / ..................................................

Agr ir ul tu m 1 / .................. ................

Mining y . . 7 . . . . . . ..........................

Co ntr act so n st ru eti o e y .............

Manufactu ring 7 / ..................

Tra ns po rtat ion and pu blic S ? " * : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

flna no a, a a r r ls s , in va r— at,

and nia ss lian aoua In du st rie s . .

Permanent impai rm ents 1 0 /, . . . .

Contr act oo na tr uc tion y ........... . .

Manu facturing 7 / ................................

Trade y .................................................

Te mpo ra ry-to tal d i s a b i lit ie s 11 / . .

Co ntr act coo s tr ue ti a n y ...............

Manu facturing 7 / . . . . ........................

Trade y ..................................................

A ll vorbers y

i » i y 1560 y i» s5 y use y 1557 y W61 y 1560 y

1, 93 0,00 0 1,9 50 ,0 00 1,9 60,0 00 1, 82 0, 00 0 1,89 0,00 0 1, 49 0,00 0 1, 50 8,00 0

284 ,00 0 18 7,0 00 29 1, 00 0 291 ,00 0 296,0 00 60 ,00 0 60 ,00 0

1*3,000 45 ,00 0 48 ,000 49,OOC SU.ooo 40,000 42 ,00 0

209 ,00 0 210 ,00 0 21 8, 00 0 20 3,0 00 21 1,0 00 165 ,000 16 5,ooc

375 ,00 0 39 8,0 00 42 2,00 0 361,0 00 411 ,00 0 358 ,00 0 381,000

17 9,0 00 183 ,00 0 ie*,ooo 169 ,00 0 184 ,00 0 165 ,00 0 169 ,000

360,000 36 0,0 00 35i,ooo 33 4,0 00 336 ,00 0 276 ,00 0 27 6,0 00

48 0,0 00 *87,0 00 U4.000 413,0 00 358 ,00 0 426 ,00 0 415,000

13 ,50 0 13 ,80 0 u.soo 13,30 0 14 ,20 0 9,8 00 10,100

3,3 00 J

' S 3, 14 0 3,3 00 3,5 00 1,0 00 1,0 00

700 700 700 500 600 TOC

1, 30 0 2,4 00 2, 50 0 2,4 00 2,500 1,800 1,5 0c

1,7 00 Is 700 1, 50 0 1, 80 0 2,0 00 1,6 00 1,6 00

1.50 0 1,6 00 1. 50 0 1,4 00 1,5 00 1,140 1,5 00

1,3 00 1, 80 0 1, 20 0 1,2 00 1,3 00 900 900

1,8 00 2,8 00 2, 60 0 2,5 00 l,5 o o 2,5 00 1,5 00

80,50 0 82 ,20 0 53 ,2 00 76 ,70 0 80 ,800 63,60 0 65 ,00 0

5,8 00 5,8 00 6,1 00 5,6 00 5,6 00 4,6 00 4,6 00

24 ,000 25 ,500 27 ,0 00 23 ,000 25,200 23,00 0 24,4OC

8 ,U » 8,4 00 8, 20 0 7, 80 0 7,5 00 6,4 00 6,4 00

1, 8) 6, 000 1, 85 4, 00 0 1,5 63,0 00 1, 73 0, 00 0 1, 79 5,00 0 1,41 6, 60 0 1,4 32 ,900

200 ,90 0 20 1,8 00 20 9,40 0 195,0 00 202 ,90 0 15 8,6 00 15 8,5 00

349, 370 ,80 0 39 3,1 00 336,2 00 383,800 333 ,400 35 5,0OC

350,400 35 0,4 00 34 1,60 0 325 ,00 0 327 ,20 0 268 ,700 26 8,7 00

Kmploynes on ly

1555 y use y 1557 y

1, 51 6, 00 0 1, 38 0,00 0 1,4 46 ,000

60 ,0 00

45 ,000

17 2,0 00

40 5,0 00

60, 00 0

46 ,00 0

158 ,000

34 4,0 00

60 ,00 0

51,00 0

16 7,0 00

393,000

17 0,0 00

26 8,0 00

156,0 00

250,0 00

171 ,00 0

251 ,00 0

35 6,0 00 366 ,00 0 353 ,00 0

10 ,10 0 9,7 00 10,400

1,0 00

600

2, 00 0

1,8 00

1,0 00

60C

1,9 00

1,7 00

1,0 00

80c

2.0 00

1,9 00

1,1 40

>00

1,3 00

900

1,1 40

1,0 00

2, 40 0 2,J X) 2,3 00

66 ,900 60, 30 0 63 ,600

4, 80 0

26 ,000

6, 20 0

4,4 00

22,000

5,8 00

4,4 00

24,000

5,5 00

1,43 9, 00 0 1,3 10 ,000 1,3 72 ,000

16 5,2 00

377 ,20 0

26 0,90 0

15 1,7 00

320,300

250 ,00 0

160,6 00

367,1 00

244 ,50 0

V In clude s p ro p rie to rs, ss I f -sag) le ys d, and unpaid f s a ll y vo rb sr a,

aa n a il aa enp le y ees, ba t ex clud es dom estic s e m e s vo rb er s.

2/ Mrsl laJn ar y,

y ls T ia o d , as s no te bo le a .

y Tbs t o ta l number o f work in ju rie s in agr icultur e i s ba sed on

or oee -a eet lo n su rv ey s by tbs 0 .8 . Department of Ag rlou ltu re in 1947

and 19 48 , w ith ad ju stm en ts fo r changes in e ^ lo y n sn t. rhses are

co ns id er ed to be m inim a fig u r es| in ju rie s ex pe rie nc ed in perfo rm ing

ch or ee are exc lu ded , end th er e are some in dic ati ons o f un de rr ep or tin g,

y Baaed la r g ely on data oo ap llsd by the Bureau o f Mine s,

O.S. Department o f the In te rio r.

y Based on — 11 sample su rvey s by the Bureau o f Labor

S t a t is t ic s .

7 / Baeed on ocagirebanal re sur rey by the Bureau o f Labor S ta tis tic s ,

y Based co a s a ll sample su rr ey s by the Bureau o f Labor S ta tis tic s

fo r oer ta in so ps sn ts and on da ta eo ap lle d from other sour ce s fo r other

osp nen ts o f the in du st ry .

y Based on aaaglm su rv ey s, as in di oa to d by fo otn ot es 4 to 8, and

on v it a l s t a tis tic s rep ort s.

10 / In clud es appro xim ate ly 1, 30 0 to 1, 50 0 pe rm an en t-tota l im pair-

■ante eac h ye ar .

11/ Inclu dee da te fo r in d u st rie s no t ahovn se pa ra te ly .
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER 247

Te chn ical Notes

Theee data were compiled according to the American

Standard Hethod of Recording and Meaeurir^ Worlt frijuj y

Experience, approved by the American Star.aarda As socia ­

ti on in 105U .

The in ju ri es ehown in theee tabu lat ion s inc lud e a ll

olaeeee of di sa bl ing work in ju rie s. A di sa bl ing work injury i s any inj ury occurring in the oouree of and ari si ng out of employment, which re su lt s in death, permanent im pairment, or temporary-tota l d is a b il it y .

Ary death re su ltin g from a work inj ury which oocurred

during the re po rt year i s counted, regardles s of the len gth

of time ela ps ed between the inju ry and the death.

A permanent Impairment is any injury oth er than death

which re su lt s in the complete lo se or lo ss of use of any

member or pa rt o f a member of the body, or any permanent

impairment o f functio ns of the body or pa rt th er eo f.

However, the follo wi ng are not cla ssed ae Dermanent d is ab ilit ie s ! (a) repai red ing uin al her nia a, (b) lo ss of fi nger ­

nails or to en a il s, or fi nge rt ip s not inv olv ing bone, (c )

lo se of te et h , (d) disfigurem ent, (e) st ra in s or sprains

which do not cause permanent lim itat io n of motion, and

(f ) simple fr ac tu re s of fin ge rs end to es, als o mich oth er

fr ac tu re i as do not cause permanent impairment or r e str ic ­

tion of normal functio n of tbs injured member.

A tem porary-tota l di es b il l ty is any injury tfiich does

not re su lt in death or permanent impairment, but which

renders the inj ured pereon unable to perform a re gu larly es ta bl ishe d Job which is open and av ailable to him, during

the en tire time in te rv al corresponding to the hours of hie

reg ula r A i f t on any one or mere days (inclu din g Sundays,

days o ff , or plan t shutdown) subsequent to the date of

injury . The term "injury" inc lud es occupation al dis ease .

In juries which req uir e only fi rst- a id or medical tr ea tment are not Included in the computation of Injury ra te s nor

in the estim ates of dia abllng work In Juri st . Absence from

work for a per t of a day for treatm ent i s not conside red

■dieablix<." To be counted ae "d isab lin g,” an inj ury must have ei th er caused some permanent impairment (as defined

above) or made the person unable to work at a re gu larly

es ta bl ishe d Job fo r at le a st one fu ll day af te r th e day of

injUr y. Casea ar e counted , however, even i f the in a b il it y

to work ex is te d only on a Saturday, Sunday, or soma oth er

nonwork day.

Ing uin al he rnias are considered ae work in ju ri es only

i f pr eo ip ita ted by Impact, sudden eff o rt, or sev ere st rain ,

the re wee a cl ea r record of an accident or in ci de nt , such as

• s lip , tr ip , f a l l , eudden eff o rt, or ov erexertio n, and the re

was actual pain in the hern ial region at the time of the

aod de nt or in ci de nt eo acute that the injure d worker we 

for ced to sto p work long enough to drew the at te nti on of hie

foreman or rello w worker, or the att en tion of a phy sician was

secured within 12 hour s. Likewise, back in ju ri es or str ains

are con side red ae work In ju ri es only i f there waa a cle ar

record of an ac cide nt or in ci de nt , such as a sli p , tr ip , f a ll,

sudden effo rt, ov erexertio n, or blow on the back, and the physician author ised to tr ea t the ca se was sa ti sfi ed tha t the injuay

could have ar isen from such ac cide nt or in ci de nt .

These estim ates o f work in ju ri es d if fe r from those derived

from the U. S. National Health Survey, because of diffe renc es

In concept. The Nat iona l Health Survey to ta ls inc lud e pereone

with inju riea involving one or more days of "r estricted

ac tiv ity" or medical att en ti on, and thus are much broader than

the ooncept of "disabling" injury , a* defined above. On the

other hand, in the Nat iona l Health Survey, a ll accidenta in

Wiich a motor ve hic le waa involved in any way are cla ssif ie d

as "motor -vehicle" ac ci den ts , and are not included in the

estimates of "work ac cide nt." There are also oth er conceptual

differen ces between "persons injured" in "work accidenta" and

"diaabling work in ju ri es ."

The days of d is a b il it y inc lud e standard time charg es for

deaths and permanent impairments, baaed on average worklif e expec tancy and estimated percent lo ss of working

•f fi ele n cy. The est im ate of days of d is a b il it y during the

report year la based on 150 days per cas e for deaths and

permanent-total impairments, and a prorata estima te of the

fir s t ye ar 's lo sses for permanent-partial impairments. The

estim ated to ta l days of d is a b il it y at tr ib uta ble to the Inju ries which occurred in any given yea r inc lud es the projec ted future lo ss es re su ltin g from deaths and permanent

impairments. Deaths and permanent-total impairments are each assig ned a time charge of 6,000 days. For permanentpar tial impairments, the days of d is a b il it y are estima ted on

the b asi s of the average of time charge s for the various permanent-partial cases rep orted . In the aatime tea, both for

the repor t year , and for the to ta l inc luding future lo ss es,

the days of d ie a b il it y due to temporary ca se s include the

Bomber of fu ll cale ndar days during which the injured persona

ware unable to work.

These estim ate s of work In ju ri es were compiled by the

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor S ta ti sti c s, in

col lab orati on with the Nat iona l Sa fet y Cou ncil. They are based upon a ll av ailabl e data from vario us Federal and Stats

aganciaa and upon sample surveys in acme in dust ri es . Data

on the exact distr ib ution of caaes by type of d is ab il it y are

not av ailable fo r acme in dust ri es , In thes e ins tances approxi­ mations of the breakdown of cases have been made fo r inc lusio n

in the grand to ta ls , but have not been ehown for the ind ividual

In du str ies. Sea foo tnotea to tab la fo r sp ec if ic sources and

lim it ati ons. Sim ilar estim ates are av ai la bl e back to 1936.

Labor, D. C.
248 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Fo r R e le a s e » T hu rs day AM E d it io n s USDL-3OO9

De cem ber 3 , 1959

In ju r y R at es 

by In d u s tr y 

1958

Bur ea u o f Lab or S t a t i s t i c s 

F. S . M cE lro y

E x e c u ti v e 3-21)20 - E x t. 2318

WORK INJURY RECORD FOR 1958 SHOWS FEW CHANGES FROM 1957

F in a l w o rk -i n ju ry r a t e s f o r 19 58 , re le a s e d to d a y by th e U. S. Dep ar tm en t 

o f L a b o r' s Bu rea u o f La bo r S t a t i s t i c s , showed fe w s ig n i f i c a n t ch an ge s fro m 19 57 .

The a ll -m a n u fa c tu rin g in ju ry -fre q u e n c y r a t e was a t an a ll- tim e low in 

19 58 w it h 10.9 d is a b lin g i n j u r i e s p e r m il lio n m an -h ou rs w or ke d, b u t th is r a te 

was o n ly U p e rc e n t be low 1957. At 1*6.8, c o a l m in in g was f r a c t i o n a l l y lo w er 

th a n i n 19 57 . Somewhat g r e a te r d e c lin e s o c cu rr ed i n th e r a t e s f o r sa ne o f th e 

s m a lle r in d iv id u a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i n th e v a ri o u s nonm anufa ctu ri ng gro ups.

(S ee ta b le 1 .)

On th e o th e r h and, th e av era g e fr equency r a t e s f o r c o n s tr u c tio n an d tr a d e 

wer e s l i g h t l y h ig h e r th a n i n 1957. R at es f o r m ost c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s in tr a n s p o rt a t i o n , u t i l i t i e s , fin a n c e , s e r v ic e , an d go ve rn m en t sho wed l i t t l e change.

Alth ou gh th e 1958 r e c o rd r e f l e c t s no s p e c ta c u la r g a in s in a c c id e n t p re ­

v e n ti o n over th e p re v io u s y e a r , th e im pr ov em en ts re c o rd e d in r e c e n t y e a rs were 

r e ta in e d . Ov er th e lo ng te rm , th e 195 8 ex p eri e n ce in m os t in d u s tr ie s was su bs t a n t i a l l y b e t t e r th a n in th e y e a rs im m edia te ly fo ll o w in g Worl d War I I . The 

19 58 a ll -m a n u fa c tu ri n g fr e q u e n c y r a t e was 1*5 p e rc e n t be low th e 191*6 le v e l an d 

25 p e rc e n t be low 191*9. The c o n tr a c t c o n s tr u c tio n avera ge was down 23 p e rc e n t 

fr om 191*6, and th e r a te s f o r m ost m in in g a c t i v i t i e s were s u b s ta n tia lly lo w er. 

T ra de a s a who le has shown l i t t l e im pr ov em en t.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER 249

The h ig h est in ju ry -f re quen cy r a te re p o rt ed in th e 1958 su rv ey was 63.8 , 

fo r lo ggin g. A nth ra ci te min ing had a ra te of 60.8 , and se v e ra l o th er min ing 

c la s s if ic a tio n s showed ra te s of over 50. City sa n it a ti o n de pa rtmen ts had a 

ra te of 56.1 ; ro ofing and sh eet- m eta l wor k, hh.8 ; p o u lt ry dre ss in g and pa ck in g, 

1*3.1; and sa w m ills , 1*2.7.

The lo w es t ra te re co rd ed in th e su rv ey was 0.7 in th e te le phone communicati o n s in d u str y . Banks and in su ra nce companies had r a te s of 2 .2 , and a number 

of Government ag en ci es re port ed low r a te s . Among th e lo wes t r a te s fo r manufactu ri n g in d u str ie s we re: 2. 3 fo r th e ra d io tubes in d u str y ; 2 .h , ex plo si ves; 2 .5 , 

sy n th eti c ru b b er; 2 .6 , m is ce llan eo us com munica tion eq uipm en t; 2 .7 , sy n th eti c 

f ib e r s ; and 2 .9 , a ir c r a f t.

In M an uf ac tu rin g, in ju rie s re p o rt ed in th e 1958 su rv ey av erag ed 66 days of 

d is a b ility per ca se . Out of each 1,0 00 d is abli ng in ju rie s re p o rt e d , 1* re su lt e d 

in de ath and 68 in some de gree of pe rm an en t im pa irm en t. The remaini ng 928 were 

tem porar y in n atu re , with an av er ag e o f 19 days d is a b il ity per case. The st an dar d se v e ri ty ra te fo r m an uf ac turin g was 763 day s of d is a b ility fo r ea ch m il li o n 

man-hours worked in 195 8, l i t t l e changed from 1957.

Work in ju rie s in co n tr act co n str u cti o n av era ged 90 days per case , and th e 

se v e ri ty ra te was 2,55 3. In tr a d e , th e co rre sp on ding fi g u re s were 1*1* and 1*83.

On th e b asi s of th e su rv ey d a ta and oth er avail able in fo rm ati on, i t was 

es tim at ed th a t a to ta l of 1, 82 0,00 0 wo rkers were dis able d by o n -t h e-j o b in ju rie s 

du ring 1958. Of th es e in ju r ie s , 13 ,300 re su lt e d in de at h and 76 ,70 0 in some 

de gree of permanent physi ca l im pa irmen t. Man ufactur ing and tr ad e ea ch accounted 

fo r 3b0,0 00 work in ju r ie s , and 30 0,00 0 were a tt rib u te d to a g ric u lt u re . (See 

ta b le 3 .)
Ta bl e 1. In ju ry ra te s by in d u str y , 1958 (w ith com par able in ju ry -f re quency ra te s fo r 1957) 1 /

In dust ry

Number of 

re p o rt in g u n it s

In ju ry -f re quency 

ra te s In ju ry - 

se v e ri ty 

ra te s 2 /

Average day s of 

d is a b ility 

pe r case

2 /

Per ce nt o f d is a b li n g In ju rie s 

re s u lt in g in —2 /

1958 1957 Dea th Permanent impairm ent Tempora ry - t e t a l d is a b ility

A ll m anufa ctu ri ng........................................................ 1*9,891 10 .9 11.1* 763 66 0.1*

1

co92 .6

Food and ki iy ire d p ro ducts ........................................ 6,9 72 18 .5 18 .7 1,0 27 53 .2 I*.5 95 .3

Meat pf bduct s h / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860 25 .0 23 .3 951* 30 3.3 96 6

Meat pa ck ing and custom s la u g h te rin g .. .. . 1*81 21 .6 2 1 .4 905 30 .1 3.1» 96 .5

Sa us ag es and oth er pr ep ar ed me at pr od uc ts 272 23.1* 22 .0 553 22

— I*.2 95.8

P o u lt ry and sm al l game d re ssin g A pack ing 131* 1*3.1 37 .1

—

—

— _ _ Da iry p ro ducts ................. . ....................................... 576 17 .0 17-0 556 31 OR 3

Canning and p re se rv in g -..................... .. 1,00 3 19 .3 to .8 ~l ,5-1.7 59 .3 6 n o[, 7

G ra in —m il l pr od uct s 737 15 .9 15.1* 1*236 69 J

4 LA O|j P

Bakery pro d u cts .................................. 950 15 .8 16.1* 971 66 J* 5 7 03 9

Suga r.............................................................................. 10l* 22 .0 23.2 i,o )i7 h7 .9 1*.5 oC 3

Cane a u g a r ...................................... 32 1>*.5 1 7 .b

Be et su gar* ............................................................. 72 31*. 5 33 .2 1 ,1*21 1x2 1*Jj oc 5

Con fe ct io ne ry and re la te d pro duct s................. 291* 13.1* 1 3 .h 1 ,1*83 10? a 8 6 03 3

Be ve rage s....................... ............................................. 1,81*8 18 .6 18 .5 ljl0 8 L O 06 7

B ott le d s o ft d rin k s....................................... • • l'l* 88 22 .5 22. i* fi6? 38 1 3 C 06 t*

Ma lt and malt liq u o rs ........................................ '198 16 .6 16 .9 3,0 13 51*

J f^6 96 ?

Wines.......................................................................... 58 17 .7 ll i. 7

D is tille d liq u o rs ................................................. 101* 8.2 8.0

M is ce llan eo us foo d p ro d u c ts ............................... 580 13 .3 15 .8 91*9 57 .3 I*.8 91, .9

Toba cco m an ufa ct ure rs ................................................ 11*5 6. 8 7.0 231 3U 6 6 93 t

T e x ti le -m il l pro ducts ................................................. 2,82 1 9.0 9. 8 536 51* .2 6 .1 93 .7

Co tto n yam and t e x t i l e s ................. .................... 6l5 7.8 8. 2 <20 60 .3 6.0 99 R

Rayon, o th er sy n th e ti c , and s ilk t e x t i l e s .. 361* 6.5 8.0 268 31* 5.3 91*.7

Woolen and worste d t e x t i l e s ................................ 21*8 16 .2 18 .1 881* 55 5. 9 91*. 1

K ni t go od s- ....................... ......................................... 896 5. 1 5.8 167 31 r l 9-3 07 6

py eing and fi n is h in g t e x t i l e s ............................ 298 11*.1 13 .9 880 55 .1 7. 2 92 .7

• 1

250 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER
80 624 0 - 6 2 - 1 7

C arp et s, ru g s, and o th er flo o r c o v e rin g s.. .

Mats (e xce pt clo th and m illin e ry )...................Cordage and tw in e.....................................................

M is ce llan eo us te x tile go od s................................

App arel and oth er fi n is h e d te x tile pr od uc ts!*/

C lo th in g, men 's and b o y s '....................................

C lo th in g, women's and c h ild r e n 's ......................

Fur good s and m is ce llan eo us a p p are l...............

M is ce llan eo us fa b ri c a te d t e x tile p ro ducts . . 

Lumber and wood pr oduct s (e xce pt f u rn itu r e ) . .

Lo gg ing ..........................................................................Sawm ills and pla nin g m il ls h / ............................

Pla ni ng m ills .........................................................

Saw m ills................................................................. ..

Saw and pla nin g m ills , in te g ra te d ...............

Venee r m ills ...........................................................

Millw ork and re la te d pro d u cts ................... ..

Millw ork and s tr u c tu r a l wood p r o d u c ts ... .

Plywood m ills .........................................................

Wooden co n ta in e rs.....................................................

M is ce llan eo us wood p ro d u cts ................................

F urn it ure and fix tu re s h / ........................................

Household fu rn itu r e .................................................

Household fu rn itu re , no nm etal........................

E e ta l ho us eh old fu rn itu r e ................................

M attre ss es and b ed sp ri n g s................................

O ff ic e fu rn itu r e .......................................................

Wood o ffi c e fu rn itu re .........................................

Metal o ffi c e fu rn itu re .................................... ..

P u b li c-b u il d in g and p ro fe ssio n a l fu rn itu re .P a rtit io n s and f ix tu r e s ........................................

Scr ee ns, sh ad es , and b li n d s ................................

76 ll .l * | 11 .2 855 75 .3 6. 2 93 .5

1*3 l h . l 5/ 16.5

—

—

—

—

— 56 15 .6 19 .6

—

—

—

—

— 225 13.>4 15 .0

—

—

—

—

— 5,28 9 5. 9 6.3 21*8 1*3 .3 1.9 97 .8

1,1 78 5. 7 6 .6 176 31 .1 2. 1 97 .8

2,79 6 5. 2 5. 1 269 52 .6 1. 2 98 .2

351 6.7 8. 2

—

—

—

—

— 873 9.1* 9.1* 352 1*1 - - 3. 2 96 .8

3,7 97 37 .3 37 .9 3,3 38 78 .5 6. 3 93 .2

522 63 .8 62 .3 8,181* 121* 1. 1 h.O 91*.9

1,81*8 39 .3 1*0.!* 2,99 9 73 .1* 5. 6 91*.0

235 31 .3 30 .2

—

—

— 817 1*2.7 l*5.o 3,0 60 70 .1* 5.1* 9|*.2

676 38 .9 39 .9 3,311* 80 .6 5. 2 9, •. ?

80 36.5 37 .1

—

—

—

—

— 680 22.!* 22 .6 1,9 63 82 .3 11 .5 8°. 2

581 22 .1 21 .8 1,61*8 77 .2 11 .6 88 ’.2

99 23 .0 23 .9

—

—

—

—

— 330 27 .6 28.1, 1,1 72 38

— 7.5 92.5

1*17 26 .2 28 .8 2,56 2 81 .p 5. 2 9'j .0

1,69 0 16 .0 17 .6 1,05 5 65 .3 9.6 90 .1

1,19 8 16.1* 17.1* 1,10 1 66 .2 9.1* 90.1,

836 17 .0 18 .5 1,01 1 57 .2 9.6 90.2

110 16 .1 11*. 7

—

—

—

—

— 252 13 .7 11*.0

—

—

—

—

— 67 13 .8 16 .5

—

—

—

—

— 26 15. 6 18 .6

—

—

—

—

— 1*1 13 .3 15 .9

—

—

—

—

— 72 13 .1 16 .3

—

—

—

—

— 219 17 .2 19 .0

—

—

—

—

— 116 13 .6 [• 19 .3

—

— - -

— Se e fo otno tes at end of t ab le .

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 251
Ta ble 1. In ju ry ra te s by in d u str y , 1958 (w ith comp ara ble in ju ry -f re auency ra te s fo r 1957) 1 /— co nt in ue d

In dust ry Number of re p o rt in g 

u n it s

In ju ry -f re quen cy

ra te s In ju ry - 

se v e ri ty ra te s 2 /

Ave rage 

days of d is a b ility 

per ca se

2 /

Per ce nt o f d is a b li n g in ju rie s re s u lt in g in —2 /

1958 1957 Death Permane nt impairment Temporary- to ta l d is a b ility

Pa pe r and a llie d p ro ducts ............................................ 1,85 6 11.b 12. b 901 62 0. 3 6.9 92 .8

Pulp , pap er , and pa pe rb oa rd m ills ....................... b97 9.b 10 .6 1,13 5 97 .7 7. 9 91.1- Env elop es .......................................................................... 88 13 .5 13 .1

Pa pe rboard conta in ers and bo xe s............................ 835 l b . l 15 .0 637 b l .1 6.1, 93 .5 M isce llan eo us pa pe r and a llie d p ro ducts ........... U36 12 .1 13 .2 762 50 .1 6.0 93.9

P ri n ti n g , pub li sh in g , and a llie d in d u s tr ie s .. . 3,72 2 8.7 9. 2 371 b l .2 b.2 95 .6

Nevi-papers and p e rio d ic a ls ...................................... 1,19 b 8.6 9.1 b03 b6 3. 5 96. i

Bookb ind ing and r e la te d p ro d u cts .......................

M isce llan eo us n rin ti n g and p u b li sh in g .. . . . . . .

197

2,331

2,7 10

11 .6

8.57.9

12 .9

8.97. 7

312

833

35

86

.1.6

b.9

b.7

95 .09I|. 791 .9

Che mic als and a llie d pro d u cts ..................................

In d u s tria l in org an ic ch em ic al s.............................

I n d u s tria l or ga ni c ch em ic al s................................

212

bib

b .9

3.6

b.b

3. 5

b.7

2. 2

769 15b 1. 8 6.3 P la s tic s , ex cep t sy n th eti c ru b b er................... 12b

23

b.7

S ynth et ic ru b b er...................................................... 2. 5S ynth eti c f i b e r s ...................................................... 31 2.7 3.0 _ _ _ E xplo si ves ................................................................... bb 2.1: 1.8 __ _

M is ce llan eo us in d u s tr ia l or gan ic ch em ic al s. 192 3.8 3. 7 _ __ _ Drugs and m ed ic in es .................................................... 286 7. 5 7.1 276 b l .3 2.8 96 .0 Soap and re la te d pro d u cts ........................................ 2li3 8.3 7. 7

— P ain ts , pi gm en ts, and re la te d p ro d u cts ............. bb l 10 .3 10 .1 365 27 3. 5 96 .5 F e r t il i z e r s ..................................................................... 368 lh .7 15 .5 2,6ob 152 1.1 5. 7 93 .2 Veg etab le and an im al o ils and f a t s .....................

Compressed and li q u e fie d g ases..............................

236

86

23 .5

9.9

2b .5

9.3

—

—

— M is ce llan eo us ch em icals and a llie d p ro d u cts .. b2b lb . 2 lb .b 685 b9 .1 5.0 9b .9

Pr od uc ts o f pe tro leum and c o a l.................................. 287 6.0 5.7 807 135 6 /1 .5 6. 7 91 .8

Petro leu m re fin in g 7 / ................................................

Coke ovens 7 /................................................................. 109

5. 6b. 7

5. 3

b.5

757 136 6 /l.b 5. 3 93 .3

Pavin g and ro ofi ng m a te ria ls .................................. 118 9.1 8.b _ _ __ M is ce llan eo us pr od uc ts o f pe tro leum and coal. 60 17 .5 18 .3 --

— -

252 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER
• <

Rub be r p ro d u c ts .......................................................................

T ir e s an d in n e r tu b e s .....................................................

Ru bber fo o tw e a r...................................................................

M is cell an eo u s ru b b e r p ro d u c ts ...................................

L e a th e r and le a th e r p ro d u c ts ..........................................

L e a th e r ta n n in g an d f in i s h in g ...................................

Bo ot an d sh oe c u t s to c k an d f in d in g s ...................

Footw ea r (e x c e p t ru b b e r ) ..............................................

M is c e ll a n eo u s le a th e r p ro d u c ts ................................

S to n e , c la y , an d g la s s p ro d u c ts ...................................

G la ss an d g la s s p ro d u c ts ..............................................

Cem ent 7 / ...............................................................................

S tr u c t u r a l c la y p ro d u c ts .............................................

P o tte r y an d r e l a t e d p ro d u c ts ....................................

C o n cre te , gy psum , an d m in e ra l w oo l.......................

Lime 7 / ...................................................................................

C u t- sto n e an d sto n e p ro d u c ts ...................................

M is c e ll a n eo u s n o n m e ta ll ic m in e ra l p r o d u c ts .. 

Pri m ar y m e ta l i n d u s t r i e s .................................................

B la s t fu rn a c e s and s t e e l m i l l s ..............................

Ir o n an d s t e e l f o u n d r ie s ............................................

G ra y -i ro n an d m a ll e a b le fo u n d r ie s ...................

S te e l f o u n d r ie s ............................................................

N onfe rr ous pri m ar y s n e lt in g and r e f in in g 7 / . 

N onfe rr ous se condary sm e lt in g an d r e f i n i n g .. 

K onfe rr ous r o l l i n g , d ra w in g , a id a l l o y i n g . ..

N onfe rr ous fo u n d r ie s .....................................................

M is cell an eo u s pri m ar y m e ta l i n d u s t r i e s ............

Iro n and s t e e l f o r g in g s ..........................................

W ire dra w in g...................................................................Welded an d h e a v y -riv e te d p ip e ............................

C o ld -fin is h e d s t e e l ...................................................

Pri m ar y m e ta l i n d u s tr ie s , n o t e ls ew h ere 

c l a s s i f i e d ...................................................................

373

1*3

16

31b

1 ,0 81

163

101

b73

3bb

2,O b3

31U

520

152625

116316

2,0 30

195

781

62b

157

76

hh

130

U30

37b150

6o1*9

51

61*

6 .7

3.1*

5.19 .6

1 0 .922.7

1 6.9

8 .6 

1 0 .6

16.8

9 .1 b. O

31.2 lb .7 

21*.5

1 7 .5

3 1 .6 

1 2 .1

9 .9

3 .7

2 0.9 2 3.01 5 .91 3 .5

2 2 .6

9 .7

1 7 .0 

1 3 .0 

11*.91 3 .911.3

8 .1

1 1 .9

7 .0 500 61 .1 9 .5 9 0 .b

3 .2

—

—

—

—

— 6 .2

— —-

—

— —- 1 0 .3 685 58 .1 9 .9 9 0.0

1 1 .7 1*37 1*2 .1 5 .7 91*.2

25.1 1,5 76 68 .3 5 .3 9b. b

1 7.3 ——

— —— 8 .9 282 32

— 6 .5 93.5

1 2 .3 297 27

— 5 .0 9 5.0

1 6 .5 1,1*57 72 .5 5 .3 9 b .2

9 .0 608 72 .1* 8 .1 91.5

3 .7

—

—

— - -

— 3 2.2 2,21*9 70 .5 3 .0 96.5

11*.6 605 39

— 2 .8 97.2

22.1* 2,1*97 79 .5 5 .2 9 b .3

1 9 .0

—

—

—

—

— 31.2

—

—

—

—

— 1 2 .7 979 13 .5 8 .5 91.0

1 0 .9 1,01*0 10 9 .8 8 .8 9 0 .b

1*.O 81*9 211* 2 .0 12 .1 * 8 5 .6

23.8 1,3 38 62 .2 1*.9 9 b .9

2 5 .1 1,51*1 61* .3 1*.7 9 5 .0

20.7 81*7 51

— 5.8 9b. 2

1 3 .2 1,6 79 121* 1 .1 5 .5 93 -b

23.6

—

—

—

—

— 1 0 .0 1,2 98 10 6 .7 1 8 .0 8 1 .3

1 7 .9 877 50 .2 1 1 .2 8 8 .6

11*. 0 882 61 .2 7 .9 9 1 .9

1 7 .5 1,1*53 81* .6 7.1* 9 2.0

1 2 .2

—

—

—

—

— 1 2 .0

—

—

—

—

— 1 0 .7

—

—

—

—

— 1 8 .9

—

— - - S ee fo otn ote s at en d o f ta ble .

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 253
Table 1. Injury ra tes by Indu stry, 1958 (with comparable Injury—frequency ra tes for 1957) l / —continued

Industry

Number of

reportingunits

Injury-frequency

ra tes Inju ry

se ve rity rates 2 /

Avera ye

days of

d is ab il it y

per caee

2 /

Percent of disabling in ju ri es re su ltin g in —2/

Death Permanent impairment Temporary- to ta l d is ab il it y 1958 1957

Fabricated metal products ....................................... b,519 llt .5 li t. 9 980 67 0.5 8.b 91.5

Tin cans and other tinware .................................. 157 6.0 6.3 627 116 .2 21.9 77.9

Cutlery, hand to o ls , and hardware .................... b85 10.1 10.5 It85 51 11.7 88.5 Cutlery and edge to ols ...................................... 120 12 .9 13 .9 __ _ Hand to o ls , f ile s , and saws ............................ 170 llt.O 15.7

— __ Hardware ................................................................. 195 7.9 7.7 355 51 11 .6 88. b

Heating and plumbing equipment .......................... 571 lb .l 13.5 1,028 65

— 6.5 95.5 San itary ware and pi u s e r s' su p p li e s........... 108 13.2 11.2

Oil burn ers, hea ting and cooking apparatus. 265 lit.It lit .L 1,09b 66 6.b 95.6 Fabricated str uctural metal products .............. 1,509 20.5 20.9 1,53 0 67 •h 5.8 95.8 Struct ura l st eel and ornamental metalwork . 625 21 .6 21.6 1,92 2 78 .5 6.b 95.1 Metal doors, sas h, frame, and trim .............. 202 18.0 15 .9 1,00 5 52 •3 5.b 9b.5 Boiler -ehop products .......................................... 295 19 .9 23.0 1,577 68 .5 5.3 9b.2 Sheet-metal wor k........................................ .. 587 19.8 20.8 985 It3 .2 5.0 9b.3 Metal stamping, co ating, and engraving U/ . . . 9b5 12.7 15.6 8O/

4 78 .5 10.5 89.2 Vltreous-enameled products .............................. 27 15.8 20.5

Stamped and pressed metal products .............. 550 9.7 lO.b 679 88 .5 lb .l 05.6 Metal coating and engraying ............................ 35b 20.8 21.3 1,05 5 b5 .2 b.O 95.3 Fabricated wire products ...................................... 29b 15.0 17.8 1,121 71 .2 8.3 91.5 Miscellaneous fabr ica ted metal pro duct s......... 780 11 .6 12 .6 656 5b .3 8.1 91.6 Metal ba rr els, drums, kegs, and pails ........ 58 11 .6 12.1

St ee l springs ........................................................ 35 18.8 19.2

— Bol ts , nuts, washers, and riv et s .................. 151 11.9 11.5_ -w— _ Screw-machine pro duct s.............................. . 276 10 Jt 13.6

Fabricated metal products, not elsewhere

c la ssif ie d ......................................................... 500 11.3 12.0 590 55 •b 7. 0 92 .6

Machinery (except ele ctr ic a l) ................................ It,607 9Jt 10 .9 5b8 5b .2 8.5 91.5

Engines and tur bin es .............................................. 6b 7.6 7.5 e*« _ T

Agricultural machinery and trac tors ................ 255 8.2 8.lt 5bb 60 .2 llt .l 85.7

Construction and mining machinery ..................... 280 12 .6 iit.9 879 65 .2 7. 2 92 .6

Metalworking machinery .......................................... 1,16U 8.3 9.7 505 56 .2 8.0 91.3

254 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER
Sp ecial-In dustry ma chiner y..................................

