Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Office of Highway Safety now has a status equivalent to that of other major organizational units in the Bureau of Public Roads. It is for this reason, of course, that we have a deep interest in the legislation you are considering today.

The Department would like the committee to understand clearly that it has no wish to oppose accident prevention activities in the Public Health Service. From our long study of the traffic accident problem, as a part of highway transportation, we recognize it as one that requires contributions from the knowledge and experience of many disciplines-those in the life sciences as well as those in physical sciences.

Perhaps the most common misunderstanding of the traffic accident prevention field is that it is the province of some one skill or agency. Traffic accidents do not happen except as drivers, vehicles, and highways are involved.

We see in the provisions of H.R. 133 an intent to broaden the total Federal contribution toward the solution of a major domestic problem that results in needless loss of life, uncounted years of suffering, and a truly severe economic impact on the Nation's welfare.

In spite of all the presentations that have been so ably made before this subcommittee by so many persons, I doubt that there has yet been a full estimate of the extent of this serious problem.

Recent research performed by the Bureau of Public Roads-and perhaps this is why I interjected my reservations-in cooperation with the Illinois Division of Highways, revealed that the direct cost-this is out-of-pocket cost of traffic accidents in that State amounted to, in a recent year, 0.97 of a cent per passenger car-mile, or the equivalent of an added tax of 8 cents per gallon of gasoline.

There is no fully satisfactory way to estimate the indirect cost of traffic accidents but our findings from the Illinois study and others of a similar nature, made in cooperation with other States, suggest that the usual dollar estimates may be on the low side. In any event, the direct costs alone are great enough to cause very serious concern.

To come more specifically to the provisions of H.R. 133, our principal reaction is that the legislation is written in such broad terms as to authorize activities that could unnecessarily duplicate repsonsibilities and programs of the Bureau of Public Roads dealing with highway safety.

However, we feel that there are fundamental values in some portions of the bill, and propose in this statement to emphasize these positive characteristics, with the hope that a later action of the committee will result in sharper definition of its total scope.

In our opinion, H.R. 133 would better serve the current needs if it were to identify the function of the proposed National Accident Prevention Center more precisely. It seems only reasonable that an accident prevention authority situated in the Public Health Service should be defined in terms of the medical, clinical, and behavioral sciences with which that agency deals.

It is obvious to all students of highway safety that much more official attention needs to be focused on many aspects of traffic accident prevention. Thus, while the competence of the Public Health Service to deal with safety from the standpoint of the medical and other life sciences is an acknowledged virtue of H.R. 133, so too is it important that there be no subordination, directly or indirectly, of the programs

that draw on the physical sciences as they operate to increase the safety of the highway and the vehicle.

Among Federal agencies, the Bureau of Public Roads is a recognized primary source of specialized knowledge on highway and traffic engineering aspects of safety, and we in turn recognize the Public Health Service as an authority in the area of human factors.

Each department undoubtedly has a valid interest in the vehicle. However, it is most important to realize that both agencies would fall short of their responsibilities to highway safety if they were to overlook the interplay of the highway, the vehicle, the driver, and the environmental conditions.

In the instance of the Public Health Service, I believe that traffic accidents have been looked upon as a matter of public health, whereas in the Bureau of Public Roads we view them as deficiencies of the highway transportation system.

These two viewpoints are easily reconciled when there is a sufficient understanding of the respective areas of responsibility and interest in the two agencies.

I am glad to report that good progress is being made now through frequent staff contacts on program plans, both for traffic safety research and traffic safety operations.

In a larger area the Interdepartmental Highway Safety Board, which was activated last year, has contributed in vigorous fashion to this improved coordination of the Federal effort in highway safety.

The Interdepartmental Board represents the interests of the seven major Federal agencies having highway safety responsibilities. A working staff of technical specialists of these agencies meets regularly for the exchange of ideas and knowledge concerning their respective programs.

In addition to this improved communication on programs of the Federal agencies, a body of policy agreement is gradually being developed by the Board's staff, and this also will have a lasting benefit for future coordination of Federal efforts in highway safety.

