Motor vehicle crash injury patterns and the Virginia seat belt law

Injuries to front seat occupants in tow-away crashes in the Charlottesville, Va, area were compared for 1 year before and 1 year after Virginia's seat belt use law took effect. Vehicle and occupant data were combined to examine crash and injury patterns. Reported seat belt use in crashes increased after the law, and there were substantial decreases in injuries. Front seat occupants were less likely to receive medical treatment following a crash in the postlaw period. The reduction in the number of injuries was greater for passengers in the right front seat than for drivers and for frontal crashes than for other types of crashes. The injury reduction effects occurred primarily through reductions in the number of head and face injuries, particularly those that occur from contact with windshields and instrument panels.

Motorcycle licensure, ownership, and injury crash involvement

The interrelationships among motorcycle licensure, ownership, and injury crash involvement were investigated in a sample of 2,723 motorcycle drivers severely or fatally injured in California in 1985-86. Owners of motorcycles in such crashes ("driver-owners") were less likely to have valid licenses than a random sample of motorcycle owners who had not been in crashes (42 vs. 57 percent). Thirty-three percent of the crash-involved drivers had valid motorcycle driver's licenses; 39 percent were operating motorcycles they did not own ("driver-nonowners"). Driver-nonowners were less likely to be validly licensed than driver-owners (20 percent vs. 44 percent). The licensing rate of crash-involved driver-nonowners was 15 percent if the owner was also unlicensed. Rates of valid licensure were lowest among the youngest drivers. Virtually no crash-involved driver-nonowners under age 21 were licensed in cases in which the owner was also young and unlicensed.

Indexes of severity: underlying concepts--a reply

A recent paper on the concepts underlying six indexes of severity that have been proposed for health services research claimed to identify deficiencies in each. A close examination reveals that the criticisms are generally without substance, and that the claim that the indexes "violate some of the principles implied by their formulation" is in error. Most of the objections apparently stem from fundamental confusion concerning the use of such indexes. Two of the indexes in question, the Abbreviated Injury Scale AIS) and the Injury Severity Score (ISS), have been validated and are being used widely both in the United States and elsewhere as the principal descriptors of trauma in motor vehicle crashes. The use of these indexes has contributed significantly to motor vehicle crash research and to the improvements in vehicles and highways that are reducing the trauma resulting from such crashes.