Food-products machinery ....................................

Te xtile ma chine ry..............................................•

Miscellaneous sp ec ial-i nd us try machinery . .

General In du str ial machinery ..............................

Pumps an d c o m o re s s o rs ................ ............... ............

Elevator s, es ca la to rs , and convevors ...........

Mechanical power-transmission equipment

(except ball and roller bearing s) ...............

Miscellaneous general Indu str ial machinery

Commercial and household machinery ...................

Miscellaneous machinery parts ............................

Valves and fit ti n g s ............................................

Fabricated pipe and fi tt in g s ..........................Ba ll and roll er bearing s ..................................

Machin e sh o p s, g e n e ra l . . .............................. ..

E l e c t r i c a l m a c h in e r y ..................................... ....................

Ele ct ri ca l in du stri al apparatus ........................E le ct ri ca l app lian ces ............................................

I n s u la te d w ir e an d c a b le ............................................E le ct ri ca l equipment for v e h ic le s ....................

Elect ric lamps (bulbs) .........................................

Communication equipment ........................................

R ad io s an d r e la te d p ro d u c ts .................................Rad io tu b e s ...................................................................

Miscellaneous communication equipment ........

Miscellaneous ele ctr ic a l products .....................

Bat ta il es ................................................................Ele ct ri ca l products, not elsewhere

c la ssif ie d ..........................................................

S ee fo o tn o te s a t en d o f ta b le .

711

15812 9

bhh

112

ill *

562

578

1,OUO

12*0

79

67

75U

1,7 11

70 2

7571

61

1*8

578

1*58

55

85

17 6

10 2

71*

.9 1U .2 701 51* .1 6.1* 9 5 .5

.8 15 J*

—

—

—

—

— .7 1 1 .9

—

— ——

—

— .9 15.1* 818 61 .1 6 .8 95.1

.1 1 5 .2 701 57 .5 7 .5 92.1*.9 1 5 .0 590 1*9 .2 I*. 9 9 5 .0.1 ll * .2

—

—

—

—

— .7 1 2 .5 __ __ __ __ .0 1 5 .2 72 9 60 .5 9 .6 90.1

.6 6 .2 555 60 .1 1 0 .9 8 9 .0.7 1 5 .6 552 1*2 .1 8.1 91.8

.7 ll*.8 757 1*1* .2 7.1* 92.1*.1* 17.7

—

—

—

—

— .0 8 .6

—

—

—

— .5 11*.5 1*87 50

— 6 .5 93.7

.1* 1*.8 510 67 .5 9 .8 8 9 .9

.1 5.1* 1*65 85 .5 9 .9 8 9 .6.6 6 .1 —- —- —-

—

— .9 11.8

—

—

—

—

— .1 5 .9

—

—

—

—

— •6 5.1

—

— ——

—

— .8 5.7 16 9 1*5 .1 7.1* 9 2 .5

.0 1*.5 19 0 1*2 .2 5 .9 9 5 .9

.5 2 .0

—

—

—

—

— .6 2 .6

—

—

—

—

— .8 8 .9

—

—

— —-

— .6 1 2 .1

—

—

—

—

— .1* 5.1

—

—

—

— ““

TO E S T A B L IS H A N A T IO N A L A C C ID E N T P R E V E N T I O N C E N T E R 255
Table 1. Inj ury ra te s by ind ustry, 1958 (with comparable inju ry-freque ncy ra te s fo r 1957) V —continued

Industry

Number of 

rep ort ing 

un its

Injury-freq uency 

rates Inju ry 

,se ve rity 

ra te s { j

Averagedays of dis abil it y per case

2 /

Percent of dis abling in ju ries resu lti ng in—2/

1958 1957 Death Permanent impairment Temporary- to ta l disa bilit y*

Tra nsportatio n equipment..................................... 1,255 5.5 » 

5

-

6 1*1*1 78 o.< 9.1 90.1*

Motor veh icles and equinment.......................... 561* , h.9 5.1 29» 79 12.1 8T.6 Motor ve hic les , bod ies, and tr a il e rs ........ 303 h.6 h.l* 256 68 .2 9.3 90.7 Motor-vehicle pa rts ar.d ac ce ssories ......... 261 5.1* 6.1 3h0 101 .!* 17 .d P2.i A ircr af t and part s................................. 275 3.1* 3.3 331 71* .7 8.5 90.8 A ir cra ft ........................................................... 1*7 2.9 2.7 3h2 81* .8 9.8 89. h A ircr af t par ts ................................................ 228 h. l h.3 313 65 .6 7.1 92.3 Ship an4 boat building and re pa irin g........... 338 17.6 19.1 1,539 78 .6 h.6 91*.8 Ship buildin g and re pa irin g........................ 160 15.9 17.3 1,507 83 .6 U5 91*.9 Boat buildin g and re pa irin g........................ 178 28.7 29.8 ilailro ad equipment........................................... 55 7.2 7.7 620 90 .2 15. c 8h.3 Miscellaneous tra ns po rta tio n equipment........ 23 22.9 18.6

Instruments and related Droducts...................... 722 5.h 5.8 21*5 1*5 .1 12.0 87.9

Sci en tific ins trume nts..................................... 90 3.9 h.8

Mechanical measuring and contr oll ing ins trume nts..................................................... 171 5.6 6.3 Op tica l instruments and le ns es ...................... 1*2 h .l 5.1 Medical Instruments and su pp lie s................... 179 7.1* 6.9 __ Ophthalmic goods................................................ 100 h.7 5.2

_ Photographic equipment end suno lie s............. 86 5.7 6.1 31*6 60 .2 21.h 78.h watches and clo cks............................................ 51* 5.3 5.6

Miscellaneous manufacturing................................ 2,166 12.2 13.1 1*75 37 .1 5.9 91.0

Jewelry, silv erw are , and pla ted ware ........... 187 7.0 7.6 Fabrica ted pla st ic s produc ts.......................... l»03 lh.3 lh.h 5h6 32 6.2 93.8 Brooms and brushes............................................ 105 11*.6 16.0

Mo rtic ians' goods.............................................. 122 17.7 22.h __ Miscellaneous manufacturing............................ 1,31*9 11.9 12.9 1*57 37 .1 5.8 9h .l

256 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER
Ordnance and ac ce ssories .....................................

NOfWANUFACTURING

95 3.6

Mining: 7/

Coal mines........ . .................................................

Bituminous................................. .....................

An thrac ite .......................................................

Crude petroleum and na tural gas ex tra ction. Exploration......................................................

D rillin g........................................................... Prod uction.......................................................

Natu ral ga solin e............................................

Metal mines.........................................................

Iro n...................................................................

Copper...............................................................Lead-sine...................................................... ..

Gold-sil ve r......................................................Go ld-placer.............................................. . Miscellaneous metals .....................................

Oredressing (m ills and au x il ia ri es) .............

Iro n...................................................................

Copper............................................................... Lead -zinc.........................................................

Gold-sil ve r......................................................Miscellaneous metals .....................................

Qu arries ............................................................... Cement (excluding m il ls )..............................

Limestone.........................................................

Marble...............................................................

G ra nit e...........................................................

Traprock...........................................................

S la te .................................................................

Sandstone.........................................................

Miscellaneous sto ne.......................................

Sand and grav el.................................................. Nonmetal mines....................................................

Norsnetal m il ls ....................................................

See fo otno tes at end of ta bl e.

1,521

2,129

263172

21539bbbO

6b5

383

10b

hl5967

112

3,052

192

1,59766

302

392

52

303

lb8

1,790

779

b6.8

b5.0

60.8

19.1

8.5 

58.6

15.2 

7.0

33.3 

12.7

31.3

52.3 

b3.9

59.559.6 12.1

5.7 

9.5

15.5

29.521.7

37.8

5.8

35.9

35.9

51.7

50.3 

bb.7

55.938.6 18.6

25.722.3

b.2 179 hl

— 7.1 ”2.9

b7.2 2.bbb.9 _ — 2.6

—

— 66.1 7,716 127 1.5 1.1 °7.b

16. b 1,803 95 6/ .9 b.b ”b. 7

6.8 886 10b 5/1.3 1.6 °7.1

50.8 b,952 85 .5 6.8 92.712.b 1,562 102 5/1 .2 2.8 96.0

8.5 539 77 tf/ .5 5.3 9b.2

32.5 _ — 1.7 b.6 ”3.7

12.1 3,6 bl 279 3.b 6.7 89.9

31.3 b,939 158 1.7 b.6 ”3.7 57.6 8,790 168 1.8 6.8 92. b

b5.8 3,b69 79 .6 b.2 95.2

59.7 _ — .6 1.2 Op .9

55.9 8,2b5 138 l. b 3.3 96.3

15.1 1,213 100 .7 5.9 93. b 6.2 1,831 319 3.b 11.9 8b.7 15.6 7hl 78 .8 5.5 93.7

15.7 978 63

— 10.0 90.0

20.0 5,176 175 _ b.2 95.8

21.2 88b bl

— 3.b 96.6

36.0 _ _ .9 3.5 ”5.6

5.5 _ _ b.b 13.3 82.3

35.6 _ _ ' 1.1 3.9 96.0

28.0 __ __ .5 5.8 93.7

b3.2 __ __ .6 2.7 96.7

53.1

_ _ 1.8 3.0 96. 2

59.2 _ __ _ 5.0 96.052.1 __ _ _ 1.5 98. 5

31.5 _ _ — 1.5 98.5

30.1 5,2 99 285 3.5

—

— 29.6 b,07b 159 1.5 3.7 9b. 8

25.5 1,560 70 .6 3.0 96. b

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

t c

- J
Tdble 1 . Inj ury ra tes by ind ustry , 1 ^ 8 (with c^nparable injury-freque ncy ra tes for 1957) l/- -c on tinu ed

Industry

Ifurfber of

rep ortlagun its

Injury-frequency

ra tes Injury

se ve rity

ra tes 2 /

Average

days ofdis ab il it y

per case

2 /

Percent of disabling in ju ri es

re su ltin g In—2 /

1958 1957 Death Permanent Impairment Temporary- to ta l d is ab il it y

Contract co ns tr ic tion .................................. . 8,11*5 30.9 j/ 50.7 2,553 90 0.9 2. 9 96.2

Oensral bu ild ing contr act ors ............................... 2,1*5? 33.5 5/35 .5 2,635 79 .7 3.0 96.3 Highway and st ree t constru cti on ........................ «*3 3l*J* “ 5l*.8 3,228 91* .8 2. 9 96.3 Heavy c on str uc tio n, soe ept highway and st ree t 382 28.9 26 .6 l*,017 11*1 1.7 2. 9 95.1* Sp ecial trade con tra cto rs ..................................... 1*,667 29.1 28.9 2,06 0 71* .6 2. 9 96.5 Fluinbing, heating, and ai r con dit ion ing . . . 1,1 30 26.1* 25.9 1,1*1*9 55 .5 2.1* 97.1 Painting , panerhanging, and decorating . . . . 523 21.9 22 .6 _ _ Ele ct ri ca l work .................................................... 615 23.5 25.7 1,5*19 69 .3 3.1 96.6 Masonry, stonework, t ile se tt in g and

pl as tering .......................................................... 816 32.2 31.6 957 30 .1 1.7 98.2 Hoofing and sheet natal work .......................... 1*28 1*1*.8 39.8 2,976 67 .5 2.3 97.1*

Str uct ura l st eel er ec tion and ornamental

Ironwork ............................ ........... ..................... 105 27.5 51.0 l*,c?e 11*7 1.1* 1*.8 93.8 Miscellaneous sp ec ial-t ra de contr act ors . . . 1,050 32.1 31.1* 3,002 92 .9 3.2 95.9

Transportation and pub lic u tilit ie s :

Local and interurt>an railway s and bus ll nes P / 259 13.2 11.9 780 60 J* i.e 97.8 Local bus li n es ................................................ 208 12.9 10.7 685 55 •3 2. 6 97.1 Other lo ca l tr ansi t systems ............................ 31 13 .6 13 .5 911* 67 .6 1.1 98.3 Trucking and warehousing ...................................... 1,63 0 28.9 30.5 1,65 0 58 .5 1.8 97.7 Trucking, lo ca l and long dis tance ................ 976 28.6 30.? 3,620 57 J* 1.5 98.1 Warehousing and storage . . ................................ 651* 30.8 31 J* l,80 L 59 .5 2.3 97.2 Telephone communication........................................ 83 .7 .8 83 115 1.0 l*.l 9l*.9 Elect ric and gas u tilit ie s 8 / ....................... .. 1*37 6.5 6.5 958 161 1.7 2*. 9 95.1* Elect ric li gh t and power .................................. 219 5.5 5.5 1,238 226 2.1* 7.1 90.5 Gas ............................................................................ l t t 9.1 8.8 717 90 .9 l*.0 95.1 Elect ric and gas combined ................................ 52 5.6 6.1 71*7 153 1.1 * 2. 6 96.0 Water supply u t ilit ie s 8 / .................................... 11*1 23 .6 23.5

258 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

a
Whaleaale and reta il trade ......................................

Wfe-ilesale trade ................................................ ..

Lumber and othe r bu ild ing ma terials dea lers .R et ail, general merchandise b / ..........................

Department s t o r e s .............. 7 ...............................

Var iety sto res .......................................................

liis cellaa -ious gensrral merch andise................

R et ai l, food (excep t dairy products) ..............

Wholesale and reta il dairy products .................

Automotive deale rs and gasolin e serv ice stat io ns ........................................ .........................R et ai l, apparel and a ccess o rie s.........................

Eating and drinking pla ces ...................................

lCLscellaneous reta il stor es ................................

FHaanee, in su rame, and re al es ta te :

Banks and other fin an cial a g en cie s................... In su ra nce .................................... ...............................

Services:

Hotels ..........................................................................Laundries and dry cle a n in g ................................ .

Laundries ................................................................Laundries with dry cleaning ............................

Dry clea nin g ..........................................................

ISsc ell ase osj bu sin ess s e r v ic e s.....................

Automobile rep air shops and garages

Miscellaneous repair se rv ices ............................

Radio broadcasting and te le vis io n ................ ..

Motion pictur es and other amusements . . . . . . . . Hospitals 8/ ..............................................................

Co lleges 8 / ................................................................

13,653 12.0 11.9 b83 bb .2 2.7 97.1

3,771 13.0 12 .9 716 55 .3 3.0 96.7 l,QbO 23.1 23 .b 1,202 52 .3 b. 2 95.5 911 6.6 6.3 221 31 .1 2.3 97.6

bb3 7. 9 7.6 223 31 .1 2. 6 97.3 125 b.8 3.8

— ___ 337 5.2 5.9 _ __ _ 671: lb .5 15.5 226 16 1. 5 98.5 1,26 3 20.8 20.5 958 b6 .3 2.7 97.0

2, bl2 lb .ii lb.O b92 3b .2 2.0 97.8 th5 3.3 b.3

— __ 912 10 .9 9.8 C55 21 1.7 96.5

2,0 25 12.2 11.7 61b 50 .2 2. 5 97.3

1,12 S 2.2 2.2

517 2. 2 2.2 180 85 .7 1. 6 97?7

373 11 .b 12 .9 bW bo .5 2. 5 97.2 2,17 8 7.9 8.b b67 58 .3 3.8 95.9 606 10.6 10.5 572 5b .5 5.7 96.0 71b 7Ji 8«2 bb6 60 .5 2.8 96.7 856 6.1) 7.1 _ 6.5 6.2 395 61 .3 3.6 96.1 581 17 .0 17.5

_ __ b ll 16 .9 20.0 Tbl 53 .5 8.1 97 .b 1*33 b.b 5.7 _ b03 9.2 9.1

— -

826 8.0 8.2 259 * .2 1.7 98.1 85 7 .6 7.9 30b bo .2 3.5 96.5

S ee fo o tn o te s a t en d o f ta b le .

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 259
Table 1. In ju ry ra te s by in dust ry , 1958 (with comparable injury -frequ en cy ra te s fo r 1957) 1 /—continued

In du stry

Number of re po rtin g 

unit s

Injury-fr eq ue nc y

ra te s In ju ry - 

se veri ty ra te s 2/

Average 

days of d is a b il it y pe r case

2/

Perce nt of dis ab ling in ju ri esre su lt in g in —2/

1958 1957 Death Permanent impairment Temporary- to ta l d is a b il it y

Government, St at e and lo cal:

Loc al tra n s it sys tem s.......................................... 9 15.0 16.1 908 60 0.5 1.7 97.8

E le ctr ic and gas u t i l i t i e s ................................ 169 16.7 17.5 1,518 91 .9 1.7 97 .h

Water supply u t i l i t i e s ........................................ U22 20.6 21.0 l, h l3 69 .5 1.8 97.7 San itat io n departm ents........................................ 178 56.1 53.6 1,732 39 .2 1.1 98.7

Sewer depar tments.................................................. 126 27.3 27.3

—

—

—

—

— Elementary and secondary sc hools .................... 251 8.2 9.7 502 61 .5 1.8 97.7

Col lege s.................................................................... UO 7.6 7.1 383 51 .3 1.8 97.9

H osp ital s.................................................................. 333 lh .h 12.6 610 h3 .1 2.h 97.5

Local f ir e pro te ction.......................................... 199 31.8 26 .h 2,003 63 .2 2.0 97.8Poli ce ........................................................................ 187 33.1 28.8 2,116 71 •6 .8 98.6

Government, Fe de ral: All es tabl ishm en ts h / 9/ -- 8. 1 8.3 501 62 .h - - Department of S ta te .............................................. _ 2.1 2.0 237 111 .6

—

— Department of Treasury........................................

— h.3 h.7 2h9 57 •h

—

— Department of Army................................................

— h.8 5.1 h93 102 .7

—

— Department of Navy................................................

— 3.9 3.7 553 lh2 1.0

—

— Department of Air Fo rce ......................................

— 7.0 6.5 5h3 78 .5

—

— Post Of fic e Department........................................

— 16.7 17.2 hh9 27 .1 —

— Department of Ju sti c e ..........................................

— h.3 h.3 112 26

—

—

— Department of th e In te rio r................................

— 11.6 13.0 911 78 • 6

—

— Department of A gricu lture ..................................

— 7.h 9.1 832 118 1.0

—

— Departm ent of Commerce........................................

— 5.2 6.5 h83 92 .9

—

— Departm ent of Lab or..............................................

— 3.3 3.6 37 11

—

—

— Department of He alth, Edu cati on & Welf are ..

— h.7 h.3 295 62 .h

—

— Atomic Energy Commission....................................

— 3.5 2.8 6lR 178 2.0

—

— General Accounting O ff ic e..................................

— 1.3 2.0 h7 37

—

—

— General Se rvices Adm inistra tio n......................

— 8.3 9.2 303 36 .2

—

— Government Print in g Offic e................................

— 6.1 7.5 279 U6

—

—

— Housing and Home Finance Agency......................

— 3.1 3.7 168 55

—

—

—

260 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER
N at io nal A er on au tics m i Space

A dm in is tr at io n.......................................................

S ele cti v e Ser vi ce System......................................Te nness ee Valley A u th o ri ty ..................................

V et er an s A dm in is tr ati on.........................................

2

1

6

6

.9 2. 1 b79 16b 2.1

.9 1. 7 61 32 __ __ .7 7.6 1,2 63 188 l .b _ .6 6.8 b09 62 .2 —

— 1 / See te c h n ic a l note s fo r d e fin it io n s o f term s and 

survey me tho ds.

2] Based on re p o rt s which fu rn is hed d e ta ils re gar din g 

nat ure o f in ju ry and da ys o f d is a b ility .

2 / P er m an en t- to ta l im pa irm en ts, in cl uded in t h i s 

fig u re , amounted to on ly 0. 0b perc en t of a l l d is a b li n g 

in ju rie s re p o rt ed .

b / In cl ude s data fo r in d u s tr ie s or a c tiv itie s n o t 

shown se p a ra te ly .

SJ Re vise d.

6 / In cl udes perm anent- to ta l im pa irm en ts.

7 / Com piled by th e Bur eau of Mines, U. S. Depar tment 

of th e I n te r io r . Rates fo r 1958 pre li m in ary ; 1957 f in a l.

8 / P ubli cly owned and op er at ed u t i l i t i e s or f a c i l i ti e s 

are in cl uded un de r G ov er m en t.

9 / Compiled fcy th e Bureau o f Em ployee s' Comp ens ation, 

U. S. De partm ent o f La bo r. M il it a ry per so nnel not in clu ded.

— Dash in d ic a te s d a ta not a v a il a b le o r in s u ffic ie n t 

d ata to w ar ra nt p re se n ta ti o n of r a te .

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 261
Ta ble 2. In ju ry -f re quency ra te s i / fo r se le c te d in d u s tr ie s and in d u str y gr ou ps , 19H9-58

In dust ry gro up and in d u st ry 1958 1957 1956 1955 195b 1953 1952 1951 1950 19b9

M an uf ac tu ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .9

3. 6

11.b 12 .0 12 .1 11 .9

6.0

1 3 .b

8 .0

l b . 3

6.b

15 .5

6.0

l b . 7

6. 2

lb .5

6.6 Ordnanc e and a c c e ss o ri e s........................................ b.2 5.1 6.1

Food and ki nd re d pro d u cts .......................................... 18 .5 18 .7 19 .0 18 .6 2/1 8.0 19 .8 20.2 20 .7 ie .9 19 .7Toba cco m an ufa ct ure rs ................................................... 6. 8 7.0 7. 2 6.6 6. 1 7.0 7. 3 6 .6 6. 8 7. 5

T e x ti le -m il l p ro d u cts ................................................... 9. 0 9. 8 9.9 9. 7 9.0 10 .1 10 .3 11 .2 11 .0 10 .2

Ap parel and oth er fi n is h e d te x tile p ro d u c ts .. . 5. 9 6. 3 6.b 6.9 6. 5 7. 3 7. 8 6. 9 6.6 6.2

Lumber and wood pr od uc ts (e xc ep t f u r n itu r e ) ... 37 .3 37 .9 38 .9 bo.5 bo.6 b3 .6 b9 .6 52.8 ^/5 0 .2 2/b 9.3F urn it ure and f ix tu r e s ................................................ 16 .0 17 .6 17 .7 l P .l 17 .5 19 .7 2/ 20 .9 22 .0 21 .0 20 .2

Paper and a llie d pro d u cts .......................................... u . b 12.b 13 .1 12 .9 12 .5 l b . 9 15 .1 16 .0 16 .1 16 .1

P rin ti n g , p u b li sh in g , and a llie d i n d u s tr ie s ... 8.7 9. 2 9.2 9. 1 9.3 9. 3 9. b 9. 1 8. 2 8.3

Chemicals and a llie d pro ducts .................................. 7. 9 7. 7 8.1 8.0 8. 2 9. 1 10 .1 11 .5 11 .1 lO.b

Pro du ct s of pe trol eu m and c o a l................................ 6. 0 5. 7 6.1 6. 5 6. 3 7. 3 8.5 8. 7 9. 3 9. 6

Rubber pro ducts ................... ........................................... 6. 7 7.0 7. 1 6.9 7.b 6 .6 8.6 9. 7 10 .0 9. 8

Lea th er and le a th e r pro d u cts .................................... 10 .9 11 .7 11 .8 11 .8 11 .1 12 .6 12 .6 12 .8 10 .8 10 .8

Sto ne, cla y , and gla ss p ro d u c ts ............................. 16 .8 16 .5 18 .0 2/1 6.9 18 .1 20 .0 19 .3 21 .8 20 .5 20 .6

Prim ary m et al in d u s trie s ............................................ 9. 9 10 .9 12 .3 12 .2 n . 5 2/lb.O 15 .5 16 .9 lb .8 lb .5

F abri ca te d m et al pro d u cts .......................................... lb .3 l b . 9 15 .7 15.b 2/ 15 .1 17 .8 18 .1 19 .5 19 .0 17 .5

Ma chine ry (e xce pt e l e c t r i c a l ) .................................. 9. b 10. 9 11 .8 11 .1 11 .3 13.b lb .2 1 5 .b 13 .8 13 .9

E le c tric a l mac hine ry ..................................................... b. b b.8 5. 2 5.6 5.6 6.5 7. 0 7. 5 7. b 6.7

T ra nsp ort ati on eq uipm en t............................................ 5. 5 5. 6 5 .6 5. 7 6. 0 7.0 7. 5 8.b 8.3 9. b

In st ru m en ts and re la te d pro ducts ............................ 5.b 5. 8 5. 7 5. 8 5.7 6.b 7. 3 7. b 7. 7 8. 2

M is ce llan eo us m an uf ac tu ring in d u s trie s ............... 12 .2 13 .1 12 .5 12 .5 13 .0 l b . 9 1 3 .b 13 .8 13 .3 11.6

Mi ning : 3 / b /

Coal mines.......................................................................... U6.8 U7.2 b6 .7 b6 .0 b6 .7 b8 .1 51 .6 52 .1 53 .3 56 .0

Crude pe tro leum and n atu ra l ga s e x tr a c tio n .... 19.1 1 6 .b 17 .1 18 .9 20 .3 21 .9 22.5 25 .2 21 .9 25.b

Metal m in es ....................................................................... 33 .3 32 .5 37 .5 b3 .2 38 .9 bO.O b2 .9 b3.b b5 .3 b8. 6

O re dr es sing (m il ls and a u x ilia r ie s ) ..................... 12 .1 15 .1 15 .1 20 .0 19 .9 17 .7 20 .7 20 .0 22 .8 23 .0Q uar ri es.............................................................................. 37 .8 36 .0 33 .5 35 .0 33 .6 35.b 36 .0 37 .8 35 .7 38.1

Nonmetal m in es ................................................................. 25 .7 29 .6 31 .0 37.8 32 .6 b7 .3 b 0 .9 b5 .b bb .2 b2 .1

Normetal m ills ................................................................. 22 .3 25 .5 28 .6

—

—

— - -

— C ontr ac t co n str u c ti o n ....................................................... 30 .9 2/ 30.7 31 .2 3b .5 32 .1 32 .9 2/ 35.3 39 .3 bl .O 39 .9

Gen er al b u il d in g c o n tr a c to rs.................................... 33 .5 2/ 33 .5 3b.5 39 .8 37 .0 37 .2 38 .1 39. 6 b5 .b b l. 7

262 TO esta bl ish a nat ional accident pr ev en tion cent er

a a >
Highway and s tr e e t co n str u c ti o n ..............................

Heavy c o n str u cti o n , ex ce pt highwa y and s tr e e t. 

S p e c ia l- tr a d e c o n tr a c to rs..........................................

T ra nsp ort ati on and publi c u t i l i t i e s : b /

Lo cal and in te ru rb an ra ilw ay s and b u sl in es 5 /

Truckin g and wareh ou sin g..........................................Te lephon e comm unica tio ns..........................................

E le c tr ic and gas u t i l i t i e s 5 / ................................

Water su pp ly u t i l i t i e s 3 / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wholes ale and r e t a i l tr a d e .........................................

Wholes ale tr a d e .............................................................

Lumber and oth er b u il d in g m a te ri a ls d e a le rs ..R e ta il , gen er al m er ch an di se ............. .......................

R e ta il food (e xc ep t d air y p ro d u c ts )................. ..Wholes ale and r e t a i l d a ir y p ro d u cts ............... ..

A ut cn ot iv e d eale rs and gas oline se rv ic e

s ta tio n s ........................................................................

R e ta il ap par el and a c c e sso ri e s..............................

Eat in g and dri nkin g p la c e s......................................

M is ce llan eo us r e t a i l s to r e s ....................................

3U.ti

28 .5

29 .1

3b .8 

26 .6 28 .9

13 .228 .9

.7

6. 5

23 .6

12 .0

13 .0

23 .1

6.6

lb -520 .8

lb .h

3. 3

10 .912 .2

11 .9

30 .5 

.8

6. 5

23 .511 .9

12 .9 

23 .b

6. 3

15 .5

20 .5

lb .O

b. 3

9.8

11 .7

Fin an ce , in su ra nce, and re a l e s t a t e : b /

Banks and oth er fin a n c ia l ag en cie s...................... 2. 2

In su ra nce ......................................................................... 2.2

2. 2

2.2

3 b .2 37 .5 35 .0 38 .5 b6 .0 50 .8 bb .8 b5 .530 .9 30 .1 27 .8 31 .2 2/ 29 .8 b2 .3 b2 .8 b l.928 .1 31 .1 28 .8 2/ 28 .7 5/ 32.2 31 .5 3 3 .b 33 .211 .7 11 .8 2/ 11 .2 2/1 2.1

5/3 2 .2

1 .0 1.6

(6 /) ( 6 / ) '’ (6 /) 30 .2

.8

2/2 8.7

.9

5/3 0.8

1.0

<f/>

2 .1 . 5 .3

7.2

27 .2

2 / 8.2 

25 .8

2 / 8.9 

5/2 5 .6

2/1 0.1

23 .5

(6 /)

(5/) ( y ) (5/)

$ (6 /)

(S /)

12 .5 2/1 2.6 l l . b 12 .1 1 2 .b 12 .9 12 .3 10 .9

lb .3 2 /l b .6 13 .7 13 .8 lb .b 15 .6 15 .2 13 .3

25 .3 26 .5 23 .5 2b.1 26 .8 28 .9 29 .1 2 6 .b

6.3 2 / 6 .1 5. 8 6. 5 6 .6 5. 7 5. 8 5.2

13 .6 13 .8 13 .2 15. 9 lb .7 16 .3 13 .3 11 .7

21 .1 22.b 22 .6 2 b .5 23 .1 27 .3 26 .9 23 .7

15 .3

3.9

lb .b

b.b

11 .2

b.6

lb .3

3.5

l b . l

3. 8

(6 /)

b.O

(6 /)

3.9

10 .5 11 .8 9.6 9. 2 10 .2 9. b 10 .8 10.6

12.b 11. 9 l l . b 12 .1 13 .2 13 .b 11 .1 9.7

2.5 2. 2 2.1 2. 2 2.0 2. 8 2.1 2. b

2.5 2.1 2. 3 1.9 1 .9 2 .0 2.0 2. 1

See footnotes at end of table.

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 263
Tab le 2. In ju ry -f re quency ra te s 1/,fo r se le c te d in d u str ie s and in d u str y gr ou ps , 191*9-58—co nt in ue d

In dust ry grou p and in dust ry

S e rv ic e s; 1*/

H ote ls ........... ......................................................................

La un dries and dr y cle an in g ......................................

M is ce llan eo us busi nes s se rv ic e s ............................Autom obi le re p a ir shops and gar ag es ...................

M is ce llan eo us re p a ir s e rv ic e s................................

Radio bro ad ca st in g and te le v is io n .......................Motion p ic tu re s and oth er amuse ments.................H ospit als 5 / ...................................................................

Col le ge s 5 / . .......... ........................................................

Go verrm ent, S ta te and lo c a l; !*/

Local t r a n s i t sy st em s.................................................

E le c tric and ga s u t i l i t i e s ......................................

Wa ter su pp ly u t i l i t i e s ..............................................

S an it ati o n de pa rt m en ts ..............................................Sewer de pa rtm en ts.........................................................

Elem en tary and se co nd ary sc h o o ls ..........................

C oll eg es ............. ..............................................................

H o sp it a ls ..................... ....................................................

Lo cal f i r e p r o te c tio n ..................................., . . . .

P o li ce................................................................................

Gov ernm ent, F ed era l: a l l es ta blish m ents 7 / .........

1958 1957 1956 1955 1951* 1953 1952 1951 1950

—191*9 _______ 11.1* 12 .9 11 .9 12 .6 11*.6 13 .2 ll*.l* 11*.6 16 .0 13 .5

7. 96.5

8.1*

6. 2

7. 9

6.1

2 / 8. 1 

7.6

2 / 8.2 

9. 0

8. 29.1*

8. 7

11 .6

(6/>

13 .7

(6 /)

1? .3

(6 /)

12 .7

17 .0 17 .5 11*.9 13 .8 13 .9 11*. 5 17 .5 13 .7 13 .0 11.1*

16 .9

l*.t*

20 .0

3. 7

21 .7

5.0

2/17.1*

5. 6

2/ li*. 3

l*.l*

17 .5

l* .l

9.2 9. 1 7.6 9. 5 7. 1 8. 2 9. 9 (6 /) (6 /) (6 /)

8.0 8. 2 7. 5 8. 2 7. 8 5.9 (6 /) (5 /) (§ /)

7.6 7. 9 7.8 7. 2 8.0 7.7 (5 /) (5 /) ( § 0 (Sy)

15 .0 16 .1 11*.8 11*.2 lh .8 15 .2 (6 /) (V ) (6 /) (6 /) <S /) 16 .7 17 .5 16 .8 16.1* 17 .0 15 .5 (5 /) (V ) (S /)

20 .6 21 .0 •22.7 21*.1 25 .3 2h.8 (5 /) (V ) (5 /) '£ / )

56 .1

27.3

8. 2

53 .6

27 .3

9^7

2/ 51.2

32 .9

8. 8

2/5 2.h 

35 .6 

9.)*

(6 /)

35 .2

9. 5

(6 /)

(5 /)

i5 .o

(5 /)

(5 /)(W)

(3 /)

(5 /)(V )

(5 /)

(E /)

(5 /)

(5 /)

(S /)

(V )

7.6

11*.)*

31. 8

7.1

12 .6

26.1*

8.1*

11 .9

27 .1

7. 8

(6 /)

28 .3

6.8 7.'*

12 .331 .8

(5/) (5 /) (S /)

30.1*

( J /)(V )

35 .^

( y )

(V )

32 .1

33 .1 28.8 27 .2 27 .8 29.8 30 .3 33 .2 36 .5 32.1* 27 .5

8.1 8. 3 8.0 7. 8 7. 7 7.8 8.0 8.1* 8. 6 8.1*

1 / See te c h n ic a l not es fo r d e fin it io n s of term s and su rv ey 

meth ods.

2 / Rev ised .3 / Com piled by th e Bureau o f Mines, 0. S. Depar tment of 

th e I n te rio r . Ra tes fo r 1958 p re li m in ary ; e a r lie r yea rs 

f in a l. Ra tes fo r no nn et al mines and m il ls do not in cl ude 

sand and gra vel or p eat; fi g u re s fo r 195b and e a r lie r ye ar s 

a ls o ex clud e c la j .

U/ Dat a not a v a il a b le fo r a l l in d u str ie s in d iv is io n ; 

to ta ls fo r d iv is io n not shown.

5 / P ubli cly owned and op er at ed u t i l i t i e s or f a c i l i ti e s 

are in cl ude d un de r Governm ent.

6 / Comparable dat a not a v a il a b le .

