English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

BRIEF I n the United States, each state is responsible for implementing policies to reduce vehicle crashes. 1 Policies can vary between states but often include measures to deter speeding, prevent driving while intoxicated (DWI), and increase the use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Supporting these policies is expensive; states pay millions of dollars each year for police time, equipment, and more. Thus, state policymakers must prioritize and choose the interventions that will provide the greatest reduction in injuries and deaths for their implementation dollars. Given that most state budgets for traffic crash intervention policies are tight, it is worth asking this: Would it be more cost-effective for the country to implement the most effective national intervention across all states that lack it, or to have each state implement its most cost-effective intervention? 1 Our analysis included the District of Columbia along with the 50 states.

Should Traffic Crash Interventions Be Selected Nationally or State by State?