www.piarc.org 2012R31EN

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS Technical Committee C.2 Safer Road Operation

2

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

statements

The World Road Association (PIARC) is a nonprofit organisation established in 1909 to improve international co-operation and to foster progress in the field of roads and road transport. The study that is the subject of this report was defined in the PIARC Strategic Plan 2007 – 2011 approved by the Council of the World Road Association, whose members are representatives of the member national governments. The members of the Technical Committee responsible for this report were nominated by the member national governments for their special competences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their parent organizations or agencies.

This report is available from the internet site of the World Road Association (PIARC) http://www.piarc.org

Copyright by the World Road Association. All rights reserved. World Road Association (PIARC) La Grande Arche, Paroi nord, Niveau 2 92055 La Défense cedex, France International Standard Book Number 978-2-84060-264-4 Cover: Richard Villalon, Fotolia

3

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

This document has been prepared by the PIARC Technical Committee TC2.1. The members of TC 2.1, include: Professor Dr. Ahmad Farhan Mohd Sadullah, Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (Chair of TC2); George Mavroyeni, Executive Director – Major Projects (formerly Executive Director – RS&NA) VicRoads, Australia (Work Group Leader TC 2.1); Peter Elsenaar, Global Road Safety Partnership, The Netherlands; Professor Dr. Peter Hollo, Research Professor, KTI Institute for Transport Sciences Non-profit Ltd (Hungary); Dr. Eng Yoshitaka Matoda, United Nations Centre for Regional Development (Japan); Arve Kirkerold, Director of Road User Charging, Norwegian Public Roads Administration; Joseph Mikulik, CDV Transport Research Centre (Czech Republic); Mario Leiderman, Association Argentina De Carnateras (Argentina); Marc Shotten, World Bank Global Road Safety Facility; Paul Gutoskie, Manager, Road Safety Vision Transport (Canada). Other representatives of TC 2 that assisted with the development of this document, include: Mike Griffith, Federal Highway Administration (USA); Randall Cable, South African National Roads Agency; Sixten Nolèn, Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Sweden; Alberto Mendoza, Mexican Transportation Institute. Many thanks to Eric Howard of Victoria, Australia for his assistance with the surveys and for his significant contributions to the development of this document. Thanks also to Mr. Håkon Wold of Norway for assisting with development of Chapter 5, Establishing National Road Safety Strategies. Veronique Feypell - de La Beaumelle of Joint Transport Research Centre of the OECD and the International Transport Forum, (France), a corresponding member of TC2.1, is also acknowledged for her valuable contributions to the work of this committee.

4

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................8 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................8 1. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES.............................................................................................9 2. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY STRATEGIES ...................................................................................20 3. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY PERFORMANCE .............................................................................22 4. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN POLICIES AND PERFORMANCE............................................23 5. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................26 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................27 1. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES...........................................................................................30 1.1. ROAD SAFETY VISION, AMBITION AND APPROACH.........................................................30 1.1.1. Long term visions..................................................................................................................30 1.1.2. The Safe System approach ...................................................................................................35 1.2. POLICIES (BASED ON SYSTEM WIDE CRASH ANALYSIS) ADOPTED TO ADDRESS DRINK DRIVING, DRUG DRIVING, SPEEDING, AND IMPROVE SEAT BELT AND HELMET USE (MOTORCYCLISTS AND CYCLISTS)...............................37 1.2.1. Drink driving and drug driving............................................................................................37 1.2.2. Speeding................................................................................................................................40 1.2.3. Red light running at intersections (Red light camera offences)...........................................42 1.2.4. Seat belt and helmet use.......................................................................................................43 1.3. PENALTIES TO DETER NON COMPLIANCE WITH THESE POLICIES ..............................45 1.4. IMPROVEMENT OF THE INHERENT SAFETY ON A SECTION OF ROAD THROUGH POLICIES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY PROGRAMS..............................46 1.4.1. Policies for infrastructure safety programs..........................................................................46 1.4.2. Policies/guidelines for speed limit setting............................................................................48 1.5. POLICIES TO ACHIEVE IMPROVED STANDARDS OF VEHICLE SAFETY .......................50 1.6. CRASH DATA AND IRTAD..........................................................................................................53 1.7. ROAD SAFETY MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS - INTRODUCTION............................55 1.7.1. Results Focus........................................................................................................................56 1.7.2. Coordination and Consultation............................................................................................57 1.7.3. Adequate legislative and judicial practices..........................................................................61 1.7.4. Adequacy of funding and resource allocation......................................................................63 1.7.5. Adequacy of advocacy and promotional activity .................................................................67 1.7.6. The quality of monitoring and evaluation of road safety activity, particularly the use of intermediate data to measure change ..............................................................................72 1.7.7. Adequacy of research and development arrangements .......................................................72 1.7.8. Adequacy of knowledge transfer arrangements to build capacity and effectiveness...........73 1.7.9. Road safety management arrangements...............................................................................75 1.8. PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING ROAD SAFETY ......................................................................76

