No abstract

Almost one in five British mothers is a lone mother. Their children have injury rates that are twice those of children in two parent families. In this article the link between lone parenthood and childhood injury is examined. The increased injury rates for the children of lone mothers can be explained by the poverty, poor housing conditions, and social isolation of lone mothers in Britain. The problem of reconciling the demands of paid work with the demands of the unpaid work of childrearing is particularly difficult for lone mothers, who find themselves in a benefit dependent poverty trap. Many such mothers would seek paid work if affordable day care were available. Day care would also provide a safe environment for their children, who are otherwise exposed to the environmental hazards of poor housing. Provision of day care is a social policy that would have important effects on the health and welfare of lone mothers and their children. These effects deserve to be properly evaluated.

This Commentary addresses the ongoing disagreements between many safety advocates who endorse traditional models of prevention and those who oppose them, arguing that safety measures are offset by risk compensation (RCT). The debate is especially heated with respect to regulatory or legislative prevention measures. After explaining the rationale behind risk compensation (aka risk homeostasis theory) (RHT), I provide examples of RCT studies to explain why I believe they should be rejected. The main basis for my rebuttal, however, rests on data that show steady declines in unintentional injury mortality, which, according to RCT, should not have occurred. There are many other reasons for rejecting this theory, and it seems that the time has come for the debate to finally be concluded.

No abstract

Results suggest that steps should be taken to make helmets available with PBSPs. Helmet availability should be incorporated into PBSP planning and funding, not considered an afterthought following implementation.