Improving Risk Perception in Adolescent Motorcycle Drivers

Improving Risk Perception in Adolescent Motorcycle Drivers Could Risk Perception Abilities of Adolescence Motorcycle Drivers (Motorcyclist) be Improved Through the Distance Perception Psycho-education Program? Guritnaningsih A. Santoso, Lucia R. Mursitolaksmi, Dewi Maulina Abstract The number of motorcyclists on the highway increased rapidly from year to year. The Central Bureau of Statistics recorded the number of motorcycles in 2010, 8.7 million units, rising to 9.8 million units in 2011, and became 10.8 million units in 2012. That means, there is an addition of 1 million units of motorcycles per year (Kompas, 11 November 2013). The impact of the number of motorcycle riders is a wide range of traffic problems as a result of hazardous motorcycle driver behavior manifested as high rate of motorcycle accidents. Motorcycle accidents are the biggest contributor to traffic accidents, as many as 60-77% in the period 2008-2012 (Maharani, 2012; Department of Transportation, 2010). Directorate General of Land Transportation, Ministry of Transportation noted 11,140 drivers and passengers of two or three-wheeled vehicles died in traffic accidents in 2010. Average motorcycle accident threatens 20,000 people per year, or 55 people per day, or about two people every hour. T he cause of the accident on a motorcycle can be derived from the characteristics of the engine, the road environment and driver’s behavior (Houston, 2011). Among these three factors, the behavior of the driver is important to note, because 70-90% of accidents are caused by human factors and behaviors associated with the driver (Hole, 2007; â€Å"Januari-Oktober 935 orang tewas,† 2011; Shinar, 1978; Ullerberg Rundmo, 2003; Yilmaz Celik, 2004). In psychological studies of traffic, there are three perspectives used to explain the behavior of driving. These perspectives are: the perspective of personality, cognitive perspective, and social perspectives (Ullerberg Rundmo, 2003). Among the above three perspectives, the cognitive perspective has not been the focus of much research. Whereas the cognitive aspects that include perception, attention, or the attention of the relevant matters around, concentration, ability to process information and make decisions is very important in driving activity. Those various aspects of cognitive are important to always be active when driving because individuals are facing situations in which highway environment is constantly changing. One of the cognitive aspects that play a major role in determining the dangerous driving behavior is the perception of risk. Chung Wong, 2011; Guritnaningsih et al, 2011; Wong et al., 2010 found that the perception of risk is a significant predictor of risky dr iving behavior. According to Cohen, et al (1995, in Machin Sankey, 2008), there is a negative relationship between risk perception and risky driving behavior, in which the perception of risk (hazard) against a low driving conditions will be followed by the higher possibility to display the driving behavior dangerous. Perception of risk in driving is â€Å"the subjective experience of risk in potential traffic hazards† (Deery, 1999). This means that risk perception is individual. Nevertheless, various studies have shown that the perception of risk in young adults is generally low. They will perceive a dangerous driving situation as low-risk. They will perceive a dangerous driving situation as low-risk. This is because of two main things, namely the lack of experience in driving skills or lack of processing information, and age factor related to lifestyle (Mayhew et al., 2008). Young adulthood is a period where they are easily provoked emotionally and fun sensation seeking. Th e research that has been conducted by researchers found that risky behaviors while driving, such as calling, moving lane, and speeding are assessed by participants as behavior that is not hazardous (Guritnaningsih et al., 2011). These findings corroborate the results that the young drivers risk perception is low. When driving on the highway, the various situations faced are almost entirely received visual information (Shinar, 2007). Errors of perception (perception errors) are one of the causes of the accident on a motorcycle, which occurred because the driver failed to detect a dangerous condition (Tunnicliff, 2006). To be able to drive safely among other vehicles required the ability of visual perception in the form of perceptual distance (distance perception). Rizania, Guritnaningsih, Maulina (2010) in a study on the effect of distance perception on the young adulthood motorcycle driver found that dangerous overtaking behavior (weaving behavior) is influenced by perceptual judgment of distance. Assessment of distance (distance perception) may be one of the causes of the occurrence of motorcycle accident. (Pai, 2011). When the driver is mistakenly or unable to ensure a safe distance before deciding to overtake another vehicle, it can cause accidents (Shinar, 2007; Tunnicliff, 2006). This s hows that an error in assessing the safety distance may result in lower risks assessment and perform risky or unsafe motor driving behavior. Assessing distance cannot be separated from assessing speed; the two are closely related to one another. In receiving stimulus on the