5

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

2. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY STRATEGIES....................................................................................78 2.1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................78 2.2. VISION, OBJECTIVES, TARGETS AND ACTION PLANS - REFLECTED IN STRATEGY......79 2.3. ASPIRATIONAL OR MODELLED OUTCOMES/ TARGETS....................................................83 2.3.1. Aspirational Targets .............................................................................................................83 2.3.2. Modelled targets (Target setting based on quantitative modelling).....................................84 2.3.3. Targets for Serious Injuries...................................................................................................85 2.4. STRATEGY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND ARRANGEMENTS ......................85 2.5. EVALUATION AND MONITORING - USE OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (SPI’S)....................................................................................................................91 2.6. CONTENT OF AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY..............................................................................94 2.7. INITIATIVES – SAFER INFRASTRUCTURE – SAFER ROADS AND ROADSIDES.............95 2.8. INITIATIVES – SAFER SPEED LIMITS.....................................................................................99 2.9. INITIATIVES – SAFER VEHICLES SUPPLIED TO THE MARKET......................................102 2.10. SAFER ROAD USERS – ALERT AND COMPLIANT ROAD USERS..................................104 2.10.1. Speed limit compliance.....................................................................................................105 2.10.2. Reducing impaired driving – alcohol...............................................................................107 2.10.3. Reducing impaired driving – drugs..................................................................................110 2.10.4. Reducing impaired driving – fatigue ...............................................................................110 2.10.5. Seat belt and helmet wearing............................................................................................ 111 2.10.6. Countering distraction......................................................................................................112 2.10.7. Technology to be required in vehicles (and on road) to address unsafe behaviours........112 2.10.8. Initiatives - To improve pedestrian safety.........................................................................115 2.10.9. Initiatives – To improve cyclist safety...............................................................................118 2.10.10. Initiatives – To improve motorcyclist safety....................................................................119 2.10.11. Initiatives – To reduce heavy vehicle crash involvement................................................121 2. 11. INITIATIVES – LICENSE SYSTEM CONTROLS ON DRIVERS/RIDERS ENTERING THE SYSTEM INCLUDING PROGRESSION THROUGH THE ACCOMPANIED AND UNACCOMPANIED NOVICE DRIVER/RIDER YEARS ........122 2.12. INITIATIVES – VEHICLE REGISTRATION CONTROLS ON VEHICLES ENTERING THE SYSTEM.......................................................................................................124 2.13. INITIATIVES – ASSOCIATED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS.... 125 2.14. INITIATIVES - IMPROVING UNDERSTANDING OF CRASH RISK ON THE NETWORK.... 126 2.15. INITIATIVES - IMPROVING THE RESPONSIVENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE FOR CRASH VICTIMS................................................127 3. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY PERFORMANCE............................................................................128 3.1. THE NUMBER OF FATALITIES AND INJURY CRASHES ....................................................128 3.2. COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY PERFORMANCE.......................................129 3.2.1. Examples of outcome performance indices for road safety targets....................................129 3.2.2. Absolute number of fatalities..............................................................................................131 3.2.3. Risk of road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants...................................................................132 3.2.4. Fatality rates per vkt of travel and per 10,000 registered vehicles for jurisdictions surveyed which are included in IRTAD data......................................................................135

6

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

3.3. EXAMPLES OF INTERMEDIATE OUTCOME PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR KEY BEHAVIOURAL RISK AREAS (A KEY SUBSET OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS)...............................................................................................137 3.3.1. Speeding as a risk factor.....................................................................................................137 3.3.2. Drink driving as a risk factor.............................................................................................139 3.3.3. Failure to wear a seatbelt or helmet as a risk factor..........................................................140 3.4. HISTORY OF ROAD SAFETY MEASURES IN JAPAN..........................................................141 4. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN POLICIES AND PERFORMANCE..........................................143 4.1. GROUPING JURISDICTIONS ON BASIS OF PERFORMANCE ...........................................143 4.2. LINKS BETWEEN THE ROAD SAFETY APPROACH OF NATIONS AND THEIR PERFORMANCE..................................................................................................144 4.2.1. Countries where performance since 1970 was initially poor, but in recent decades has improved.......................................................................................................................144 4.2.2. Countries where performance since 1970 was initially good, but in recent years has slowed...........................................................................................................................148 4.2.3. Countries where performance since 1970 has lagged international good practice country performance...........................................................................................................148 4.2.4. Countries where performance since 1970 has consistently improved................................149 4.3. WHY HAVE SOME JURISDICTIONS HAD GREATER SUCCESS THAN OTHERS? .........150 5. ESTABLISHING NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY STRATEGIES .................................................156 6. OPPORTUNITIES...............................................................................................................................176 6.1. INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES..................................................176 6.2. VEHICLE SAFETY.....................................................................................................................179 6.2.1. Voluntary ISA and speed alert ...........................................................................................179 6.2.2. Other Vehicle safety features .............................................................................................180 6.3. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INJURY INSURANCE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTION TO ACCELERATE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT............................................................182 6.4. POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT.....................................................................................................183 6.4.1. Summary.............................................................................................................................187 7. REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................189 APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................................193 APPENDIX A – ROAD SAFETY VISION AND THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH ..................193 APPENDIX B – D  RINK DRIVING DATA (2007 OR 2008) – TESTING AND OFFENCE LEVELS ANNUALLY..................................................................196 APPENDIX C – DRINK DRIVING PENALTIES...............................................................................197 APPENDIX D – SPEED ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION......................................................... 200 APPENDIX E - SPEED INFRINGEMENT SUSPENSION PENALTIES.......................................203

7

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX F - SPEED LIMITS BY JURISDICTION...................................................................... 204 APPENDIX G – THE IRTAD GROUP.................................................................................................211 APPENDIX H – U  SA: ROAD SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM OUTLINE.............................212 APPENDIX I – ISSUES ADDRESSED IN SOUTH AFRICA’S STRATEGY.................................213 APPENDIX J – SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS............................................................214 APPENDIX K – R  UMAR: HIDDEN PROBLEMS AND LEARNING FROM THE PAST MISTAKES.................................................................................215 APPENDIX L – S  ENSITIVITY OF FATAL CRASH RISK TO TRAVEL SPEED.......................216 APPENDIX M – I NTEGRATED ACTIONS ACROSS SAFE SYSTEM ELEMENTS .................217 APPENDIX N – CASE STUDY: VOLVO CONCEPT TRUCK..........................................................220 APPENDIX O – P  ROJECTED SAVINGS IN FATALITIES 2000-2010 ATTRIBUTED TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROAD SAFETY INTERVENTIONS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES................................................221 APPENDIX P – E  STIMATED PAST AND PROJECTED FUTURE IMPACTS OF ROAD SAFETY MEASURES ............................................................................222 APPENDIX Q – E  MERGING ROAD SAFETY PRIORITIES Vehicle safety features ............................................................................223 APPENDIX R – SUMMARY OF POLICIES SURVEY RETURNS................................................227 APPENDIX S – SUMMARY OF STRATEGIES SURVEY RETURNS..........................................277 APPENDIX T - G  REATER INVOLVEMENT OF INJURY INSURERS IN REDUCING CRASH RISK..................................................................................299 APPENDIX U - OTHER EMERGING ROAD SAFETY PRIORITIES......................................... 300