7 / Compiled by the Bureau of Employees* Comp ens ation,

U. S. De partm ent o f La bo r. M il it a ry pe rs on ne l not in cl uded .

264 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER
T a b is 3 . ESTIMATED NUMBER OF DISABLINO WORK IN JU RIE S, BY INDUSTRY DI VI SION , 19 5U -5 8

I n d u s tr y d i v is io n an d 

ty p e o f d i s a b i l i t y

A l l w o rk e rs 1 / B s p lo y e e s o n ly

2 /1 9 5 8 19 57 19 56 19 55 1951* 2/1 9 5 8 19 57 19 56 19 55 1951*

T o ta l d i s a b l in g i n j u r i e s ......................... 1 ,8 2 0 ,0 0 0 1 ,8 9 0 ,0 0 0 1 ,9 5 0 ,0 0 0 1 ,9 3 0 ,0 0 0 1 ,8 5 0 ,0 0 0 1 ,3 8 0 ,0 0 0 1, 1* 50,0 00 1 ,5 1 0 ,0 0 0 1, 1* 80 ,0 00 1, 1* 00, 00 0

A g r i c u l t u r e 3 / ............................................. 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 3 1 0 ,0 0 0 3 1 0 ,0 0 0 6 0 ,0 0 0 5 8 ,0 0 0 58 ,ooo 5 8 ,0 0 0 58,0 0 0

M in in g I* /......................................................... 1*6,000 5 2 ,0 0 0 5 5 ,0 0 0 5 6 ,0 0 0 5 0 ,0 0 0 1*3,000 1*9,000 5 2 ,0 0 0 5 3 ,0 0 0 1*7 ,000

C o n tr a c t c o n s tr u c ti o n 5 / .................... 1 9 5 ,0 0 0 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 2 1 8 ,0 0 0 2 2 0 ,0 0 0 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 i5 5 ,o o o 1 7 3 ,0 0 0 1 7 5 ,0 0 0 1 5 5 ,0 0 0

M a n u fa c tu rin g 6 / ........................................ 31*0, 000 3 9 2 ,0 0 0 1*2 0,000 1* 18,00 0 3 9 0 ,0 0 0 3 3 0 ,0 0 0 3 8 2 ,0 0 0 1*10, 000 1*08 ,00 0 3 8 0 ,0 0 0

T r a n s p o r ta tio n 7 / ..................................... l61*,ooo 1 7 5 ,0 0 0 1 7 5 ,0 0 0 1 6 6 ,0 0 0 1 6 2 ,0 0 0 11*1*,000 1 5 5 ,0 0 0 1 5 5 ,0 0 0 11 *6,00 0 11* 2,000

P u b lic u t i l i t i e s 5 / ................................. 111,00 0 ll * ,0 0 0 1 6 ,0 0 0 1 6 ,0 0 0 1 8 ,0 0 0 ll» ,0 0 0 11*,000 1 6 ,0 0 0 1 6 ,0 0 0 1 8 ,0 0 0

T ra d e $ ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F in a n c e , s e r v i c e , g o v e rn m e n t, and

31* 0,000 31 *0,00 0 3 5 5 ,0 0 0 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 31*0,000 260,0 0 0 2 6 0 ,0 0 0 2 7 5 ,0 0 0 2 7 0 ,0 0 0 2 6 0 ,0 0 0

m is c e lla n e o u s i n d u s t r i e s 7 / . . . . 1*21,00 0 1* 17,00 0 1*11, 000 391*. 000 3 8 0 ,0 0 0 3 7 9 ,0 0 0 3 7 7 ,0 0 0 3 7 1 ,0 0 0 351 *,0 00 31* 0,0 00

D eath s 8 / ............................................ ................ 1 3 ,3 0 0 11*,200 11*,300 11* ,200 11*,0 00 9 ,7 0 0 10,1*00 10,1*00 1 0 ,2 0 0 9 ,9 0 0

A g r i c u l t u r e .................................................... 3 ,3 0 0 3 .5 0 0 3 ,6 0 0 3 ,7 0 0 3 ,8 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 M in in g ................................................................ 70 0 90 0 80 0 80 0 80 0 600 80 0 70 0 70 0 70 0

C o n tr a c t c o n s t r u c t i o n ............................ 2,1*00 2 ,5 0 0 2 ,6 0 0 2 ,5 0 0 2,1*00 1 ,9 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 2 ,1 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 1 ,9 0 0 M a n u fa c tu rin g ............................................... 1 ,8 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 1 ,7 0 0 1 ,9 0 0 1 ,9 0 0 1 ,9 0 0 1 ,9 0 0 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n . ................................ 1 ,2 0 0 1 ,3 0 0 1 ,3 0 0 1 ,3 0 0 1 ,2 0 0 1 ,1 0 0 1 ,2 0 0 1 ,2 0 0 1 ,2 0 0 1 ,1 0 0 P u b lic u t i l i t i e s ........................................ 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 200 20 0 20 0 20 0

T r a d e ..................................................................

F in a n c e , s e r v i c e , g o v ern m en t, an d

1 ,2 0 0 1 ,3 0 0 1,1* 00 1,1*00 1 ,3 0 0 90 0 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,1 0 0 1 ,1 0 0 1 ,0 0 0

m is c e ll a n e o u s i n d u s t r i e s ............... 2 ,5 0 0 2 ,5 0 0 2,1*00 2 ,3 0 0 2 ,3 0 0 2 ,3 0 0 2 ,3 0 0 2 ,2 0 0 2 ,1 0 0 2 ,1 0 0

P erm an en t im p a ir m e n ts 9 / 1 0 / ............... 7 6 ,7 0 0 8 0 ,8 0 0 81* ,700 8 1 ,8 0 0 7 5 ,0 0 0 6 0 ,3 0 0 61*,6OO 6 8 ,6 0 0 61* ,800 5 8 ,1 0 0

C o n tr a c t c o n s tr u c ti o n ............................ 5 ,3 0 0 5 ,6 0 0 6 ,1 0 0 6 ,2 0 0 5 ,8 0 0 3 ,8 0 0 l* ,1 00 l* ,600 l* ,7 00 l*,100 M a n u fa c tu rin g .......................................... 2 1 ,6 0 0 2 2 ,8 0 0 21*,500 2 3 ,3 0 0 20,1*00 2 1 ,1 0 0 2 2 ,3 0 0 21* ,000 2 2 ,8 0 0 1 9 ,9 0 0 T ra d e ................................................................... 7 ,8 0 0 7 ,0 0 0 7 ,8 0 0 7 ,2 0 0 6 ,8 0 0 6 ,0 0 0 6 ,0 0 0 6 ,0 0 0 5,1* 00 5 ,0 0 0

T e m p o ra r y -to ta l d i s a b i l i t i e s 1 0 / . . 1 ,7 3 0 ,0 0 0 1 ,7 9 5 ,0 0 0 1 ,8 5 1 ,0 0 0 1,8 31* ,0 00 1 ,7 6 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,3 1 0 ,0 0 0 1 ,3 7 5 ,0 0 0 1, 1* 31,0 00 1, 1* 05, 00 0 1 ,3 3 2 ,0 0 0

C o n tr a c t c o n s tr u c ti o n ............................ 1 8 7 ,3 0 0 1 9 1 ,9 0 0 2 0 9 ,3 0 0 2 1 1 ,3 0 0 1 9 1 ,8 0 0 11*1*,300 11* 8,900 1 6 6 ,3 0 0 1 6 8 ,3 0 0 11* 9,0 00 M a n u fa c tu rin g ............................................... 3 1 6 ,6 0 0 3 6 7 ,2 0 0 3 9 3 ,5 0 0 3 9 2 ,7 0 0 367,6 00 3 0 7 ,2 0 0 357,8 00 381*, 10 0 3 8 3 ,3 0 0 3 5 8 ,2 0 0 T ra d e ................................................................... 3 3 1 ,0 0 0 3 3 0 ,9 0 0 31 *5,80 0 31*1,1*00 3 3 1 ,9 0 0 2 5 3 ,1 0 0 2 5 3 ,0 0 0 2 6 7 ,9 0 0 2 6 3 ,5 0 0 251 *,0 00

See next pag e fo r foo tno tes

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 265
~L/ Inclu de s proprietors, sel f-employed, an d un paid f ami ly 

work er s as w el l as e mpl oye es, bu t e x c l u d e do mestic servic e 

wor ker s.

2] Revised.

3/ The tot al n um be r of wo«f» injujrtjs in a gri culture is bas ed 

on cross-se ct io n su rveys b y t he U. S. De pa rt me nt eff Agr iculture 

in 19ti7 an d 1 9U8 , wit h adjust me nt s fo r chang es in emp loyment . 

The se are co nsidered to be m in im um figur es; inju ri es e xp er ienced 

in p erforming chores are excluded; an d the re a re som e ind ications 

of und err epo rting.

h/ Ba sed larg el y on da ta com piled b y the B ur ea u of Mines,

U. S. De pa rt me nt of the I nteri or.

Note . The se estima te s of wo rk inj uries di ff er fro m tho se de rived from 

the U. S. Natio nal He al th Su rvey, bec ause of differences in conc ept .

The Nati on al Hea lth Su rvey tot al s inclu de per sons wit h injur ies involv in g 

one or mo re days of "re stricted activit y" or me di ca l attenti on, and thus 

are m uch br oa de r than t he conce pt of "d is ab li ng In ju ry , as used a bove .

On the ot her hand, in th e Natio nal He al th Su rvey, all acciden ts in w hi ch 

a mo to r v eh ic le was in volved i n a ny w ay are c lass if ie d a s "mo tor -vehicle" 

ac cidents, and are n ot i nclu de d in the est imates of "work acc ide nt."

The re a re a ls o ot her differences in co ncepts o f "perso ns in jured" in 

"work accident s" (e.g. oc cupational disea se an d other work-con ne ct ed 

di sa bi li ti es ).

5/ Bas ed o R sma ll samp le su rveys by the Bureau o f La bo r 

Statist ics .

6/ B as ed on com prehensive su rvey by th e Bu reau of La bo r 

Statist ics .

__ 7/ Ba se d on sma ll sample surve ys by the B ur ea u of La bo r 

St atistics for certa in seg ments and on data comp il ed from 

ot her sourc es fo r oth er segmen ts of the ind ust ry.

8/ B ased on sample surv eys , as ind icated by foo tno tes 

3 to 7, and on v it al s tatistics rep orts .

9/ In cludes a pp ro xi ma te ly 1 ,3 00 t o 1 ,$ 00 permane nt -t ot al 

impairments eac h year .

10 / Incl udes dat a for ind ustries no t shown separa tel y.

These es ti ma te s of work i nju ries we re com piled by th e 

D. S. Department of Labo r, Bu re au of Labo r Sta tistics, in 

collabor at io n w it h the N atio na l Sa fety Counc il. They a re b ase d 

up on all a vailable dat a fro m vari ou s Fede ra l an d St at e.agencies 

an d up on sample sur veys in som e indust rie s. Dat a on the e xact 

di st ri bu ti on o f cas es by t ype of di sa bi li ty are not a vailable 

for same industr ies ; in th ese ins tances approxim at io ns of the 

br ea kd ow n of ca ses hav e be en made for in cl us io n i n the gra nd 

totals , bu t h ave no t be en s ho wn for the individu al indus tri es. 

See fo otnotes to t able for s peci fi c sou rces a nd li mitations. 

Si mi la r est imates ar e a va il ab le b ac k to 1936.

266 TO ESTABL ISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVE NTION CENTER
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 267

Te chnic al Motes

These dat a were compiled ac co rd in'- to th e Amer ican Sta ndar d Method o f Reco rding and Measuring Work In ju ry E xpe rier ce , 

app rov ed by th e American Stan da rds A ss oci at io n in 19^ h.

The in ju rie s and in ju ry ra te s shown in th ese ta bula ti ons 

in cl ude a l l cla ss es o f dis ab li ng work in ju rie s . A dis ab li ng 

work in ju ry i s any in ju ry oc cu rrin g in th e cours e of and 

a ris in g out of employment, which re s u lt s in d ea th , perm anent 

im pa irm en t, or te m pora ry -tota i d is a b ilit y .

Any de at h re su lt in g from a work in ju ry which oc cu rre d 

du rin g th e re p o rt yea r i s co un ted, re g ard le ss o f th e le ng th 

of tim e el ap se d betw een th e in ju ry and th e d ea th . The in ju ry 

r a te s , how eve r, ar e compiled from re p o rt s su bm itt ed w ithin 

one month a f te r th e clos e of the yea r and do not r e f le c t 

de at hs whi ch may oc cu r a f te r th a t dat e. A ls o, dea th s no t 

co ns id er ed work co nnected a t th e time o f th e re p o rt may be 

so def in ed la te r . Adjustm ents ar e made fo r su ch ca se s in 

th e o v e ra ll es tim at es of th e volun e of in ju r ie s (ta b le 3 ).

A per ma nen t imp airm ent is any in ju ry o th er th an de ath 

which re s u lt s in th e complete lo ss or lo ss o f use o f an y 

member o r p a rt of a member of th e bo<$y, or any permanent 

im pairm ent of fu nct io ns of th e body- or p a rt th e re o f. However, th e fo llow in g ar e no t cl as se d as permanent d is a b ilit i e s : (a ) re pair ed in guin al hern ia ; (b ) lo ss o f fi n g e rn a il s 

or to e n a il s , or fi n g e rti p s no t in volv in g bo ne ; (c ) lo ss of 

te e th ; (d ) disfigure m en t; (e) s tr a in s or sp ra in s which do 

no t cause permanen t li m it a ti o n o f motion; and (f ) sim ple 

fra c tu re s of fi ngers and to es; als o suc h oth er fr a c tu re s 

as do not cause perma nent imp airm ent or r e s tr ic tio n of 

normal fu nction of th e in ju re d member.

A te m pora ry -t ota l d is a b ilit y i s any in ju ry whi ch does 

not re s u lt in de ath or perm anent im pairm ent, b u t which 

re nder s th e in ju re d pe rson unable to perform a re g u la rl y 

esta b li sh ed jo b which is open and av a il a b le to him , du rin g 

th e e n ti re tim e in te rv a l correspo nd ing to th e ho urs o f h is 

re g u la r s h i f t on any one or more day s (i nclu din g Sundays, 

days o ff , o r pla nt shutdow n) su bs eq ue nt to th e dat e of 

in ju ry . The term "i nju ry " in cl ud es occ upat io nal d is ease .

In ju rie s which re quir e only f ir s t- a id o r m ed ical 

trea tm ent are not in clud ed in th e co mputation o f in ju ry 

ra te s no r in th e es tim at es of dis abli ng work in ju r ie s .

Absence from work fo r a p a rt of a day fo r tr ea tm ent is 

not co nsi de re d "d is abli ng." To be co un ted as " d is a b li n g ," 

an in ju ry must have e it h e r cau sed some per manen t im pai rment (a s de fined above) or made th e pe rs on un ab le to work 

at a re g u la rl y es ta bli sh ed job fo r a t le a s t one f u l l day 

a f te r th e day o f in ju ry . Cases ar e co un ted, ho we ver, even 

i f th e in a b ility to work ex is te d on ly on a Sat urd ay , Sunday, 

or some oth er nonwork day.

In guin al her nia s ar e co ns idered as work in ju r ie s on ly 

i f p re c ip it a te d by im pa ct, sudden e f f o r t, or se vere s tr a in ; 

th er e was a c le a r re co rd of an ac ci den t or In c id e n t, such 

as a s l ip , t r i p , f a l l , sudden e f f o r t, or o v e re x e rti o r; and 

th er e was ac tu al pa in in the h e rn ia l re gio n a t th e tim e of 

th e ac cid en t o r in cid en t so ac ut e th a t th e in ju re d wo rke r 

was fo rc ed to st op work long enough to draw th e a tte n tio n 

of h is foreman or fe llow worker, or the a tte n tio n o f a 

physi ci an was sec ured w it hin 12 hours . Lik ew ise, back in ­

ju rie s o r s tra in s are co ns idered as work in ju r ie s on ly i f

th er e was a c le a r reco rd of an accid ent, or in cid en t such 

as a s lip , t r i p , f a l l , sudden e f f o r t, over ex er tion, or blow 

on the back and th e physi ci an au th ori ze d to tr e a t th e ca se 

was s a tis fie d th a t the in ju ry could have ar is en from such 

ac cid ent or in cid en t.

The in ju ry -f re quency ra te i s the average number of 

dis abli ng work in ju rie s ro r eac h m illi on employee-hours 

worked.

The sev e ri ty ra te is th e av erag e number of days of 

d is a b ilit y re su lt in g from d is ab li n g work in ju rie s , fo r eac h 

m il li on emplo yee -ho urs worked.

The av erag e days of d is a b ilit y in cl ud es stan da rd tim e 

ch arge s fo r de at hs and per manen t impairments ard th e number 

of f u ll ca le ndar days du ri ng which th e in ju re d pe rso ns were 

not ab le to work because o f te m pora ry -t ota i d is a b ilitie s .

W eigh tin g: In ju ry ra te s fo r ma nu facturing, c onst ru cti on, 

and tr aa e gro ups were computed from th e ra te s of component 

in div id ual in d u str ie s by ap pl yi ng we ights base d on es tim at ed 

to ta l employment in each in d u str y . In 3ome norar an ufacturin g 

d iv is io n s dat a were not av a il a b le fo r a l l in d u str ie s; th ere ­

fo re , th e d iv is io n av erag es were no t computed.

Cla ss es of em plo yees: The ex pe rien ce of a l l cla ss e s of 

employees f pr oduct io n, o p era ti n g , and re la te d wo rkers ; constr u c ti o n wo rk ers; sa le s, s e rv ic e , d eli v ery , te c h n ic al, pr ofe ssio n a l, o ffic e , ad m in is tr ati v e, c le ric a l and a ll oth er 

per so nn el ) was incl ud ed in th e com putation of thes e in ju ry 

ra te s . Se lf-em plo yed per so ns, howev. r , were not in cl uded .

Rates des ig nat ed as ha ving been compiled by th e bureau o f 

Mines, U. S. Departme nt o f th e I n te r io r, incl ud e th e ex p eri ­

enc e o f wo rke rs engaged in pr oduct io n, dev elo pment, maintena nc e, and re p a ir work, and su pe rv isor y and te chnic al p erso nn el a t th e o pera ti ons, b u t exclud e o ff ic e pe rson ne l and 

employees in sto re s or a f f ilia te d oper at io ns no t d ire c tly 

con necte d with mi ning o r re fi n in g oper at io ns. Working pro ­

p ri e to rs were in cl uded . Mining dat a in cl ud e Alaska as wel l 

as th e oth er S ta te s.

Survey co ve rage : The 19$8 survey includ ed re port s from 

h9 ,8 9l man ufacturin g es ta bli sh m en ts , employing ov er Q,500,0 00 

wo rk ers, o r ab ou t 62 per ce nt of a l l employees in m an uf ac turin g. 

In th e sele cte d nonm anufa ctu rin g in d u str ie s (o th er tha n mining 

and Fe de ral Gov errment) data were re ce iv ed from ov er 35 ,1°° 

re port in g u n its , emp loying ap pr ox im ately 3,300,0 00 wo rk ers.

Data fo r min ing in d u str ie s re pre sent es ti m at es based on ov er 

86 per ce nt cove rag e o f employment in th e in d u str ie s. Data 

fo r Fe de ra l Government were ba se d on in ju ri e s re port ed to 

th e Bureau o f Employees' Com pensation and re pre sent the 

ex pe rie nc e o f a l l Fe de ra l c iv ilia n employees.

Data re la ti n g to sev e ri ty and ex te nt of d is a b ilit y of 

in ju rie s were om itted where th e to ta l number o f ca se s 

re port ed was le ss th an $00 ; ex ce pt th a t where th e surve y 

cov era ge wss v irtu a lly co mplete, th es e measures are shown 

re gard le ss o f th e number o f case s.

80 624 0 - 6 2 -1 8
268 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

NEWS f

. U. $. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

A rth u r J. G o ld b erg . S e c re ta ry

FOR RELEASE: Saturd ay AM Editio ns USDL U932

December 9, 1961

Injury Rate3 Bureau of labo r S ta ti sti c s

Manufacturing Frank S. McElroy

3rd Quarter 1961 Telephone: 961-2318

INJURY RATES RISE IN THIRD QUARTER 1961 

As in most other yea rs , the all- manufacturing work-injury ra te rose 

during the th ir d qu ar ter of 1961. According to preliminary re po rts compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor’ s Bureau of Labor S ta ti s ti c s , the 

ra te increased from 10.5 di sa bl in g in ju ri es per m ill ion man-hours worked 

during the second qu arter of 1961 to 11.8 in the th ir d . This 12 per cen t 

increase was somewhat gre at er than the usua l sea sonal uptur n. The th irdqu arter rate fo r 1961, however, was sl ig h tl y below th at fo r I960 and 

matched the record low f or the qu ar te r, whicu was achieved in 1958.

There have been su bst an ti al increases in the in ju ry ra te s in the 

summer months during most of the yea rs fo r which da ta are av ai la ble . The 

1961 monthly ra te s showed onl y sl ig htl y gr ea ter increa se s tha n us ua l. The 

Ap ril 1961 ra te had es ta bl ishe d a reco rd low fo r th at month (9 .8 ). In May 

and June the ra te s had in cr ea se d more than us ua l, bu t in July and August 

the inc reases were only sli g h tl y more than the average fo r these months 

in previous ye ar s.

In general , the 1961 in ju ry ra te s have pa ra llel ed 1958—low during the 

f i r s t 5 months of the yea r, ri si ng more than se ason all y during the next 

h months. The cumulative aver age fo r the f ir s t 9 months of 1961 (11.0) 

was only sl ig htl y above the comparable 1958 figu re of 10.9, and was I: percen t below th e 9 months fi gure fo r i96 0.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER 269

Over on e-ha lf (73 ) of th e 132 ind ustry c la ss if ic a ti o n s fo r which comparable data were av ai la ble showed Incre ases of one f u ll frequency-r ate

po in t or more between the sec ond and th ird quarters of 1961, wh ile only

19 improved th eir rate s. There was l i t t l e change in the ra tes o f the

oth er 1*0 in dust ri es .

The 9-aonth comparisons, however, give a br ight er pic tu re . Of the

138 cla ss if ic ati on s which can be compared, only 20 in dust ri es had ra tes

one fu ll point or more above those fo r the f ir s t 9 months o f I9 60 , whereas

1*1* showed si gn if ic an t de cr ea se s. Seven ty-fou r in dust ri es had ra te flu ctua ­

tions of le ss than 1 fu ll frequency-r ate po in t.

The boa tbu ilding and re pa ir in g ind ustry showed the la rgest in cr ea se ,

from 26J* fo r the f ir s t 9 months of I960 to 33.2 in 1961. The ra te fo r

me tal doors, sa sh, frame, and trim inc rea sed from 15 .6 to 20 .5 . The metal

t coating and engraving indu str y made the most improvement, the 9 months

ra te decreas ed from 22 .8 in I960 to 18.2 in 196 1.

Twenty-two in dust ri es he ld th eir inj ury ra te s to le s s than 5 in ju ri es

per m illion man-hours worked dur ing the fir s t 9 months o f 196 1. The lea ders

in th is group were: e le c tr ic lamps (bulbs)—1 .6 , sy nt he tic rubber—2 .0 , air ­

cra ft —2.0 , sc ie n tif ic instru me nts—2 .2 , misce llaneous communication equip ­

ment— 2 .3 , ordnance and a c c e sso r ie s-2 .l t.

«
U .S . DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bu reau o f Lab or S t a t i s t i c s

W as hin gt on 2 5 , D. C.

Fr an k S . M cE lro y

De cembe r 9 , 19 61 T ele p h on e: 9 6 1-2 318

INJURY-FREQUENCY RATES FOR SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, THIRD QUARTER 1 961

In d u str y

T hir d q u a r te r 19 61 F ir s t 9 mon th s An nu al

a v era g e

I9 6 0 J u ly l u g . S e p t. Q uar te r 1 9 6 1

J

I9 60

A l l m a n u fa c tu r in g ......................................................................... 1 1 .8 1 2 .3 1 1 . u 1 1 .8 1 1 .0 H . u U . 3

Fo od . ............................................. .................................................. .. 19 J»

M ea t p a ck in g an d cu st om s la u g h te r in g . ..................... 3 0 .1 2 5 .2 2 3 .U 2 6 .2 2 3 .3 2 5 .0 2U .8

S au sa ge and o th e r p re p ared m ea t p r o d u c ts • • • • • • 3 7 .5 3 7 .9 2 5 .9 3 3 .9 3 0 .8 2 7 .6 2 7 .3

P o u lt r y and sm a ll game d r e s s in g & p ack in g • • • • •

1 7 .8

s s U 5.5 3 6 .6 3 7 .0 3 6 .7

D a ir y p ro d u cts .................................................................... 1 7 .6 1 5 .8 1 7 .2 1 6 .9

Ca nn ing an d p r e s e r v i n g .................... • ..................... . . . . . 2 0 .0 2 6 .3 2U .7 2U .2 2 1 .2 2 1 .0 2 0 .7

G r a in -m il l p ro d u cts ...........................................................• • 1 5 .2 1 9 .h 1 3 .6 1 6 .2 1 6 .0 1 5 .5 1 5 .8

Bak er y p ro d u cts .......................... . ................... 1 6 .9 1 6 .8 1 8 .7 1 7 .6 1 7 .0 1 7 .0 1 6 .3

Cane su g a r ...................................................................................... 1U .8 U . 2 1 2 .2 1 3 .8 l i . U 1 3 .7 1 3 .8

C o n fe c ti o n e r y an d r e la t e d p ro d u cts . . . . . .......... • • 2 2 .6 1 9 .6 1 7 .5 1 9 .6 1 8 .1 1 5 .8 1 5 .8

B o t t le d s o f t d r in k s ................................................. 2 6 .7 27.U 1 9 .9 2U .8 2 3 .2 2 2 .3 2 2 .0

M alt an d m a lt liq u o r s ........................................................... 2 0 . U 1 8 .7 1 8 .2 1 9 .1 1 7 .9 1 8 .7 1 8 .5

D i s t i l l e d liq u o r s . ............................................................. . . 5 .6 6 .3 8 .2 6 .8 6 .0 7 .7 6 .7

M is c e ll a n e o u s fo od p r o d u c t s ..................................... ..

» *

2 2 .5 1 7 .1 1 0 .7

1

1 6 .6 U . 7 1 3 .7 l h .h

270 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER
Tex tile-mill products . . . ........

Cotton yarn and t e x t ile s ...................................... ..

Rayon, other synthe tic , and si lk te x ti le s ........

Woolen and worsted te x ti le s ............................... .

Knit go od s.............. ...................................................•

Dyeing and fin ish ing te xti le s . . ......................... .

Miscellaneous te xti le goods ...............................

Apparel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Clothing, men's and boys' ................................Clothing, women's and childr en's ....................... •Pur goods and m iscellaneous ap par el ...............

Miscellaneous fabr icated te xti le products . . . . .

Lumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... .......................

Lo gging ................... . .........................................• ••• •

Sawmills and planing mills • • • • • • ...................... ..

Millwork and structur al wood products .• •••••••

Plywood m ills .............................................................

Wooden co nt ai ne rs .......... . ................................... . . .Miscellaneous wood products

Furniture and fixt ur es . . . . . . . ........ . .................. ..

Household furniture, non metal........................... ..

Metal household fu rn iture .....................................

Mattresses and b ed sp rlng s................................. .

Office fu rn iture ......................... . .................. • •• ••

Pub lic-buildin g and profe ssional furnitu re • •• •

Pa rti tio ns and fix tu re s ................... • ............

Screens, shades, and b li n d s ................................

9.1 8.1 7.5 8.1 7.7 8.5

9.h

8.h

7.3 7.5 6.U 7.0 6.9 7.3 7.5

15.1 17.2 18.9 17.1 16.3 18.0 17.1

7.6 7.0 h .l 6.1 5.6 5.3 5.0

22.8 16.0 1U.6 17.5 lh .9 12.3 12.2

20.0 lh .9 16.2 16.8 15.3 17.7 18.2

7.7 6.8 7.5 6.h 6?5 6.3 6.h

h.9 7.7 5.6 6.3 5.h 5.5 5.3

7.h 9.1 6.1 7.7 6.2 6.h 6.7

8.6 8.9 9.7 9.1 8.7 9.9 10.0 __ 37.9

71.6 70.9 53.h 6$.5 58.9 60.7 6o.h

35.1 U2.3 hO.2 39.h 36.0 39.9 38.h2h.6 25.2 25.0 25.0 22.7 23.9 22.9

20.3 19.7 23.1 21.1 22.7 21.9 22.232.5 27.8 33 .h 31.2 31.3 3h.h 32.5

3h.9 31.7 31.1 32.U 31.2 32.h 31.8

17.0 22.6 21.5 20.6 19.1 20.1

18.219.6

a s 20.6

19.6

19.8lh .9

20.7

12.7

21.6

13.h

19.6 12.8 13.5 lh .8 13.5 lh .2 13.5

S 3 13.8

17.6

lh.h

16.6

16.7

19.5

17.5

18.1

q/> u /> <v> (a /) 11.6 15.1 lh .8

See footnote and techni cal notes at end o f ta ble.

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 271
INJURY-FREQUENCY RATES FOR SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, THIRD QUARTER 1961—Con.

Industry

Third qu arter 1961 F ir st 9 months Annual

average

I960 Jul y Aug. Sept. Quarter 1961 I960

Paper . . ............................................................................ 11.8

Pul p, pap er, and paperboard m ills ................... . 10 .U 11.6 10.5 10.9 10.U 9.U 9.5

Paperboard contain ers and boxes ....................... .. 13.1 12.6 lU .l 13.3 13.9 1U.2 1U.2

Miscellaneou s paper and a ll ie d products . . . . . . . U i.l 12.8 11.3 12.7 13.2 1U.8 13.6

Pr in ting .......................................................................... __ 11.2

Newspapers and pe riod ic al s • • ••..................... . 7.5 7.3 8.5 7.7 8.U 10.0 10.0

Bookbinding and re la te d p ro d u cts ............... . . . . . S 3 S3 13.2 15.5 16.7 17.5 Miscellaneous pr in ting and publishi ng ................ 9.U 10.7 10.7 11.1 11.5

Ch em icals.................................... . . ................ ............... —— 7.9

In dust ri al ino rga nic chemicals ............................ 5.9 5.5 3.7 5.0 U.6 5.3 5.U

P la st ic s, exce pt sy nt he tic rubber ..................... .. 2.8 U.9 3.3 3.8 U.o U.9 6.3

Sy nthe tic rubber ..................................................... . (V) (1Z) (V) 2.6 2.0 l.U l.U Sy nthetic fi ber s ..................................................... ..Explosiv es ................................ ................................. (V) ? ! 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.6 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.6

Miscellaneous in dust ri al organic chemicals •• •• U.5 5.0 U.3 3.1 3.1

Drugs and medicines .................................................. 7.2 7.3 U.9 6.U 6.6 6.6 6.5

Soap and re la te d products .................................. . 8.9 11.U 13.2 11.3 11.9 8.9 9.6

Pai nts , pigm ents, and re la te d p ro d u cts ..........• • 1U.U 8.8 10.0 11.0 11.3 11.3 10.5

F e rti li se rs ................................................................. S 3 (±/> 25.7 13.0 19.3 19.9 19.7 Vegetable and animal o il s and f a t s ................... . 23.8 22.7 22.3 21.6 Compressed and liqu ef ie d gases ............................. S 3 S 3

( 1/ )

15.1

1U.8 ll.U 10.6 10.7

Miscellaneous chemicals and a ll ie d pro ducts . . . 1U.3 13.8 13.3 13.8

272 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER
Rubber pr od uc ts .................................................................

T ir es and In ne r t u b e s ........................................... .

Rubber fo o tw ea r....................................................... . . .

Misc ell aneo us rubb er pr od uc ts ........................ . .

Lea ther ..................................................................................

Lea ther tann in g and fi n is h in g .............................

Boot and shoe cut sto ck and findin gs • •...............

Footwear (e xc ep t ru bb er) ...........................................

Misc ell aneo us le ath e r pr od uc ts . . ...........................

St on e, cla y, and g l a s s .................. . . .

Glass and gla ss p r o d u c ts ...................... ....................

S tr u c tu ra l cl ay p ro d u c ts .......... ........................ . . . .

Pott er y and re la te d pr od uc ts ..................... . . . . . . .

Co nc rete, gypsum, and m in er al w o o l.......................

Misc ell aneo us no nm et al llc m in er al pr od uc ts . . . .

Primary m e ta l.....................................................................

B la st fu rn ac es and s te e l m il ls ...............................

Gray- iron and malleab le fo un dr ie s .........................

S te e l f o u n d rie s ..................................................... ..Nonfe rrous ro ll in g , draw ing , and al lo yin g •••••

Nonferrou s fo un dr ie s ...........................................

Ir on and s te e l fo rg in gs ........................................... .

Wire dra w in g ......................................................... .Welded and he av y- rive te d p i p e .................................

Col d- fini sh ed s te e l ...................................................

Wi

_ «... 8.0

3.2 U.8 3.2 3.7 3. 7 lt.O lt. l

llt. 3 6.3 8. 9 9.3 7.2 8.3 8.011.9 9.2 10.8 10.5 9.6 11.7 11 .0

. . 11.8

U2.1 29 29 .h 33.1 29.8 30.1 27.5

%

%

%

% 22.3

8. 6

21.1

8.7

21.8

8.5

13 .1 12.9 10.7 12.2 11.2 12.9 12 .9

15.5

7.7 10. h 9.1t 9.2 7.7 7.6 8.6

33 .9 27.2 30.0 30.3 32.2 32.5 31.8

12.8 16.2 16 .9 l5 .l t 15 .9 llt.O 13. It

22.8 2lt.O 22.0 22.9 22.0 22.0 20.9

13.6 9.0 17.5 13.3 10.3 11.7 11.0

10.lt

3. 3 3.5 3.5 3. 5 3.2 3.7 3. 6

27.9 30.0 26.8 28.3 25.1i 25 .1 2lt.5

15.8 15.3 18 .1 l6 .l t 16.2 18.U 18.3

l l.lt llt. 7 12.9 13.2 10 .It 9.8 10.0

21.7 26.9 21.5 23.5 21.1 18.9 18.7

19.8 21.2 15.7 18.9 17.7 18.5 18.0

15.8 llt. o 10 .9 13.lt Ut.5 15.8 15.112 .3 11.7 8.2 10.7 10.1 10.0 9. 6

6.3 13 .1 7.5 9.3 8.6 8. 9 8.8

See fo ot no te and te chnic al no tes a t end of ta b le .

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 273
INJURY-FREQUENCY RATES FOR SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, THIRD QUARTER 196l—Con.

Ind ustry

Fabricated m e ta l......................................................... .

Tin cans and othe r ti n w a re .................................. .

Cutlery and edge tools ....................... •

Hand to ols , file s , and sa w s..................... .............Hardware .................................................................... .Sa nitary ware and plumbers' supp lie s ..................

Oi l bu rners, hea ting and cooking app ara tus . . . . Struc tu ra l ste e l and ornamental metalwork . . . . .

Metal doors, sash, frame, and trim • • ..............

Boiler-shop pro ducts ................................................ Sheet-m etal work .......................................................

Stamped and press ed metal produc ts .................Metal coating and en gr av in g.................................•

Fabrica ted wire products .................................... ..

Metal barr els , drums, kegs, and pall s ....• • • • •

Ste el sprin gs ............................................... .Bo lts , nu ts, wash er a, and r i v e t s ................•• •• •Screw-machine products ..............• • • • • .............. ..

Fabrica ted metal pro ducts, n. e. c..................... .

Machinery ...................................................

Engines and tu rb in e s ........................................... . .

A gr icul tu ra l machinery and tr a c to r s .................. • Con stru ctio n and mining machinery .............. •• •• •

Metalworking machinery • • • • • . . • • ................•••••••

Food-products machineryTex til e machinery .....................................................

Miscellan eous sp ec ia l-in du stry machinery •• •• ••

Puotps and co mpresso rs............. .............................

Third qu arter 1961 F ir st 9 months Annual

average

I960 Jul y Aug. Sept. Quarter 1961 I960ll*.9

8.2 8.2 11.2 9.2 6.9 7.6 7.2

(V ) (1/) (1 /) 12.6 13.8 10.7 12.1*

15.7 15.1* 17.1* 16.1* 13.8 17.0 16.1*

12.$ 11.2 12.1* 11.9 9.8 9.$ 9.3

6.$ 13.U 10.6 10.$ 10.6 12.$ 11.7

15.2 12.2 9.0 11.8 12.8 13.1* 13.623.8 21*.1* 18.3 22.1 20.9 20.6 20.2

§ 3 27.$

17.3

20.$

18.3

1$.6

20.7

16.2

19.9

28.1* 25.2 29.1 27.1* 22.3 22.7 21.6

11.3 11.6 11.9 11.6 10.U 11.2 10.8

S 3 S 3 12.7

17.8

18.2

ll*.9

22.816.9

23.$

16.6

( ^ )

M

(V )

13.1

20.0

12.822.2

12.0

22.2

10.7 lfi.3 19.$ 15.1 13.1 13.8 13.8

7.1 ll*.6 19.2 ll*.2 10.9 12.8 12.3

10.1 8.9 11.0 10.0 9.9 ll*.O 13.8 __ 10.2

1*.8 6.2 6.8 6.0 6.0 6.7 6.$

7.8 6.8 6.8 7.1 7.9 7.$ 7.3

17.9 15.$ U*.l 1$.8 1$.7 l$.l* 1$.2 10.1 9.6 7.6 9.0 8.$ 9.9 9.611.2 16.3 ll*.3 lli.l 12.0 13.3 13.011.8 16.3 ll*.9 H*.7 U*.O 17.3 16.2ll*.7 11.1 1$.7 13.8 13.1 ll*.7 U*.O

13.9 10.0 10.0 11.2 11.0 13.1* 13.3

274 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER
E le vat ors , e sca la to rs , and oonveyo rs ...................

Mechanica l po wer-tr an sm iss ion equipment

(exc ep t b a ll and r o lle r be ar in gs ) .....................

Misc ell aneo us ge ne ra l in d u str ia l machin ery . . . .

Co nn erc ial and hou seh old machinery • • • • • • • • • • • •

Valves and f ittin g s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Fab rica ted pipe and f ittin g s ..............................

B all and r o lle r be arings ...........................................

Machine shop s, g e n e r a l............................................ .

E le c tr ic a l m ac hin er y...................................................

E le c tr ic a l in d u str ia l ap pa ra tu s ...........................

E le c tr ic a l ap pl ianc es .................................................

In su la te d wire and ca ble ...........................................