The Secretary of Commerce serves as Chairman of the Interdepartmental Board and the Office of Highway Safety in the Bureau of Public Roads provides its secretariat, so we have seen at close range the responsible product of this new joint interest in safety now developing among the several Federal departments and agencies concerned.

It appears that a principal aim of H.R. 133 would be to provide the Surgeon General with the authority to make special project grants. These could cover such activities as a special investigation of emergency medical care for highway traffic accident victims. The Office of Highway Safety in the Bureau of Public Roads has a parallel interest in this type of problem from the viewpoint of the highway and the many services essential to its successful and safe operation.

We would support this portion of the legislation because of its potential for achieving practical solutions for a wide range of trouble

some areas.

Another provision of H.R. 133 would authorize the Public Health Service to make grants for training in accident prevention.

We can easily agree on the importance of an additional supply of competent scientists, and believe that the effect of the training grants would be to attract useful workers in great numbers to the accident prevention field.

Our Office of Highway Safety has recently established a limited program for highway safety trainees as a means for supplementing the present scarce supply of competent manpower in the field.

The Department of Commerce has had remarkable success with its other training programs in the highway field and we would therefore commend this provision of H.R. 133.

In summary, I would repeat that the Department of Commerce is sympathetic with the intent of the bill, and with the strengthening of accident prevention programs in the Public Health Service. However, as stated, we believe that the functions of the proposed National Accident Prevention Center should be more precisely identified. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Prisk.

The Chair would certainly like to compliment your Department and the Secretary for getting the Interdepartmental Board set up and active and we are hoping, of course, that the fine work that has been done in the Department will be expanding.

I think this statement is a somewhat different approach from the statement that was made by the Department, with reference to this bill last year, that is, the last session. I take it that with the changes that you have suggested so as not to infringe on the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Public Roads and the Department of Commerce, or maybe I should say that the other way, you would go along with the bill, as I understand your position.

Mr. PRISK. This essentially is the case. I think that the judgments of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to the needed amendments along with the Department of Commerce letter and the suggestions I have presented here, would cover the situation.

Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate very much your statement, and your appearance. The gentleman from Minnesota?

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps this would not be regarded as a question, but one of the perplexing things to me, and I am sure that you may be aware of these problems as I am, is yesterday we were given this book of statistics on persons injured in the home.

Here I have a Government bulletin from the Department of Agriculture on Safety: "Watch Your Step, Avoid Farm Accidents", bulletins all over the place, and the thing that perplexes me a bit is, if the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is in a position to make a survey on injuries in a home, it would seem to me they would also be in a position to examine what other agencies of the Government are doing the same thing.

The thing I don't want to do is to become involved in setting up another agency to do something that some other agency is already doing and get a duplication with more and more agencies of the Government operating.

I am in sympathy with the idea of trying to find out what is being done and where and get it sort of coordinated, but we have to pick and choose between what is already being duplicated, and what we are trying to do in this bill, I don't know, but it is perplexing because we get bulletins all the time.

I want to thank you for your statement. I think it is very well put together and certainly one that indicates a good deal of study relative to this bill.

I haven't any further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROBERTS. I might say this in passing to the gentleman from Minnesota. He has touched on what I consider to be one of the main objectives of this type of bill, to pull together some of the activities that have in the past been scattered all over the lot.

I think that we can avoid a great deal of duplication of effort by this bill. I think it probably lends itself to some amendments.

Mr. NELSEN. If the gentleman would yield, the point I would like to make is if the HEW provides the personnel to accumulate information like this, which they can, it seems to me it would be very simple for HEW also to check over what other agencies are doing and get them into a report with the personnel they have rather than setting up more agencies at this point.

I am in sympathy with the chairman in his objective, but I am wondering if it can be done under present arrangements, and I think it is worth discussing and I am sure we will in executive session at a later point.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. Thank you.

Mr. ROBERTS. Our next witness is Mr. W. G. Johnson, general manager, National Safety Council, 425 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.

