{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024349566377585057, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009673115410273516, 'mean_word_length': 4.846003898635478, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Regarding Formula One and global road safety

In his passionate response to Ian Roberts1 (JRSM 2007;100:360-2), David Ward (JRSM 2007;100:412-3) did not declare all his competing interests. As well as being director general of the FIA Foundation, Mr Ward was appointed by the FIA (International Automobile Federation) from his FIA position, to manage the $300 million with which the FIA created the Foundation. Mr Ward also defended the Commission for Global Road Safety at length - but nowhere did he mention that he is the Commission's Secretary. In addition, Mr Ward neglected to declare that, as Director General of the FIA Foundation, he has a member's chair on the Executive Committee of the Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP). 
 
The complex links between these institutions - which Mr Ward's interests reflect - highlight Professor Roberts' point that motorists and the motor industry are powerful players in the international road safety debate. This is neither surprising nor necessarily a bad thing. Road transport plays a vital role in economic development, and the motoring industry has a legitimate role in road safety policy in the developing world. The auto industry has always lobbied governments to promote its own agenda3 and has considerable commercial interests in the emerging markets.4 In pursuing those interests, groups like the four that Mr Ward is involved in are doing precisely what they exist to do.5 
 
A problem emerges, however, when such groups are able to steer the agenda in the direction favoured by just one or two stakeholders. At the national level in developed countries, interest groups compete with one another for influence; alongside motorists' groups and car manufacturers, there are vocal and well-organized groups representing cyclists, pedestrians, public transport users and others. Independent government institutions exist to make binding decisions when these competing interests are at odds. 
 
At the global level, however, there is no government agency with the authority to weigh up competing claims. International NGOs like the World Bank and the World Health Organization may attempt to take on this role, but they are easily ‘captured’ by whoever can offer much-needed funding. In the sphere of road safety, this gives the FIA and the GRSP an extraordinary advantage. 
 
Groups like the FIA Foundation and the GRSP have every right to advocate on their members' behalf, and as David Ward points out, they contribute desperately needed funds to road safety projects. But as representatives of motorists and of the motor industry, they necessarily prioritize the needs of these groups. In the absence of competing organizations, this threatens to narrow the scope of the policy debate and to exclude policies which might benefit other road users. The lack of a well-developed civil society at a global level is not the automotive industry's fault - but it would behove them to keep it in mind when exercising their considerable influence.