E le c tr ic a l equipmen t fo r v e h ic le s .........................

E le ctr ic lamps (bulbs ) • ........................................... ..

Radios and re la te d pr od uc ts ...............................Radio tube s ..................................... ............. . . . . . . . .Misc ell aneo us coimnunicatlon equipment • • • • • • • • •

B att eri es .......................................................... . .E le c tr ic a l pr od uct s, n. e. c.

Tra ns po rtat io n eq uip si ent........................................ . . .

Motor v eh ic le s, bo die s, and tr a ile r s . . . . . . . . . .Motor-veh icl e p art s and ac ce ss ori es ..............A i r c r a f t ........................ ..............................................

A ir cra ft p art s ........................ ......................... ............

Ship bu ildi ng and re pair in g • • • • • • .....................• •

Boat bui ld in g and re pair in g • • • • • .....................

Rai lroa d equipment ......................................................

19.5 16.8 16.2 17.5 15.8 17 .6 17.2

10.7 10.1 12.3 11 .1 10 .9 11.7 11.5

11 .6 13. U 11.0 12.0 11 .6 10.8 10.8

6.3 5.8 5. 7 5. 9 5.9 6. 3 6.0

12 .0 13 .8 U .8 13.6 13.8 U.O 13 .6

%

% T , 11.9 U .6 17 .0 17.2 U .l 5. 1 5.2 5. 2

15.3 15 .9 11 .8 U .3 13 .6 13 .3 13.1

6. 1 7.0 7.0 6J ) 6. 0 5.7

U.6

5. 5

10.7 5. 7 8. 0 8.0 7. 0 5.8 6.0

13 .9 16.8 U .5 15.3 15.U 13.0 U.O

2. 9 3.0 3. 0 3.0 2.7 2.U 2. 5

w 2.2 3. 9 1.6 U.2 2. 6 U .l 2.UU.o

2.5 2. 0 U.6 3.2 2.8 2.U 2.5

2.0 1. 6 1. 2 1.U 2.3 2.7 2.5

22.U 18 .1 U .2 18.0 15.2 12 .U 13.U

<2/> (1 /) (2Z) 3.1 3.8 7. 9 7.1

3. 6 U.7 U.3 U.2 3. 9 U.3

5. 1

U.2

3.9 5.5 5. 5 5. 0 U.8 U.5 U.5

1.9 2.2 1. 6 1.9 2. 0 2.2 2.1

5. 1 5.9 U .l 5.0 U.7 U.6 U.3

19 U 17 .6 16.U 17.8 15 .1 16.3 15 .6

%

%

%

% 33.2

7.1

26.U

7.8

26.3

7.U

See fo ot no te and te ch nic al no te s a t end of ta b le .

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER 275
INJURY-FREQUENCY RATES FOR SELECTED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, THIRD QUARTER 1 9 6 l~ C o n .

In d u str y

I n s t r u m e n t s ............... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * ................ • • • • • • •

S c i e n t i f i c in str u m e n ts • • • • • • • .......................................

M ech an ic al m ea su ri ng an d c o n t r o llin g

i n s t r u m e n t s .......................... .............................................

O p tic a l in str u m e n ts an d l e n s e s .......... .....................• •

M ed ic a l In str u m en ts an d s u p p l i e s ................. • • • • • •

P h o to g ra p h ic eq uip m en t an d s u p p l i e s ................... . .

W at ch es an d c lo c k s ...................................... ..........................

M is c e ll a n e o u s m anu fa ct u ri ng .................................................

P avin g an d r o o fin g m a te r ia ls ,

y » . ..................• ........... ..

J e w e lr y , s ilv e r w a r e , an d p la te d ware .......................F a b r ic a te d p l a s t i c s p ro d u cts ....................................... ..

M is c e ll a n e o u s m anufa ct uri ng • • • • • ............... ..

Ord na nc e and a c c e s s o r ie s ...................... .................................

T hir d q u a rte r 19 61 F ir s t 9 mon ths Ann ua l

J u ly A ug. S e p t. Q uar te r 19 61 I9 60

aver age

I9 6 0

2 .8 1 .8 1 .8 2 .2 2 .2 2.1*

$.U2 .2

6 .1

%

7 .8

( 2 / )

7.1*

w

U .7

<2/>

7 .7

S 3

7 .9

( 2 / )

7 .1

3.1*

9.1*

6 .6

U .3

7.1*3 .6

8 .6

$ .9

U .3

7 .23 .8

7.1*

$ .7

$ .0

6 .9

3 .9

7 .7

$ .$

$ .1

V ]

U . 7

13.1*

S 3

ll*. U1 3 .$

$

1 8 .$l h .6

9 .1

1 0 .3l $ . 0

1 3 .9

6 .7

9 .0

1 6 .2

1 2 .6

$ .3

6 .9

1 7 .81 2 .$

1 3 .3

$ .7

7 .3

1 7 .1

1 2 .6

1 .7 2 .1 2 .9 2 .2 2.1* 3 .2 3 .0

1 / I n s u f f i c i e n t d a ta t o w arran t p r e s e n ta tio n o f a v e r a g e .

TECHNICAL NOTES

T hes e d a ta wer e com p iled a c c o r d in g t o th e Am er ic an Sta ndard Me tho d o f R ec or din g an d M ea su ri ng

W or k-I nju ry E x p e r ie n c e , ap pro ve d by th e Am er ic an Sta n d ard s A s s o c ia t io n , 19$h .

The in ju r y -fr e q u e n c y r a t e i s th e a v era g e num ber o f d is a b lin g i n j u r ie s f o r ea ch m ill i o n em p lo yeeh ou rs w ork ed . Fo r d e f i n i t i o n s and d e s c r ip tio n s o f d is a b lin g wo rk i n j u r i e s , s e e r e le a s e USDL 3 0 0 9 ,

De cemb er 3 , 1 9 5 9 .

276 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER
Coveragei The experience of all classes of employees— production and related workers, forceaccount construction workers, sales, service, technical, professional, office, administrative, and all

other personnel--is included in the computation of injury-frequency rates. Self-employed persons, however,

are not included.

Data were obtained by mail questionnaires (form BLS lhl7) sent to a representative list of employers in manufacturing industries. Replies were received from about 13,600 reporting units, employing

approximately U,900,000 workers, or about 30 percent of all employees engaged in manufacturing, Hie monthly

and quarterly injury-frequency rates derived from these reports were adjusted to be comparable with the

final annual averages for 1958. These final annual averages were based upon a more comprehensive survey,

covering approximately 62 percent of all employees engaged in manufacturing. Ill rates shown are

preliminary and subject to revision when final annual averages become available.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE

Injuries and Accident Causes in the Fluid-Milk Industry, BLS Report No. 196

A detailed analysis of work injuries occurring in the fluid milk industry, including: (1) Nature

of injuries and parts of body injured, (2) sources of injury, (3) accident types, (U) hasardous working

conditions, and (5) unsafe acts.

Hie above report is available without charge. Address request to: Bureau of Labor Statistics

U.S. Department of Labor, Washington 25, D. C., or to ary of the following BLS Regional Officesr

lfl Oliver Street, Boston 10, Massachusetts

3hl Ninth Avenue, Room 1000, New York 1, New York

1371 Peachtree Street, N. E., Atlanta 9, Georgia

105 West Adams Street, 10th Floor, Chicago 3, Illinois

630 Sansone Street, Room 802, San Francisco 11, California

Labor, D. C.

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 277
278 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT P REV ENTION CENTER

The Chairman. When we had the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation Director here in hearings on a bill designed to establish safety 

standard s for passenger-carrying motor vehicles, which the Federal 

Government purchases for use of its own employees, they submitted 

certain figures showing the number and liability of the vehicular injuries reported to the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation over a 5- 

year period and since tha t is in your Department I would like very 

much to know if you have another table which shows the number 

and liability of all injuries to Government employees.

Do you prepare such a table showing the cost to the Federal Government ?

Mr. Donahue. I am sure tha t those figures are available within 

the Department of Labor and we will make every effort to fulfill your 

request, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. I would like that to include deaths and injuries *

across the board, not just vehicular injuries.

Mr. Donahue. I understand, sir; I am quite sure tha t is available 

and the Bureau has been engaged in research in tha t area.

(The material referred to above follows:) *
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER 279

Federal

WORK INJURIES

Sustained During

Calendar Year 1960

Federal Employees* Compensation Act

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Arthur J. Goldberg, Se cr et ar y

BUREAU OF EMPLOYEES* COMPENSATION

Wm. McCauley, Director

Injury Costs Reach New Peak Levels

A to ta l of 102,126 in cide nt s invo lving personal in ju ri es to

oiv il la n Federal employees during I960 was reported to the 0. S.

Department of Labor's Bureau of Employees' Compensation. Over

42 thousand of those injured were dis abled for a to ta l of over

5 m ill io n chargeable days. Work in ju ri es claimed the li v e s of 242 employees and aocount for almost hal f of the chargeable days

measured in accordance with the American Standards method. The

fa ta li tie s experienced were 81 more than the year before, due

pr in cipa lly to a catastro phic lo ss of 50 li v e s in one lar ge naval shipyard. They aocount in lar ge part for the 21 percent inc rea se

in the to ta l di re ot inourred lo ss of >56.1 m illion , as compared

with S29.9 m illion the yea r befor e.

Converted to casualty ra te s, the record dis clo se s l i t t l e i f

any si gnif ic ant ov er al l improvement in the inc idence of di sabl ing

in ju rie s, an adverse change in the se ve rity ra te, and further

evidenoe of mounting to ta l di re ct co st per employee. The fr equency rate of 8. 4 di sa bl in g in ju ri es per m ill io n man-hours of

exposure for i960 is l i t t l e dif fe re nt from the 8.5 in 1959, and is ac tu al ly higher than any other year back to 1950. The sever­ it y rate for I960 refl ects 594 chargeable days per m ill io n manhours, up 17 percent from the previou s year and represe nts a

counter-movement from the long-term favorable downward trend in

the immediate pa st. The to ta l dir ec t co st rate of >14.74 per

employee is the high est ever reoorded.

Executive departments which retrogre sse d in a ll three areas

of frequency, se ve ri ty , and co st per employee are Navy, Post

O ffic e, Ag ric ulture, and Health, Education and Welfare. Four

Prepared by S ta ti st ic a l Divisi on , Bureau of Employees' Compensation

Edward F. Brayer, Chief S ta ti st ic ia n

executi ve departments improved in a ll three re sp ects 1 Treasury,

Army, Air Force, and Labor. Other changes worthy of no te, among

the independent agencies for which information is av ai labl e in ­ clud e: Veterans Administration's and General Service s' ach ievement of the lowest frequency ra tes ever recorded for those establish ments! and a new low in the frequency and se ve rity ra tes for

Atomic Energy which al so matched i t s previou s 1952 low in to ta l

di re ct oo st of >1.55 per employee. The D is tr io t of Columbia Government lik ew ise refl ects acros s the board rate decrease s r efl ec ting si gnif ic ant improvements in work injury exp erience; and sim ila r records are recorded fo r In te rs ta te Commerce Commission,

National Aeronautics and Space Adm inistration, National Labor

Relation s Board, and Sec ur itie s and Exchange Commission.

The intent^o f th is report is not to compare department with

department, nor agency with agency, but rather to present in one handy booklet a r ea li sti c sta tis tic a l record for the in te ll ig en t use of those adm inistrato rs and tech nicia ns charged with the workday sa fe ty of th ei r re sp ec tiv e programs. It is presented al so with the A ill re al iz at io n and understanding tha t the ob jective is

more easi ly sta ted than attained . Properly use d, workmen's compensation fa ct s can, however, often prove a gre at stim ulus to many

a Federal accident prevention program. Accid ent prevention effo rt s ri ghtf ully giv e fu ll weight and conside ratio n to human suffering , lo ss of li v e s and limbs. During the 1960's i t remains to

be seen whether more etr io t ac coun tabilit y of work injury co sts

can serve as a ca ta ly st in helping achieve to ta l seourit y from

work inj ury.

September 1961

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER 281
282 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER IN JU R IE S SU ST AI NE D DURING CALENDAR TEARS 1 9 5 9 a n d I 9 6 0

r\

H i

H * 8 R » W R 3 ’ 2 § 2 3 

3 ft $ f t » ^ r? ^ f t ft "r ^ ° ' - § 2

*

RO' H

s 2 5 « 3 m 3 S 8 8 S W S § ’ '8 5 § « 

8 3 S a ^ S - " » R - a 3 S3

S'

sS Qi

£

r4

ft $ S • £ 8£

£ ft ft ftS

K\

RO' r-3

a a 5 s a E s s s s a f f c s s ^ s 'T f c • • ft a ft 1A K\ m h rvi^oxaoj o « 5 ua<m «f\ C“- *>«5

ft 3 2 ^ 3 " 8 ~ £ 3

«M

i |

oj 1 k\ m a a a a i^ s a a a a iia a a a a a oj 1

r-< a k\ K x i i M a c i a a a a a i i i i i a i r-i r-101

3

3

d s

H

£

H

$ ft ft RM , w § f t ^ ,,' “ S ftS ft o

'

r t j r ^ ' ' ft

tv K\

1

ft 8 g £ ’n

“ 3 fc £ ft 'v S 3 a S ''' ' 2*° ' ' 3 £ $

t£ 9^

| s «

1

3 £ £ 3 *” r

'£ ftg a ft£ ;g ftftS '' J<^ ' 3 © £ ft

£ w w < f

£

a « $ g ^ a c f t g § f t f t * ’ f t » - 8 $

§ " *

s

1 i = H N

2 b 2 g ^ h 8 : U 8 s 5 3 2 ? s j i I : i t

( i 1 h i l l i i ' j l l i ' h i ' h j

d | & ^oo<Sifi>9<2«e»c 3»! 4 < gj 0

a

5

x ’

I J

5 Mo

?\ « 5 8

«-(

d

* 3

5

8 o

* |

1 I

S’ *

2 I

8 1

rM <M K\-r r\
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION' CENTER 283

TOTAL (5) Dinner- - COST

1 »*3833S£ SR 3 "« B *H S;B<SSSR2£ 2R S S S S«

— rT 1-7 -* ■» M'

1

S »?m s§ 85SSSSSSE§SB38SgmSSSraS

R 's sgsm S'*S5»Ss 52§8?SB3S8 Ss 33®s 33a

. a

-e

co S3

2 |

$

rd

2 2 S g g i« &8 SK SW .?S m.^28§SJ .<S *?g<

'" ‘sssaast g",a"“ 'g"'s 2''RRjasg ''2aa -'j

'" '

Aa'“

2

r a m

S "^ ’0

’^ £ o j s <t > < ,' 3 k 3 3

KA

a

1 1 

2

 I

o

$

rH

, , . w w ® .a t o o , m , . j j , w , • • « '• '« • • • • * *

R

2

1 Al 1 rj rt 1 drl 1 lf\ 1 | Hd4<OlCH 1 H 1 I I I 1 H 1 1 Id 1

NONFATAL (2)

DISABLING

$

rH

3Sm $S8 £ R s S « - 8 S i£ |jRRS**®S3 f 2 M *

£

2

SSMBSSS S* 33 R &&5S3aS8R *5 «s s 23*S R a*

TOTAL (1)

NUMBER OF

CASES

$

r-<

S38S32B3 s. £ S S S 5 s 3 S S S S B . S x S S § 3 ^ 3 ! 5 § » s

£

rH

m . s m s |8 53S 87m H S .3 R?53a3B3s

*S&2

a

j i U h i j H

S ■{ ! s i s l i i l i j l l p « i l i : i « i

i l l h n i i i

806 24 0 - 62 -1 9
284 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER TOTAL ( 5 ) DIRECT COST

I

M ^ H O O l A ^ N Q K M V H C O Q 1 A- 1 Q O ' H ® Q ^ O X H C O f\J - t

h <d i a h h o o 0 i a 0 a- ug-4 oo a - kS» h i n -4 a - xZ> gj <h -4 j a q g i

oxOO A- <\J lA xO rA O ' 0 x - 4 A- Gj O ' xO -4 0X -4 H K \ [ x - J CO \ 0 J O 0xvO O O'

5 - » - s R 3 V g a ? s V a

tA r-i r-1 OX r-1 GJ

«•

Rox

X Q X D lA G J -4 x O O x r A Q Q x D lA r A G jG J G J O Q Q » A A - O X - 4 G j r A - 4 Q l A - 4 A-OO A- r-1 A* GJ J -

CO r\j M g f\J (\J \£ ) f r l A - j fM J x A O x i C O H O GJ -4 ( S x n O iA G jA .lA C ^ r A l A » A A - r A

C O lf t r l\X ) r Y ( X H Q O O X 0 C O H tA GJ Ox 00 r-1 IA XQ x£> Q lA XO O ' A- Q »A Q

O'G J lA lA r-1 A- rA rH Ox Q Q Ox *A A - Ox rA r-1 x 5 GJ xD OX uX rH rH XO XD <A

GJ r-1 m5 CO XO rA S A- IA t A r-1 GJ rAOO X0 CXJ rAx£ GJ r-1

-4 r-1 r-1 A- r4

«•

DATS ( A )

CHARGEABLE

i960

H ^ H H Q O C ^ A G x A Q H l A I Ox 1 rAOO Ox F A lA A x D lA oO H Q ® M A H Q N A A

rH O ' A- Ch A- A- r-1 r-1 OO U\ rA GJ f-4 r-1xA »H (\J x £ Q CO H CO rC J OO IXJCO QJ H

lA rA O x (A GJ O'OO rA GJ GJ xO -4 O r-1 GJ A- rA I A O rA rH O IA GJ O ' IA O tA A»-4 O r-i

OO rH IA (A rH GJ GJ 4 Ox rH xO OO A- CO CO »A rH O ' A - A- OO IA CO GJ O IA Q XO

Ox rH rH rA Ox 0 0 4 lAOO ( A H N H tA A x O H H \ J N H

GJ rH \O r-1

RO' r-1

Ox Ox xp H \ £ > H Q O ' 2 ' Q A N N x O X 0 \ £ r A A A Q H r A H A - 4 H H IA IA Q A O fy

rA lA -4 i X j ^ O ' A j C O O l A l A r J A H H H C O A Q J 4 <D H O A Q GJ O 'A o Q A H rA

A A v O r A O O A - 4 H A A C^cO O 0 0 O lA $■ O GJ xO rA lA GJ A- rA rA \O GJ

rA rH rA IA O - 4 rA rH XO XO oo 4 - GJ A 4 xD A O A A A H O x c O H H o XQ rH GJ rA xO A N ( A l A f A N H H N 4 l A r l N 4 N H

rA rH rH lA r-1

IA

« a

2 «

8

§

r-1

xo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 r-1 1 1 r-1 1 1 XO A CO A GJ XO 1 1 A H A 4 G J 1 I GJ rH rH

rH GJ

RO' r-1

A. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 | 1 1 1 1 A O A I A H H H I H G J A G J H H I H I

GJ

0

* a

$

rH

Q A 4 A A A A Q ® A Q Q H IG J 1 00 OO O ' G jx n lA O *£) Q A ® A A ® A A A Q A

A N A O O A Q GJ IA ( A GJ A - r-1 A O OQ H J <5 H O 'O ' O W H A G " J H

rA rH Gj GJ GJ XO xo A G JoO x^) A A A 4 A H A A x O O A 4

-3 » - < r H r T r - 1 r - 1 G J « -1 »A r-1 GJ

GJ

RO'

rH

4 A O H O O N A » A H A A A A H H H A x Z )lA GJ HO Q A A N 4 H A H GJ O O 4 'X O 4

r-1 GJ O GJ XO A- A 4 A H A 4 H rH rA O O ' OO lA -4 -4 O -4 A- O GJ GJ rA xO

XO rH rH GJ r-1 CO OO H O O A A A A 4 A O ® 4 A 4 A A

-4 H H H H GJ GJ H lA rH GJ

GJ

TOTAL ( 1 )

NUMBER OF

CASES

§

r-1

O A 4 ® 4 0 Q H A A Q X O A ' J ) a A I ® ® O A H A A A A A C O A x n Q A Ox\O O ' rA

A ® A <-1 O'GJ OO xO oO OO r-1 GJ N H A x£) 4 N A H CJ ® A A Q 4 A C O H « x£

-4 GJ GJ rA A - lA oo O rA A O xo x£) O A O lA A rA O i g iA A H

O' G J- 4 A G J 4 4 A G J H H H A 4 H H X O H H

RO'

- 4 - 4 l A N t f A X 0 Q O ' rHOO lAOO H H H ® A A H x n H A 4 A A A Q N A ^ rAOO rA rA

Q A A N A ® 4 OO Q A N A r-i O xO A ® A N A A ® CO O ® A A H Q -4 GJ r-1 rA CO H rA GJ A- 4 4 O A 4 - A 4 A 4 H o O A 4 A- O

O A 4 X D N 4 4 A H H H 0 4 H H \ O H H

»“1 -4 rH

1I

a

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (C o n tin u e d )

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE.....................................

H e a d q u a r t e r s , W a sh ., D . C.....................................M i l i t a r y A ir T r a n s p o r t S e r v i c e ........................A ir U n i v e r s i t y ........................ .........................................S t r a t e g i c A ir Co om and...............................................A ir T r a in in g Command...............................................

A ir P r o v in g G ro un d Command..................................A ir D e fe n s e Comm and....................................................C o n t in e n t a l A ir Command..........................................B o ll i n g F i e l d H q s. C o m m a n d .. ............................

T a c t i c a l A ir Command..................................................

A ir R e se a r c h 8. D e v e l. C o m m a n d .. ,. . . . . . . .

A la sk a n A ir Command.....................................................N o r t h e a s t A ir Comm and....................................... ..

U. S . A ir F o r c e s i n E u r o p e..................................F a r E a s t A ir F o r c e s . . . . . . .....................

C a r ib b e a n A ir Comm and...............................................

A l l O th er D ep artm en t o f A ir F o r c e ................

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.......................................................

A t la n t a R e g io n .......................................................................B o sto n R e g io n .........................................................................C h ic a g o R e g io n .......................................................................C in c in n a t i R e g io n ...............................................................

D a lla s R e g i o n . . . ..................................................................D en v er R e g io n .........................................................................

M em ph is R e g io n .......................................................................

M in n e a p o lis R e g io n ............................................................

New Tork R e g io n ....................................................................P h il a d e l p h i a R e g io n ..........................................................S e a t t l e R e g io n .......................................................................

S t . L o u is R e g i o n . . . . ................ ....................

San F r a n c is c o R e g io n ........................... .. .................... ..

W a sh in g to n , D . C . R e g io n .............................................

W ic h it a R e g io n .......................................... .. .........................
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 285

! SSSiSS § S § m s « s !s $ S K § R 3 « W S S S W * S .S.

« js's's 's# 5 R«ss s« '2'B ’r«»-’ 5 ”,g-S 2~8''« 8*~

rT O| -<

•» i§

assssa s s s g m m o s m s s s s a m s n m .

J r ’gjRR a R sgaggs's r'as < ~S rB«S 5 « R 2

“'

8S3SSS & "m « 5 3 8 S 8 § S H ' S 'S ^S J /S a S S S8

to «

§ g ~s’ » £ a stsj a ss*

g | X333SS Ss SS g& S& «S S*j$a ~ r S 2 B m 6 5

’8.582

$ g ' I >A<V 'W ' I ■ JQ. IW I-.IMK I

. ' rt I M I I I »<JIIWK\»^rtW(MI(MI*\<-tll £ I I «\ I rtsOrtIM I I HH I

0

q gussies; ' s> • sg ’^s s ja p ts a r

■ S rf rj rJ

k *

w *$§R $£ *8 fc*R ixft

*

w ;

S rH M

is i r s s s 31 r m s s s g s r s ^ ' ' 5", 3 s

3

is » j« s « » 6

i W *> N

s' ss 5B ss( r m s g s ^ F a s 315 r ^ s a * ? 3 ^

3 6

'"' K\ \O K\
286 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT P REV ENTION CENTER

3

I

a a s s m r & m s m * s a r a • £ £ ' £ £ J s r s -

K \ AJ dh

S 3

i

s s a i g a s K

i i § « •

s r a & 8 * g s 3 3 8 8 m 8 & s m s 1 1 Os 8 1

§ S B ~ 8 R ® a H S ! £ 5 > H r

-r

§

rd

$ S * ‘ 5 ? ' s S ’ S s T • « " § '

! |

S 1" s r A . J ! H IA id m

AJ

& AJ 4

a

F

*

o f

mo w o w \ xa

' * 8 •

SO

1 1 1 3 3 1

&

1 j

$ r-i H 1 1 a • i ^ i i i w i i c ^ i i i a i i i • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rd |

id

AJ AJ 1 1 - r 1 l A J l I l l l l f d i d l l H 1 I 1 1 1 1 W I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

? 3 R H ' 1 H J j 1 00 lA id 1 Al id S '

p

* a $ 4 £ , o ' £ * >

•3“

• #•»'''■• £ J 0JR S© * £•* «-» ■ 1 rd AJ 1 KSK> 1 1 1 1 3 "

3 § B r ? £ /

AJ

' 2 J * S 5 5 § » ^ * S J S S * * '

rd

IS O J A 1 H a /

rd

| g |

£ Q H d O& $ 2 A r » AJ P*» O * < 00 00 ao Q rd rA g O ' A K M A »d vO A^ »d jA Q \ 1

K\ S id «K Al

1 1 id 3 *
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 287

In

?

2 } S ‘ S m s m S S S S i £ 5 2 » S S S S 5 6 S S E

« •

§

s a p s m m s s & s s s s s s $ s i m s j s s $

s a s s ’ ~’ R M ,s i x t " " a s - ' a » " s i s ~ ' ' a ‘' »

e»

-r

2 1

8 8 / R i s / m s s a J

H ^T-aT «U kToT aj MJ *"* 5 ! » 0 0

1 9 5 9

' S K ' S a S 3 S S S S * * * S U r 3 ? 6 S S £ 5 S 2 <

<U f lT r U r t jg !X f t 1"

1

K\

d

£ <

( I l I H r H I I I I I I I I I I 1 • • • • I A I I A I I I I I **"*

R

O' rl

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I • 1 1 • <U I N 1 » 1 • 1 •

<3

i l

x

 a

! § ® § 9 * § a * * s 1 9 5 9 i

H S 8 S ' £ 5 3 S ' £ 9 S »

H 8 £

r4

fe

S i l 4 « a

$

rM

R g R ^ S A S g S g — S t S 5 g « - « J S g S S K - 3 £

rH rH r-8

&

i—8

a * $ pG £ * ' <

’' 8 * S $ a

r-8 rH

8

-«

a

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDOC. A WELFARE (C o n t)

O f f i c e o f E d u c a t io n ........................................................S t . E l i z a b e t h ' s H o s p i t a l ..........................................Food & D ru g A d a l n i s t r a t i o n .....................................O f f i c e o f V o c a t io n a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n . . . . . .P u b lic H e a lth S e r v i c e .......................................... ..

B urea u o f M e d ic a l S e r v i c e s ................................

B urea u o f S t a t e S e r v i c e s . . . . . . . ...................

N a t io n a l I n s t i t u t e s o f H e a lt h ........................

F r e e d m e n 's H o s p i t a l .......................... .......................

A l l O th e r P u b lic H e a lth S e r v i c e ...................

S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d a l n i s t r a t i o n ...........................

B u reau o f O ld Ag e & S u r v iv o r s I n s ..............

B urea u o f P u b lic A s s i s t a n c e .............................C h i ld r e n ' s B u r ea u .......................................................

A l l O th e r S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Ada ........................

A l l O th e r D e p a r tm e n t o f HEW...................................

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION................................................

DIS TR ICT OF COLOMBIA GOVERNMENT.............................FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION........................FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION..............

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFF ICE.............................................GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.............................

A d a l n i s t r a t i o n ...............................................................P u b lic B u ild in g s S e r v i c e ...........................................F e d e r a l S u p p ly S e r v i c e ........................ ..N a t io n a l A r c h iv e s A R e c o r d s S e r v i c e ..............

D e fe n s e M a t e r ia ls S e r v i c e ........................................

T r a n s p o r t a t io n A P u b lic U t i l i t y S e r v i c e . •

A l l O th er G e n e r a l S e r v i c e s Ada...........................

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIC E...........................................
288 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 289

Casualty Rates

S e le c te d l i s t o f in ju r y r a te s f o r F ed eral esta b li sh m en ts

in whi ch ex pos ure d a ta ha ve be en made a v a il a b le

t o th e Burea u o f Em plo ye es ’ Com pe ns ation
CASUALTY RATES

ESTABLISHMENT

ALL FEDERAL ESTABLISHMENTS’ ........... .

DEPARTMENT OF STATE..................................

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY...............

O f f i c e o f t h e S e c r e t a r y ..................

C o m p tr o lle r o f th e C u r r e n c y ....

B urea u o f C u sto m s..................................

B urea u o f E n g r a v in g 8, M i n t i n g .

I n t e r n a l R even ue S e r v i c e ...............

B urea u o f t h e M in t...............................

B urea u o f N a r c o t i c a ............................

U . S . C o a st G uard.................................

B urea u o f A c c o u n t s ............................. .

B urea u o f t h e P u b lic D e b t.............

O f f i c e o f th e T r e a s u r e r .. . . . . . .

S a v in g s B onds D i v i s i o n . . . .............

S e c r e t S e r v i c e ..........................................

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY..........................

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY..........................

ALL NAVAL SHIPYARDS............................

B o s to n , M a ss..........................................

P u g e t S o u n d , Wash............................

New Y ork, N . Y....................................

C h a r le s t o w n , S . C.............................

P h il a d e l p h i a , P a ...............................

P o r t a a o u t h , N . H...............................

N o r f o lk , V a............................................

V a l l e j o , C a l i f .....................................

San F r a n c is c o , C a l i f .....................

P e a r l H a r b o r , H a w a ii .....................

L ong B e a c h , C a l i f .............................

AVERAGE NUMBER

OF

EMPLOYEES

FREQUENCY

(N um be r o f

D is a b lin g I n j u r i e s p e r

M i l l i o n M anhour s)

SEVERITY

(N um be r o f

D ays L o s t p e r

M i l l i o n M an hou rs )

1 959 I9 6 0 1959 i9 6 0 1959 I9 6 0

2 ,* 1 3 ,7 * 1 2 ,3 * 5 1 ,7 8 * 8 . 5 8 .* 50 8 59*

3 5 ,7 6 9 3 7 ,5 5 1 2 . 1 2 . 0 2 86 3 *1

7 6 ,* 3 1 7 7 ,6 3 * * . 6 3 . 9 2 52 2 2 9

6 3 5 6 0 1 2 . 3 * .8 2 * 9 8

1 ,1 * 2 1 ,1 7 6 3 .* .* 537 1

8 ,1 6 5 8 ,3 2 * 8 . 5 6 . 1 612 100

3 ,3 2 7 3 ,1 8 6 U . l 1 1 .5 292 198

5 0 ,5 0 * 5 1 ,7 5 * 3 .3 3 . 0 196 27 *

7 81 82 8 8 .6 2 . 9 133 *1

* 13 * 17 8 .1 9 . 2 9 5 2* 1

* ,7 2 1 * ,7 3 3 6 . 8 7 . 2 313 3 2 0

2 ,2 1 2 2 ,1 8 2 * . 8 3 . 3 110 *0

2 ,* 1 8 2 ,2 9 3 * . 6 2 . 3 2 *8 * 5

95* 9 53 1 .5 * . 5 24 2 27

531 5 17 9 . 1 3 . 7 * 9 7 35

6 2 8 6 7 0 6 . 1 . 7 * 3 1

3 9 9 ,0 9 2 3 8 5 ,* * 8 * . 7 * . 6 * 70 * 19

3 5 * .5 7 0 3 1 2 ,0 3 3 4 . 0 * . 5 511 1 ,0 5 5

9 2 ,9 0 * 9 3 ,0 3 0 4 .1 5 . 7 532 2 ,5 2 8

9 , *8 5 8 ,8 9 6 * . 8 * .9 704 646

8 ,7 5 9 8 ,0 * 7 1 .7 2 . * 2 1 9 1 ,7 3 7

1 3 ,2 5 0 1 3 ,0 7 8 * . 6 1 8 .2 6 * 8 1 * ,8 5 8

7 ,0 7 5 7 ,1 3 2 2 . 4 2 . 1 *7 9 3 70

7 ,5 7 5 7 ,7 2 8 5 .6 6 . 0 6 8 0 869

7 ,8 7 6 9 ,5 0 8 * . 3 3 . 5 *6 3 1 ,1 * 5

1 1 ,6 3 0 1 1 ,2 2 0 5 . 0 5 .5 56 2 6 06

9 .5 * 0 9 ,5 8 * 5 .8 3 .6 *6 9 2 89

6 ,* 5 5 6 ,2 0 * 3 . 0 3 .5 6 03 336

* ,7 0 8 * ,9 2 5 1 .7 1 .3 1 *7 12*

6 ,5 5 1 6 ,7 0 8 4 . 0 3 .9 7 2 0 * 1 5

* I n c lu d e s a l l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s , b o th t h e g ro u p s f o r w h ic h i n d i v i d u a l r a t e s a r e d e t e r n in a b le and t h o s e w her e a g g r e g a t e e x p o s u r e

d a ta o n ly a r e c a l c u l a b l e .

TOTAL

DIRECT COST

PER EMPLOYEE

1 9 5 9 i9 6 0

1 2 .3 9 1 1 4 .7 *

6 .* 7 9 .3 0

7 .* 6 5 .5 6

.9 8 * .3 5

1 4 .6 6 .0 7

1 4 .8 2 4 .1 4

8 .6 * 8 .0 5

6 .* 2 5 .7 0

5 .5 5 2 .* 9

3 .7 3 7 .5 1

9 .5 3 1 0 .7 *

3 .6 2 1 .3 *

* .6 * 1 .6 0

.9 3 1 0 .0 8

1 2 .1 9 1 .6 5

1 .7 5 .2 0

1 1 . *7 1 1 .0 0

1 1 .* * 2 * .1 3

1 1 .6 2 5 1 .5 *

1 6 .5 6 1 4 .4 9

* .8 9 3 5 .7 5

1 1 .6 0 2 7 5 .3 1

1 1 .1 0 7 .* 6

1 6 .5 6 2 0 .* 5

1 0 .2 7 1 8 .8 6

1 0 .1 1 1 3 .3 3

1 2 .4 3 7 .3 9

1 0 .1 6 1 1 .5 2

3 .0 2 2 .7 8

1 9 .0 8 1 2 .1 *

hO

CO

o

O

M

03

>

W

r

So

K

>

w

•-3

W

a

v
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 291

H 0

5 0

Q CU

I a # , ; « s a 8 3 t t 8 s ? 3 8 f c $ K 3 $ a sssr s ^ a s s f c s a a s

d * d d a a s ^ d s d d d ^ ^ d d ^ a a a a 5 & & * ’ « 3 ® 8 » »

«*

5 K f c g i 3 S f c S a K > & : X 8 £ 8 £ 3 7 $ 3 8 3 5 R 3 3 3 & * 2 2 £ 3

» < * ° ^

00*® d d ^ “ d d d s

•»

h s

*4 S.O

S 1 3 *

£ 1 « §

9

$

rH

s ? m m m w s s s ? 3 « « « m * m § s «

r-T r4 r4 <M rM <M -4 <M

Sv

a

s a m s m s m m a s s s k

rH rH rH Ah

*4* £ i ^ l

W q i djOC 2

3 3

S£

s

I9 60

C O N r4 >4 00 CO KA <\J O V0 Al IA O W O - 4 - 4 M>-4 vO IAOO f\ i (M M r l O t' -0* KMA-* r<

s d a d d d d d s s t e s d d d d -*‘ ^ « * a a ^ ’ s i a - ^ a d

£

a

rt K \ VO M < \ <-t O VO IA W VW r-t KVW W O -V < -t < M J -O v VO W C O -V W v O < X m«-j

d d d s d d d s d a d d s d d ® - ^ ‘ d d ^ ’ ^ a d a a

<

$

rH

§ a ® < $ P . ? W A

cr^T H 4 H r l l A 0 \0 'H O Q C O (M Q Q KAxX> IA (M < M <4 (M\0 H ^(M rl

Q j A k A K \H H N C O l A r l rA lA K M M K \ r-l »A H

1

£ } S S S i S m S m S S S S f ! s x S S S S S 8 8 S “ E S

a s s s m s s j s s s K s s t s K S rs-"' a - ,

' -,

! i ’“ " • -

KA r-l tA

H

0

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE.................................................

AIR MATERIEL COMMAND.............................................................

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.............................................................

A tl a n ta R egio n............................................................................

B os to n R egio n..............................................................................

C hic ag o R egio n ............................................................................

C in c in n a ti R egio n....................................................................

D a ll a s R eg io n..............................................................................

De nv er R egio n ..............................................................................

Memphis R egio n...........................................................................