distance and speed the driver will perceive it as safe or unsafe distance. For example, for a vehicle speed of 30 km / h, the relatively safe distance is 4 meters, while for the vehicle speed of 40 km / h the safe distance is 8 meters, and so forth (Suryajaya, 1995). According to Sanders and McCormick (1993) accurate assessment of the time, distance and speed is needed to maneuver in a secure way. Rosenbloom, Shahar, Elharar, and Danino (2008) suggests that the driver, especially novice drivers must develop the ability to reduce hazard risk perceptions in a variety of road situations. Results of previous studies on the ability of risk perception shows that risk perception can be enhanced through the provision of training (Rosenbloom, Shahar, Elharar, and Danino, 2008); Horswill, Kemala, and Wetton; Scialfa, and Pachana, 2010). Referring to previous stu dies that show the effectiveness of training programs to improve the skills of risk perception, researcher sees the need to develop training programs on danger on the highway for motorcyclists who often displayed hazardously behavior in big cities in Indonesia, namely the behavior of slipping and overtaking other vehicles. Specifically this study wanted to test whether provision psycho-education program on recognition distance perception is significantly effective in lowering the risk perception scores of adolescence motorcycle driver. Method Participants There were 60 male adolescences in this study. The mean age was 17.12 (SD = 0.329) with a range between 17-19 years. More than half respondents (22.4 percent) had been riding motorcycle for 3-5 years, 17.2 percent had been driving for more than 5 years and the rest (10.3 percent) had been riding for 1-2 years. Male adolescence motorcycle drivers have been chosen because they are inexperienced motorcyclists and tend to drive dangerously. In addition, male riders more often display dangerously behavior than women riders. Participants in this study were drawn from secondary school i.e. SMAN 38. Measures and Apparatus The instruments used were: 1) a video film about riding a motorcycle on the highway, which is made à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ ¹Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ ¹up of 10 scenarios, with details of 5 scenarios that describe the behavior of line splitting and 5 scenarios that describe the behavior of overtaking. Highway situation for all five scenarios in each type of motor driving behavior (i.e. line splitting and overtaking) varied according to variables: time of the day, weather, speed, distance, and type of road (one-way vs. two ways). Psycho-education program contains information on three common dangerous behaviors of motorcyclists, i.e. the splitting line and overtaking. The information provided includes: (a) the definition of each type of behavior, i.e. slip, and overtaking another vehicle, (b) the factors that influence the driving behavior of the motorcyclists, (c) the importance of the perception of a safe distance, and (d) risks/dangers of unsafe driving hatched. Psycho-education program was presente d to the participants with audio along with presentation in the form of PowerPoint, and also video footage of line splitting and overtaking to serve as an example of behavior. 3) Questionnaire, containing items that measure the perception of distance, namely by asking the estimation of the distance between the motor and the driven vehicle nearby, as perceived by the participants. The measuring instrument also contained items to assess how much is the risk to have an accident if the partisipants do the splitting line and overtaking. Measurements were performed using a Visual Analogue, in which participants were asked to visualize the assessment of the risks in a continuum line with range 0-100 percent. The questionnaire also tapped into demographic information such as age, riding experience, and accident experience. Procedure Preparation Phase Prior to the experiment, the researchers had conducted two activities. The first activity was Focus Group Discussion to investigate the push and the hamper factors of unsafe riding motorcycle, especially for doing line splitting and overtaking, and also the role of distance perception on riding behavior. The result of Focus Group Discussion was used to develop film scenarios concerning riding motorcycle on the road. There were 14 film scenarios that consist of 7 scenarios representing road situation and a motorcyclist that intend to do line splitting, and 7 scenarios representing road situation and a motorcyclist that intend to do line overtaking. The scenarios of road situation were varied in several variables, i.e. weather variable (clear vs rainy), time of day (afternoon vs night), type of road (one-way street vs two-way street), distance between vehicles in front or beside the motorcycle (2.5 meter or less vs 2.5 meter or more), and speed of the motorcycle (20-30 km/hour vs 50-60 km/hour). The film was developed in real situation to make the measurement of distance perception and risk perception more natural. The cameraman shot the road situations using Yamaha Vixion, 150 cc motorcycle, year 2012. They were using the equipment as follows: Camera Canon EOS 60D; Logger: HP Huawei Ascend P1; and Monopod Manfrotto. After the pictures have been collected, they were