NATIONAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION CENTER

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1963

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington. D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, Longworth Building, Hon. Kenneth Roberts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. ROBERTS. The subcommittee will please come to order.

The subcommittee is resuming hearings on H.R. 133 and our first witness today will be Mr. Charles W. Prisk, Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety, Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Com

merce.

Mr. Prisk, we are glad to have you appear before the subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. PRISK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. PRISK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Charles W. Prisk, Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety, Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Commerce.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear again before your committee and to present some of our views on H.R. 133. This bill, as you well know, would establish a National Accident Prevention Center in the Public Health Service as a means of stimulating accident research and related operating programs.

The remarks I shall offer will deal entirely with the highway traffic accident prevention phases of H.R. 133. The Department of Commerce defers to the views of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare insofar as other accident prevention areas of this bill are concerned.

The principal mission of the Bureau of Public Roads, in the Department of Commerce is, as you know, to administer the Federal highway

program.

We are becoming increasingly aware that the effects of the large Federal investment in highway improvement are of the greatest importance to safety and efficiency in highway transportation.

An important organizational adjustment in the structure of the Bureau of Public Roads was made about a year ago to strengthen the contribution of the Bureau to safety in traffic accident prevention efforts.

57

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.

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.