8

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION This Report examines the road safety performance of several nations, reviews reported policies and strategies in jurisdictions and attempts to establish linkages between adopted and implemented road safety policies, overarching multi – year strategies and performance outcomes. This has proven challenging as the level of understanding available through review of survey returns is, by its nature, limited. Road safety performance is the outcome of complex interactions of many factors in each society. The findings are built upon survey returns from 16 countries and 8 selected state/ provincial jurisdictions which set out the road safety visions, strategies, policies and practices they have adopted to underpin their road safety performance. 15 countries and 5 states/provinces returned the policies survey - and 11 countries and 4 states/provinces returned the strategy survey. The surveys sought information which included: road safety vision, ambition and approach, road safety management arrangements, population and driver data, policies adopted to address drink driving, drug driving, speeding, and improve seat belt and helmet use (motorcyclists and cyclists), penalties to deter non-compliance with these policies, improvement of the inherent safety on a section of road through policies for infrastructure safety programs and speed limit setting guidelines, policies to achieve improved standards of vehicle safety, policies linking injury insurance premiums and crash risk by vehicle or user, and any adoption of Intermediate safety performance indicators. In addition, material from the Country Reports on Road Safety Performance, 2005-2008. OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre, OECD, Paris 2008; the 2009 IRTAD Annual Report, the OECD/ITF Towards Zero Report (2008); the GRSP Speed Manual (2008); the World Bank Country Guidelines for the conduct of Road Safety Management Capacity Reviews (2009) and many national or state/ territory road safety strategies, websites and documents was augmented by the experience of editorial committee members (including knowledge of a number of recent Road Safety Management Capacity Reviews in international jurisdictions commissioned by governments) and the professional experiences of contributors in order to obtain further information and provide a stronger context for the report.

Definitions A road safety strategy is considered a high level plan designed to achieve a particular long-term aim. The plan would often identify the vision on which the strategy is based, as well as actions, targets, performance measures, institutional

9

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

arrangements, research and development and funding requirements to deliver desired road safety performance. Road safety policies are considered to be courses of action proposed by an organisation. They usually flow from a strategic context and may relate to interventions or institutional management arrangements. They may respond to specific road safety issues or be the road safety component of a response to broader societal issues.

1. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES Vision A long term vision such as the “ultimate elimination of serious road trauma” is powerful in recalibrating the road safety challenge. It alters the community’s view of the inevitability of road trauma and leads to demands for clear allocation of responsibilities and a framework setting out accountabilities for performance. It will drive the search for innovative interventions. Countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands have embraced comprehensive visions. In Sweden’s case it is Vision Zero, and the philosophy acknowledges that human beings make errors, and that there is a critical limit in any crash beyond which survival and recovery from an injury are not possible. It recognises that a system that combines human beings with fast-moving, heavy machines will be very unstable, and a human tragedy can occur if a driver loses control for just a fraction of a second. It contends that life and health should not be allowed to be traded off against the benefits of the road transport system, such as mobility. Rather than placing responsibility for crashes and injuries on the individual road user, Vision Zero responsibility is shared between the providers of the system and the road users. The road user remains responsible for following basic road rules while the system designers and enforcers – such as those providing the road infrastructure, the car-making industry and the police – are responsible for the functioning of the system. In the event that road users make errors or even fail to follow the rules, the responsibility reverts to the system designers to ensure that these failings do not result in death or serious injuries. The Netherlands vision is termed Sustainable Safety and is based on the following principles: • man as the reference standard: physical (humans are vulnerable) as well as

psychological (humans are error prone, humans do not always obey rules);

• prevention is preferred to a curative approach;

10

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

• a de-centralised approach to be supported where possible, central approach

where needed.

Movement toward adoption of visions of this type is increasing internationally. Norway has adopted a “Vision Zero” approach and Western Australia has adopted “Towards Zero” as their vision and strategy through resolution in their Parliament in 2009. Washington State plan to achieve their “Target Zero”, i.e., zero traffic deaths and zero disabling injuries, by the year 2030. In 2001, Public Safety and Transportation departments in Minnesota collaborated on a conference called “Toward Zero Deaths”. The development of a draft US national road safety strategy is underway through FHWA and AASHTO and the working title of the document is “Toward Zero Deaths: a National Strategy on Highway Safety”. The United Kingdom in preparing for its new strategy considered that any vision should be credible, challenging and engaging for all concerned. It proposes a long-term vision of “Making Britain’s roads the safest in the world”, while Poland’s long term ambition is zero fatalities on its roads. The Vision adopted by a number of countries such as Japan and Switzerland is the reduction of fatalities (and serious injuries in many cases) by half – in ten years (or in the long term). Beyond government, the German Road Safety Council has adopted the safety philosophy of Vision Zero. Best Practice is represented by a commitment to a long term goal of zero fatalities with strong interim targets that establish the path to success. This commitment at the highest level of government, e.g., Poland (and for Sweden, Norway and Western Australia – by Parliament) will influence and underpin road safety management and road safety policy in a jurisdiction and will be clearly reflected in the proposals described in a strategy and action plan to achieve the ambitious interim targets.