M in n eap oli s R egio n ..................................................................

New Yor k R egio n.........................................................................

P h il a d e lp h ia R egio n................................................................

S e a t t le R egio n ...........................................................................

S t . L ou is R e g io n ................ ................ ............................

San F r a n c is c o R e g i o n . .. . ...................................................

W as hi ng to n, D. C. R egio n ...................................................

W ic h it a R e g io n .......................................................................

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE...............................................................

F ed era l Bu rea u o f I n v e s tig a tio n ...................................

Im m ig ra ti on & N a tu r a li s a tio n S e r v ic e ...............

Burea u o f P r is o n s ....................................................................

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR...................................................

Bu reau o f R ecla m ati on ...........................................................

G e o lo g ic a l S u rvey.............................................. .....................

Bu reau o f M in es .........................................................................

Bu rea u o f In d ia n A f f a ir s ....................................................

N a tio n a l Pa rk S e r v ic e ...........................................................

Bu reau o f C o a n ercia l F is h e r ie s .....................................

Bu reau o f S p ort F is h e r ie s .................................................

Bu reau o f Land Manageme nt........................... .....................

A la sk a R a il ro a d Bu re au ........................................................

aSNo t A v a il a b le ,
ESTABLISHMENT

AVERAGE NUMBER

or

EMPLOTEES

FRBQUWCT

(Number of

D is ab ling In ju rie s per

Ml 111 cm Manhours)

SEVERITT

(Number of

Days Lo st per

M illion Manhours)

TOTAL

DIRECT COST

PER INPLOTEE

1959 I960 1959 I96 0 1959 I96 0 1959 I96 0

DEPARTMOfT OF THE INTERIOR (Contin ued)

B on nev ille Power Adm in istr at io n............................. 2, 23 0 2,2 21 11. 4 9 .5 2, 24 0 384 » 53 .2 4 » 15 .4 8

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.............................................. 84 ,4 25 90 ,882 10. 3 12. 0 1, 25 5 1, 29 0 19 .9 4 22 .4 4 Rur al E le c tr if ic a tio n A dm in istr at io n.................. 1,00 1 966 2 .9 1.9 77 43 5. 03 2.4 2

Farmers Home Adm in istr at io n..................................... 10 ,76 6 10 ,038 2 .2 2 .2 581 622 1. 42 2.6 5

S o il Con serv ation S erv ic e.......................................... 14 ,848 17 ,150 4 .5 4 .2 66> 387 9.0 3 9.3 7

For es t S erv ic e.................................................................. 21 ,5 09 23 ,5 71 16 .1 24.3 2, 67 7 2,8 48 35. 18 48 .4 3

A gri cult ural Re sea rch S erv ic e................................. 17 ,247 17 ,18 1 13. 8 12 .6 501 897 13 .5 3 25. 24

Fe de ra l Crop In su ranc e Cor po ratio n...................... l, o 8 6 1, 06 4 3 .8 6 .4 27 162 .7 1 3.1 3

Commodity S ta b il iz a tio n S erv ic e............................. 7, 96 3 7,88 3 1 .7 4 .5 141 630 9.3 0 7.2 1

A gr ic ul tu re Marke ting S erv ic e................................. 10 ,005 10 ,415 6 .6 4 .9 1, 10 5 500 26 .2 1 10 .7 8

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE..................................................... 37 ,098 69 ,6 38 8 .3 7 .8 678 967 8.8 0 15 .5 5

O ff ic e o f the Sec ret ary .............................................. 638 650 4 .5 6 .0 22 1, 20 1 .97 12 .12

Bureau o f th e Ce nsu s................................... .............. .. 10 ,728 43 ,247 10 .5 8 .7 1,79 3 751 6.9 9 3.7 2 Weather Bureau................................................................. 8, 73 8 8, 65 1 2 .6 3 .6 517 3, 30 8 10 .6 7 81 .9 5

Bureau of Public Roads................................................ 5,06 1 4, 82 1 13. 7 8 .7 1,06 8 147 17 .6 2 6.3 3

Maritim e Adm in istrat ion A Maritime Board......... 2, 86 8 2, 85 5 14 .4 16. 1 587 932 15 .2 9 24 .0 0

Co ast A Geo de tic Su rv ey.......................... ................... 2, 09 3 2, 11 2 11 .7 8 .5 115 1, 61 7 4.2 5 42 .5 2 Nat iona l Bureau o f ................................... 3, 26 6

2, 22 2

3, 45 1

2, 28 8

6 .9

2 .6

6 .6 115

22

84 3.4 5 3.7 9

Pa tent O ff ic e.................................................................... 2 .3 17 .8 7 .9 3

Ihireau of Fo reign Commerce....................................... 504 501 .9 .9 2 15 .2 3 .7 7

th isln ee e A De fen se Ser vic es A d m in is tr ati on ... 534 567 2 .9 1 .9 19 18 .7 8 .9*

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR........................................................... 5, 94 5 6, 92 * 3 .* 3 .3 589 102 18 .4 7 3.8 8

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EDUCATION A WELFARE.............. 58 ,760 61 ,6 31 4 .6 4 .7 140 196 3.7 2 5.2 6

O ff ic e o f the Sec ret ary .............................................. 1,14 3 1, 20 5 3 .8 0 .0 220 0 1. 53 .1 0 S t. E li za b eth 's H o s p i t a l . . . . . . . . ........................... 2,88 4 3,10 1 14 .3 15 .5 139 156 5.4 1 6.5 9

Public He alth S erv ic e.................................................. 25 ,753 27 ,100 6 .5 5 .9 237 361 5.7 6 8.7 9 S o cia l S ec uri ty A dm in istr at io n......... ..................... 26 ,397 27 ,086 1 .9 2 .4 38 50 1.2 3 1. 71

Food A Drug A dm in istr at io n........................................ 1,47 9 1, 81 1 3 .9 4 .2 251 50 8.3 1 2.2 5

O ff ic e o f Ed uc ation ....................................................... 936 1,13 8 .5 3.4 0 203 .1 2 9.8 1 O ff ic e o f V oc at iona l R eh a b il it a ti o n .................... 168 190 0 .0 0 .0 0 0 .16 .0 0

ATOMIC D4ERGT COMMISSION................................................ 6, 74 ? 6,9 74 3 .2 2 .0 44 *3 1. 77 1.53

292 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 293

*

a s

$

K

2? 3 q » « K i e © s s * a f c f c S j ^ f c & a s i f c F i 

s « 4 ’ 4 s a * Ji s ’ s ® 4 4 4 4 ’ 4 £ 4 3

•»

?! O' r4

$ » 3 & a P K * * ® S if ia S $ £ R S & 3 S 8

3 <M -* C^'O <M *A »H (MH (M O' H K\ b- H O\

•»

3 8.1 

C .. -3

£

I

fM

m M 3 « S S R $ M » R O * 8 3 &

rH M

?! O' «-(

n r 3 r a ® s s p s m * a

H r4

SL

I s l l

I h i

1*

a

I

00 l* \ O' SO U\ 'O <M -*■ r-1 r-< KWO H

K> r4 04 t^OOcOJ-’ *\r-<»A»r\ H N ftJ O N « N tf\

£

rH

nj oo -r -r k\ o k\ O' >x> C'-'O h m a s o h ^ s o v o o ' ^ ' O »h

UJ -r lA rJ 0^ O <£-r U> A

$

rH

X 5. * s X 8 8 8 8 S * * V . * A 2 a 8 < § X 8

rH < j^ .-l« -t-# e g g K \< -t» O .q .-ir ^ i- lf U J J .-t< M \O J *\ p

<

£

cH

E 8 8 8 5 8 8 3 8 5 8 S 3 8 8 § S 8 8 8 8 8 8

Jg pT rH r4 lA JS H\«-< O H C^rl <\| O' H <\J \0 4T H\ JM

9

§

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • « • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • X • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • M • • • • • * *

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • » « • • • • • • •

• • • X • • • • • • • • • • • K • • • • • • • • • • O • • • • ( > • • • • • • u> • • • • • • • • • • M « • • • <H • • • • • • M • • • • • • • • • • f4 • • « • k • • • • • • X • • • • • • • • • Z << • • • • L • • • • • • M • • • • • • • • • O 05 • • • • • • • • 0 • • X • • X • • • • (4 • M O • X • • A • • • o 6 • A • • O • • • • k • (0 m • o • • • • • «H O X Q • M • • X • □ • 0 3 • m • • ® • H M ♦* *< O a • 59 • • O • X • H O • H • • V • t> O j| ♦» M W << • n • • w •

| : 8 3 B S ! i J 8 S 5 r . S a 8 8 5 j S S :

8 5 « 5 C S V r “ C «2S 3 3 S - 8 5 “ B 3 8 8

« 5 8 S § 3 S E - ? * 3 1 3 “ » B “ 3 S g ° B

M O K V) Q A ® « p < J I < « M O < H X A D H <

a < h x o <2 * x x -0 9 £} rt R 3 < ° £ I 5 5 K | H £ C ’ - ? ! « X ^ a s 5 l g

8 B 1 3 i S 3 S 8 a a f l 3 £ S 5 S g “ | g 8 5 

x 5 H 8 5 L I ? ° S H •* S J U 5

6 ^ 8 a 8 8 a H 5 E - ° H - B ^ a a s

 g

I I a a a a 1 8 s ^ * l § § a ! | f " 1

8 C C C o 3 o so M x x 2 t / j < f l E o >

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 295

Causes of Accidental Injuries

As rep orted to th e Bureau of Employees * Compensation

Calendar Years 19f>9 and I96 0
296 TO ESTABLISH A NATIO NAL ACCIDENT PR EV EN TION CENTER CAU SES OF AC CID EN TA L

to Vehicles in notion
Per Cent of To tal Number of Cases fo r Calendar Tears 1959 and I960

CAUSE CLASSIFICATION

Department

of

In terior

Department

of

Agricu lture

Department

of

Ccnnerce

Department

of

Labor

Department

of Health,

Education &

Welfare

General

Se rvice s

Administration

Veterans

Administration

Tennessee

Valley

Auth ority

D is tr ic t

of

Columbia

Government

1959 I960 1959 I960 1959 I960 1959 I960 1959 I960 1959 I960 1959 I960 1959 I960 1959 I960

Railroads ...........•. • •.................., •» .3 .2

A ir cr af t............................................ J .5 *3 *3

W ate rcraft........................................ .2 .2 JL Jl

*

El ev ator s........................................... • .1 # .2 - • 1. 0 .1 .7 .7 .3 .2 .1 .1 .3 .2 Veh icles............................................. 5.3 U.5 5.1* U.O 5.1* U.7 10.7 11.6 1. 9 2. 6 1.1* 1.5 .9 1. 0 3.0 2. 8 1*?8 U.3 Pressure Equipment......................... .2 .3 .2 .2 .6 .1 • • .7 .2 .3 .1 .5 .1* .6 .6 .2 .1* F.rpl calm s...................................... . J .2 J

Fir es ................................................... .9 1. 8 2. 8 5.1* .1 • .2 .2 1. 9 .1* .3 .3 .3 .2 •8.2 •2.6 E le ctr ic it y ....................................... .1 .3 J.

Fla sh Burns....................................... .1* .3 .2 .1 c I.

Dusts-Gases-Chemicals................... 2.1* 2.6 2.3 2.0 2. 3 1. 3 1. 0 • 3. 6 2. 9 3.1 3.5 1. 7 2. 1 2. 7 2. 3 1. 3 • 7 1.1 Handling Materia l or Equipment. 20 .7 21 .0 1U.7 13.0 16.9 12.3 13.6 20.5 23.6 21*. 1 26.1* 32.8 21*.5 21*.7 31.2 38.1* 23 .9 25 .0 Fa llin g Objects............................... U.3 3.U 2.5 2.6 3.9 1. 7 3.9 3.2 3.1* 5.5 5.5 2. 8 2.3 It. 8 3.7 5. 7 3.3 Fal ls of Persons ............................. 12.9 13.7 13.5 13.1 17.0 23 .1 22.3 25.9 iu .e 20 .6 13.3 11*. 5 17.2 17.5 7.8 7.5 15 .0 17 .6 Jumping to or frcm Pl ac es........... •6 1.0 1.3 1.0 .3 .3 1. 0 • .2 .2 .3 .1* .3 .3 .3 .8 .1* .6 St riki ng Against Ma terial........... 13.1* 12.2 11.7 10.0 12.0 8.8 7.7 12.5 12.9 10.3 16.3 13 .6 11.1 9.3 n a u a 13.5 13.1 Flyin g Par ti cl es , . a ....................... U.7 U.U 2.7 2.8 2. 7 1.1* • .9 2.1 1.5 U.2 3.5 1. 0 1.1 5.8 U.3 3.1 U.6 Hand to o ls ................................... 8.1 10.5 10.8 12.1 7.1* 3.8 1. 0 • 3.7 3.3 7.6 7.3 2.8 3.6 9. 0 10.1* U.O 5. 0 Machinery........................................... 3.2 2. 5 2.0 2.1 3.1 .8 - • 1.5 1.1* 2. 6 3.0 1. 7 1. 7 5.3 5.3 2. 3 1.8 Weather Exposure............................. .3 .2 .1* .6 .3 .1 • .2 .1 .1 « « .1* .2 Polson Oak; Ivy ; Sumac................. 2.7 U.2 6. 6 6.9 3.1 1. 1 - • .1 « « .2 .2 .5

Animals; In se ct s............................. 3.3 3.0 7.0 6.7 6.5 21*.6 2. 9 1.8 .9 1. 3 1. 3 .9 .5 .3 1.1* 1.1 .6 1.1* Miscellaneous................................... 15-U 13 .0 15.2 16.9 15.2 15.1 3U.9 25 .0 28 .8 26.8 13.3 10.8 33.5 3U.5 13.6 8.9 22 .9 19.1*

Tot al ..................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 .0 100.0 100 .0 100.0 100 .0 100.0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100.0 100.0 100 .0

To tal Number of Cases................... 3,8 18 3,891* 6,35 7 7,1*15 1,382 2,78 3 89 123 1,22 2 1,228 1,8 80 1,61*1* 1*,261* 3,89 5 1,021* 1,179 983 1,05 2

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER

CO

- 1
298 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Fede ral Employees' Compensation Act, injury rates and costs, with average

number of employees by establishments, 1931 to 1960

A L L F E D E R A L E S T A B L IS H M E N T S

Ca len dar year 1

Av era ge 

num ber of 

em ploy ees

Tot al d irect 

cost 2

Tot al cost 

per

emplo yee

Freq ue nc y 

r a te 3

Se ve rit y 

rate 4

1937_________ _____ ____________ 852 ,188 $3,994, 844 $4.69 11.4 1,260

1938_____ __________ ___________ 862' 861 4,09 6,02 1 4.75 11.7 1,270

193 9. __________________________ 927, 529 4, 241,282 4. 57 13.1 1,230

1940____ _______________________ 1, 03 6’ 485 4,40 2, 553 4.25 13.1 1,210

1941 . . 1 478, 549 7' 200, 558 4.8 7 13.0 1,390

1942____________________________ 2, 291,225 12,106,662 5.2 8 12.5 880

1943______________ ____ ________ 3^ 093' 135 17^ 454,987 5.64 12.5 930

1944________ ______ ____________ 3, 211, 516 18,78 5,001 5.85 11.0 920

1945___________________________ 2 ,815 ,277 14,685’ 185 5.22 9.9 670

1946 _____ _________ ___________ 2’ 625, 797 12’ 560,828 4.7 8 9.2 760

1947______ _____ _________ ____ _ 2 , 147, 353 10,125,027 4.72 8.6 720

1 9 4 8 .. . ______________________ 2, 085, 736 9.092,711 4.36 8.1 550

1949____________________________ 2,0 67 , 498 20,6 74,9 63 10.00 8.4 660

1 9 5 0 .. ____ _____________________ 2, 070,6 25 22,942 ,168 11.08 8.6 680

1 9 5 1 .. ._______ ____________ ____ 2, 45 9,17 3 26.628 ,119 10.83 8.4 660

1952____________________________ 2,5 72 ,152 23,371 ,749 9.09 8. 0 560

1953____________ _____ _________ 2, 48 0,17 0 25, 842,889 10.4 2 7.8 590

1954_____ _____ ________________ 2,3 80 , 715 25, 738, 244 10.81 7.7 589

1955____________________________ 2 ,396, 571 26,3 04,3 96 10.98 7.8 552

1956........... ........................................... 2,4 33 ,698 29,203,216 12.00 8.0 568

1957_____ ________ _____________ 2,4 19 , 502 27, 529, 868 11.3 8 8.3 529

1958......... ......... .................................... 2,3 88 ,616 28, 008,168 11. 73 8.1 501

1959____________________ _______ 2,4 13 , 741 29,9 08,1 85 12.39 8.5 508

1960________ ____ ______ ____ _ 2,4 51 ,78 4 36,1 31,9 92 14.74 8.4 594

D E P A R T M E N T O F S T A T E

19 37 .. _________ _____ _________ 5,1 78 $16,194 $3.13 11.1 740

1938____ _______________________ 5, 434 23,1 16 4.2 5 11.3 710

1939_____ ______________________ 5,965 22,18 4 3. 72 12.1 540

1940 _____________ _____ _______ 6,3 20 22,22 7 3.52 14.2 1,050

1941 ___________________________ 6,9 42 9,271 1.34 11.2 130

1942_________ _________ ________ 7,3 74 7,02 3 .95 7.1 450

1943 __________________________ 8, 421 20,5 85 2.44 3.4 340

1944________________ _____ _____ 8,9 55 5,355 .6 0 3.0 30

1945 ................................................. . 12, 481 37, 786 3.0 3 2.2 300

1946 ............. ............................ ........... 20, 249 60,5 16 2.9 9 1.9 610

1947________ ___________________ 21, 414 53,129 2. 48 3.4 850

1948 . ________________________ 20, 773 23,698 1. 14 3.2 220

1949 ______ ________ ___________ 21, 382 193,867 9.07 3.0 770

1950 _________________________ 24, 504 322,6 10 13.17 3.1 660

1951 . .......................... ................... 28, 811 422, 459 14.66 2.3 700

1952 ________ _____ _____ ______ 31, 110 260, 714 8.38 2.2 500

1953 _______________ _____ ___ 27, 697 220,344 7.9 6 2. 6 360

1954 __________________________ 20, 549 100,253 4.8 8 2.1 136

1955_________ ____ _____________ 24, 640 658,008 26. 70 2.5 851

1956 .................................. ................... 31, 501 222,273 7.0 6 2.2 433

1957 __________________________ 33,76 3 98,521 2.92 2.0 354

1958 . ________ ________ _______ 35,00 9 232,457 6. 64 2.1 237

1959 ________ _____ ___________ 35, 769 231, 408 6.4 7 2.1 286

1960___ _______ _____ __________ 37, 551 349,347 9.30 2.0 341

S ee fo o tn o te s a t en d o f ta b le .
*

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENTER 299

Federal Employees' Compensation Act, injury rate s and costs, with average

number of employees by establishments, 19>i/ to 19b0 Continued

Ca len dar year

1937.

1938.

1939.

1940.

1941.

1942.

1943.

1944.

1945.

1946.

1947.

1948.

1949.

1950.

1951.

1952.

1953.

1954.

1955.

1956.

1957.

1958.

1959.

1960.

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E T R E A S U R Y

Average 

nu m be r of 

em plo yees

Tot al d irect 

co st 2

Tot al cost 

per

em plo yee

Fr eq ue nc y 

ra te 1

Se ve rit y 

rate <

70, 647 $170,299 $2.41 6. 6 570

68,20 7 160,240 2.3 5 6.9 480

64,82 1 215,664 3.3 3 8.6 880

59, 624 219,1 83 3.6 8 9. 0 950

63, 770 166,988 2.62 10.0 460

68,32 2 120,607 1.77 6. 4 180

80, 762 140, 530 1.74 6.0 130

91,50 6 153,600 1.68 6.7 170

94,8 01 

104, 768

213,711 

212,827

2. 25 

2.0 3

7.2

6.3

250

210

94 ,13 8 243,2 47 2.5 8 5. 6 290

89,18 9 

88, 844

241,009 

336,891

2.7 0 

3.7 9

6.1 

6.5

280

300

89,27 3 500,880 5.61 5.7 330

91, 014 327, 418 3.60 5.6 160

89,32 5 338, 716 3.7 9 5.5 200

84, 696 573,797 6.77 5.1 300

81, 767 658,234 8.0 5 5.1 344

80 ,28 6 500,629 6.24 4.7 274

79, 687 542,334 6.81 4.8 284

79, 816 

78. 215

667,837 

463,365

8.3 7

5.92

4. 7

4.3

383

249

76, 431 569, 982 7.46 4.6 252

77, 634 431,278 5.56 3.9

1937.

1938.

1939. 

1940-

1941.

1942. 

1943

1944.

1945.

1946.

1947.

1948. 

1949

1950.

1951.

1952.

1953.

1954.

1955.

1956.

1957.

1958.

1959.

1960.

D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A R M Y

87, 151 $714,289 $8.20 20 .3 2,6 20

97 ,95 2 1,000,744 10.22 17.6 3,0 60

109, 379 950,878 8.69 15.2 2,33 0

143 ,85 2 1,176,836 8.18 17.8 2,6 20

327,9 92 2,438, 942 7.4 4 17.8 2,8 80

893, 507 5, 622,003 6.2 9 14.1 1,130

1,46 6, 760 9,222 , 251 6.2 9 14.3 1, 180

1,52 3, 280 8,857 , 505 5.81 11.4 1,070

704, 737 3. 754,990 5.3 3 10.5 780

634, 936 3, 489, 570 5. .50 9. 9 1,140

417 ,02 3 2,55 9,30 4 6.1 4 8. 0 1,300

388,0 29 1,955, 521 5.04 7.6 760

354, 539 3, 789,831 10. 69 8.0 740

348, 738 3,808,049 10. 92 7.8 760

511 ,364 5,231,919 10. 23 8. 0 690

539, 472 4, 920, 304 9.1 2 7.6 670

499, 360 5,14 7,32 4 10.31 6.8 620

487, 713 5,208, 866 10.68 5. 7 616

456, 657 4, 387, 204 9.6 1 5.4 541

433,1 83 5,279, 579 12.1 9 5.2 578

423 ,39 0 4,976,158 11.75 5.1 599

411 ,807 4,822, 282 11. 71 4. 8 493

399,0 92 4, 579,051 11.47 4. 7 470

385, 448 4,2 39, 148 11.00 4. 6 419

1937.

1938. 

1939 

1940.

1941 .

1942

1943.

1944.

1945.

1946. 

1947

1948.

1949.

1950. 

1951 .

1952.

1953.

1954.

1955. 

1956

1957.

1958. 

1959 

1960.

D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E N A V Y

70, 009 $432,043 $6.1 7 9. 7

70,2 15 277,648 3.9 5 9. 4

_________________ 86. 542 435,320 5. 03 12. 6

127. 599 608,240 4. 77 15.1

231 .738 1,680,822 7.25 16.1

454. 630 2.979, 787 6. 55 16.1

616, 267 4.212.028 6.83 15.8

662. 270 5.671,984 8.5 6 14.9

615,840 4.781,122 7.40 12.0

477,191 2,869.860 6.01 10.3

355,999 1,705,222 4. 79 8. 7

__________________ 350 ,539 1,347,142 3. 84 6. 2

___________________ 334 .042 2.900. 491 8.6 8 5. 6

___________________ 313, 829 3,197,016 10. 19 5. 3

442,089 4.218,570 9.5 4 5.0

__________ 475,256 3,40 1.52 5 7.1 6 4. 0

_____________________ 441,437 3,99 9.84 9 9.0 6 3 .7 ,

_______________ _____ 416,602 3. 505,845 8.4 2 3.5

410,229 4,342, 701 10. 59 3.8

395. 370 4.114.728 10.41 3. <

383, 845 3,987,476 10.39 3. 7

................ -......... ....... 362,375 3,880,279 10.71 3.9

__________________ 3.54, 570 4.05 6,51 3 11.44 4. 0

............. - .........................................

312,033 7,52 8,07 7 24.13 4.0

2,1 10 

1,57 0 

1,480 

1,640 

2,4 30 

900 

1,000 

1,140 

890 

780 

680 

380 

550 

700 

630 

480 

530 

541 

604 

513 

518 

553 

511 

1,055

See footnotes at end of table. 

80624— 62----- 20
300 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, injury rates and costs, with average

number of employees by establishments, 1937 to 1960—Continued

D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A IR F O R C E

Ca len da r y ear 1

1941«.

1942 s.

1943 «.

1944 «.

1945 »_

1946 s.

1947 «.

19 48 ..

19 49 ..

19 50 ..

19 51 ..

19 52 ..

19 53 ..

19 54 ..

19 55 ..

19 56 ..

19 57 ..

19 58 ..

19 59 ..

19 60 ..

Average 

nu m be r of 

em plo yees

Tot al d irect 

co st1

Tot al co st 

per

emp loye e

Fr eq ue nc y 

ra te 3

Se ve rit y 

rate *

29, 188 $147,594 $5.06 21.1 2,450

156 ,406 1,289.388 8.2 4 14.4 1.35 0

336,7 05 2,140, 984 6.36 17.2 930

360, 767 2, 210,675 6.13 14. 1 920

354,0 15 1,856. 856 5.25 11.6 620

259 ,43 7 1,192.328 4.60 10.0 920

113 ,278 733, 942 6.48 12.9 830

128,557 572,398 4.45 10.3 620

160,717 1, 284, 286 7.99 8.6 570

179 ,956 1, 414, 885 7.86 7.8 540

269 ,93 8 2, 554.074 9.46 7.9 650

318,1 02 2,338, 999 7.35 7.4 560

300,1 94 2, 622,930 8.7 4 6. 2 540

296, 755 2,588, 903 8.7 2 5.6 502

313,1 16 3.08 3, 431 9.8 5 5. 6 544

344, 986 3, 755,003 10.88 5.9 534

336,5 55 3,847 , 680 11.43 6. 5 532

314 ,88 9 4, 034, 136 12.81 7.0 543

314 ,997 4, 298, 586 13.65 7. 1 555

309,1 87 3, 469, 917 11.22 6.8 464

*

P O S T O F F IC E D E P A R T M E N T

1937

1938.

1939

1940.

1941.

1942.

1943.

1944.

1945.

1946.

1947.

1948.

1949.

1950.

1951.

1952.

1953.

1954.

1955.

1956.

1957.

1958.

1959.

1960.

289 ,324 $585,693 $2.02 10.6 480

295 ,21 8 610,387 2.07 10.8 520

299,085 545,502 1.82 11.8 470

307,011 528,739 1.72 12.2 420

318 ,698 925,217 2.9 0 12.0 450

326 ,58 8 803,205 2.46 9.5 270

324 ,573 1,177,579 3.6 3 9.4 380

358 ,223 1,115,801 3.11 9.5 350

434 ,920 1,305,305 3.0 0 9.3 330

476 ,779 1,399,758 2.9 4 9.7 310

463 ,972 1,38 0,308 2.9 7 9.1 330

495 ,283 1,489,070 3.01 9.7 290

518,611 2,689,828 5.19 10.2 320

501 ,634 3,70 5,367 7.39 12.1 410

502 ,508 3,883,968 7.73 13.1 400

522 ,46 8 3,66 5,085 7.01 12.8 320

510 ,094 4,36 8,94 9 8.5 6 13.9 410

508,495 4,728,938 9.3 0 14.7 445

508,811 5, 566,928 10.94 15.8 477

514 ,107 6,509,468 12.66 17.8 559

553,961 7,02 4,34 8 12.68 17.2 494

547 ,855 6,919,491 12.63 16.7 449

575 ,615 7,693, 707 13.37 17.6 479

586 ,37 3 9,300, 178 15.86 20.1 647

D E P A R T M E N T O F JU S T IC E

1937.

1938.

1939.

1940.

1941.

1942. 

1943

1944.

1945.

1946.

1947.

1948.

1949.

1950.

1951.

1952. 

19.53. 

1954. 

1955

1956.

1957.

1958.

1959.

1960.

See footnotes a t end of table.

8,15 6 $54,142 $6.64 4. 2 1,700

,8 ,5 41 107,323 12.57 5.1 2,0 30

9,53 8 56,026 5.87 4. 5 1,420

13, 593 28,610 2.1 0 5.7 850

21,65 6 50,820 2.35 4. 6 530

28, 203 64,442 2.2 8 3. 6 270

30, 225 128.128 4.2 4 3.3 480

28,3 51 51,841 1.83 3.4 150

25, 679 78,031 3.0 4 3. 2 520

23 ,93 0 114,040 4.77 4. 0 470

24, 607 62,636 2.55 3. 3 200

26,10 0 86,447 3.3 1 3.1 510

26,14 8 127,078 4.8 6 2.7 330

26, 507 301,600 11.38 3.4 600

30,83 4 227,943 7.39 3. 9 370

31, 467 429. 671 13.65 4.3 630

30,18 5 327,395 10.85 4.4 440

30, 397 326,475 10.74 4.1 443

30,50 0 290,331 9.5 2 4.4 371

30,62 4 300.457 9.81 4.3 396

30. 708 534,487 17.41 4. 3 581

30, 652 109, 570 3.5 7 4.3 112

30, 018 282,801 9.42 5.1 281

30, 729 543,187 17.68 4. 6 625
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 301

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, inj ury rates and costs, with average

number of employees by establishments, 1937 to 1960—Continued

D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E IN T E R IO R

Calendar y ear 1

Averag e 

nu m be r of 

em plo yee s

To tal dir ect 

co st 2

Tot al cost 

per

em plo yee

Freq ue nc y 

ra te 3

Se ve rit y 

rate 4

1937 ................................................ 41,700 $431, 571 $10.3 5 17.7 2,37 0

1938 ....................................- _____ 45,060 375,8 58 8.34 18.7 2,41 0

1939 ................................................. 47,3 00 434,2 66 9.18 20 .9 2,30 0

1940 .................................................... 46,088 411, 716 8.9 3 19.4 2,10 0

1941 ................ ...... ........................ 44,423 361,872 8.15 19.8 1,4 60

1942 ................................................- - 46,092 548,010 11.8 9 18.1 2,25 0

1943 _______________________ 38,035 270,3 05 7.1 1 15.5 1,0 30

1944 .................... ................. ......... 41,3 06 371,0 63 8.98 12.2 1,2 60

1945 ____ . . . . . . . ......... ............. - 43,184 410, 859 9.5 1 10.8 1,3 00

1946 _____ __________________ 48,864 516,337 10.63 15.4 1,7 80

1947 ................................................ 49,4 39 506,544 10.25 17.0 1,5 10

1948 ................................................ 51,175 515,732 10.08 14.6 1,4 20

1949 54,315 1,258, 460 23 .17 14.3 1,720

1950 ................................................ 59,988 1,421, 310 23 .69 15.1 1,5 00

1951 .................... . ................. ....... 58,973 1,590, 839 26.98 14.8 1,8 90

1952 - _____ 57,254 1,142, 302 19.95 14.1 1,2 00

1953 ...................................................... 55,71 4 1, 565,196 28.09 14.4 1,6 80

1954 .............................. ....................... 53,665 1,34 5,22 4 25.07 13.9 1,4 29

1955 ................................................ 50,303 1,140, 680 22 .68 14.3 1,200

1956 .................... ............. ............. 50, 517 1,417, 918 28. 07 13.7 1,447

1957 ................................ - ......... ......... 51,673 1,04 1,8 50 20 .16 13.0 1,056

1958 .................... . ............... ......... 52,509 976, 380 18.59 11.6 911

1959 ...................... . ........... . ......... 52,220 1,282,258 24 .55 11.6 1,143

I960 ........................................................ 52,496 1,65 0,1 93 31 .43 10.9 1,533

D E P A R T M E N T OF A G R IC U L T U R E ’

1937 _____ ____ - _____ _______ 89, 042 $649, 661 $7.30 15.7 1,960

1938 _____ ______________ 87,190 690, 739 7. 92 19.1 1,980

1939 _______ ____________ 92, 778 646,077 6.96 23 .2 1,770

1940 ....................................... 89,3 00 549, 509 6.15 18.4 1,500

1941 _____________________ 85,101 588,154 6.9 1 16.3 1,270

1942 ____________________ 81,5 15 483, 981 5.94 13.4 900

1943 ____ ____________ _____ 83, 382 505, 521 6.0 6 12.9 870

1944 _____ ________ __________ 75, 529 545, 743 7.23 11.8 1,070

1945 ________________________ 81,3 58 619,8 99 7.62 10.4 960

1946 _______ ____ ____________ 86,8 06 494, 928 5.7 0 10.4 990

1947 .......................... . ....................... 77, 457 540,9 19 6.98 11.5 1,1 80

1948 .............................................. 74, 983 488, 851 6. 52 10.5 920

1949 .......... .................................... 75,6 92 1,904 , 657 25 .16 11.1 2,23 0

1950 _______________________ 75,1 56 1,063,068 14.14 10.4 1,01 0

1951 .............................................. 72, 989 2,083, 560 28.55 10.4 1,61 0

1952 ..................................- ..........- 70, 912 908, 274 12.81 9. 0 1,120

1953 ..................................................... 71,571 1, 547 .276 21 .62 9. 6 1,810

1954 ______________________ 71, 939 1,11 8,07 4 15.54 8. 2 1,044

1955 . ____________________ 78,2 38 1,150, 342 14.70 8.1 823

1956 .............................. ............... 84, 025 1, 569,98 6 18.68 7. 5 1,05 7

1957 .................. . ......... ........... . 88,341 894,190 10.12 9. 1 647

1958 91, 884 1, 519, 785 16.54 7.4 832

1959 ................................................ 84, 425 1. 6 83,842 19.94 10.3 1,255

I960 ................................................ 90, 882 2,0 39,09 4 22 .44 12.0 1,290

D E P A R T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E

1937 ___ - .......................................... 15,644 $177,167 $11.3 2 10.0 2,8 20

1938 ________ __________ ____ 15, 854 156,871 9.89 10.4 3,060

1939 ________ _-- - - - - - - - - - -- 10,902 38, 595 3.54 19.5 2,1 50

1940 ............................................... 21,76 4 127,841 5.8 7 17.7 1,7 80

1941 .................................................. 23,28 7 90, 703 3.90 19.0 1,120

1942 .................................................. 25,4 53 146,853 5.7 7 13.6 1,2 20

1943 .................. . ......................... 36,7 34 178,909 4.87 8.8 1,080

1944 - - - - - - - - ____________ _ 38,13 7 533,199 13.98 7.0 2,42 0

1945 ________ - - - - - - - ________ 37, 296 205,1 17 5.50 6.0 1,0 00

1946 ______ _______ _________ 34, 692 295,5 98 8.54 7.3 1,570

1947 .................................................. 37.5 76 293,3 50 7.81 6.9 1,2 50

1948 _____ ____ _______________ 39.8 54 414,9 36 10.41 6.3 1, 890

1949 __________ ______________ 45,516 375,8 54 8.2 5 6.0 670

1950 __________ _________ _____ 81,289 1,238,730 15.2 4 7.1 760

1951 .............................. ......... ........... 65,453 791,431 12.0 9 6.8 900

1952 ..................................................- 66,434 923,710 13.90 5.7 920

1953 _____ ________ _________ 51,8 45 427,7 72 8.2 5 6.6 560

1954 ___ ____ ______________ 47,404 445.6.54 9. 40 5.9 574

1955 _________ _____ _______ 44,4 46 505.154 11.37 6.0 429

1956 _____ ______ _____________ 45.8 08 563,617 12.30 6.0 476

1957 .................. ......... ..................... 50,1 47 522,842 10.43 6.5 516

1958 .................... ........... ........... ....... 53,6 65 639,181 11.91 5.2 483

1959 _____ ____ -................... ......... 37,0 98 326.347 8.80 8.3 678

I960 ______________________ _ 69, 638 1,08 2,747 15.5 5 7.8 967

See footnotes a t end of table.
302 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, injury rates and costs, with average

number of employees by establishments, 1931 to 2960—Continued

Calend ar yea r 1

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1946 

1940

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955 

1956.

1957

1958 

1959. 

1960

D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R

Average 

nu m be r of 

em plo yee s

Tot al direct 

c o s t 2

Tot al cost 

per

em plo yee

Fre qu en cy 

rate »

13,441 $23, 791 $1.77 2. 8

7,119 14,222 2.00 5.4

6,397 15,321 2.40 4.3

4,925 40,39 7 8.20 5.1

4,3 38 2,233 .51 1.9

4,8 42 2,71 2 .56 2.0

6,52 2 24, 737 3.79 1.6

5,786 20,4 43 3.53 2.3

15,037 13, 857 .9 2 1.6

28,724 13,006 .45 1.5

5,566 20,814 3.7 4 1.9

3,973 3,35 2 .8 4 2.5

4,091 1,279 .31 2.1

5,91 0 8,102 1.3 7 2.7

7,52 6 55,476 7.37 2.9

7,32 3 8,476 1.1 6 2.4

5, 535 9,68 6 1.75 2.2

5,031 191,494 38.06 3. 4

5,081 70,485 13.8 7 3.1

5,75 3 217,398 37. 79 3.4

5,89 2 121,257 20.58 3.6

5,890 8,36 0 1.42 3.3

5, 945 109,807 18.47 3.4

6,92 4 26,883 3. 88 3. 3

(F or m er ly Federal Secu rit y Age ncy)

Seve rity 

ra te 4

290

560

670

1,340

40

40

430

500

60

30

560

770

10

40

420

40

40

1,260

607

1,114

1,309

37

589

102

4

f

1939..