then edited and assembled into a movie. Editing were done using a computer set with following specification: CPU: 2-GHz Intel Core i7-2630QM; OS: windows 7 home premium (64 bit); RAM: 8 GB; Hard Drive: 750 GB SATA; Display size: 15.6 inch; Resolution 1920 x 1080 pixels; Optical drive: Bluray/DVD; Graphic card: Nvidia Ge Force GT 540M; Video Memory: 2GB. The film then validated using face validity approach, to ensure that the road situations had been represented each scenario. Experimental phase From a list of 98 students in a senior high school in Depok area that met the sample criteria the researchers took 60 students using random number in SPSS program and divided the selected students into two groups (experimental group vs control group) by randomization technique, each group consists of 30 students. Both experimental group and control group was measured two times, pre-test and post-test. Between the pre-test and the post-test the experiment groups of students were given psycho-education program, whereas at the same time the control group was asked to watch a short film. Therefore, the study design for this study is experimental laboratory and the design called randomized two groups before and after design. Results Comparative analysis was used to examine the effect of psycho-education program concerning distance perception on motorcyclists’ risk perception in riding their motorbike. To test the equality between experimental and control group comparison had been made. Referensi Motor, Solusi Macet Sekaligus Petaka http://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2013/11/11/0953518/Motor.Solusi.Macet.Sekaligus.Petaka. Senin, 11 November 2013. 1

Earl of Warwick in revolt against Edward IV by 1469 Essay

Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick has been labelled by historic tradition, with some justification, as the ‘kingmaker’. It is with his support that Edward IV was able claim the throne from Henry VI, Warwick’s support during the Wars of the Roses, and especially at the Battle of Towton was vital in putting the first Yorkist king on the throne. It is clear that he was instrumental in Edwards rise to the throne, however his contribution has sometimes been overemphasised. Pickering suggests that their alliance in taking the throne was equal, the victories Edwards own and even that Edward seemed more adept in battle than his ally. He says â€Å"Edward was neither ‘made’ by Warwick, nor controlled by him.† Nevertheless, his relationship with Richard, both as an ally and a friend, must have been very good. What lead him then, less than a decade later, to revolt against Richard in support of the exiled Henry VI? The first thing to understand about Warwick was his character and to see that it was pure ambition that drove him. With the romanticism that the epithet â€Å"Kingmaker† implies, one could picture him as the noble-knight. However he seems to have far from the vignette that is perceived from the word â€Å"Kingmaker†. Keen says of him â€Å"Warwick was not a wholly attractive character. His temper was short, and when thwarted he was sullenly unforgiving.† The Old English Chronicle (edited by T.Hearne) describes the unquenched ambition that drove him â€Å"his insatiable mind could not be content†¦there was none in England who was before him or who owned half the possessions that he did†¦yet he desired more†. It is with the possessions and the patronage that Richard Neville’s grievances with the king started to appear. Edward IV, as previously explained, came to the throne very much as Warwick’s protà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½gà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½. He must have thought that with Edward on the throne he would have a controlling influence over the king, and with this influence the obvious power he so desired. Warwick was rewarded handsomely for his continued support, given titles and territories such as Captain of Calais, admiral of England and constable of Dover Castle, all of which were very important (and powerful) posts. He was by far the mightiest of Richards subjects, however he lacked the monopoly of Royal power that he yearned for, as royal patronage was (rightfully) extended to other leading Yorkists. Most prominently was Warwick’s stewardship of the duchy of Lancaster, given to Lord Hastings, and the lieutenancy of Southern Wales which was given to the recently knighted, Sir William Herbert. Despite this set back for Warwick, he still was in full support of Edward, and to some extent had control of Edwards thinking. Edward was still a relatively young king, and Warwick was there for advice, and with help in making decisions. Warwick’s support was also necessary for Edward, as his kingship was still under-threat in the north and west by Margaret of Anjou’s continued attempts to re-instate her husband to the throne. This drove Edward and Warwick together further more during the early years of Edwards reign, and indeed in 1462 Warwick seemed to have won a decisive battle for Edward. He forced the lords in Bramburgh (including Somerset and Sir Ralph Percy) to surrender to Edwards allegiance, on the condition that their lands were re-instated. Although this was not the final problems Edward faced from the Lancastrian supporters during his reign, it showed that in 1462, Warwick