Mr. Johnson, we are glad to welcome you to our hearings. We always found you to be very willing to cooperate with the committee in its efforts to achieve better results in the area of Safety and Public Health.

I know from your knowledge and long experience with the problems that this committee faces, that you are able to make a very fine contribution and we are very happy to have you.

STATEMENT OF W. G. JOHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is W. G. Johnson. I am general manager of the National Safety Council. In order that there be no misunderstanding of the National Safety Council's position regarding H.R. 133, I will begin by stating that the National Safety Council's position remains unchanged from this committee's hearings February

6. 1962.

I have said on numerous occasions that it was highly unfortunate that certain objectionable features of H.R. 133 were clouding the principal issue-the need of the U.S. Public Health Service for an intramural Research Facility or Laboratory.

We have been delighted to receive reports of public statements by the subcommittee chairman outlining the U.S. Public Health Service need for a research center, because these statements seem to indicate that the subcommittee chairman shares our view that a research center or facility or laboratory is the primary need.

The National Safety Council, therefore, urges that H.R. 133 be amended to eliminate the features objected to last year, and the Council then believes that the very strongest public support can be marshaled for the research facility.

97767-63-5

In an effort to clarify the Council's strong support for a research facility or laboratory, I wrote to the subcommittee chairman on February 27, 1963. Unless the subcommittee chairman considers my letter too informal for the committee record. I would ask that the letter and accompanying Council statement be made a part of this record.

I would read at this time simply one short sentence which crystallizes the National Safety Council's strong support

In order to provide a continuing program of directed and applied research to develop solutions to accident problems, there should be established in the Public Health Service an Accident Prevention Research Laboratory.

Mr. ROBERTS. Without objection, the letter will be made a part of the record.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. KENNETH A. ROBERTS,

NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL,
Chicago, Ill., February 27, 1963.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR KEN: Prior to Al Chapman's departure, we had several discussions of the needs of the Public Health Service. From these discussions, plus the testimony you received on H.R. 133, we have come to feel that the attached suggestions would fill a major remaining gap in Public Health Service authorization and would also fulfill the principal objectives of H.R. 133. In drafting the attached recommendations we have also relief heavily on "Analysis of Responsibility and Capability of the Public Health Service in Accident Prevention," a report by Operations Research, Inc., dated June 11, 1958.

I also feel that these suggestions essentially fulfill the recommendations twice made by the Accident Prevention Advisory Committee of the U.S. Public Health Service, and would undoubtedly have the enthusiastic support of that group.

We have formed no judgment as to whether a formal Board of the type proposed in H.R. 133 or the present Accident Prevention Advisory Committee of U.S. PHS is the better instrumentality for supervision of all U.S. PHS accident prevention activities (including the proposed laboratory). From my participation in the Accident Prevention Advisory Committee, I'd say it has the capabilities for discharging any responsibilities placed upon it. However, we think your experience and the experience of the U.S. PHS should guide on this point.

I shall be in Washington next week, and shall phone you on Monday to see if we can get together some time on Tuesday.

If these suggestions meet with your approval, I feel confident we can rather quickly develop broad and strong support for this essential improvement in Public Health Service capabilities.

Best regards.
Sincerely,

W. G. JOHNSON,
General Manager.

Some elements of legislation needed to establish a Public Health Service Accident Prevention Research Laboratory

1. In order to provide a continuing program of directed and applied research to develop solutions to accident problems, there should be established in the Public Health Service an Accident Prevention Research Laboratory.

2. In carrying out the above purpose, the Surgeon General should be authorized to

(a) conduct a continuing intramural research program in the basic medical, clinical and behavioral sciences so directed as to meet research needs which become evident in the nondirected grants-in-aid research programs or in the conduct of accident prevention programs;

(b) assist in the coordination of research programs conducted by public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals;

(c) make available research facilities of the Laboratory to appropriate public authorities, and to health officials and scientists engaged in special studies related to the purposes of the Laboratory;

« PreviousContinue »