194 0..

1941..

1942 ..

194 3..

1944 ..

1945..

194 6..

1947..

1948..

1949..

19 50 ..

1951..

1952.. 

1953 s

1954..

1955..

195 6..

1957..

195 8..

1959..

1960..

10,142 $54,4 99 $10.75 9.1

25,5 76 111,622 4.3 6 5.9

30,921 82,1 52 2. 66 6. 1

38, 969 138,902 3. 56 4.7

31,1 97 109,080 3.50 5.4

29,764 130,478 4.38 5.1

30,3 93 154,948 5.10 4.9

31, 379 211,853 6.7 5 4.3

33,4 74 47,093 1.41 3.4

34,7 13 40,877 1.1 8 2.9

35,1 26 390,883 11.13 4. 1

34,0 48 941,354 27.6 5 5.4

35,374 296,995 8.40 4.2

36,5 33 372.5 82 10. 20 3.5

36,8 60 805,0 07 21.84 3.9

35, 621 215,387 6. 05 4.2

41,925 407,311 9.72 4.6

46, 724 .533,479 11.42 4. 2

52, 157 256, 890 4.9 3 4.3

54,990 400,0.50 7.27 4. 7

58, 760 218.810 3. 72 4.6

61,631 324,437 5.26 4.7

D IS T R IC T O F C O L U M B IA G O V E R N M E N T

2,200

1,400

400

470

460

740

610

850

180

IB

620

1,08 0

680

730

850

270

477

446

198

295

140

196

1937.

1938

1939

1940

1941 

1942.

1943

1944

1945

1946 

1947. 

1948 

1949. 

1950

1951.

1952.

1953.

1954. 

1955

1956.

1957. 

1958

1959.

1960.

See footnotes a t end of table.

10,273 $54,955 $5.35 18.0 1,240

10,942 52,2 00 4.77 17.8 1,200

11,134 69,521 6.24 19.1 1,720

11,654 63,7 39 5.47 19.0 2,150

12,3 10 65,101 5. 29 21.2 1,130

12,9 76 61,886 4.77 14.5 850

12,925 46,177 3. 57 12.5 340

12,08 7 75,121 6.22 13.6 750

13,001 82,076 6.31 12.3 680

15,925 117,990 7.41 13.4 1,020

15,099 19,624 5.27 18.5 470

14,865 95,167 6.40 18.5 810

15,956 226, 439 14 .19 20.3 850

15,704 251,175 15 .99 19.1 1,370

15,587 225,324 14.46 18.8 730

16, 742 213,833 12.77 17.7 690

16,991 223,484 13.15 18.4 800

17,412 132,415 7.60 16.1 352

18,199 191,498 10.52 14.7 395

18,405 175,371 9.53 12.1 369

18,815 239,382 12.72 13.3 653

19,677 371,374 18.87 14.3 826

20,2 75 215,956 10.65 15.2 400

21,5 16 224,455 10.43 14.8 351

e
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 303

Fede ral Employees' Compensation Act, injury rates and costs, with averaye

number of employees by establishm ents, 1937 to 1960—Continued 

F E D E R A L C O M M U N IC A T IO N S C O M M IS S IO N

Ca le nd ar ye ar 1

Av era ge 

num b er of 

em ploy ee s

To tal dir ec t 

co st 2

T ota l cost 

pe r

em plo ye e

Fr eq ue nc y 

ra te 5

Se ve rity 

rate ‘

1941 ____ _______________ 1, 43 3 $1, 265 $0 .88 1.2 40

1942 _____ _____ _______________ 2, 02 7 725 .3 6 2. 8 30

1943__________________________ 2, 06 3 802 .3 9 2.7 30

1944 ________________ ____ ____ 1, 63 2 852 .5 2 1.9 20

1945_____ _________ __________ 1,3 53 300 .2 2 1.9 10

1946 . _______________________ 1,30 1 2,5 61 1.97 3. 7 120

1947_______ _______. . . _______ 1,3 39 19,4 23 14.51 2. 2 2,1 70

1948 ___ _____ _______ 1,3 64 1,97 5 1.4 5 2.1 130

1949 _____________________ 1,33 8 2,1 29 1.5 9 6.1 60

1950 ___________ ___________ 1,2 73 5,4 47 4. 28 3. 4 100

1951 ___________ ____ ______ 1,18 0 2,4 88 2.1 1 3. 3 90

1952 _______________________ 1,1 21 313 .2 8 1.7 10

1953 ............. ................... .......... 1,09 0 740 .6 8 1.3 20

1954 ............................ ................... 1,1 26 1,75 2 1.5 6 3. 0 80

1955 . ____________________ ___ 1.09 0 7,481 6.86 2. 2 419

1956 . ______ ______________ 1,1 30 1,143 1.01 2.1 21

1957 .................................................. 1,1 83 1,9 00 1.61 3. 3 41

1958 _____________________ ___ 1,211 47, 692 39.38 2. 4 2, 405

1959 ____________ ___________ 1,25 0 4. 549 3. 62 3. 8 112

1960_______________ — - ........ . 1,34 5 1,631 1.21 3. 9 24

F E D E R A L D E P O S IT IN S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T IO N

1941 . ________________ _____ _ 2, 34 7 $2, 580 $1.10 6.4 70

1942_______________ __________ 2, 45 3 7,0 48 2.8 7 4.1 100

1943 . ______________________ 2, 15 7 1,1 06 .51 2.0 20

1944 . ___________________ 1,71 3 355 .21 1.3 10

1945 - ____________________ 1,32 8 2,1 29 1.6 0 2. 3 100

1946 ____ -- 1,1 84 15,396 13.00 2. 0 2,4 60

1947 ............................. - _________ 1,1 61 1,698 1.4 6 1.2 90

1948 ______________________ 1,07 1 1,91 6 1.7 9 2. 7 170

1949. ___ ____ ___________ 1,0 78 447 .41 .4 10

1950 . . . . ........ ................... 1.0 74 700 .65 1.3 20

1951 _________________________ 1,0 26 1,319 1.2 9 .5 30

1952 ___________________ ____ 1,0 10 276 .27 1.0 10

1953 _________ ______ _____ 1,0 41 135 . 13 .9 2

1954 . . . . . _______ ____ _ 1,0 46 1,614 1.54 2. 3 01

1955 . . . . . ____ _____ _ 1,1 17 1,12 0 1.0 0 3. 9 30

1956 . . ______ ________ 1,1 36 684 .60 2.1 16

1957 ___________ 1.1 52 582 .51 .8 13

1958 ____________ ____ ________ 1,2 12 2,9 70 2.45 3. 6 57

1959 . _______________________ 1,23 6 81 .07 .4 1

1960 __________________________ 1,23 9 1,1 48 .93 1.6 21

G E N E R A L A C C O U N T IN G O F F IC E

1942 ________________________ 7, 33 5 $2,096 $0.29 2 .0 20

1943 ______________________ 9, 04 0 2,7 82 .31 2. 2 20

1944 . ________________ 11,81 5 12,918 1.0 9 2.1 100

1945 ...........................-.............. 13, 414 5,56 1 .41 2. 6 30

1946 ______________ 13,48 9 4,4 28 .3 3 2. 5 20

1947 _____________________ ____ 10,46 3 4,5 42 .4 3 2. 4 30

1948 ______________________ 9, 29 5 4,0 45 .44 2. 0 20

1949 . ________________ 9,00 4 22,174 2. 46 2. 4 100

1950 - - __________ _____ 7,95 6 133,69 4 16.80 1.8 430

1951 _______________ ____ 6,8 81 4,5 49 .6 6 1.3 50

1952 . ______________ ______ 6, 22 9 10,764 1. 73 2. 2 70

1953 ________________ 6, 13 7 9,2 60 1. 51 2. 3 50

1954 _______ ___________ - 5,8 64 3,4 15 .5 8 1.3 20

1955..................... .............. ................ 5,71 9 5,4 10 .9 5 1.7 33

1956 _______ _________________ 5,5 14 9,4 44 1.7 1 1.7 76

1957________________ ________ 5, 43 6 5,0 89 .9 4 2. 0 29

1958 . ____ ____ ___________ 5, 33 8 10,03 4 1.88 1.3 47

195 9. ________________________ 5,14 3 11,879 2.3 1 1.4 114

196 0______ ____ _______ _______ 4, 98 2 14,8 92 2.99 2. 5 108

See footnotes at end of table.
304 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Federal Employees' Compensation Act, injury rates and costs, with average

number of employees by establishments, 1937 to 1960—Continued

G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F IC E

Calen dar y ear 1

1942.

1943.

1944.

1945.

1946.

1947.

1948.

1949.

1950.

1951.

1952.

1953.

1954.

1955.

1956.

1957.

1958.

1959.

1960.

Averag e 

nu mbe r of 

emplo yee s

Tot al direct 

cost ’

Tot al cost 

per

emp loyee

Freq ue nc y 

rat e ’

Se ve rit y 

ra te <

7,648

7,842

$13,112 $1. 71 3. 8 120

19,360 2. 47 6.3 170

7,11 2 18,917 2.66 9. 2 150

6,88 5 29,659 4.3 1 6.7 290

7,581 18,521 2.4 4 8.1 140

7,768 20,427 2.63 7.0 140

7,135 13,997 1.9 6 3. 9 110

7,04 3 35,186 5.0 0 3.8 220

7,10 6 14,702 2.0 7 3. 2 90

7,48 4 16,114 2.15 3.1 110

7,707 62,177 8.0 7 3.5 480

7,35 2 10,790 1.47 2. 0 70

6,88 8 34,091 4. 95 2. 8 240

6,745 32,53 6 4. 82 4.6 240

6,640 27,59 6 4.1 6 5.3 196

6,45 5 81,912 12. 69 7.5 418

6,42 6 55,085 8. 57 6.1 279

6,524 38,454 5.8 9 5.6 225

6,539 97, 728 14.9 5 7.1 625

4

0

H O U SIN G A N D H O M E F IN A N C E A G E N C Y

1950.

1951.

1952.

1953.

1954.

1955.

1956.

1957.

1958.

1959.

1960.

13,48 9 $39, 969 $2.96 3.1

13,1 35 34, 923 2.66 7.1

12,540 169, 464 13. 51 7.6

11,764 74, 870 6.36 7.5

10, 667 181, 758 17.04 6.7

10,638 46, 534 4.37 5.3

10, 072 62,191 6.18 4.0

9, 856 37, 741 3. 83 3.7

10, 238 38, 314 3.74 3.1

10, 978 20,9 34 1.91 3.7

11,24 4 122, 492 10.8 9 3. 3

170

340

580

450

916

183

308

94

168

56

370

G E N E R A L S E R V IC E S A D M IN IS T R A T IO N ’

(F or m er ly Federal Wo rks Age ncy)

1945

1946.

1947.

1948.

1949

1950

1951.

1952. 

1953

1954.

1955.

1956.

1957.

1958.

1959.

1960.

20,3 22 $71 586 $3 52 21 2 600

22,961 114 765 5 00 20 8 600

23^ 991 106,070 4 42 19 7 530

22,6 47 98, 876 4 37 15 9 340

24’ 058 429,6 13 18.27 17 9 1 130

24^343 225,8 50 9.2 8 16 0 670

28, 727 192,009 6 68 15 9 390

28,8 34 214,7 23 7.4 5 12 9 670

28, 648 335 632 11 72 14 1 600

26, 548 303,4 59 11.43 12 1 589

25, 752 238,726 9.2 7 10 3 465

26’ 495 231,651 8. 74 9 3 507

27’ 121 258 870 9.55 9 2 515

27,6 38 227,984 8.25 8 3 303

27,5 15 405’ 161 14.73 9 3 572

28,2 23 524; 581 18.59 7.6 818

IN T E R S T A T E C O M M E R C E C O M M IS S IO N

1941 ____________________________

1942 ........................................................

1943 ........................................................

1944 ........................................................

1945 ........................................................

1946.......................................................

1947......... . ............................................

194 8. ......................................................

1949 ........................................................

1950 ........................................................

1951 ........................................................

1952 ........................................................

1953 ........................................................

1954 ............................................ . .........

1955........................... ...........................

1956 .............. ........................................

1957 ........................................................

1958 ........................................................

1959 ........................................................

1960 ........................................................

See footnotes at end of table.

2,785 $287 $0.10 0. 8 10

2,65 2 397 .15 1.1 10

2,24 9 383 .17 .8 10

2,08 7 108 .05 .4 10

2,01 6 82 .04 .4 5

2,23 4 6,453 2.89 1.3 1

2,27 6 1,432 .63 2.3 20

2,27 7 346 .15 .4 5

2,17 8 5,04 2 2.3 1 .9 40

2,101 395 .19 .9 10

2,10 5 2,325 1.10 1.6 30

2,055 6,42 8 3.13 1.4 150

1,883 2,46 9 1.31 .8 70

1,864 579 .31 .8 9

1,837 292 . 16 .3 4

1,966 7,096 3.61 3.2 99

2,186 2,754 1.26 3.1 31

2,25 3 3,035 1.35 2.8 27

2,27 4 6,034 2.6 5 3.6 101

2,35 8 4,665 1.9 8 1.4 56

4

t
TO ESTABLISH A NATION AL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TIO N CENT ER 305

Federal Employees' Compensation Act, injury rate s and costs, with average number of employees by establishments, 1937 to 1960—Continued 

N A T IO N A L A E R O N A U T IC S A N D SP AC E A D M IN IS T R A T IO N ‘°

(F or m er ly N at io na l Adv is or y Co mm itt ee for Ae ro na utics)

C al en da r ye ar *

Av era ge 

num ber of 

em plo ye es

Tot al d ire ct 

c o st 1

Tot al cost 

pe r

em plo ye e

Fr eq ue nc y 

r a t e 3

Se ve rit y 

r a t e 4

1941___________ ______________ 1,3 40 $1,801 $1. 34 6. 2 130

1942 ............ ........................................ 2, 58 9 16,649 6.4 3 9. 4 1,2 50

1943 _________ ______ _________ 3, 92 3 9,8 92 2.52 12.0 200

1944 ______________ ____ _______ 5,68 4 15,10 5 2.66 13.4 170

1945 ____ ________ ___________ — 6, 13 7 19,384 3.16 13 .5 160

1946____ ________________ _____ 5, 505 26, 863 4.8 8 16.3 390

1947___________ __________ ___ 5, 84 6 19,750 3.3 8 16.4 180

1948 __________________________ 6,45 9 23, 966 3. 71 13.0 190

1949___ _______ _______________ 6,99 5 52,7 64 7.5 4 14.1 430

1 9 5 0 .. ........................ ....................... 7,22 5 94,2 58 13.05 13.2 1, 120

1951 .......... .......... ............................... 7, 47 5 71,745 9.6 0 11. 3 330

1952................ .......... ..................... . 7,50 9 193,995 25.83 10.1 930

1 9 5 3 .. .................. ............................. 7,02 2 171,979 24.49 4. 2 630

1954............ ........................................ 7,1 11 209 ,532 29 .47 3. 2 1,3 99

1955..................................................... 7,4 12 22, 347 3.0 1 2. 9 94

1956.............. .................................. . 7,7 21 32,3 87 4.1 9 3.1 189

1957................................................. — 7,80 9 22,171 2.8 4 2.1 88

1958 «____________ ____ ________ 7,92 3 75,374 9. 51 2. 9 479

1959 .............. ...................................... 9, 10 7 360 ,566 39 .59 3.1 755

1960..................................................... 12 ,72 4 91,25 1 7.1 7 2. 4 294

N A T IO N A L L A B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D

1941 ....................... . ......................... 827 $248 $0 .30 0. 7 40

1942 901

1943 ..........................-....................... 810 586 .7 2 1.1 60

1944 708 5 .01

194 5 ............ - ................................ 1,0 41 56 .0 5 .4 10

1946 .............................................- 910 663 .7 3 1. 6 40

1947 745 10 .01

1948 .......... - ................................ 1,69 7 1,3 48 .7 9 1. 4 50

1949 ............................................... L 53 5 4,1 36 2.69 3. 8 120

195 0.................................................... 1,50 8 220 .1 6 1. 0 4

1951 ................................................... 1, 42 7 642 .45 2. 7 20

1952 ..................... ............ ............ 1,2 41 963 .78 2. 3 20

1953 ............................................... 1,32 5 1,844 1.3 9 3. 3 50

1954 ....................................- ............ 1,2 08 869 .7 2 2. 0 21

1955 ............................................... 1,13 9 960 .84 2. 5 22

19 56 ........ ................................ ........... 1,12 1 5,0 09 4.4 7 3. 4 106

1957 ................................................... 1,1 33 8,5 00 7.5 0 1. 7 300

195 8..................................................... 1,21 0 4,5 48 3.7 6 3. 6 111

195 9........................... . ....................... 1,47 7 2,5 70 1.74 2. 3 58

1 9 6 0 .. .................... ........................... 1, 71 8 2,1 28 1.2 4 2. 2 25

R A IL R O A D R E T IR E M E N T B O A R D

1041 2, 26 7 $1,0 60 $0. 47 3.7 50

1942.............. ...................................... 1,94 6 852 .44 3. 4 40

1943..................................................... 1,65 2 1,554 .94 2. 4 110

1944.............. . ............ - ................. . . L 76 9 2,7 36 1.55 2. 5 70

1945..................................................... L 82 2 7,1 30 3. 91 2. 4 440

1946..................................................... 2, 03 6 1,837 .9 0 4. 0 50

1947..................................................... 2,76 3 2,87 3 1.0 4 2.1 50

1948 ...........- .............. ....................... 2^583 19,017 7.3 6 2. 8 1,1 50

1949.................................... ................ 2, 43 9 3,8 37 1.5 7 3. 9 70

1950.................. - ....................... ......... 2^2 80 13,13 0 5.7 6 4. 6 210

1051 . _________________ 2'07 0 70,463 34,04 3. 3 1,4 30

1952 .................................- .................. 2, 18 4 5,701 2.6 1 4. 0 80

1953..................................................... 2 3 6 4 2,44 4 1.1 3 2. 2 40

1954............................. ....................... 2 ,311 4,67 5 2.02 5. 2 75

1 9 5 5 .. ........... .................................... 2, 31 6 39,6 64 17.1 3 4 .2 1,0 17

1956.......... .............. . ......................... 2^2 42 1,050 .47 1.9 10

1957..................................................... 2 ,394 1,097 .46 1.0 10

1958 .......... . ...................................... 2 ,510 4,9 08 1.9 6 2. 7 50

1959 . ............ .................................. 2 3 6 9 1,245 .53 1. 6 13

1960................ — .........................— 2,2 21 2; 376 1.0 7 2. 2 35

See footnotes at end o f table.
306 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, injury rates and costs, with average

number of employees by establishments, 1937 to 1960—Continued

S E C U R IT IE S A N D E X C H A N G E C O M M IS SIO N

Calend ar year 1

1941,

1942

1943 

1944. 

1945

1946.

1947. 

1948- 

1949. 

1950

1951.

1952. 

1953 

1954.

1955

1956

1957

1958

195 9.

196 0.

Av erage 

num be r of 

em plo yees

Tot al d irect 

cost 2

Tot al cost 

per

em plo yee

Freq ue ncy 

rat e 8

Se ve rit y 

rate 4

1,636 $867 $0.53 1.7 40

1,441 196 .14 1.7 10

1,274 78 .06 .7 10

1,155 181 . 16 1.1 10

1,153 75 .07 1.5 2

1,201 88 .07 1.2 4

1,180 614 .52 .4 30

1,137 361 .32 1.3 10

1. 109 135 .12 .4 3

1.021 82 .08 .9 2

992 1,07 6 1.0 8 1.9 30

856 497 .58 1.1 20

762 487 .64 1.3 20

709 279 .39 .7 11

683 876 1.2 8 2.1 32

748 288 .39 .6 10

803

875 1,002 1.15 .5 44

930 2,82 7 3.0 4 1.6 241

983 70 .07

t

>

T E N N E S S E E V A L L E Y A U T H O R IT Y

1937.

1938.

1939.

1940.

1941.

1942.

1943. 

1944

1945.

1946.

1947.

1948

1949

1950

1951 _

1952.

1953.

1954. 

1955 

1956. 

1957 

1958. 

1959 

1960.

13,842 $285,710 $20 .64 32.3 4, 820

12,834 200,1 45 15.59 27.7 2, 870

12,847 198, 669 15.46 21.5 3, 340

15,082 92,6 25 6.1 4 22.2 1,510

24, 863 250, 090 10.0 6 23.8 2, 430

38, 412 4<>8,0,58 12. 19 19.6 2, 290

28, 613 473,2 40 16. 53 15. 1 2, 390

20, .548 333, 783 16. 24 12.4 2,210

12,718 181,641 14.28 11.7 2, 050

11,904 139, 937 11.7 6 12.0 2,170

14, 237 87, 533 6.15 11.4 830

14, 593 98, 303 6. 74 9.8 1,170

13, 251 315, 722 23 .83 6.3 1, 820

13, 755 317,478 23.08 6.3 1, 860

18,484 479,811 25.96 8.5 1, 460

21, 045 701.332 33. 33 7.4 1,970

22. 388 801,436 35.80 7.7 1,760

23. 450 1,390,531 59. 30 8.0 2, 955

19,353 787,219 40.68 8.9 1,988

14, 749 530,557 35.97 6.4 791

15.223 618,215 40. 61 7.6 1, 979

15,557 507,802 32.64 6.7 1,263

14. 594 429, 926 29. 46 7.4 1, 153

14,885 870,8 35 58.50 8.5 2, 253

U .S . C IV IL S E R V IC E C O M M IS SIO N

1942

1943 

1944.

1945

1946 

1947. 

1948

1949.

1950.

1951.

1952.

1953.

1954.

1955.

1956.

1957.

1958. 

1959 

1960.

7,01 8 $1,421 $0 .20 2.0 20

6,547 1,691 .2 6 2.3 10

6.86 3 2,4 26 .3 5 2.8 20

6,364 3.355 .5 3 2.0 30

3,895 981 .2 5 2.2 10

3, 450 2,103 .61 4.6 40

4.02 9 3,420 .85 2.0 70

3, 895 4,231 1.09 3.2 50

3.528 88.360 25.05 3.8 930

4.02 9 4. 323 1.07 4.1 40

4, 703 2,877 .61 2.2 20

4.734 3,397 .72 1.4 20

4,31 3 4,269 .99 1.0 34

3,892 6,002 1.54 2.3 43

4,246 2,974 .7 0 1.7 19

4,386 2,77 7 .63 1.6 16

3,9 57 269,0 50 67.99 2.6 1, 501

3.7 50 4,134 1. 10 2.6 27

3,582 27,7 16 7.7 4 2.7 213

4

f

See footnotes at end of table.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 307

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, injury rates and costs, with average

number of employees by establishments, 1937 to 19(50—Continued

*

C

V E T E R A N S ’ A D M IN IS T R A T IO N

C ale ndar ye ar >

A ve ra ge 

n um ber of 

em plo yee s

T ota l direc t 

c o s t 1 2

T o ta l co st 

p er

em plo yee

F re q u en cy 

ra te 3

Sev er it y 

ra te 4 *810

1937 . _______________________ 34,94 4 $226, 271 $6. 48 8. 5 1,730

1938 . ___________________ 35,62 2 304.9 29 8.56 8. 8 1,83 0

1939 __________________________ 37,35 5 369, 215 9.88 9. 4 2, 510

iy40 . _ - . __________________ 40,00 9 187, 729 4. 69 10.0 1,04 0

1941 ____ __ ______________ 42, 668 335, 763 7.87 12.4 1, 460

1942 - - ______________________ 44, 119 372, 694 8.45 12.7 1, 160

1943 - - ___________ -- 46. 271 392, 707 8. 49 13.7 980

1944 . . . ______________ 51, 132 379,1 02 7.41 12.0 760

1945 - ____ _______________ 68,0 73 479,071 7.04 10.3 780

1946 ____ ___________ 169, 686 972, 792 5.73 7.3 580

1947 . ............ ....................... . 213,051 1,378,2 61 6. 47 7. 8 780

1948 - - ______________ 198, 535 1, 238, 729 6.24 8. 0 730

1949 ________________________ 197,896 3,3 89, 050 17.13 8.3 930

1950 ............ ... - -- 189, 655 3, 491, 729 18.41 8. 3 1.000

1951 . . . . __________________ 182. 281 3,489, 223 19.14 8. 5 950

1952 . ______________________ 176. 800 2,931, 251 16.58 9. 0 720

1953 - ______________________ 179,148 2,258 , 703 12.61 8. 2 580

1954 - - -- _________________ 179, 632 2,252 , 768 12. 54 8.0 545

1955 . __________ _____________ 177,893 1.90 9,277 10.73 7.5 416

1956 177, 628 2.195 , 288 12.36 7.1 521

1957 ________ _____ _________ 175, 871 1.802.750 10.25 6.8 400

1958 __________ _____ __________ 172, 739 1,71 1,879 9.91 6.6 409

1959 . .. ____ _________ 172, 293 1,585.411 9.20 6. 1 365

1960____________________________ 173, 178 1,85 3,98 8 10.71 5.1 392

1950 5, 018 $189 $0.04 0.3

1951 _____ ____ _______________ 8,2 18 3,997 .49 1.5 30

1952 . ...................................... ........... 8,1 72 44,079 5.3 9 1.6 470

1953 __________________________ 7,6 86 10,844 1.41 .8 110

1954____________ ____ __________ 7,3 19 14,347 1.96 1.4 476

1955____ ____________ __________ 7,0 16 4, 3.50 .62 1.3 20

1956 ______ _____ ____________ 6,8 72 4,634 .67 1.3 433

1957 . ............._....................... ........... 6,6 56 5,290 .79 1.7 31

1958____ _______________________ 6,3 35 10, 767 1.70 1.9 61

1959 ___________________________ 6,3 52 44,883 7.07 1.9 1,017

1960____________________________ 6,281 8,253 1.31 2.5 29

F E D E R A L A V IA T IO N A O E N C Y

»

1959_______________ ____ _______ 32 ,92 3 $399,401 $12.13 4.4 333

1960________________ _____ _____ 37 ,63 4 1,002,002 26.62 4.3 663

1

 In ju ri es su st ain ed b y ci v il ia n F ed era l em plo yee s duri n g c ale ndar year, as re p o rt ed th ro u g h M ar. 31 of 

th e fo llo win g ye ar .

2

 I n clu d es dir ect expenditure s p ay ab le b y th e B ure au of E m plo yee s’ C o m pensa ti on an d th e val ue of 

le av e d ay s o f ab se nc e w it h p a y d u ri n g d is ab il it y . (Incl ud es e v alu ate d fu tu re c ost in o pen cases .)

3

 N u m b er of d is ab li ng in ju ies p er m il li on m an-h ours .

4

 N u m b er of day s los t per m illion m an -h o u rs .

3

 A rm y A ir Fo rc e.

• D ep a rtm e n t of th e A ir For ce e st ab li sh ed b y th e N ati o n al S ec uri ty A ct of 1947.

’ E xclu des in ju ri es t o “ O th er w ork er s” of A SC co u n ty office an d co op er at iv e ex te nsi on service .

8

 D e p artm en t of H ea lt h, E d u cati o n , a n d W el fa re cr ea te d b y R eo rg an iz at io n P la n N o. 1 of 1953.

’ G ener al Se rv ic es A d m in is tr ati o n w as esta b li sh ed by th e F ed era l P ro p e rty a n d A d m in is tr ati v es Ser vices A ct o f 1949.

10 T h e N ati o n al A er on au tics an d Spa ce A d m in is tr ati o n w as est ablish ed by th e N ati o n al A er on au tics 

an d Spac e A ct of 1958.

N o t e.—A dis ab li ng inj ury is de fi ne d as a n y o cc upat io nal fa ta l or p erm an en t i n ju ry ; a n d an y t em p o ra ry 

in ju ry c ausi ng lo ss of tim e of 8 h ours o r m o re bey o n d th e d ay o r sh if t of in ju ry .

Sig nific an t co st incr ea se s im m edia te ly aft er 1948 d u e in larg e p a rt to sta tu to ry li ber al iz at io n of be nef its 

in 1949.
308 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VENTION CENTER

The Chairman. Mr. Solicitor, do you believe th at such an activity 

as an accident prevention center in the Federal Government could 

perform a useful purpose in bringing about better coordination and 

better use of the moneys tha t we spend in the field of accident research 

prevention ?

Mr. Donahue. I believe tha t may well be so, sir, w ith the thought 

in mind that the activities of such a center would supplement rath er 

duplicate or conflict with the existing safety and health functions of 

the Federal Government divided among the many agencies of the 

Government.

The Chairman. Do you believe that such an activity could be carried on without duplicating work of this sort being done in the field 

eithe r by Government groups or by private groups ?

Mr. Donahue. I would think so. I would certainly think so. There 

is no logical reason I can conceive of why it could not be so tailored. <

The Chairman. Than k you, gentlemen. We appreciate again your 

appearance before the subcommittee, and your statement as requested 

will be incorporated in th e record and I will leave the record open so 

that you may supply the additional information which the Chair >

requested.

Mr. Donahue. We will do that. It has been a pleasure to be here.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Reporter, I have here a statement from the Department of 

Labo r to be included in the record.

(The letter referred to above follows:)

U.S. Department of Labor,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, April S, 1961.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Harris : This is in fu rth er response to your request for 

the views of this Departme nt on H.R. 133, a bill to amend tit le II I of the Public 

He alt h Sendee Act to esta blish a national accid ent preventio n center.

The general objectives of H.R. 133 of preventing and reducing accidents are, 

of course, highly desirable. The bill, however, by centralizin g in the Public 

He alt h Service broad au thority and responsibility in the accident prevention 

field raises the most serious problems of shiftin g and overlapping responsibilities 

and functions now resting in many specialized Government agencies, including 

the Department of Labor. If it should be considered desirable to provide for 

coordination of the accident prevention work of the Feder al Government, we 

are firmly convinced th at no t only should the present alineme nt of functions 

among specialized Government agencies be retained, but th at the Public Health 

Service is not the appro priate agency for any centralization for reasons discussed «

below.

This bill would authorize the Public Hea lth Service to engage in every pha se 

of accident prevention exce pt the issuance and enforcement of safety regulations. Specifically, in section 382:

(1) The measure would autho rize the PHS to “conduct, assist, and foste r r

research, investigations, studies relatin g to the causes, and methods of prevention of accidents.”

Under this autho rity the PH S could duplicate or possibly acquire control of 

the factfinding and analysis program relatin g to occupational accidents now conducte d by the Department’s B ure au of Labor Statistics, the Intersta te Commerce 

Commission, the Bureau of Mines, and the Dep artm ent of Agriculture. Similarly, PHS could duplicate, or possibly acqu ire control of the factfinding and 

analy sis program of tra nspo rta tio n accidents now conducted by the Interstate 

Commerce Commission, th e C ivil Aeronautics Board, the Burea u of Public Roads,
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 309

and the Coast Guard. PHS could dupli cate or possibly acq uir e contro l of the saf ety educ ation al and prom otio nal activitie s of the Bu rea u of Labo r Sta ndard s of the Dep artm ent of Labor, th e Fed eral Safe ty Council, the Natio nal Bureau of Standa rds, the Bur eau of Pub lic Roads, and the De par tment of Agricultu re. (2 ) The measure would also author ize the PHS to “prom ote the c oord ination of research and control pro gra ms conducted by public and pri vat e agencies, 

orga nizations, and individ uals .” The autho rity here is vague, bu t could be interp reted as conferring autho rity to exercise control over reg ula tor y agencies such as the In te rs ta te Commerce Commission, the Wage and Ho ur and Public Con trac ts Divisions, the Bureau of 

Labo r Stan dard s, and the Coa st Guar d. The Dep artm ent of Labor has given general direc tion and nat ion al lead ership to the occupational safety program . Technic al assista nce is rend ered to Sta te safety officials in order to imp rove accide nt preventio n methods. In coopera­ tion wit h the States, surve ys of high -haza rd or otherwise signif icant ind ust ries are conducted, and da ta pre pared on sources of inj ury and methods of hazar d contro l. Organized lab or’s in terest in safe ty is supp orted thro ugh the tra ini ng of labor represen tatives in the fundam entals of occu patio nal safe ty. The Dep artm ent’s Burea u of Labo r Sta ndard s servic es the Pre sident ’s Con­ fere nce on Occupational Safety, which brings toge ther the rep resent ativ es of man agem ent and labor and othe r inter ested group s concerned with problems in thi s field and the developme nt and appli catio n of meth ods to meet thes e problems. In addition, the Bu rea u fur the rs the work of the Fed eral Safe ty Council, which concerns its elf wit h accident preventio n and safe ty prog ram s 

for Feder al employees. On the intern atio nal level, the Bure au is recognized by the ILO and the Inter na tio na l Committee on Rad iation Prot ecti on as the respons ible agency in the United States in m atters of occupational safe ty. H.R. 133 could cause ma jor duplication and confu sion in the performa nce of thes e functions. It should also be noted th at, while accide nt preventio n is direc tly rela ted to the field of operations of the Public Hea lth Service, the gre at majority of acci den ts result from mechani cal or physical conditions which can best be id enti­ fied and controlle d by enginee ring principles. As a result, the preve ntion of acci dents is firmly esta blished as an engineering science ra th er tha n a medica l activity. The inevitable emp hasis which the bill would plac e upon the medica l and psychological aspects of acc iden t preve ntion would con stit ute a sharp rea d­ justm en t in the recognized app roa ch to accident prev entio n and would, in our opinion, res ult in a d isru ptio n of the safety movement. The confusion which would resu lt from enactm ent of this bill is fu rth er em­ phas ized by the fac t th at in pra ctical ly all Sta tes the responsibility of accid ent prev entio n both in gove rnme nt and indu stry is centered in a safety, rat he r tha n 

a medical division. In view of the foregoin g we would be opposed to the ena ctm ent of H.R. 133. The Bureau of the Budg et advises th at there is no objec tion from the sta nd ­ point of the adminis tration’s pro gra m to the submission of thi s rep ort to you r 

committee.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur Goldberg, Secreta ry of Labor.

The Chairman. This will conclude the hearings on H.R. 133 and the record will remain open for a period of 10 days so that additional material may be filed by the witnesses who requested tha t privilege.

The committee will now be adjourned. (The following material was submitted for the record:)

Sta te men t of F red erick Sil be r, Managing E ditor, Medica l Tri bu ne , New

York, N.Y.

Medica l Tribu ne is an inde pen den t newspaper for the medical profess ion, circ ula ting weekly at the pre sen t time to approxima tely 160,0 00 physi cians in pri vate prac tice thro ugh out th e United State s. It s func tion is to keep docto rs ab reast of the latest de velopments in all aspec ts of medical p rac tice and r ese arch 

on a global scale. Fro m inti mate knowledge of medic al problems, the edi tors of Medical Tribun e know th at accide nts of all types con stitute as serio us a th re at to human life in the United States as do many specific disease conditions. Auto accid ents alone
310 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

have often been termed of epidemic proportions. Because we know that great 

progress has been stimulated in the conquest of disease through the research 

activities of the National Inst itutes of Health, we strongly endorse the legislation proposed in H.R. 133 to establish within the U.S. Public Health Service a 

National Accident Prevention Research Center, which can perform comparable 

services in this important area.

Medical Tribune’s support of H.R. 133 can best be expressed through our 

recent experience with one noteworthy segment of the accident problem—auto 

accidents. During 1961, and extending well into this year, one of our major 

projects has been to report to physicians the factual background and current 

status of research and safety efforts to reduce the highway toll. This was 

accomplished in a series of 12 articles published between June and November of 

1961, accompanied by numerous illustrations, editorials, letters, and corollary 

material. (A complete set of the issues of Medical Tribune containing these 

articles is being submitted to the subcommittee, and additional reprints will be 

supplied as soon as they are off the press.)

As practitioners who are among the first to see the horrifying effects and 

human tragedies of auto accidents, physicians are a key group in establishing 

and applying measures to prevent accidents. In their contacts with patients 

and patients’ families, with hospitals, schools, police, civic organizations, and 

public-spirited bodies of many varieties, the doctors can do much to educate 

people for auto safety.