was firmly behind Edward as King of Britain. A factor which historians have usually put forward as a major cause of Warwick’s treachery is Edwards’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. In 1464, Warwick was, to further the kings alliance to France, arranging a marriage between the King and a French Princess. In the final stages of these arrangements, on 14th September 1464, Edward revealed to Warwick and the rest of his assembled nobles at the council in Reading, that he was already married to Elizabeth. The assembled magnets were stunned and horrified at the news, and it especially hurtful to Warwick who’s embarrassment over the whole French alliance marriage affair must have been huge. The chronicle of the time (Edited by J.Warkworth), says that after the announcement â€Å"(The Earl of Warwick was) greatly displeased with the king†¦And yet they were reconciled several times; but they never loved each other afterwards† One must however beware of putting, as traditionally been done, too much emphasise on this marriage as a turning point in the relationships between Edward IV and Richard Neville. It is certainly a major factor in the breakdown of their relationship, however one must take into account that it occurred five years before Warwick’s revolt, and Warwick, at least publicly, still supported the king during these years. Having said this, Richards marriage, though romantic and loving, was a serious, irresponsible mistake for a king to make. Elizabeth was, by Richards’s standards, a commoner. Edward was the first king since the Norman Conquest to marry a commoner; however this was not really the problem it was that he missed out on strengthening his position as king by arranging a more political marriage. Furthermore by marrying a Woodville, he alienated his other major noble families, especially the Neville’s. The Woodvilles, much to Warwick’s and others annoyance, managed with this marriage to promote their family to the upper echelons of the English aristocracy. It also enabled them to marry off some of their ‘lesser relations’ to be married to either nobility or families of a very high standing which further enhanced their political position. The marriage did have significant repercussions for the relationship of Edward and Richard, however Keen points out, that rather than the damage the marriage itself caused, it was the undermining of Warwick’s plans that led to their relationship, â€Å"If the marriage of the king put a period to his friendly association with Warwick-and it did-this was not, it would seem, because of its domestic repercussions, but because it was a direct challenge to Warwick’s continual diplomacy.† It was not, as the quotation states, because of the repercussions of the marriage domestically that Warwick felt aggrieved, rather it was because it aired publicly and formally for the first time Edwards’s difference in opinion with Warwick about the foreign policy that they should employ. It was clear from Warwick’s failed attempt to marry Richard off to a French Princess that Warwick was in favour of Edward forming an alliance with England’s traditional enemies, the French. Indeed, he had been in regular contact with Louis XI of France, in an attempt to broker an alliance between France and England. Richard, conversely, wanted put his support in his present enemy, the Burgundians. This was a contentious issue for the King to deal with, his leading advisor, whose protà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½gà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½, he was, had completely antithetical views upon the very important issue of foreign relations, and it was hear that Edward proved that he was no longer dependent, or felt indebt of Warwick. He favoured the Burgundian option, and ignoring Richards’s pressure, he applied for and was granted a double subsidiary from the parliament to help support the Burgundians and ‘revive English continental ambitions’. Edward was maturing into his own king and he began to take more and more control over the running of the kingdom. Conversely of course, Richard Nevilles influence over the king was rapidly diminishing, and with this influence the power he so lusted after. It was this Maturity, and the lack of power that Warwick was afforded that ultimately, I believe led to Warwicks treachery. He had, when Edward was young, influenced and controlled the King. He had had his power that his personality demanded, however as Edward matured he started to take things into his own hands, which Richard, having tasted power, could not take. To make matters worse for Richard, power was being taken away from him and given to other nobility. His siblings were being passed over for marriage that was being afforded to others, and although his brother, George Neville, was enthroned as archbishop of York in September 1465, he felt his and his families power-base was faltering. It was here that Warwick decided to act, for the first time, against the king, in an attempt to enhance his standing. Firstly Warwick continued to negotiate with Louis XI. Keen describes Warwick’s actions, â€Å"For four years he instead continued to pursue with Louis’s encouragement what was in effect a private diplomacy of his own, independent and opposed to that of the king† He was effectively siding against