The Safe System approach A Safe System approach is the key to achieving longer term ambitious road safety targets. The movement towards a safe system of road use is central to the achievement of targets set in many of the countries that have been most successful in reducing road deaths and serious injuries. It is inherent to the ambitious vision adopted in The Netherlands, Sweden and a number of other jurisdictions including Norway and the States of Western Australia and Victoria, Australia. Australia has adopted the safe system approach within its national road safety action plans since 2005 and New Zealand intends to move to a safe system approach through its recently (2010) published national strategy, “Safer Journeys”. The Dutch Sustainable Safety seeks a safe system through the application of the following parameters: the functionality of roads, the homogeneity of masses and/or speed

11

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

and direction, the predictability of road course and road user behaviour by a recognizable road design, state awareness (judgement of own capacity compared to the demands of the driving task), and forgivingness of the environment and of road users1. Safe system thinking influences road safety management and road safety policy as well as being the foundation and guiding set of principles for any effective road safety strategy. Best practice is a road safety approach that takes a systematic view of all road transport design elements to manage crash forces to within human tolerances – an inherently safe system which accommodates human error. It should also accept and reflect the obligation of shared responsibilities between users and ‘system providers’.

Addressing road user behavior - drink driving, drug driving, speeding, seat belt and helmet use (motorcyclists and cyclists) Policies to achieve safer/improved behavioural compliance (usually through effective deterrence) display considerable superficial similarity. However, implementations have differed substantially at a detailed level2. This applies to legislative and regulatory settings, levels of enforcement, judicial support, ease of enforceability, penalty levels (monetary fines and license suspension/ disqualification sanctions including demerit points) and cultural acceptance that certain types of offence are not acceptable (i.e., are outside social norms in that society). Drink driving is a persistent challenge to improved road safety performance. Even in countries with good road safety records, drink driving has been cited as a contributing factor in up to 30% of fatal crashes. While a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit of 0.5g/l is the adopted limit in most well performing countries, there is an increasing number of countries introducing lower limits of 0.2g/l (Sweden, Norway, Poland) or 0.3g/l in Japan and zero limit in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Some jurisdictions have a zero limit for some driver categories (e.g., Victoria, Australia for novice drivers under 22 years, on road public transport drivers and heavy vehicle drivers). Most developed countries have legislated for random breath testing by Police for alcohol.

  ibid   SUNflower: A comparative study of the development of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands Matthijs Koornstra (SWOV), David Lynam (TRL), Göran Nilsson (VTI), Piet Noordzij (SWOV), Hans-Erik Pettersson (VTI), Fred Wegman (SWOV), and Peter Wouters (SWOV), 2002

1 2

12

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

However, some developed countries, (Canada, United States, UK, and New Zealand) have a higher limit of 0.8 g/l BAC and also do not have full random breath testing powers for police. It is noted that only the UK from this list of countries is in the group with the best road safety performance. Many states/provinces in the US, Australia and Canada have well established alcohol interlock programs – for repeat offenders and in some cases for higher level first offenders as well. Program evaluations have consistently shown alcohol interlocks to be highly effective (for the period the driver is required to use them) in preventing drink driving. Best practice indicates that drink driving penalties should be comprehensive, with minimal exemptions and substantial penalty levels to achieve strong deterrence. Drug Driving. Tests for drug driving are conducted in most high income countries in instances of visible gross impairment. Random drug testing, based on saliva testing is relatively new and has been conducted in an extensive and systematic way to date in a few (but increasing number of) jurisdictions such as Norway, and a number of Australian States, where it was first introduced by Victoria. It represents current best practice.

Speeding A number of jurisdictions reported significant effort focused on detecting speeding related offences as a major initiative to prevent crashes. In general, however, limited information to determine the intensity of enforcement effort was available. Again, the high performance countries were active in achieving speed control. The Netherlands operate more than 1,400 speed cameras (mobile, fixed and point to point section control) with their mobile cameras deployed in a random and covert fashion. Sweden has a more limited speed enforcement program with 700 fixed cameras while the United Kingdom deploys some 2,000 mobile cameras (non – covert) and 2,000 fixed cameras. There is a most uneven approach by jurisdictions to enforcement effort, extent of covert operation and fines and other penalties for offending, indicating the considerable scope to achieve improvement if the political support for these proven measures could be galvanised. It is contended that those jurisdictions with a strong speed enforcement regime, for example with many mobile cameras deployed unpredictably, demerit point penalties linked to offence severity and other penalties that are a substantial deterrent, will have a greater level of compliance with speed limits than other jurisdictions.

13

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The UN Road Safety Collaboration through GRSP have published the Speed Management manual for decision makers and practitioners in 2008. It provides useful advice for jurisdictions about achieving improved speed management 3. Best practice is an effective program of covert speed cameras, combined with other speed enforcement technology. Camera systems should be programmed with minimal tolerance levels (ie allowed speed above the speed limit) before offences are prosecuted. Efficient penalty processing and follow up processes if unresolved are essential.

Red Light running (red light camera offences) Cameras to deter red light running are common in many countries including the US States, Canadian Provinces, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the UK, South Africa, Singapore and Australian States. Sweden, Norway and Japan do not operate any red light camera infrastructure. Best practice is the strategic deployment of red light cameras, particularly at high risk locations. Consideration should be given to combining these cameras with speed measurement devices. Seat belt and helmet use Most jurisdictions require all seats to have seatbelts and vehicle occupants to use those belts. However, there are fewer jurisdictions where all vehicle occupants are required to be belted. Most jurisdictions with enforceable seat belt wearing regulations typically report the percentage of compliance to be in the mid 90’s for the front seat and 85%-90% in the rear. Requirements for motorcycle helmet wearing vary. For example, only some 20 US states require all riders to wear helmets and all but three states require younger riders (typically those under 18) to wear helmets. Helmet wearing rates in 2008 were reported to be 63%, up from 58% in 2007. This is far short of jurisdictions like Germany with 97% of riders and 98% of passengers wearing motorcycle helmets and other jurisdictions with helmet wearing rates around 95% (Victoria, Sweden, Canada). Regulation for mandatory helmet wearing for cyclists is much less common than for motorcyclists. All Australian jurisdictions have mandatory helmet wearing laws. In Canada, regulations vary by province with mandatory wearing sometimes applying to young cyclists, sometimes for all cyclists. Northern European countries typically do not have mandatory helmet wearing laws for cycling except in some cases for children (Sweden). While data for cyclist helmet wearing rates is scant, they are known to be much lower in countries with no laws than in places   S peed Management: a road safety manaual for decision makers and practitioners, Geneva, Global Road Safety Partnership, 2008

3

14

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

where helmet laws exist. European countries typically report less than 35% wearing rates. Denmark reports that campaigns to encourage bicycle helmet wearing are effective up to the 12 to 14 year age group, but not effective for older young people and adults. Best practice is requiring all vehicle occupants to wear seat belts, requiring all motorcycle riders and passengers to wear approved standard helmets, requiring all bicycle riders to wear helmets and conducting regular surveys of wearing rates.