One of the conclusions reached early in the publication of the Medical Tribune 

series was that physicians as a whole are avidly interested in the factual story 

of safety research and are eager to have fa r more information made available 

to them. The response to the safety series, in the form of letters and requests 

for more copies, demonstrated an enthusiastic awareness of the job th at physicians can do to reduce accident injuries and deaths.

In addition, we have found tha t research scientists working on auto safety 

projects in the medical field are equally enthusiastic over the fact that much 

useful information can be made available to practicing physicians. As the 

months went by. we heard from many doctors who were putting this information 

on research findings to practical use, in television programs sponsored by county 

medical societies, through talks given to civic organizations, and by many other 

means.

Physicians are not only agents for the use and transmission of safety information—they are also research investigators. They are impressed by the advances 

made through determining the physiologic and biologic bases of accident causation—in other words, the public health approach. Treating accidents as a disease 

problem leads logically to establishment of a national research center.

Reporting work on this project naturally led through all the major fields of 

research endeavor, from the human factors tha t affect auto-driving ability to 

problems of vehicle and highway designing, law enforcement, and public education. It is our feeling that the valuable work now being accomplished by many 

dedicated scientists would be vastly augmented and benefited by establishing the 

National Accident Prevention Research Center as proposed in II.R. 133.

In addition to stimulating and supporting a coordinated research program, 

the center can become a major source for the dissemination of vital information 

and the training of accident-prevention experts. These benefits will in turn 

reflect through the various cooperating organizations. State, county, and community groups and professional societies with immediate advantages throughout 

the Nation.

From all the official statistics made available to your committee, it becomes 

clear tha t well-directed research into the prevention of accidents, whether on the 

highway, in the home, in the factory, or in recreation, will bring about the saving of lives and the alleviation of human suffering. While no vaccine may 

result to eliminate this disease complex, the benefits flowing from H.R. 133 will, 

in our opinion, be as dramatic ally effective.

Statement of Walter A. Cutter, Ph. D., Director, Center for Safety

Education, Division of General Education, New York University

Mr. Chairman, I favor H.R. 133, subject to such modifications as may be 

desirable in realizing the primary purposes of the measure—research and training. The size and complexity of the problems of accidents in the United States
TO ESTABLISH A NATIO NAL ACCIDENT PR EV EN TI ON CENT ER 311

re quir es ad ditio nal re so ur ce s, an d, as co nt em pl at ed , th e U.S. Pub lic H ealth 

Se rvice, w ith in its pro fe ss io na l co mpe tenc ies an d w ith ad ded tr ain in g in a c ­

ci dent pr ev en tion m etho ds fo r it s pe rson ne l, ca n m ak e a su b sta n ti al co nt ribu tion . 

T hre e a re as of sp ec ial sign ific an ce m ay be n ote d.

1 . A RE SE AR CH CE NT ER

T he Cen te r fo r Saf et y E duc at io n, sin ce it s est ab lish m en t in 1938, ha s been 

co nc er ne d in re se ar ch in m an y ph as es of th e ac ci de nt prob lems. Such re se ar ch 

has ta ken th e form of st af f re se ar ch , st ud ie s su pp or te d by sp ec ial gra nts , an d 

re se ar ch es ca rr ie d on as p a rt of th e re qu irem en ts fo r th e do ct or at e. In th is 

en ti re pe rio d, se ve ra l are as of ne ed ha ve been no ted , an d th e dir ec to r of re ­

se ar ch of th e ce nter , w or ki ng dir ectl y an d th ro ugh var io us re se ar ch co mmittee s, 

ha s be en h elpi ng to m ee t th es e ne ed s.

The y are — (a ) An in cr ea se in th e nu m be r of co m pe te nt fu ll-t im e re se ar ch er s, with, 

ad equate su p p o rt ;

(ft) Im pr ov ed re se a rc h ;

(c ) C on tinu ity of re se arc h ;

(<Z) Coo rd inated re se arc h in wh ich selected as pe ct s of a m aj or prob lem 

co uld be sim ul ta ne ou sly st udie d w ith a vie w to unit in g th eir fin din gs in 

ap p li cati o n ;

(e ) Fac ilitie s fo r evalu ati ng c om plete d re searc h es;

(/) Fac ilitie s fo r in cr easi ng th e utiliza tion of val id at ed re se ar ch fin din gs 

th ro ugh ap pl ic at io n in th e pra ct ic al field of ac ci de nt pr ev en tion .

To m ee t th es e needs, it is cle ar th at fu nds a re ne ce ss ar y, an d, eq ua lly im ­

port ant, an es ta bl ishe d pla n w hi ch th ro ug h th e years w ill br in g ab ou t man y 

of th e ben efits c on tem pl at ed in H.R . 133. We en do rs e ve ry h eart il y th e prop os ed ac ti vit ie s of th e P ublic H ea lth Se rvice 

in th es e di re ct io ns an d be lie ve th a t th e es ta bl is hm en t of su ch a re se ar ch ce nte r 

ca n m ak e a trem en do us contr ib uti on to sa fe ty in th e U nited Sta te s.

2 . RES EA RC H PE RSO NNEL

T her e are high ly co m pe te nt pe op le fu nc tion in g in ac ci de nt re se ar ch in th is 

co un tr y, bu t they are too fe w in nu mb er. To a tt ra c t co m pe te nt re se ar ch 

pe rs on ne l in to th e field of acci den t re se ar ch , th ere m ust be th es e ele m ents : 

spe cif ic pr oj ec ts to dir ec t or part ic ip ate in. an d co nti nuit y of su pp or t. Re ­

se arc hers pr es en tly em ploy ed in un iv er si ties or by oth er ag en cies ca n so meti mes 

be per su ad ed to att em pt p a rt ic u la r rese ar ch es . O th er w ise, it is im pr ac tica bl e 

to se cu re in de pe nd en t re searc h ers fo r sp ec ial st udie s an d th en tu rn them loose, 

w ith t h e h op e of pick ing them up a gain as n eed ar ises .

The avai la bility of co nq iete nt re se ar ch er s fo r su ch pe riod ic em ploy men t is 

do ub tful . Th e need is fo r a co rp s of re se ar ch er s to be re cr uited , develop ed , 

an d su pp or ted.

T hi s ne ed H.R. 133 is des ig ne d to me et, an d ag ai n th e m ea su re is h eart il y 

en do rs ed .

3 . TR AIN IN G

A m ajo r p a rt of th e wor k of th e Ce nter fo r Saf et y E duca tion is conc erne d 

w ith sa fe ty ed uc ation and tr a in in g in ac ci de nt pr ev en tion tech ni qu es .

The follo wing pr og ra m s are pre se ntly in force, w ith th eir d u ra ti o n :

(« ) H ig he r de gr ee s pr ogra m , lead ing to th e de gr ee s of m ast er of ar ts , 

do ct or of ph ilo sop hy, an d doct or of edu ca tio n : 24 y ears ;

(ft) Cer tif ic ate (n ond eg re e) pr og ra m in In d u str ia l and Tru ck Fle et 

S afe ty : 24 y e a rs;

(c ) T ra in in g of sa fe ty pe rs on ne l, m il it ary an d ci vi lian , D ep ar tm en t of 

th e Arm y, an d U.S. A ir F o rc e : 20 y e a rs ;

(</) S ta te tra tfi c sa fe ty m an ag em en t, a pro gr am de sign ed to im prov e 

officia l S ta te pr og ra m in g an d m an ag em en t of tratfic sa fe ty : 4 y ears ;

(e ) Sp ecial co ur se s an d se m in ar s fo r college an d univ ers it y teac he rs, 

hi gh school teac he rs, sch ool adm in is tr ato rs , police, pu bl ic u ti li ty pe rson ne l, 

an d o th e rs: 24 ye ars.

(/) Such tr ain in g pro gra m s as th e Cen te r m ay be in vited to dev ise .

The se a re men tio ne d to il lu s tr a te bo th th e cente r’s in te re st and it s part ic ip ation i n ed uc at io na l an d tr ain in g p ro gra m s on a bro ad sc ale .
312 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

In light of the foregoing, it may be stated tha t this basic concern with trai ning comes about through recognition of the value of and need for trained personnel for accident prevention programing.

The Division of Accident Prevention, U.S. Public Health Service, has similarly 

recognized this need. The Center for Safety Education is presently conducting 

an orientation and training program for accident prevention specialists, U.S. 

Public Health Service, who, upon completion of course work and directed field 

exj>eriences, will be assigned to State and local health departments to facilitate 

work in accident prevention by public health personnel.

Such training must be expanded if the very considerable resources of the 

Public Health Service are to be directed to the vital area of accidents. These 

men may be described as general practitioners, schooled in all the major areas 

of accidents and competent to decide upon and recommend those accident areas 

most in need of immediate atten tion and most susceptible to preventive programs 

on the basis of present knowledge.

Along with research activities noted in H.R. 133, expanded trainin g must be 

viewed as indispensable to the realization of the purposes of this measure. The 

prese nt trainin g program now going on at New York University represents a 

first in tha t it is designed to provide both broad trainin g and specific skills, and 

it is increasingly evident tha t such broad training is a pressing necessity. It 

should be undertaken on a larger scale without delay.

This section of H.R. 133 is heartily endorsed, particularly in view of its 

anticipated outcomes.

Statement of Dr. Samuel R. Gerber, General Chairman, Blueprint for Life

Safety Campaign of the Greater Cleveland Safety Council

The Blueprint for Life safety campaign and its sponsor, the Greater Cleveland 

Safety Council, are deeply indebted to the U.S. Public Health Service.

Without the encouragement, leadership, and support of the Public Health Service, it is doubtful the Blueprint campaign ever would have been undertaken.

Certainly, Blueprint never could have attained its scope, int ensity and impact 

withou t the materials, services and counsel provided by PHS.

The Public Health Service has provided Blueprint with materials, safety films 

and other special services costing more than $200,000. And while this investment by PHS did not bring cash into the Blueprint funds, it did bring to the 

campaign a strength, vitality and sustenance tha t lifted the project far above 

the level i t otherwise could have reached.

Later, the seven 15-minute safety films produced by PHS and now in wide use 

throughout Greater Cleveland, along with other materials, will be made available 

to every community in the Nation tha t desires them.

Blueprint for Life is a pilot run for the Nation—a labora tory test in accident 

prevention, an exciting exploratio n into the vast and uncha rted potentials of 

organized safety.

Nothing comparable to Blueprint in scope and size has even been attempted 

before in this country or elsewhere. This is a sustained, continuing, all-out 

atta ck by all segments of a community of 1,700,(XX) persons—not on accidents of 

one type, but on fires and accidents of all types, re gardless of where and when 

they occur.

It has a specific goal—the saving of 100 lives and the prevention of 12,000 

disablin g in juries in 1 year. . . . 

4

Equally and perhaps even more important, it proposes to actively continue this 

lifesaving effort as par t of the Safety Council’s program aft er the actual 12- 

montb campaign period has ended.

If the campaign succeeds, i t will mark a dramatic and major breakthrough in 

accident prevention. If it fails, it will have struck organized safety a body blow. t

In the first 4 months of the campaign—September 1901, to Janua ry 1962— 

the death toll from fires and accidents of all kinds in Greate r Cleveland came 

down bv 30 from the same period a year before.

This indicates tha t with equal or increasing activity in the campaign, the goal 

of saving 100 lives can and will be realized.

This campaign, it is true, could not be waged as effectively without the fa cilities of the U.S. Public Health Service and the task force of statisticians and 

other specialists PHS has provided.

But. it is also true tha t it could be waged with infinitely more ease, precision 

and efficiency if the U.S. Public Health Service had the research center proposed 

in H.R. 133.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 313

And simila r campaigns throughout the United States can be conducted and doubtless will be conducted—with much great er chance of success if such a 

research center is created. Definite, specific and ac curate fac ts and figures as to ju st where fires and acci­ dents of all kinds are occurring, to whom they are occurring, and precisely why they are occurring, are tragically unavailable in Greate r Cleveland, and elsewhere. Through the help of PHS, the Bluep rint campaign is uncovering such facts in Greater Cleveland—but slowly and laboriously. Had we had such facts when the campaign began, we could have pinpointed our a ttack instead of scattering it. A research center in USPHS, serving as a clearinghouse for accident facts and figures from all over the Nation, and stimulatin g more and more research on local, S tate and National levels, would provide every community with a source of vita l information essential to any real success in reducing the fire and accident 

toll. We know from first-hand experience in the Blueprint campaign tha t such a research center is a must fo r successful accident prevention efforts. We cannot urge too strongly tha t it be made possible through passage of H.R. 133.

Sta t e m e n t op R obert F. B o r k e n s t e in , Ch a ir m a n , D epa r tm en t of P ol ice

Ad m in is t r a t io n , I ndi ana Un iv e r si t y

This presentat ion is intentionally limited to one facet of the total accident prevention program because it is the only one with which I am intimately acquainted. The explosive growth of the American highway trans portation system has generated problems tha t in terms of property loss approach catastrophe and that in term of loss of life certai nly constitute an epidemic. It is the charge of traffic policing agencies to move this mass of man and mate rial as rapidly as possible in reasonable safety. This obviously had not been satisfactorily ac­ complished in spite of sincere efforts by traffic police officials to use the informa­ tion, tools, and police power available to them. Few social problems reach as many people in their everyday lives as safety in motor transportation. Involvement in a crime is highly unlikely but participa­ tion in a motor vehicle accident is never over a few feet away. Yet, like so many great problems, little is actually known about the fundamental causes. Salving the sore is about as far as the remedy goes. Most of the accident-pre­ vention pana ceas applied today have no lasting effect, or parti ally solve the prob­ lem by impeding the rapid flow of traffic, thereby defeating the very purpose of regulation. Of course, th ere are exceptions to this in which imagination and intelligent ideas have been applied. There is urgent need for more fundamen tal information th at will put real meaning into efforts to prevent accidents through traffic regulation. The a reas of driver behavior, driver training, fundamental accident causes, penology in traffic offenses, and traffic laws based on scientifically developed evidence in­ cluding the eliciting of voluntary compliance, all warrant careful study. The coordination of organizations capable of recognizing the problems and of investigating them systematically is urgently required. Moreover, such co­ ordination must encourage the development of research teams tha t can stay to­ gether for continuity over years. The lack of such continuity limits the ability to interest high-caliber scientists to engage in this type of research. It is not enough to permit the agencies faced with the problems to try to solve them empirically from thei r limited and often biased points of view’. It is not enough to permit scientists with litt le knowledge of the complex “real world” of the subjects they are studying to try to solve them in their laboratories in­ dependently. There must be a central agency capable of supporting those or­ ganizations capable of producing valid information and tha t can bring this information to the attention of those who can tran slate it into action programs useful on the firing line of traffic policing. We are in the process of developing an undergraduate course in this very area in the face of a real de arth of res earch information. There are vast untouched factfinding resources ready to tackle these prob­ lems in priva te and university organizations. Intellig ent direction by a co­ ordinating organization could focus the accumulated information on the problems by acting as a clearinghouse and disseminating agency. The Department of
314 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

Police Adm inistration at India na University has a definite intere st in such inform ation as pa rt of the body of scientific evidence teachable in a logical way 

to present to futu re police officials.

Fo r these reasons, as well as our intere st as American citizens in our national 

welfare, we are most enthu siastic over the possibility of the establishm ent of a 

Nation al Accident Pr eve ntion Research Center.

As longtime members of i>olice agencies and now as members of a n academic 

institution , we recognize the need of one for the other. There must be liaiso n 

between them and an agency such as the one proposed could effectively be just 

that.

Sta tem en t of t h e R evere nd H owa rd H ar pe r, D. D.

I wish to speak in fav or of the establish ment of a National Accident Prev ention Center.

While I do not at this hea ring officially represent eith er organization, I 

cannot help speaking from the point of view of an officer of the National Council 

of the Pro testan t Episcopal Church, and a member of the National Committee 

of Religious Leaders for Safety (of the National Safety Council).

To anyone who believes in man’s worth as the image of God, it is difficult 

to see how this bill could be opposed. The preservation of human life is a 

religious matter. To pre ven t the destruction of life is our duty to God, and 

failu re to use every means within our power to prevent such destructio n is of 

the natur e of sacrilege.

It is probably true that some—even many—accidents are not preventable, and 

will continue in the face of all our efforts.

Bu tI know it is also tru e th at many can be prevented through the improvement of mechanical safety devices, and I believe it is tru e that many more can 

be prevented through psychological studies of the hum an factors involved.

In both the mechanical and the psychological are as activities are, of course, 

now going on—uncoordinated, piecemeal, local. A national center would perform the double service of bringing together alre ady existin g knowledge and of 

fu rth er advancing our understandings on a tota l national scale.

I would be strongly in fav or of this bill even if I were not concerned about 

the religious values involved. Having also the religious concern, I am doubly 

in f avo r of it.

I earn estly urge the establishm ent of a National Accident Prevention Center.

Sta te m ent of Dr. P err y F . P ra th er . Co m m is si o n er of H ea l t h , Sta te of Mar yl a n d ; C h a ir m a n, Leg is la tiv e Co m m it tee. A ss oci ati on of Sta te an d T errit oria l H ea lt h Offic er s

There is overwhelming evidence that accidents, as a cause of illness, disability, 

or death, constitute one of the major public hea lth problems today.

In addition to the human suffering and misery the costs are staggering, not 

only to individuals and fam ilie s hut also to employers, the community, and the 

State. This is tru e whether the accident occurs at work, in the home, or on the 

highw ay.

Let me cite an example of the cost, alone, of a small segment of the problem 

in one of the smaller States, with slightly over 3 million population. The Sta te 

of Maryland operates three hospitals for the treatm ent and reha bilitation of 

adult patients with long-term illness or disability. The capacity of the three 

hospitals will be 1.100 beds bu t it is a new program and we now have a census 

of 780. One hundred fifty-seven, or 20 percent, of the cases are the result of 

an accident. The tota l opera ting cost of the three hospitals is 3% million. 

Twe nty percent of this figure is 700.000. If one adds to thi s the cost of caring 

for disabled accident victim s in general hospitals, special hosp itals for children, 

nursing homes, and in their own homes, the figure would be enormously increased. These figures do n ot tak e into account the loss of the services of these 

people to society. The first 12 names from the list of 157 patients th at was 

forw arded me by the hospital supe rintendents were of persons with the following occupations—salesman, painter, roofer and sheet metal worker, tree trimmer, steelworker, superviso r, steelworker, engineer, laborer, housewife, schooltea che r and laborer. They ranged in ages 28 to 71.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER 315

The iini»o rta nee of ac ci de nt s as a ca us e of m ort al ity has been hi gh ligh te d by 

til e co nt in ue d dr op in th e perc en ta ge of dea th s fro m oth er ca us es , part ic ula rl y 

th e co mm un icab le di se as es . Amon g ch ild re n an d ad ol es ce nt s ac ci de nt s now 

ra nk as th e lead in g ca us e of dea th , pri m ar ily be ca us e pre ve nt iv e me dicin e has 

succ ee de d in lowering th e m o rt ali ty ra te which pr ev io us ly oc cu rr ed from in ­

fe ct io us di se as es . Acc iden ts are to a larg e exte nt pr ev en ta bl e. Con sid erab le 

pr og re ss ha s bee n mad e by in d u str y th ro ug h ac ci de nt pr ev en tion ap pr oa ch ed 

in itia lly by co ns id er at io n of sa fe ty m ea su re s ad ap te d to wor k si tu ati ons fo r 

th e pr ot ec tion of wor ke rs. Also sa fe ty fa ct ors ha ve be en in st al le d in th e pr od ­

uc ts of in dust ry , such as se at be lts in ca rs an d oth er m ea su re s di re ct ed to w ar d 

th e re du ct io n of motor ve hicle ac ci de nts . Pro gr am s to re du ce home ac ci de nts 

are in cr ea sing , part ic ula ri ly in th e de sign of hom es. W hile we ca n he gratifi ed 

by th e pr og re ss th at ha s bee n mad e, it is woe fully ins uffic ien t.

If we ac ce pt th e fa ct th a t ac cid ents are to a la rg e ex te n t pr ev en ta bl e we 

m us t de ve lop an eff ectiv e pre ve nt iv e pr og ra m, hu t to d o th is mu ch mo re rese ar ch 

into th e ca us es of ac ci de nt s is ne ed ed . Th e ca us es are m ultip le an d com plex. 

Th ey in cl ud e a ho st of envir onm en ta l fa ct ors an d m an y hum an fa ct or s. Th e 

in ve st ig at io n of such m ul tipl e cause s ca n be st be do ne th ro ug h ca re fu lly desig ned an d co ntro lle d re se ar ch by m an y di ff er en t ty pe s of ex jter ts . A Fe de ra l 

re se ar ch cente r fo r ac ci de nt pr ev en tion wo uld offer th e m ea ns fo r intensifi ed 

an d co or di na te d re se ar ch . It wou ld op er at e on a la rg e en ou gh sc al e to ma ke 

fe as ib le th e us e of th e mos t mod er n tech no logica l ai ds in re se ar ch . The ap plica tion of co m pu te rs in ac ci den t pre ven tion re se ar ch co uld hel p to pr od uc e re ­

se ar ch fin ding s mor e qu ickly and h ast en th e es ta blish m en t of a so un d co ntro l 

pr og ra m . In th e past in bo th ac cid ent re se ar ch and acci den t pre ve nt io n the 

m an y im p o rt an t va riab le s whi ch const it ute th e hu m an fa cto rs ha ve been th e 

m os t ne glec ted. Acc iden ts th a t a re th e re su lt of hu m an fa cto rs co nst it ute 70 

per ce nt of all ac cide nts. The U.S . Pu bl ic H ea lth Se rvice, th ro ug h it s var io us ce nte rs an d in st itute s, 

is do ing a ve ry eff ective jo b in ass is ti n g in th e co nt ro l of co m m un icab le disease, 

h eart di se as e, an d ca nc er, by th e ir re se ar ch an d di ss em in at io n of kn ow led ge 

to th e m ed ical an d he al th pr of es sion s. I am co nfiden t th a t th ey co uld ve ry m at eri al ly ass is t th e medica l pr of es sion and pu blic hea lth au th o ri ti es in th e field of 

ac ci de nt pr ev en tio n if th ey w er e give n th e auth ori ty an d fu nds to es ta bl is h a 

re se ar ch cente r in ac ci de nt pre ve nt io n.

Th e es ta blish m en t of such a cente r un de r th e U.S. Pub lic H ea lth Se rvice 

wo uld in no way in te rf ere w ith th e pre ro ga tive s an d re sp on sibi lities of the 

man y oth er ag en cies inv olve d in ac ci den t pr ev en tio n. R ath er it wou ld complemen t an d su pport the m. Sinc e th e m ajo r ca us e of ac ci den ts is now kn ow n to 

be du e to hu m an be ha vior , re se arc h in th is field sh ou ld be th e resp on sibi lity 

of pe rs on s sk ill ed in hea lth m att ers .

Sta tem ent of K a th er in e P ed en , P resid en t, Nati onal F ed er at ion of B u sin e ss

and P ro fe ss io na l W om en ’s Clu bs, I nc.

Mr. C ha irm an an d mem be rs of th e co mm ittee, my nam e is K ath eri ne Peden. 

I am th e pre si den t of th e N ational Fed er at io n of Bus in es s and Pro fe ss io na l 

W om en 's Club s, Inc ., w ith a m em be rs hi p of 175,000. O ur nati onal ex ec utive 

offices are loca te d a t 2012 M as sa chuse tt s Avenu e, N.W . in W as hi ng to n, D.C.

Our nati onal legi slativ e pla tf orm , ad op te d a t th e annual co nv en tio n Ju ly 1961 

a t Ch ica go , Ill ., calLs fo r su pport of legi slatio n to st re ngth en m ea su re s to pr omote pu bl ic healt h an d sa fe ty . Mr . Rob er ts, of Alaba ma, in tr odu ce d H.R. 133, 

a bill to am en d ti tl e III of th e P ublic H ea lth Se rvice Act to es ta bli sh a N at io na l 

Ac cid en t Pre ve nt io n Cen ter whi ch is co ve red by Item IV of o u r pla tfor m .

I sp ea k in fa vo r of th e bill. A ltho ug h I am ve ry co nsciou s of th e los s of p roper ty . m an -h ou rs an d ge ne ra l pro gre ss f ro m a vo idab le ac cide nts, I am more deeply 

co nc erne d w ith th e los s of life an d lim b from th e st an dpoin t of h um an su ffe rin g.

W e are co nt in ua lly rem in de d th ro ugh th e m ed ia of th e pr es s, ra dio an d TV 

of th e pre ca utions th a t sh ou ld be ta ken to av oid ac ci de nt s, spec ifi ca lly tra ffic 

ac ci de nts. We are told of th e pre dic te d nu mbe r th a t will die ov er a ho lid ay 

weeke nd by au tomob ile , boa t an d o th er ac cide nts, but th e an no un ce m en t us ua lly 

re ac he s us th a t th e pr ed ic te d num ber has been exceeded. T his is do ne ho lid ay 

a ft e r ho lida y an d yea r aft e r y ear and th e fa ta li ti es see m to in cr ea se ra th e r 

th an de cr ea se . It wo uld appear to me an d I am co nf id en t to m an y oth er s th a t 

all th e w ri tt en no tic es an d pu bl ic an no un ce m en ts are of li tt le avail an d th a t 

80624—62----- 21
3 1 6 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

legislation is necessary to curb these ever incre asing number of accident fa ta lities.

Tra ditiona lly the St ate s have the responsibility of making and enfor cing 

traffic safety laws but stat istic s show th at Sta te control is inade quate as fa r 

as int ers tat e bus and tru ck traffic is concerned, so we have the Interst ate Commerce Commission res ponsible fo r common ca rri er safe ty. We firmly believe th at 

the Fed eral Gover nment has a respon sibility to pro tec t the public in a numb er 

of are as where Sta te reg ula tions are cumbersome or impossible. No one is ad ­

vocating th at control by th e Sta te should be relin quish ed or abolished. We ar e 

of the opinion th at it shou ld be strengthened, especially regarding vehicle safety 

sta nda rds .

I have noted with regr et th at many times safe ty bills in the Congress receive 

very litt le atte ntio n. I am positive that this is not fo r lack of concern by the 

members of th at body, bu t because all too litt le int ere st is shown by th e general 

public.

This bill calls for an ame ndm ent to title II I of the Public Health Service Act 

to esta blish a Nationa l Accid ent Preventio n Center. The re are today many resear ch proje cts headed by the Government and priva te industries. It is our 

thinki ng th at a rese arch cen ter would be decidedly help ful in asce rtaining the 

caus es and prevention of accide nts. It would esta blis h an information cen ter 

whe re advice and ass ista nce of expe rts in the field of accid ent preven tion would 

be available to those concern ed. The acti vities of such a research center would 

go much fu rth er tha n traffi c accidents. It would cover industr ial, farm, home, 

mine, radi ation , air cra ft, rai lways and highw ay haz ards.

In answer to the question is this not a job of the Sta tes —it is o ur opinion th at 

it can never be a job of the Sta te alone as long as we have int ers tate commerce. 

Rese arch is costly, it not only takes money but it must have manpower and the 

faci litie s. I know thi s comm ittee does not need to be reminded th at fac iliti es 

for such a job are expensiv e. It is our opinion th at the Feder al Government, 

which is set up to do such jobs, can do them more reas onably and quicker tha n 

the States or local comm unities can by doing it alone. Many accident prevention proje cts are of deep conce rn and receive gre at act ivi ty on the pa rt of local 

and State comm issions; however, such a rese arch cen ter as we are advocating 

here today can do much to a id such local and Sta te projects.

We fa vor and are s upp orti ng H.R. 133.

Statement of Harold Brandaleone, M.D., F.A.C.P., New York, N.Y.

Mr. Chairm an and members of the committee, I am Harold Brandaleone, M.D., 

of New York City, N.Y., wh ere I am engaged in priva te pra ctic e of medicine, as 

well as the pract ice of indu str ial medicine. I am ass oci ate clinical professor of 

medicine at New York Univer sity College of Medicine. Even though I am ch air ­

man of the committee on sta nd ards for motor vehicle dri ver s of the Indu str ial 

Medical Association, I am app earing today as an ind ivid ual because the Ind ustr ia l Medical Association ha s not formed an official opinion concerning bill 

H.R. 133.

I would like to expre ss my appr eciation for the opp ortu nity to appe ar before 

you in order to acqu aint you with my opinion conce rning bill H.R. 133, to esta blish a nationa l accid ent preven tion center.

I appeared before this comm ittee a few years ago and presen ted a stat eme nt 

which is hereto attached. In summ ary thi s statem ent expre ssed the devoted inter es t of the industr ial physicia n in the preven tion of moto r vehicle accidents.

As ear ly as 1954, the comm ittee on sta nd ard s for mot or vehicle drivers of the 

In du str ial Medical Associatio n was formed. Shor tly therea fte r we published a 

ma nus crip t pres entin g the recommendations for medi cal stan dar ds for motor 

vehicle drivers, a copy of whic h is attac hed.

At th at time, this comm ittee emphasized the need for the formation of a 

Federal agency to coo rdin ate all inves tigation on motor vehicle accide nts as w’ell 

as to maintai n a librar y fo r all accident preven tion data. It also recommended 

th at such an agency should prov ide funds for proper inve stigatio n to study m otor 

vehicle accidents.

In May 1956. the New York University-Be llevue Medical Cente r sponsored a 

symposium on the medical aspe cts of motor vehicle accid ent prevention. This 

symposium, consisting of physi cian s, safe ty exper ts, engineers, licensing commissioner s, highway commissioners, members of law-e nforce ment agencies, members
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 317

of the legal profession and the judiciary, officials of the Inters tate Commerce Commission and the Armed Forces, as well as other Federal agencies interested in motor vehicle accident prevention, recommended the formation of a Federal agency to coordinate all investigation and to provide funds for research. In recent years, many agencies, private, academic, and Federal in nature, have been studying accident prevention. Nevertheless, the continued mortality and morbidity resulting from accidents make it the leading cause of death in persons from ages 1 to 34 years. The National Safety Council estimated that accidents cost $13.6 billion in 1960. Property damage in motor vehicle accidents alone cost an estimated $2.2 billion, and property damage and loss of production caused by work accidents cost $2.2 billion. All agencies working on the problem of accident prevention agree tha t there is a need for the establishment of a Federal accident prevention center. Dr. Ross A. McFarland outlined in the report of the working group on research and evaluation of the conference on the teaching of accident prevention in schools ■of public health held at the University of Michigan School of Public Health on November 8-10, 1961, the details for the needs of research. In a study of the role of the human factors in accident prevention, prepared for the accident prevention program of the division of special health services, the Bureau of State Service, by Frank Freeman, Charles E. Goshen, and Barry G. King, the authors concluded in pa rt that, “The expenditure of a major research effort in the study of human facto rs is fully warranted. A carefully planned long-range program is called for to attack the basic problems of accident pre­ vention. The major emphasis in human factors accident prevention research should be placed in four subject are as: (a) the interaction of physical, emo­ tional, and mental conditions in ac cidents; (ft) the development of improvement of attitudes toward safety; (c) the effective methods of communication of acci­ den t prevention information to specific groups in segments of the population; (d) the development and introduction of broad training programs.” There were 17 specific recommendations made by this study. In a report made by Operations Research Inc., on an analysis of responsibility and capability of the Public Health Service in accident prevention, it was rec­ ommended that a mechanism for strengthening accident prevention activities could take place by the establishment of a Public Health Accident Prevention Center in the Public Health Service. This report suggested that such a center provide vigorous grant and aid programs that would most nearly meet the essen­ tial program and service requirements, tha t they provide research and technical assistance relating to accident prevention and such a center should have author­ ity for contracts, special projects and demonstrations, consultation, technical service and publication of reports. A volume has been published in May 1961 by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Division of Accident Prevention, on Accidental Inju ry Statistics. A study of this report clearly indicates the magnitude of the problem as the out­ standing public health problem in this country today. For these reasons, I emphatically favor the establishment of a Federal acci­ dent prevention center under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Public Health Service to coordinate research and to promote and encourage wider effort by public and private agencies in accident prevention. The center would (1) conduct, pro­ mote, and coordinate research investigations into the causes and prevention of accidents; (2) make research facilities of the Public Health Service available for such purposes; (3) authorize grant and aid to institutions in private and public agencies for research; (4) establish a clearing house for collecting and disseminating information: (5) obtain the advice and assistance of experts in accident prevention; (6) establish an accident prevention advisory board in the Public Health Service. The cost of establishing such an agency, irrespec­ tive of its size, would be less than the billions of dollars each year lost as a re­ sult of accidents.

U n iv ersi ty of C a lif o r n ia ,

Lon Angeles, Calif., Feftruary 13,1962.

Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir : I wish to make reference to the notDe of the February 6. 1962, hearings before your Subcommittee on Health and Safety which I received on January 24. 1962. from Mr. Williamson. Beyond question you directed that this notice be sent us because of your knowledge of our research work and its rela-
318 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

tionsh ip to som e of th e obj ec tive s se t fo rt h in H.R. 133. I wo uld ha ve be en 

pl ea se d to te st if y be fo re your co mm itt ee but such an ap pea ra nce in ev itab ly 

wou ld ha ve inv olv ed th e nam e of th e uni ve rs ity an d th is m ad e it des irab le fo r 

me to fi rs t ob tain auth ori zati on fr om th e office of th e pre si dent of th e uni ve rs ity. 

U nfo rt unat el y, th er e w as no t suffi cie nt tim e to pre par e a w ri tt en stat em en t, ge t 

it th ro ugh pr op er ch an ne ls, se cu re au th or iz at io n, an d in fo rm yo ur co mmittee of 

my av ai la bility.

I sh ou ld lik e you to kn ow th a t in re ce nt yea rs the re se arc h done in d ri ver 

beh av io r an d hi gh way sa fe ty by me an d my as so ci at es lia s been gr ea tly in te nsi ­

fied th ro ug h th e su bst anti al fina nc ia l su pp or t we ha ve rece iv ed from th e Pu bl ic 

H ealt h Servi ce. The P ub lic H ealt h Se rvice’s r ec og ni tio n of, an d att it u d e to w ar d, 

th e hi gh w ay sa fe ty prob lem is soun dly ba sed an d, to us, ex trem el y gr at ifyi ng . 

I, an d my as so ciates A. B ur g, S. H ul be rt, D. Se ve ry, an d A. Siegel, are st ro ng ly 

of th e op ini on th at th e obje ct iv es se t fo rt h in H.R. 133 a re un m ista ka bl y in 

th e pu bl ic in te re st an d will en ab le th e Pu blic H ealth Se rv ice to be even mor e 

effe ctiv e in m ar sh al in g an d su pport in g th e N at io n’s re se ar ch ca pa bi lit y. We ll 

dir ecte d an d ad eq ua te ly su ppo rt ed ac tivity by a sin gle ag en cy such as is em ­

bo died in H.R. 133 could m ak e su bst anti al in ro ad s in br in gi ng ab ou t a re du ction in th e an nua l tra ffic d eath an d in ju ry tol l. The sp or ad ic, pie ceme al effo rt s of th e pa st ha ve not re su lted in an y sign ifi ca nt pr ogra m an d it ap pea rs 

quit e un lik ely th at co ntin ue d, sm al l sca le, es se nt ia lly un co or di na te d efforts wi ll 

ac hi ev e an y mar ke d im pr ov em en t in traffi c sa fe ty . U nd er th e prov isions of H.R. 

133 th e Pu blic H ea lth Se rv ic e wou ld be ab le to he lp focu s th is N at io n’s scientifi c 

pote nti al on traffic sa fe ty and to pr om ote co nc er ted ef fo rt on an appro pri at e 

scale.

The Pub lic H ea lth Se rvice , by it s pas t reco rd in effecti ve ly de alin g with m aj or 

th re a ts to ou r welfa re , has dem onst ra te d a ph ilo so ph y an d ca pa bi lit y wh ich , 

co up led w ith th e pr ov isions of H.R . 133. giv e new an d g re ate r prom ise o f bre ak ­

ing th e lin k betw ee n th is N ati on’s ru bb er -tired tr an sp o rt ati o n an d th e an nu al 

38,000 dea th s an d 4 mill ion in ju ri es. Such m an if es ta tion of th is lin ka ge ha s 

alr ead y ga ined w id es pr ea d ac ce pta nce in th e pu blic mind as be ing th e inev ita bl e 

an n u al “o ve rh ea d co st” of h ig hw ay tr an sp ort at io n.

Sinc erely ,

J. H. Mat iie wso x,

Pro fe ss or of Eng in ee ring , A ss is ta nt Di recto r, In sti tu te of Tr an sp or ta tion

an d Tra ffic Eng inee ring .

New York, N.Y., Feb ru ar y 8, 1962.