his own king, believing the French to be more powerful than the Burgundians and also enhancing his own power-base if he ever wanted to challenge the king (which he goes onto do). At much the same time, however, Warwick was engineering the marriage, against the Kings wishes, of his daughter, Isabel, to the king’s younger brother and presumptive heir, George, Duke of Clarence. He would, if this marriage went ahead, become immediately more powerful, and a pose a threat to the Woodville’s dominance. Clarence, like Warwick, was extremely ambitious and would do almost anything to further his own cause. By the spring of 1469 Warwick and Clarence were in league with one another and also with Louis XI to undermine the Woodville’s, and possibly to over throw the king. Pickering says â€Å"Clarence encouraged Warwick to turn against the King and helped spread the rumour that his brother was not Duke Richard’s son but the bastard of an archer called Blaybourne† This rumour was almost certainly unfounded, yet both risked turning against their own king They did this for their own gain, one with the view of taking his brothers place as king, the other with the view to once again controlling the king himself. Thus in July 1469, Clarence defied his brother’s wishes and married Isabel and on the 12th July, Warwick, with the support of his brother Archbishop Neville and George, Duke of Clarence, published the ‘Calais Manifesto’.

Data Collection Relating to Personal Information and Purchase Behaviours †a Consumer Perspective

Data collection relating to personal information and purchase behaviours – a consumer perspective. Every individual to a certain percentage values their privacy. Differentiating factors amongst various individuals could be their cultural background, social environment, literacy and general awareness amongst others. Advancements in technology leading to development of secret cameras for instantaneous photographs, discount cards that store your purchase information, and scanners, have also contributed to this invasion of privacy. Database marketing assist marketers to record actual purchase behaviours of customers and hence help them monitor and tailor their promotions towards the customer’s interests. Also on the internet a customer is required to fill in certain information before they can make their purchases online. This in turn forms the basis of data capturing by the retailers; these information could be sold to marketers for their promotion purposes. Sheehan and Hoy, (2000) suggests that if customers are compensated for the use of their data, it could make them see the infringement in another way, and they may not likely term it as a privacy invasion. Such is in the case of discount cards which are data capturing instruments, but give customer a certain percentage of discount to compensate for their unknowing loss of anonymity. Consumer demography and correlation with privacy concerns Many researches carried out on this topic, though limited has shown some interesting views. The findings of Wang and Petrison (1993) for example and some other researchers are summarised below: – older people showed more concern about financial privacy than younger ones; – younger people were more aware that their data were being collected than older people – younger ones were more concerned about the benefits they would derive from giving out such information; – coloured people were less concerned; – inner city residents were less concerned; lower than average income earners were less concerned about their privacy information, but paid more attention to the compensation attached; – high income earners have more awareness and are more concerned about their privacy; – females exhibit more concern than males about their consumer privacy issues. (Graeff & Harmon, 2002). Many people find it quite easier to produce many demographic data such as age, marital status, occupation and education than to produce that which deals with the ir finances, health and criminal records. But this also depends on to whom the information is revealed and how it would be used. For example, if you are opening a checking/loan account with BankPHB plc where I work, you may be required to give details of your financial statement, personal income/pay slip, a utility bill showing evidence of your residence, your social security number or national identification number as the case may be, your health/life insurance policy and so many more in case you want access to a loan. Data of such private information could be given out to law enforcement agencies should the individual be suspected of having any involvement in money laundering or other criminal offences. Usually medical records are produced by job applicants at the point of entry for screening purposes. Consumer behaviour as regards online purchases and privacy. On internet purchases many people do not feel comfortable giving out their credit card details online, while some are just not bothered about it, but research has shown that less than a quarter of internet users feel insecure with credit card online purchases and more people prefer to use it in stores, or for telephone purchases (Graeff & Harmon, 2002). Most people do not know how their data is used and even when they do know, it seldom influences their purchasing behaviour, especially if