Policies for infrastructure safety improvement The all important linkage between travel speed (usually reflecting applicable speed limits) and infrastructure characteristics, traffic conditions and abutting environment are inadequately understood or applied in many countries. Some countries use “system-wide” and others “spot location” approaches for their infrastructure safety programs. For example, in the US, the state of Missouri places a strong emphasis on a systematic application of low-cost, safety improvement works, such as rumble strip treatments and median cable barriers. This is in contrast to many States who it is understood until recently have focused on running their safety programs through the analysis of individual crash locations, and identifying those where crashes are high and appropriate treatments (blackspot treatments) can be developed. More States are showing interest in the system-wide approach. For example, the lengths of the network where run off road crashes have the highest incidence per unit length can be identified from a network wide analysis. Treatment options for these lengths are identified and prioritised on a cost effectiveness basis. Funding is provided for the lengths with the most cost effective characteristics. In the case of point location treatments such as intersections the “blackspot” approach is in fact synonomous with the system wide approach. While there is a place for both risk assessment approaches, building a safer system requires acceptance that the current system is generally not fundamentally safe and in the initial years, many of the higher risk lengths across the whole network need to be identified and treated to reduce the network wide risk over time. Roundabout treatments should be encouraged as an alternative to intersection control by signalization on urban arterials where feasible, as is practiced in Ontario (Canada) and the UK among others. The iRAP (International Road Assessment Program) model utilises a range of data about a road length to calculate the safety quality of that road. This is of great

15

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

benefit when crash data is unavailable or of limited coverage or quality. iRAP also produces a range of potential treatment types which are cost calibrated to the country of application. This is not only a highly useful tool for practitioners in providing treatment options but is also an invaluable source of insight and training about what elements of a road, its operation and its environment contribute to its inherent crash risk and how certain countermeasures can more effectively address that risk than others. iRAP was initially developed for application in low to middle income countries, however, enhanced iRAP programs in high income countries are now picking up and seeking to apply many of the iRAP features for their risk assessment and intervention response programs. Best practice requires highway authorities to assess network wide risk and concentrate on route treatments over time prioritised by potential benefit. At present, if a highway authority reports a relatively homogeneous accident rate along its single carriageways or even along its motorways, it may not invest significantly, particularly if the accident rate was near the national average. Is this appropriate? Designing ‘to the average’ will generally perpetuate the average. While it is natural to direct resources to the most deserving sites (and it is noted that this provides a good legal defence), it may be time to challenge some of the historical theories used by the road industry.

Policies/guidelines for speed limit setting The speeds beyond which crashes of a specific type have a higher probability of a fatal outcome are set out in table 1. These speeds are at the centre of the Swedish Vision Zero and the Dutch Sustainable Safety infrastructure retrofitting approaches and are a powerful indicator of safe system limits. Their application should reflect road side and on road conditions applying in roads and streets and they are applicable to any and every jurisdiction. Table 1 - Speed thresholds for different road types Road types combined with allowed road users

Safe Speed (km/h)

Roads with possible conflicts between cars and unprotected users

30

Intersections with possible side-on conflicts between cars

50

Roads with possible frontal conflicts between cars Roads with no possible frontal or side-on conflicts between road users

80 ≥100

Most countries responding to the surveys have lowered urban speed limits to reduce pedestrian risk (to 40 km/h or less) and the risk of fatal crash outcomes from intersection crashes (to 50 km/h or less). There are exceptions to this position and again those jurisdictions who have not yet applied these lower limits should carefully examine what others are doing and look to gain the benefits in their country/state.

16

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Ontario, for example, has an default limit of 50 km/h in urban or built up areas and an 80 km/h default limit elsewhere. Freeway speeds are 100 km/h, divided highway limits are 90 to 100 km/h and two lane two way highways are 70 to 90 km/h. Urban arterials are 60 to 80 km/h and Collector/ distributor road limits are 60 km/h. The OECD/ECMT Report ‘Speed Management’ (2006)4 identified speeding as the number one road safety problem in a large number of OECD/ECMT countries, being responsible for around one third of road fatalities. It emphasises that reducing average speeds on roads by only 5% will save around 20% of current fatalities and identifies a broad range of measures which would assist improved speed management to deliver reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. High urban speed limits (above safe system levels) still persist in some PIARC jurisdictions. These limits reflect a primary focus on permitting higher levels of vehicle speeds and compromising safety, rather than making safety the constraint on permitted speeds. Best practice is to set speed limits according to safe system guidance taking into account the standard of the infrastructure, including crash risk, road user mix, road function, density of flow, and the road and roadside environment. Low urban speed limits should be introduced where conflicts with vulnerable road users are likely. Higher highway/freeway/expressway speed limits should only apply where the highest safety design standards have been implemented.

Policies to achieve improved standards of vehicle safety The US and the EU have lead the development of strong vehicle safety regulatory reform. However, EuroNCAP has been a most successful consumer focused crash test based information program, operated by the road safety agencies and automobile clubs in Europe. Countries such as Australia utilizing the UN – ECE regulations are behind the northern hemisphere regulatory curve and the Australian States and New Zealand rely more upon fostering market demand through the ANCAP consumer vehicle crash test based information programs – publicizing test results and other emerging vehicle safety features to improve the safety of the vehicle fleet. Best practice is government adoption of high standards for design regulations and for registration for road use, (especially features such as Electronic Stability Control, head protecting airbags and other emerging technologies), the promotion of vehicles with high levels of occupant and vulnerable road user protection to the  OECD / ITF JTRC Speed Management , 2006

4

17

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

public utilising the NCAP test results and incorporating high standard vehicles into government fleets to promote industry change.