R epre se nta tive Ken ne th A. R oberts,

Cha irman , Su bc om mitte e on H ea lth an d Safe ty , C om m itte e on In te rs ta te an d

For eign Comm erc e, Hou se of Rep re se nt at iv es , W ash in gt on , D.C.:

T he Motor & Equ ip m en t M anufa ctu re rs Assoc iatio n wou ld lik e to ex pr es s

in te re st in Ho use bil l 133 w hi ch pr ov ides fo r a N at io nal Acc iden t Pr ev en tio n 

Cen te r. We rec ogniz e th e pu bl ic se rv ice th a t ca n be jie rfor m ed th ro ug h th e 

po olin g of in fo rm at io n an d re so urc es on ac ci de nt pre ve nt io n an d ple dg e our 

su pport of an y step s ta ken al ong th is line to redu ce th e nu m be r of high way 

ac ci de nt s. Our as so ci at io n h as la rg e re so ur ce s of kn ow ledg e an d ex pe rie nc e 

in th e desig n, pr od uc tio n, in st all ati on, an d us e of sa fe ty eq ui pm en t on motor 

ve hicles th a t wi ll be m ad e avail able to a N at io na l Acc iden t Pre ve ntion Cen ter if 

it is cr ea te d by act of Con gres s. N um er ic ally we are th e la rg es t grou p of 

aut om ot iv e m anufa ctu re rs in th is co un try. We ha ve m or e th an 500 m an uf ac ­

tu re r me mbers, an d th eir in te re sts em br ac e ev er y phas e of th e m an ufa ct ure 

and us e of au to m ot iv e p art s, eq ui pm en t an d supp lie s, in cl ud in g sa fe ty eq uipm en t. T hei r pr od uc ts a re so ld to ve hicle m anufa ctu re rs an d to ev ery ty pe of 

d is tr ib u to r fo r use on al l ty pes of m ot or vehic les . We st and re ad y to co op erate 

whe n th e oppo rtun ity is p re se nte d.

W il li am A. Raftery,

Ge neral M an ag er, M ot or rf Eq ui pm en t M an ufa ct ur er s As sociation..
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER 3 1 9

F lorida State B oard of H ea lt h,

Jacksonville, February 5, 1962.

Hon . Oren H arris,

U.S. Representative,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. H arris : I am gra tifi ed to know th a t hear in gs a re be ing held by yo ur 

Su bc om m itt ee on H ea lth an d S afe ty on II. R. 133, a bill to es ta bli sh a N at io na l Acc iden t Pre ve ntion Ce nter. Leg is la tion of th is n atu re is ve ry es se nt ia l fo r th e de ve lopm en t of effecti ve pu bl ic hea lt h pr og ra m s in ac ci den t pr ev en tion . In our S ta te we ha ve a t pr es en t a re la ti vely lim ite d ac ci den t pre ven tion pr og ra m. We ac kn ow ledg e th e m ag nitud e and im po rtan ce of th e prob lem but a re det er re d by uncert ain ty as to th e n a tu re of pr ogra m s which wo uld hav e be ne fic ial effect. We reco gn ize also th a t m ul tipl e ag en ci es sh ar e re sp o n si b il it y ; w ithout a well de fin ed nati onal pr og ram, su ch as wou ld be prov id ed th ro ugh a N at io na l Acc i­ den t Pre ven tion Ce nter, we h esi ta te to move on pr ob lems w ith which oth er ag en cies al so are inv olv ed. We be lie ve th e prop osed cente r wou ld pr ov ide th e le ad ers hi p ne ed ed to eff ec tiv ely mob ili ze an d co or din at e a su b sta n ti al ac ci de nt 

pr ev en tion pr og ra m . The re se arc h fu nc tion s of su ch a ce nt er wo uld be p art ic u la rl y sig nific an t. T hi s nati onal ce nt er wo uld as su m e re sp on sibi lity fo r in ves tigat io ns which are bey ond th e re so ur ce s of S ta te an d lo ca l bod ies. It also wou ld en co ur ag e re se ar ch a t S ta te an d loc al lev els th ro ugh it s prop osed pr og ra m of gra nt s- in -a id fo r 

re se ar ch . The co nc ep t of th is ce nte r is so un d an d comm endable . I t is w ar m ly en do rsed by pu blic h ealt h in Flo rida . We ho pe yo ur su bc om mitt ee w ill re gard th is a s high p ri o ri ty legi slat io n an d will give st ro ng le ad er sh ip fo r its pa ss ag e by Co ng res s. 

Very sinc erely, Albert V. H ardy, M.D.,

Acting State Health Officer.

Saf ety Resea rc h and E ducation P ro ject, 

at T ea ch er s College, Columbia Unive rs ity,

Neio York, N.Y., February 3, 1962.

Ho n. K en net h A. Roberts, M.C., Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

D ear Congre ssm an Roberts : It w ill not be po ssible fo r me to att end hea ring s

on th e N at io nal Accide nt Pre ve ntion C en te r be fore th e Su bc om m itt ee on H ea lth 

and Saf et y on F ebru ary 6. I shou ld, ho wev er, lik e to g o on re co rd in fa vo r of an ag en cy in th e U.S. Pu blic

H ea lth Se rv ic e to be ca lle d a N at io nal Ac cid en t Pre ven tion Cen ter. Ther e a re some fa cts of life th a t th ose o f us in te re st ed in re se ar ch in ac ci de nt pre ven tion hav e com e to ac ce pt. T he peop le in co mman d of d a ta source s, an d w ith dir ec t field ex pe rie nc e, su ch as m ot or ve hic le adm in is tr ato rs , sa fe ty ed u­ ca to rs . en fo rc em en t officials, etc ., a re usu al ly not we ll eq uipp ed to de sig n re ­

se ar ch . no r sh ou ld w e e xp ec t th em to be. A desi ra ble fu nc tion of th e N ational Acc iden t Pre ven tion C en te r wo uld be to se ek ou t pe rs on s in co mm and of th e d ata source s an d ass is t them in th e de sig n 

and co nd uc t of re se ar ch . In ad ditio n, it has becom e in cr ea si ngly appare nt th a t a cl ea ring ho us e fo r col­ le ct in g an d di ss em in at in g re se ar ch fin ding s in ac ci de nt pr ev en tion , an d in th e m an y re la te d di sc ip line s is long ov er du e. Su ch a fa cil it y wou ld m in im ize dupli­ ca tion of ef fo rts of ac ci de nt pre ven tion sp ec ialis ts, an d allo w sc ie nti st s wh o are no t sp ec ia list s to fa m ilia ri ze th em se lv es qu ick ly w ith th e st ate of th e art . 

Si nc er ely, J ames L. Malfetti, Executive Officer.
320 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENT ION CENTER

National Association of Motor Bus Owners,

Washington, D.C., February 5,1962.

Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts,

U.8. House of Representatives,

Washington 25, D.C.

Dear Congressman Roberts : We are writing you in regard to your bill, H.R. 

133, which proposes the establishment of a National Accident Prevention Center. This association, which serves as spokesman for the intercity motor bus in­ dustry, is vitally interested in highway and employee safety. Our member car­ riers maintain extensive safety programs the effectiveness of which is apparent 

from the fact that the safety record of the intercity motor bus industry has shown steady improvement an d is better than that of any other form of tran sportation. Directly and through our association, the industry supports and works closely with other organizations in the safety field such as the Automotive 

Safety Foundation, the Pres iden t’s Committee for Highway Safety and the National Safety Council. The ability of the Public Health Service to make major contributions to safety through research is widely recognized and, in our view, is an appropriate activity of the Federal Government. We are, however, disturbed by the breadth of the proposals set forth in H.R. 

133, particula rly with reference to their potential impact on the National Safety Council with which we are closely affiliated. A program on a relatively modest scale such as that proposed in subsections (1) through (4) of section 382 of the 

bill is, we believe, an appropriate Federal project. Most of the remainder of the proposals, we believe, are not appropriate because they would be certain to 

infringe on the activities of the many private organizations which are contributing so greatly to safety through public education and otherwise. It is our firm conviction that, except as to research contributions and enforcement where clearly in the public interest, safety activities should be carried on 

under private auspices and by government a t the State and local levels and not 

by means of a substantial expansion of the Federal Government. This is particularly important with respect to the highly probable impact of 

these broad proposals on the activities of the National Safety Council. The council, now in its 50th year, performs with outstanding success many of the same functions encompassed in H.R. 133, pursuant to its cha rter granted by the 

Congress under Public Law 83-259. The National Safety Council operates in every phase of the safety field. It receives the benefit of financial support as well as the serious personal efforts of representatives of every segment of the public, industry, and government including several Federal agencies. In addition to the impact of H.R. 133 on the actu al operations of the council the proposal in section 383(b) poses a threat 

to the financial support which is essential to those operations. We respectfully urge, therefore, that any measure which may be enacted in 

this field be sufficiently restricted to prevent encroachment upon the activities or support of the National Safety Council, its affiliated State and local safety councils, and the numerous other outstanding private safety and related organizations. We shall very much appreciate i t if this communication is incorporated in the 

record of the hearings on H.R. 133.

Cordially yours,

A. W. Koehler, Secretary-Manager..

New York State College of Agriculture,

Cornell University, 

Ithaca, N.Y., January 31, 1962.

Mr. Kenneth A. Roberts, M.C.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, House of Representatives- Committee on Inter state and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building.

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Roberts: Thank you for the information you have sent to me 

regarding governmental activities pertaining to safety particularly your bill to 

establish a National Accident Prevention Center.

I wanted you to know tha t the proposed activities of such a center are very 

much in line with the needs as expressed a t the annual meeting of the agricultur al safety specialists of the several States working in conjunction with the 

National Safety Council—known as the Farm Safety Institute.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 321

Another needed activity on a national level which I hope you may have in mind is the tabulation and summary of records on fires. Because fires are a leading cause of accidental death as well as a gigantic destroyer of property, 

attention is needed in this area. For several years I have served on the National Fire Protection Association- Committee on Rural Fire Protection. This past year I assisted in the planning and conduction of a national farm fire safety seminar. For some 15 years I have had one association or another with fire organizations in New York, New Hampshire, and Maine. In each of these associations, the needs for an im­ proved system of fire records has been agreed upon, but little done to implement the need. You are probably aware of the fact that NFPA does keep a record of major fires and tha t the National Board of Fire Underwriters, the Association of Fire Marshals (only 27 States have a State fire marshal), and firemen’s organ­ izations including paid, volunteer, and chiefs groups, etc., are all involved— yet no coordination in national fire reporting has even been fruitfu l. In my opinion, part of the problem has been a failure to agree on the values and purposes of such records. Usually, a tabulation of losses and a yearly record for the fire company is the main goal. For the fire marshals it is also to learn about causes. In almost no instance has the use of records for a full blown research program in reducing the instance and severity of fires been a goal. The idea of using fire loss records as a basis for improved merit or in­ centive ratin g of individual insurance risks has been a negligible factor. I believe a National Accident Prevention Center could do a great deal to help jell this problem. In particular, I would agree that in the interests of national uniformity, whether it is the Uniform Motor Vehicle Code, accident report forms, or aspects of fire protection, the Federal Government should tie the dis­ bursement of public funds to measures tha t assure this uniformity. The National Accident Prevention Center is needed, and I hope it is acted 

upon favorably.

Sincerely,

E. W. Foss, Rural Saf ety Specialist.

American Pharmaceutical Association,

Washington, D.C., February 6, 1962.

Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts,

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

My Dear Mr. Roberts : The American Pharmaceutical Association (A. Ph. A.)

is the national professional and scientific society representing pharmacists in the United States. Since its establishment in 1852, our association has devoted itself to promoting higher public health standards through various efforts including proper supervision over the distribution and use, especially by th e laity, of drugs 

and therapeutic devices. A primary interest of A. Ph. A. is ascertaining how the profession of phar­ macy may best serve in all public health endeavors. One objective of the associa­ tion, as stated in our constitution, is : “To cooperate to the fullest extent in conducting research examinations, in­ vestigations, experiments, and in the dissemination of information in the field of pharmacy with agencies of the U.S. Government, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, the Surgeons General of the Army and Air Force, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery of the Navy, the Department of Medicine of the Vet­ erans’ Administration, and similar agencies of the States and territories of the 

United States.” The following comments are offered in favor of H.R. 133, because the objectives of the American Pharmaceutical Association parallel the principles and purpose 

of H.R. 133. The A.Ph.A. has continually supported such programs aimed at accident pre­ vention. On numerous occasions our membership has formally expressed its 

concern in this area. For example, in our 1957 annual meeting, the membership of the association 

passed the following resolution :

“Resolved, That the American Pharmaceutical Association reaffirm its en­ dorsement of the development of a coordinating program for poison control cen-
322 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

ters as proposed by the Public Health Service of the Departme nt of Health, 

Education, and W elfare ; and be it fur ther 

“Resolved, That the American Pha rma ceutical Association urge its members 

to particip ate to the fullest ex ten t in the development of local poison control 

centers and offer their cooperation in serving then- respective communities in the 

gathering and dissem ination of inform atio n with respect to antidotes and tre atment fac ilities for accidental poisoning from various sources.”

In our 1959 an nual meeting, the association membership again expressed itself 

in t his area by statin g:

“Be it resolved, Th at the American Pharmaceutical Association continue to 

study the problem of accidental poisoning, insofar as drug and nondrug items 

are concerned, in order to determ ine how best to meet pha rmacy ’s responsibilities * * *”

Ind ication of our continued interest is also afforded by the following resolution 

of our 1961 ann ual meeting:

“Wh ereas the Natio nal Hea lth Council will hold a forum in Cleveland, Ohio, 

in March 1962, on accident preventio n; and

“Whereas accidental poisoning con stitutes one of the majo r a reas of accidental 

de at hs : The refo re be it

“Resolved, That the American Pha rmace utical Association express its keen interest in the forthcoming National Health Forum and assure the Nation al Health 

Council of its cooperation in this endeavor; and be it furth er

“Resolved, That the American Pha rmaceutical Association encourage its members to initiate, supp ort and participa te in community accident prevention 

programs.”

A na tu ra l in terest for pharm acists lies, partic ularly in the area of drugs, chemicals, and other hazardous substances, the ir labeling to prevent accidental injury, 

and oth er matters related to preven ting unin tentional self-injury with these 

articles. We feel that much could be accomplished if a cen tral organization coordinated accident prevention inform atio n and programs and focused proper 

attentio n on research in this asp ect of public hea lth and safety.

The public health and safe ty would be the benefactor of improved dissem ination and exchanges of knowledge rela ting to the cause and prevention of 

accidents.

The National Accident Prevention Center which H.R. 133 proposes, could contribu te substantially to the progress of efforts now being made in accident 

prevention.

We respectfu lly request th at these comments favoring the measure be made a 

part of th e record of H.R. 133.

Sincerely yours,

William S. Apple. Ph.D.

Secretary.

Evanston, III., Feb ruary 6,1962.

Congressman Kenneth L. Roberts,

House Office Building, Washington, D.O.:

This communication rela tes to House bill 133 now before Subcommittee on 

Health and Safety. The traffic institu te’s position on thi s bill is based on its 

special concern with traffic s afety .

The interest in safety on the part of Congress is indeed heartening. Nevertheless, the traffic institute, which for more than a qu arter of a century has 

been actively teaching accident prevention, feels obliged to recommend that the 

bill no t be passed, a t le ast in its presen t form.

Some of the functions of the proposed National Accident Prev entio n Center are 

alread y being performed by oth er agencies such as the National Safety Council 

and the highway research board. The act does not specify or even suggest the 

relations hip of the proposed cen ter to the many existing public and private 

agencies with traffic safety intere sts. The act does not specify or even suggest 

the relations hip of the proposed cente r to the many existing public and private 

agencies with traffic safety inte rests.

Other functions of the proposed cen ter such as granting research funds, are 

being performed satisfa ctorily by the U.S. Public Hea lth Service under existing
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVEN TION CENTER 323

administrative arrangements. The act does not make clear what the new center could accomplish in support of research beyond what is now being done under 

existing law or could he done with additional appropriations. There are now more than 40 organizations with nationwide programs in­ tended to prevent traffic accidents. Although these have a common objective, there are confusing differences among them in activities emphasized and policies recommended. Many of these organizations have State and local counterparts. Unless specific guidance is provided in creating a new and presumingly important organization with functions relating to traffic safety, there may be fu rthe r dis­ persion of funds and duplication of effort. It would be sincerely hoped that the personnel of any such new agency would seek neglected asi>ects of traffic safety to which its efforts might be directed; but it would be feared tha t i t might, instead, copy facilities and duplicate functions already provided for, divide avail­ able Federa l funds between agencies with overlapping functions, and compete 

for technical and advisory personnel. So fa r as traffic safety goes, the proposed National Safety Center, an additional agency with very general functions, is much less needed than some means of

) strengthe ning and coordinating existing Federal, State, and private agencies. Support for organizations in a position directly to influence roads, cars, drivers,

> and pedestrians, which must be improved to reduce e xisting accident rates would

r he especially beneficial. Therefore, the traffic institute hopes tha t House bill 133

will not become law.

0 Bernard R. Caldwell,

Director, Traffic Ins titute, Northwe stern University.

By J. Standard Baker,

Acting Director.

San F rancisco, Calif., Jan uary 26, 1962.

Congressman Oren Harris,

Subcommittee on Health and S afety,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Mr. Chairman : It is my desire as an unattached citizen, interested in public 

safety on our highways, to file the following stateme nts for the record, for bill 

II.R. 133. I approve the establishment of a National Accident Prevention Center with certain reservations, such as, this center be not dominated by big business or others who pu t policies or selfish interests ahead of safety for the people. I add 

these reservations for the following re asons: Between 1917 and 1922 I designed, constructed, made, tested, and sold the first glareless vehicle headlights ever to be made. (See enclosed pate nt No. 1,323,963, December 2, 1919.) I made these headlights in Oakland, Calif., and had an approval from the California Vehicle Department to sell them. General Electric Co. was aware of those headlights as early as 1919, and General Motors, in 1922. To my knowledge no glareless headlights have been used since, as the 50 States’" 

legislat ures exclude them in their vehicle headlighting laws. My knowledge of the projection of light is more extensive tha n that of many persons as the projection of light has been one of my hobbies for the past 45 years. I studied the projection of light, its effect on the human eyes, and light characteris tics under some of our most renowned physicists. For those reasons, and for my scientific accomplishments, a few persons rate me as an expert on 

vehicle headlights. The laws of optics have never been changed since they were formulated thou­ sands of years ago. Therefore, I contend that the application of those laws in analyzing the projection of light, be it from an automobile headlight or other 

means, is the same today as it was thousands of years ago. I hope t he members of this committee, as well as those in the National Acci­ dent Prevention Center, realize th at the laws of optics are basic, and for that reason the National Bureau of S tand ards now use light as a stand ard of measurement because of its extreme exactness.
324 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREV ENTION CENTER

I also hope the committee members realize that the laws of optics—not man— 

dictates how a vehicle headlight mu st be designed and constructed if it is to projec t the proper cha rac ter of ligh t of the proper light beam patte rn on the highways withou t glare when viewed from outside its main projected beam of light.

However, in recent years, the headlight industry and its allied societies have 

given the people vehicle hea dlights th at increased the glare on our highways 

rather than less glare. The headligh t industry has forced these glaring headlights upon the people every legislative year, by influencing the people’s State 

representativ es, by having the he adlight laws changed so tha t every State vehicle 

ligh t law will conform to ind ustry ’s latest fad of a more glaring type of headlight. Evidently industry wants to sell the ir particular glaring headlight to the 

people ra th er than to mitigate the people’s losses on our highways.

Our vehicle headlight laws should be made national and in harmony with 

the laws of optics—not in harm ony with the whims of the hea dlight indu stry at 

the expen se of the people’s lives and property.

The ma jority of our citizens are ignorant of all this. They are also ignorant 

th at a glareless headlight was designed, constructed, tested, sold, and used by (

many people over 40 years ago, and th at the head light industry has used

deception and m isinterp reta tions and other evasive means to keep those glareless 

hea dlights from the people, although industry has known about them since 1919, ,

over 42 years ago.

Fro m my experiences, rese arch es, and contacts with Sta te legislators, insu rance companies, and others, who profess to be inte rested in safety on our highways, and also after reading the book, “The Electric-Lamp Industry,” by A rthu r 

A. Bright, Jr., Macmillan Co., New York, 1949 (pp. 333, 334, 346, 455, 456), who 

also confirms what I am about to say, I discovered th at the policies of big business (Genera l Electric and its allied societies, insurance companies, and othe rs) 

come before the safety of the people on our highways.

My file of documents concerning vehicle head lights is voluminous. And the 

knowledge and references which my wife and I have retained in our minds 

from our experiences in trying to get the States, the National Government, and 

others, inte rested in mitigating our nightly highway losses are also voluminous.

As fa r as we know, we are the only two indiv iduals who have been devoting 

our time and money to correct the glaring head light problem with out any 

thought of compensation or sponsors. Our knowledge th at glareless headlights 

are simple in design and cheap to make, and our compassion for the people who 

have been crying fo r glareless hea dlights because they too w ant to live and help 

mitigate their losses, has caused us to carry on this campaign without any 

though t of monetary gain. (See enclosed labor newspaper clipping.)

While attending the California State Legislature I witnessed several safety 

devices of other manufacturers being flagrantly rejected, although some of those 

devices had been tested and approved by other Sta te legisla tures and the ir testing departm ents.

It w ill therefo re be a plea sure for my wife and me to tes tify before your committee on the National Accident Preventio n Center and tell of our experiences 

with the California Sta te Leg isla ture and others, as well as to give a demonstr ation and a technical blac kboard tal k on the present-day vehicle headlight 

glare and how to design a headligh t th at does not glare when viewed from outside its main projected beam of light, if we are required to do so.

All this should be of inter est to thi s committee, and to the National Accident Prev ention Center, as policies for profit should not be valued above the (

lives of our citizens.

Yours truly,

Milo C. Cauohrean,

Inventor and Licensed Chief Enyineer.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of Ja nu ary 1962.

[seal] Ada Miles,

Notary Public in and for the City and County of

San Francisco, State of California.

My commission expires March 17, 1963.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PRE VEN TION CENT ER 325

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

M IL O C. CA UG HR EA N, OF KET CHIK AN, TER RIT ORY O F AL AS KA

IN CANDES CE NT ELE CTR IC LIG H T 

Specification of Letters Patent

1,323,963 Patented Dec. 2, 1919

Application filed May 12,1917. Serial No. 168,117

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, Milo C. Caughbean, a citizen of the United States, and 

a resident of Ketchikan, Territory of Alaska, have made certain new and useful Improvements in Incandescent Electric Lights, of which the following is a 

specification. My invention relates to electric light globes to be used with search lights, head lights of automobiles, spot lights, and any other similar devices. An object of my invention is to provide an electric light globe having a re­ flector whereby certain rays of light, which would ordinarily diverge, are reflected tow’ard the main parabolic reflector from which they are again reflected in a direction more nearly parallel to the axis of the main reflector, thereby 

condensing the light. A furthe r object of my invention is to eliminate, to a large extent, certain divergent rays, and thereby obviate the danger which attends the use of search lights owing to the blinding glare which sometimes is encountered by people who are passing, even if the main body of light is concentrated on another object. The invention is particularly adapted for search lights on vessels, the invention serving to cut out certain divergent rays which tend to blind those 

on the deck of the vessel. Other objects and advantages will appear in the following specification, and the novel features of the invention will be particularly pointed out in the 

appended claims. My invention is illustrated in the accompanying drawings which form a par t 

of this application, in which :— Figure 1 is a section through an automobile head light. Fig. 2 is a section through a modified form of the device, and Fig. 3 is a section through a search light showing one embodiment of my 

invention. In carrying out my invention I make use of a main parabolic reflector 1 which may be of any suitable material, such as glass having a reflecting backing, polished metal, or the like. The electric light globe 2 has the usual filament 3. Supported near the filament is a small reflector 4 which is curved to reflect rays of light back again upon the main reflector 1. The filament 3 is held on an insulating base 6 and the globe 2 is provided with the usual connections with the socket 7. These connections may be of any screw type, such as the Edison screw connection, the Ediswan, or any other suitable means of attachment. From the foregoing description of the various parts of the device, the opera­ tion thereof may be readily understood. The globe 2 is preferably of such dimensions that the filament 3 and the small reflector 4 are disposed substantially at the focus of the main parabolic reflec­ tor 1. Now it will be obvious th at the rays of light from the filament 3 which strike the small reflector 4 will be reflected back to the large parabolic reflector 1. The reflector 4 has a curvature such that the rays tha t are reflected from it will be reflected again by the parabolic reflector in substantially parallel lines, such as those shown at X. Such ra ys would of course diverge if the reflector 4 were not present, but being reflected to the main reflector and again reflected, the light will be concentrated instead of diverged. That light which is directly transmitted to the reflector 1 by the filament is reflected in substantially parallel lines as shown at Y. The result is that many of these divergent rays are cut
326 TO ES TA BL IS H A NAT IO NA L AC CID EN T PR EV EN TI ON CE NT ER

out or ra th er are reflected in a dir ect ion more nearly par alle l with the axis of 

the mai n reflector.

In Fig . 2, I have shown in modified form of the device in which the small 

reflec tor 4' is not held by the sam e wire s which hold the filam ent 3', as in Fig. 

1, bu t by add itio nal wires 8. Th e princip le upon which the device works however, is sub stan tial ly the same. Th at is to say, the filament 3' , as well as the 

refle ctor 4' being disposed sub sta nti all y at the focus of the para bolic reflector 

1' both send rays to this refle ctor which are reflected in the general directi on 

par alle l to the axis of the main refle ctor 1'.

In Fig . 3 I have shown a sea rch ligh t casing 9 in which the re is a bulb 2a

having a filament 3“ and a refle ctor 4*. The arr ang em ent is sim ilar to th at 

descr ibed in Fig. 1, the rays of l ig ht which pass fr om the filame nt to the reflector 

4

a

 being aga in reflected by t he ma in parab olic reflect or 1“ and pass ing out of t he 

sea rch -lig ht casing in sub sta nti ally par alle l lines.

It will be unders tood th at it is impossible to mak e all of the ray s which are 

sent out by the filament and the small reflector 4' pass in a direct ion exact ly 

par allel to the m ain axis , but by mak ing th e filament rela tive ly small and placing 

the small reflect or close to the filame nt, they both may be bro ugh t subs tant iall y 

to a position approxi mati ng the focus of the parabolic reflec tor, thereb y condensing a gre at pa rt of the light, and cutting out many dive rging rays, thus 

elim ina ting the glare on each side of the beam of the par alle l rays, and adding 

to t he inte nsi ty of the beam.

By con stru ctin g the elect ric lig ht globe with the reflecto r inside thereof , the 

globes themse lves may be sold to use rs of parab olic reflectors who can replace 

the ord ina ry lamps with these improv ed globes and ther eby secu re the resu lts 

enu mer ated above.

I cl ai m :—

1. The combination with a main parabolic reflector, of an incand escen t lamp 

comprising an insulated base, a tra nsp are nt globe carr ied by said base, a filamen t wit hin the globe, rigid sup por ting arm s carried by said base at opposite 

sides of said filament and exte nding forw ardl y beyond same, a seconda ry reflector hav ing its reflecting su rfa ce facin g said filament and the main reflector, 

and supp orte d stationar ily at the forw ard ends of said sup por ting arms , said 

filam ent being disposed sub sta nti all y at the focus of the main reflector.

2. The combination with a ma in parab olic reflector, of an incan desce nt light 

comprising a base, a tra ns pa re nt globe carried by the base, a filament also ca rried by the base, rigid arm s ca rri ed by the base and exte ndin g outw ardly the refrom , a curved reflector supp orte d statio nar ily at the out er ends of said arms, 

said curve d reflector being disposed symm etrica lly with resp ect to the axis of 

the par abo lic reflector between said filament and said globe, and the reflecting 

sur fac e of said curved reflecto r fac ing said filament and also said main parabolic 

reflec tor, said filament being sit ua ted sub stan tial ly at the focus of the main 

par abo lic reflector.

Mi i.o C. Caughrea n.

[F ro m Org an ized La bo r, official pu bl ic at io n of th e Bui ld in g an d Con st ru ct io n T ra des 

Co un cil of San Fra nc isco . Nov. 30, 10591

I nv entor W ages Cru sa de for Gla re le ss Auto H ea dli ght s

(By Har old Rossman)

The next time you drive on the highw ay at nigh t and meet an oncoming 

vehicle wit h bright lights th at alm ost blind you, you’ll pr obably cuss and wonde r 

why someone doesn’t invent glar eles s headl ights .

I t ’s a good question, but it may alre ady have been answ ered —at leas t ther e’s 

a fello w in San Fran cisco who say s he inven ted them yea rs ago but can’t get 

the ma jor ligh t ma nuf act ure rs or anyone else to liste n to him.

T ha t’s a stro ng claim, but it becomes quite plausible when you meet Milo C. 

Cau ghr ean , an inven ting kind of a fellow who has take n out seven U.S. paten ts 

inclu ding original invent ion of the no-glare ligh t bulb which makes his idea 

possible.

Milo, 71, is a reti red mac hini st, member of IAM Local 68. and licensed mar ine 

engin eer. He was born in Misso uri but migrated to Alaska with his folks in 

190 0 and spen t 4 5 years in Ala ska includ ing 14 yea rs in gold dredg ing oper ation s 

nor th of th e A rctic Circle.
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER 327

Milo ’s in te re st in lighting sta rt e d while navig at in g n arr o w co as ta l ch an ne ls 

in A la sk a a t ni ght and be in g blin de d by th e be am s of th e se ar ch light.

He de cid ed to do so m et hi ng about it an d de vise d a cu pp ed m et al sh ie ld to go 

ov er th e filam en t of th e li g h t bu lb. Thi s cut off th e dir ect be am s which bo un ce 

in al l di re ct io ns an d reflec ted all ligh t ba ck again st th e para boli c refle ctor to be 

pro je ct ed f orw ar d as per fe ctl y par al le l, gla re le ss b eams .

H e ap plied fo r a p ate n t in 1917 an d in 1919 w as g ra n te d U.S. P ate n t No. 

1,323 ,963 on th e fil am en t sh ield.

H e ca me to th e S ta te s in th e tw en ties an d tr ie d to in te re st G en er al Ele ct ric, 

W estin gh ou se , an d th e oth er bi g la m pm ak er s in hi s in ve nt io n, but it w as no go. 

Milo th in ks it w as be ca us e th e en gine er s w ith fa ncy univ ers it y de gree s did n’t 

lik e ta kin g th eo re tica l poin te rs from a se lf -t au ght in vento r wh o had n 't go ne 

p ast t he first y ea r of high sch ool.

L ate r he or ga ni ze d th e C au ghr ea n- Fed de rs en Co rp, in K et ch ik an , Alask a, to 

m anufa ctu re th e bulb.

H e had bee n w ar ne d th a t th e big co mpa nies wou ld ru n hi m out of bu sine ss, 

but he w en t ah ea d an d sta rt e d a pla nt in O ak land . The bu sine ss fa iled a fte r 

a y ear—be ca us e C au gh re an co ul dn’t ge t th e hi gh ly ref ined co pp er an d sp ec ial 

w ire fo r th e ba ses of th e bu lb s—su pp lier s sa id th ey had bar el y enou gh fo r th eir 

re g u la r cu stom ers, th e b ig la m pm ak er s.

Iron ic al ly , sin ce 1939 th e five bi g conc erns th a t mak e auto hea dl ig ht s ha ve 

be en us in g filam en t sh ie ld s—b u t w ith no gai n to C au g h re an ; his p ate n t ex pi re d 

in 1936.

In su bs eq ue nt yea rs C au ghre an tu rn ed his th in kin g to th e prob lem of a gla re ­

less au tom ob ile he ad ligh t. T ru e, he al re ad y had a se arc hli ght th a t did no t 

th ro w gla re be am s to th e sid e, b u t th e se ar ch light th ro w s a ro und spot, no t th e 

sh ap ed , wide b eam ne eded to il lu m in ate th e w id th of a ro ad .

P re sen t ty pe s of head li ghts sh ape an d sp re ad th e li ght by us in g a lens mo lde d 

in to a lo t of pr ism s th a t ben d th e ligh t from th e bu lb and refle ctor. B ut 

th e pri sm s also boun ce li ght to th e side—th e gla re th a t h it s you r eye whe n 

a car is on th e oth er side o f th e r oad ap pr oa ch in g you .

C au ghr ea n decid ed to eli m in ate th is pri sm at ic lens and us e a pla in gl as s cover 

fo r hi s ligh t. He ex pe rim en te d and discov ered th a t by “e ll ip si ng” th e pa ra bo lic 

re flec to r of a he ad ligh t—th a t is. by co mpr es sing it to p and bo tto m to mak e it 

slig ht ly ov al in sh ap e—he co uld sh ap e a fla t, w id e p a tt e rn of ligh t, an d th a t 

by us in g a filam en t-s hielde d bu lb in su ch a re flec to r he c ou ld pro du ce a hea dl ig ht 

th ro w in g enou gh light in fr o n t b u t ca us in g no gla re whe n seen fr om a side a ng le.

Aga in no one see me d in te re st ed an d he put th e id ea as id e to deve lop oth er in ­

ve nt io ns in cl ud in g a re fine m en t of th e gea r pu mp , an arc ti c sled an d oth er 

devic es.

In 1 954 t he g rowing toll of d eath s on high way s pr om pt ed P re sid en t Eisenh ow’er 

to de cl are a na tion al sa fe dri vin g day an d se t up a H ig hw ay S af et y Co mm ittee. 

C aughre an im m ed iately fr ie d to in te re st th e P re si dent an d th e nat io nal com ­

m itte e in hi s sa fe hea dl ig ht , but go t a po lite brush-off.

Sinc e th en , an d w itho ut an y th ought of pe rs on al pr of it be ca us e hi s idea is 

no t pat en ta ble , he has en ga ge d in a pe rs on al cr usa de w ith th e ai d of hi s wife, 

Bessie, to ha ve hi s non gl ar e headli ght rec og nized an d put in to use .

In 1956 he serv ed a de m an d on th e Gen eral E le ct ri c la m p divi sion to cease 

an d de si st fro m adver tisi ng it s he ad la m ps as gl ar ep ro of . Bac k ca me a reply 

fro m th e leg al divisio n th a t th ese lam ps mee t th e sp ec ific atio ns of th e So cie ty 

of Autom ot ive Eng inee rs an d co mpl y w ith pre sen t, leg al re quir em en ts of th e 

va ri ous Sta te s.

He co m m un icated w ith th e So ciet y of Autom otive E ngin ee rs but th at bod y 

told him "it wo uld be ou ts id e th e scojie of ou r ac ti vit ie s fo r us to under ta ke to 

ev alu ate o r pr om ote your d es ig n o f ‘gla re le ss ’ he ad la m p.”

Th e SA E le tt er also mad e th e curi ous st at em en t th a t w hile it pu blishe s te st 

st an d ard s fo r au tomob ile ligh ting . “T he fa ct th a t a de vice m ee ts th e re quir emen ts o f on e of th es e st andard s do es no t me an th a t th e s oc iety has ap prov ed it .”

On tw o oc ca sio ns in 1957 C au ghre an w en t up to Sac ra m en to to tr y to ta lk 

about sa fe auto ligh ts w ith th e sa fe ty re gul at io ns and de vice s su bc om mitt ee of 

f l i c S ta te Assem bly. He had w ith him eq uipm en t to giv e a de m on st ra tion of 

hi s th eo ri es b ut w as n ot giv en an opport unity t o show it.

In 1958 he an d Be ssi e mad e a tr ip to W as hi ng ton, D.C. a t th e ir own ex pe nse 

an d fo r 12 da ys tr ie d to ge t acti on w ith th e F ed er al T ra de Co mm ission an d 

o th er F edera l ag encie s an d officials, but w ithou t re su lt.
328 TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

In his apartmen t at 415 Jones Street, San Francisco, Caughrean was quiteeager to explain his ideas and d emonstrate his light.

Much condensed, this is what he says is wrong with present auto headlights: the filament shields used are not of the correct spherical shape to be 

fully efficient; the prismatic lenses are molded and inexact so. tha t no two lenses 

will be alike, which means tha t they throw stray pencil beams as much as 8 

or 10 times as powerful as the light sou rce ; engineers try to focus the parabolicreflected li ght and direct light beams with the same lens prism patter ns, which 

is impossible.

He conducts a demonstration with a parabolic reflector without rigid backing 

so th at it can be bent.

He switches it on and compresses it slightly, and you see the light pattern 

flatten, broaden, and focus on wh at would be the road. You stand ahead and to 

the side, a s in an oncoming car, and see no side glare. Then he places in front 

of it a prism atic lens from one of today’s headlights, and in the same position 

you do get the glare.

“You see, it ’s the lens,” he says.

Caughrean cites General Motors figures tha t headlight glare is a factor in 

one-third of all nighttime auto accidents. This accident factor can be cut down, 

he insists.

But no one is willing to listen.

(W hereu pon, at 10:45 a.m., Fe br ua ry 21, 1962, the subcommittee 

was adjourne d, sub ject to call of th e Ch air .)

o