they are high income earners, such that they still go about their normal purchasing. Consumers feel they ought to be informed and have control on how marketers use information about their buying habits; some also feel that government should regulate such uses (Graeff & Harmon, 2002). Although legal sanctions for misuse of consumer information are now in place, many marketers still ignore this and continue the practise. But it is inevitable that marketers must put a balance between their quest for information from market researches and making their customers feel comfortable doing business with them. Thearling (1998) in his work on data mining technology condemns the violation of the customer’s right to privacy of his information. For instance if you give your details solely for the purpose of making a credit card purchase and it is used for any other secondary purpose such as data mining, then it is a serious offence. The primary purpose of data collection must be clearly understood by the customer, with an option to opt out of the disclosure of such data in place. He gave an example of the CVS drug store who continually called customers up when their subscription was due for the use of Elensys. Obviously they got the data through data mining of patients’ medical data from hospitals or previous purchases. Personally, I feel this issue should be deeply addressed and should be sanctionable to make consumers more comfortable doing their businesses without fear of losing their privacy. References: Graeff, T. R. and Harmon S. (2002) Collecting and using personal data: Consumers’ awareness and concerns. Journal of Consumer Marketing. Vol. 19 No. 4 pp302-318. Available from: http://www. emeraldinsight. com. ezproxy. liv. c. uk/0736-3761. htm Accessed: September 10, 2009. Thearling, K. (1998) Data Mining and Piracy: A conflict in the making? Available online from: http://www. thearling. com/text/dsstar/privacy. htm/ Accessed 16th September 2009. Sheehan, K. B. and Hoy, M. G. (2000), â€Å"Dimensions of privacy concern among online consumers†. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. Vol. 19 No. 1. pp 62-73. Wang, P. and Petrison, L. A. (1993), â€Å"Direct marketi ng activities and personal privacy†. Journal of Direct Marketing. Vol. 7 No. 1, pp 7-19.

Who Invented the Baby Carriage

The baby carriage was invented in 1733 by English architect William Kent. It was designed for the 3rd Duke of Devonshires children and was basically a childs version of a horse-drawn carriage. The invention  would become popular with upper-class families. With the original design, the baby or child was seated on a shell-shaped basket atop a wheeled carriage. The baby carriage was lower to the ground and smaller, allowing it to be pulled by a goat, dog or small pony. It had spring suspension for comfort.   By the mid-1800s, later designs substituted handles for parents or nannies to pull the carriage rather than using an animal to carry it. It was typical for these to be forward-facing, like many baby strollers in modern times.  The childs view, however, would be of the rear end of the person doing the pulling. Baby Carriages Come to America Toy manufacturer Benjamin Potter Crandall marketed the first baby carriages manufactured in America in the 1830s. His son Jesse Armour Crandall received patents for many improvements that included a brake, a folding model and parasols to shade the child. He also sold doll carriages. American Charles Burton invented the push design for the baby carriage in 1848. Now parents didnt have to be draft animals anymore and instead could push the forward-facing carriage from behind. The carriage was still shaped like a shell. It wasnt popular in the United States, but he was able to patent it in England as a perambulator, which would thereafter be called the pram. William H. Richardson and the Reversible Baby Carriage African American inventor William H. Richardson patented an improvement to the baby carriage in the United States on June 18, 1889. It is U.S. patent number 405,600. His design ditched the shell shape for a basket-shaped carriage that was more symmetrical. The bassinet could be positioned to face either out or in and rotated on a central joint. A limiting device kept it from being rotated more than 90 degrees. The wheels also moved independently, which made it more maneuverable. Now a parent or nanny could have the child face them or face away from them, whichever they preferred, and change it at will. The use of prams or baby carriages became widespread among all economic classes by the 1900s. They were even given to poor mothers by charitable institutions. Improvements were made in their construction and safety. Going for a stroll with a child was believed to have benefits by providing light and fresh air. Owen Finlay Maclarens Aluminum Umbrella Stroller Owen Maclaren was an aeronautical engineer who designed the undercarriage of the Supermarine Spitfire before retiring in 1944. He designed a lightweight baby stroller when he saw that designs at the time were too heavy and unwieldy for his daughter, who had recently become a new mother. He filed for British patent number 1,154,362 in 1965 and US patent number 3,390,893 in 1966. He manufactured and marketed the baby stroller through the Maclaren brand. It was a popular brand for many years.