PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2331290

Differences in reported car weight between fatality and registration data files.

Abstract

Two national-level data sources are commonly used together to estimate and compare fatality rates by car weight. The weight of each car in a fatal crash is available on the automated files of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatal Accident Reporting System; weight is derived by interpreting the Vehicle Identification Number of each car using a computer algorithm developed and maintained by R. L. Polk & Co. Counts of cars in use, by weight, are available on R. L. Polk & Co.'s National Vehicle Population Profile files; weights are coded from information in state vehicle registration files. However, it appears that there are systematic differences in car weight coding that complicate the use of these two sources together for calculating fatality rates (fatalities per registered car). Overall, the registration data appear to describe a car (of a particular make, model, and model year) as about one hundred pounds heavier than that car is described in the fatality data. The effect is to bias the comparison of fatalities per registered vehicle against lighter cars. Failure to consider this difference can lead to very misleading results. For example, the uncorrected data produce an estimate that the number of occupant fatalities per registered minicompact car (those under 1,950 pounds) was five times the rate in the largest cars (those weighing at least 3,950 pounds). Correcting for differences in car weight reporting produces estimates that the fatality rate in minicompact cars was twice that in the largest cars. Differences by car weight remain, but they are much less than would be concluded from the biased comparison.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S C Partyka. 1990. Differences in reported car weight between fatality and registration data files.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2331290/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Corporate financial decision-makers' perceptions of workplace safety.

This study, through a random national survey, explored how senior financial executives or managers (those who determined high-level budget, resource allocation, and corporate priorities) of medium-to-large companies perceive important workplace safety issues. The three top-rated safety priorities in resource allocation reported by the participants (overexertion, repetitive motion, and bodily reaction) were consistent with the top three perceived causes of workers' compensation losses. The greatest single safety concerns reported were overexertion, repetitive motion, highway accidents, falling on the same level and bodily reaction. A majority of participants believed that the indirect costs associated with workplace injury were higher than the direct costs. Our participants believed that money spent improving workplace safety would have significant returns. The perceived top benefits of an effective workplace safety program were increased productivity, reduced cost, retention, and increased satisfaction among employees. The perceived most important safety modification was safety training. The top reasons senior financial executives gave for believing their safety programs were better than those at other companies were that their companies paid more attention to and emphasized safety, they had better classes and training focused on safety, and they had teams/individuals focused specifically on safety.

Accident Prevention↗