Crash data and IRTAD – Understanding crashes IRTAD produce the International Road Traffic and Accident Database, which includes aggregated data on injury accidents, road fatalities, injured and hospitalised road users as well as relevant exposure data such as population, car park, network length, vehicle kilometrage and seat belt wearing rates from 30 countries for every year since 1970. Moreover, key road safety indicators are compiled on a monthly basis. IRTAD is developing a set of new variables to be progressively included in IRTAD data and are extending membership and peer support to low and middle income countries. Road Safety Management Arrangements In reviewing the scope and effectiveness of road safety policies (and strategies) within a jurisdiction it is recommended that the road safety management system is considered in its entirety. The system is represented in the diagram below5. Social cost Final Outcomes

Results

Intermediate Outcomes Outputs Road Network Planning, design, operation and use

Interventions

Recovery and rehabilitation of crash victims

M a n o n it d e or va i ng lu a t io n R& kn D t r a ow l a n d ns ed fe r g e

on ot i om Pr

Fu a n nd a l l d  r e i n g oc sso at i u on rce

io n lat g is

Co

Le

i na

t io

n

Results Focus

ord

Institutional Management Functions

Entry and exit of vehicles and drivers

Source: Bliss and Breen, building on the frameworks of Lane Transport Safety Authority, 2000, Wegman, 2001; Koomstra et al, 2002; Bliss, 2004.

Figure 1 – Schematics of a road safety management system

The capacity of a jurisdiction to establish and operate institutional management functions – the lowest level in the triangle – to adequately devise and deliver interventions and to achieve overall results is critical for all countries. The above model is used to provide a framework for evaluating current practice in jurisdictions.  OECD ITF JTRC – Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach, 2008

5

18

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The seven key functions within road safety management institutional management activity are: • the existence of a results focus within a jurisdiction (clear lead agency; the

existence and active performance of a road safety decision hierarchy within government; clarity of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for the key road safety agencies; and identification of the capacities that need to be strengthened); • coordination between the agencies and also with stakeholders; • the existence of adequate legislation, supported by judicial concurrence, effective enforcement frameworks and accessibility of accurate licensing and traffic offence data; • the adequacy of funding and resource allocation to enable implementation of priority road safety interventions to achieve road safety performance; • the adequacy of advocacy and promotional activity to build awareness and encourage the implementation of change within government and beyond. Bipartisan parliamentary road safety committees receiving regular briefings are an effective tool to build understanding and commitment; • monitoring, evaluating and publishing road safety performance; • adequate research and development and knowledge transfer arrangements within the jurisdiction. Adequacy of funding: Funding adequacy is critical to road safety progress. Lack of knowledge and innovative approaches to governments inhibit achievement. One of the conclusions of a mid-term review of the 2006 European Road Safety Action Programme (ECORYS, European Commission) was that several financial incentives could be used to improve road safety. It suggested that behaviour that reduces safety on roads could be discouraged by adjusting injury insurance premiums to: • ensure that road safety gets prominent attention within companies (through safe

fleet management practices, for example);

• spread the costs of risks associated with crashes causing bodily injuries more

fairly (i.e. lower premiums for non-crash involved drivers and for safer cars);

• assign more of the total costs of a crash cover from society to the person

responsible.

The OECD/ITF Towards Zero Report (2008) stated that “Cost benefit analyses from various member countries show that carefully targeted road safety activity can be a viable investment opportunity, providing a competitive return for the insurance industry as well as government especially when the aggregate costs to the two sectors are considered and not solely the costs to government. Opportunities to attract funding by offering commercially acceptable rates of return for investors need to be vigorously pursued.

19

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

A step change in resources invested in road safety management and in safer transport systems is required to realise the achievement of ambitious road safety targets in most of the world.” Adequate funding for infrastructure safety investment or enhanced targeted enforcement is fundamental to achieving improved road safety strategy outcomes. Without adequate funding any road safety strategy across the disciplines has no chance of achieving success. This is a particular challenge for low and middle income countries. It is critical, for example, that politicians resist the temptation to announce ambitious targets unless there is an appropriate allocation of funding to deliver the interventions needed for achievement.

Summary – Road Safety Management Arrangements Road safety management and coordination adequacy in a jurisdiction is a difficult matter to assess. The extent to which good practice exists across the seven key elements in each jurisdiction is rarely clear. Road safety management is strongly influenced by political models and the legal systems within government as well as historical and cultural practices that limit the coordination, development and implementation of effective road safety policy. For example, while the USA has some of the best and most well-funded research programs in the world, with extensive programs to transfer knowledge to road safety practitioners, their road safety achievement is limited by political agendas and cultural beliefs which still have strong political influence. Institutional road safety management functions are the most critical determining factors in improving road safety and ultimately, the level of road safety performance achieved. There is no one paradigm of success in road safety institutional management arrangements, but the system in Victoria, Australia has supported strong performance. It incorporates one lead agency with a road safety partnership of Government Ministers and operation of a bipartisan parliamentary road safety committee, leading to strong political support, close cooperation, regular reporting and monitoring, proactive and challenging advocacy and promotion, and effective links with research organisations with a strongly evidence based policy endeavour within the lead agency. It has its funding allocation modelled on the requirements to achieve road safety goals. Victoria also has a government owned no fault injury insurer that returns profits to road safety research and implementation and invests in commercially attractive infrastructure safety programs. Its’ history in recent decades of being able to introduce world first initiatives is a clear demonstration of effective road safety management.

20

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

There are gaps in institutional road safety management activity in each jurisdiction. However, consistent limitations occur in the collection, measurement and performance monitoring of key intermediate performance measures as well as the transfer of research and development knowledge and expertise to road system designers especially those not specifically involved in specialist road safety.

2. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY STRATEGIES Castle and Kamya-Lukoda (2006) conducted a review of international road safety good practice and identified the major strengths of road safety strategies: ‘A crucial component of an effective road safety strategy is to have a quantitative target. However, a road safety strategy should include policy objectives, a special budget, new design safety features, integrated community programmes and new technologies. The major factors for the success or failure of road safety initiatives are political will, proper organisation, and knowledge’.

Targets Most developed countries have committed to achieving a 40% to 50% reduction in fatalities and (increasingly adopting targets for) serious injuries over the life of current and proposed 10 year strategies. While some countries adopt a modelled approach linking inputs to estimated outcomes, others use an aspirational approach. Some countries are achieving more success than others. “Between 2001 and 2009, Latvia, Spain, Portugal and Estonia achieved the best road death reductions in the EU, all above 50%, with France and Lithuania set to follow them” ETSC, 2010. Delivering accountability through use of safety performance indicators (SPI) The quality of monitoring and evaluation of road safety activity, particularly the use of intermediate data to measure change is a vital component of effective management arrangements to progress road safety strategies. Carefully selected intermediate safety outcomes or safety performance indicators are highly effective predictors of fatal and serious injury movements. The level of monitoring and evaluation of road safety programs varies substantially between countries and there are commonly many gaps. Best practice is the use of a broad range of SPI’s as in Sweden, which are clearly defined, whose information requirements are readily understood, which will be most efficient in measuring underlying change in the level of safe operation of the road system and will drive a shift towards Safe System outcomes. Measurement of public opinion in relation to new or proposed initiatives is an important means for providing guidance about implementation readiness to the political level.

21

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Content of an effective Strategy The development and implementation of effective actions to give effect to an adopted strategy is a core activity. Strategic directions introduced by the responding jurisdictions based on the survey returns are reported, supplemented in some cases by drawing on other available national strategy and research based road safety documents. These directions can be summarised under the four key elements of the safe system model: • Safer infrastructure (Safer roads and Roadsides); • Safer speed limits; • Safer vehicles; • Safer road users [Alert and compliant road users (including legislation and

enforcement)]:

––speed limit compliance, ––reducing impaired driving – alcohol, drugs and fatigue, ––seat belt and helmet wearing, ––countering distraction, ––technology in vehicles (and on road) to address unsafe behaviours; and also the five supporting safe system elements including: • effective controls on drivers/riders and vehicles entering the system; • public information and education programs; • improving understanding of crash risk on the network; • improving the responsiveness and effectiveness of emergency medical care for

crash victims;

• effective legislation and enforcement.

In addition, most jurisdictions have considered it useful to provide a special focus in any strategy on vulnerable road user safety and heavy vehicle safety given the particular safety challenges applying to these users. These directions can be summarised under the following headings: • improving pedestrian safety, • improving cyclist safety, • improving motor cyclist safety, • reducing heavy vehicle crash involvement.

22

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

3. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY PERFORMANCE Trends in the number of fatalities and serious injuries Table 2 is drawn from IRTAD Annual Report (2009) and shows changes which have occurred over time in the number of fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants. In most countries, remarkable progress has been achieved. Table 2 – Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants Country

Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants 1970

1980

1990

2000

2008

Australia

30.4

22.3

13.7

9.5

6.80

Austria

34.5

26.5

20.3

12.2

8.15

Belgium

31.8

24.3

19.9

14.4

10.08

Canada

23.8

22.7

14.9

9.5

7.18

Czech Republic

20.0

12.2

12.5

14.5

10.37

Denmark

24.6

13.5

12.4

9.3

7.37

Finland

22.9

11.6

13.1

7.7

6.49

France

32.6

25.1

19.8

12.9

6.91

Germany

27.7

19.3

14.0

9.1

5.45

Greece

12.5

15.0

20.1

18.7

14.43

Hungry

15.8

15.2

23.4

12.0

9.92

Iceland

9.8

11.0

9.5

11.5

3.81

Ireland

18.3

16.6

13.6

11.0

6.34

Israel Italy Japan

16.4 21.0

8.67

5.50

12.4

8.68

9.3

11.8

8.2

4.72

Korea

17.2

33.5

21.8

12.72

Luxembourg

27.0

18.8

17.5

Malaysia

7.23 23.50

Netherlands

24.6

14.2

9.2

6.8

4.13

New Zealand

23.0

18.9

21.4

12.1

8.57

Norway

14.6

8.9

7.8

7.6

5.38

Poland

10.6

16.8

19.2

16.3

14.26

Portugal

18.6

27.7

28.3

18.1

9.19

Slovenia

35.8

29.2

25.9

15.8

10.40

17.7

23.2

14.5

6.85

10.2

9.1

6.7

4.32

Spain Sweden

16.3

23

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 2 – Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants (follow) Country

Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants 1970

1980

1990

2000

2008

Switzerland

26.6

19.2

13.9

8.3

4.70

United kingdom

14.0

11.0

9.4

6.1

4.31

United States

25.8

22.5

17.9

15.3

12.25

As shown in table 2 above, remarkable progress has been made in all countries since 1990 and for most countries the risk has been reduced by more than 40% over that time. Greatest improvements were found in Spain (-70%), Portugal (-67%), Switzerland (-66%) and France (-65%). The Report includes a case study of measures adopted to improve road safety performance in Japan over recent decades.

4. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN POLICIES AND PERFORMANCE Grouping jurisdictions on basis of performance In 2008, the jurisdictions with the lowest fatality rates per population risks were Iceland (3.81), the Netherlands (4.13), the United Kingdom (4.31), Sweden (4.32), Japan (4.72) and Switzerland (4.7), which all had rates below 5.0. The jurisdictions responding to the surveys conducted for this report grouped by fatality rates per 100,000 population (for 2007 or 2008 with some 2006 or 2009 figures) are as follows:

24

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 3 GROUP C GROUP D

GROUP A

GROUP B

Less than 5 fatalities per 100,000 population Netherlands (4.13), the United Kingdom (4.31), Sweden (4.32), Japan (4.72), Switzerland (4.7), Singapore (4.5)

5 to 7 fatalities per 100,000 population

7 to 9 fatalities per 100,000 population

Australia (6.8) Victoria, Australia (5.72) Turkey (6.18), Finland (6.49) France (6.91), Germany (5.45), Ireland (6.34), Norway (5.38), Spain (6.85) Ontario (6.03)

Austria (8.15), Canada (7.18) Denmark (7.37), Italy (8.68), New Zealand (8.57) Queensland (7.64) Washington State (7.8), Minnesota (8.71), Western Australia (8.9)

GROUP E

9 to 11 fatalities 11 to 15 per 100,000 fatalities per population 100,000 population Belgium USA, (12.25), (10.08), Korea (12.72), Czech Poland (14.26), Republic, Greece (14.43), (10.3), Missouri (14.7) Hungary (9.92), Tasmania (9.04)

GROUP F >15 fatalities per 100,000 population South Africa (29.9), Argentina (19.5), Malaysia (23.5), Brazil (18.32)

It is interesting to note that some countries have markedly improved their performance (relative to others in % terms) during the 2000 to 2008 period compared to their relative performance in the 1970 to 2000 period. The standout improved performers by this measure are Iceland (from 22nd to1st in the group above), Portugal (21st to 4th above), Ireland (18th to 8th above) and France (9th to 5th above). Countries that held their position in performance terms included the Czech Republic (19th to 19th), Japan (8th to 7th), Sweden (11th to 12th), and Norway (15th to 17th). Countries that saw their percentage improvement in 2000 to 2008 fall considerably relative to their earlier performance against other jurisdictions included Finland (5th to 28th), Australia (2nd to 20th), Denmark (7th to 23rd), Canada (10th to 21st) and the Netherlands (1st to 11th).

Why have some jurisdictions had greater success than others? In reviewing performance by jurisdictions, there appear to be a number of crucial elements which are present in the better performing countries. It is useful to look at institutional management issues as well as the breadth and depth of interventions in place. Institutional management issues In countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Japan there are comprehensive institutional management arrangements in place for road safety. These arrangements constitute the “how to” for implementation challenges and while differing in each jurisdiction, provide a distinguishing sense of purpose across government for achievement.

25

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

They all follow a multispectral approach across government; there is a clear vision or set of principles setting out desired long term road safety performance; there is a clearly designated lead agency; effective coordinating mechanisms are in place across government (and with non-government stakeholders); there is a robust safety performance framework in place with all agencies knowing their shared and individual agency responsibilities and accountabilities and regular measurement of performance. There is regular contact between key agency chief executives who meet to discuss policy, funding and public information needs, manage implementation across sectors and monitor and review progress; and there is usually effective ministerial involvement. Good public communication activity is evident with road safety being almost a daily item of news interest. Effective research capacity exists which interacts effectively with practitioners to build the essential support for evidence based policy adoption. It also provides a broader pool for training of road safety professionals who can move on into policy development areas within government agencies. The existence of comprehensive and reliably derived crash data systems, supplemented with driver offence data recorded against licensing records are essential requirements for professional road safety analysis of system level crash risks. These high performing countries have good practice data systems and conduct capable data analysis. A further characteristic of these leading jurisdictions is that they have, in general, adopted a comprehensive set of actions which are challenging and are derived from a road safety strategy which has a clear vision for the longer term and is evidence based. Without such a plan, publicly adopted by governments, commitment by agencies and others will usually be limited. They employ competent road safety practitioners, with the ability to devise strategies, to convince Ministers that the political risks are manageable, and to deliver some benefits in a short period which can then be promoted to the public to increase support for the strategy and its future implementation. There is good funding support by government for recommended interventions, which is critical for raising the standard of infrastructure safety as well as improving compliance with laws by road users. Good performing countries measure performance and continuously strengthen their professional knowledge. It needs to be said that those countries with good performance usually have a long experience with motorisation. Most of the countries at the other end of the performance scale from the surveyed nations are experiencing the surge in motorisation that can be initially overwhelming until the society gathers the intent to build the strengths outlined above which are necessary to address this.

26

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Larger countries benefit from regional (or provincial or state) strategies. Indeed in countries such as Australia, State road safety activity is the great majority of road safety effort. This is also the situation to varying degrees in the US, Canada and Argentina.

5. Conclusion There are opportunities for all nations to improve their road safety performance. A focus on institutional management issues and the major intervention areas will expose the barriers within jurisdictions to implementation. Often it is the expense of data systems upgrades or infrastructure improvement, very often it is a capacity issue in terms of knowledge among professionals, senior bureaucrats and at the political level. Relatively underperforming nations should highlight their level underperformance and use this as a catalyst for improved commitment.

of

• They can learn from the issues set out in this (and other) reports. • They should seek to establish contact with a high performing country and

examine opportunities for information, staff exchanges and decision maker visits.

The best performing nations can continue to improve by focusing on their institutional management effectiveness, strengthening interventions to target the higher volume, higher risk crashes and doing what is necessary to make the road system safe and forgiving of error.

27

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

INTRODUCTION

Road safety is generally regarded as a significant policy by governments but its setting, scope, application, and effectiveness varies across the world. Road safety policy drives the development and delivery of strategies and action plans to achieve the desired outcomes. A survey of PIARC-member countries and selected state/provincial jurisdictions in member countries with federated government systems was carried out to gain an improved understanding of the road safety visions, policies and strategies adopted by those countries which have led to a high level of success in reducing road trauma. 16 countries and 8 States/Provinces responded. A summary of the policies for all countries that responded to the survey is attached as Appendix R and the summary of the strategy survey is attached as Appendix S. It was intended that the responses would assist identification of the level of road safety vision that has been adopted by a number of the countries and the general level of good practice adopted internationally in the relevant policy areas and the strategies for achieving road safety objectives. This information would it was hoped, indicate available opportunities for countries which have not adopted a vision or some of the identified policies and strategies. In addition, some case studies of good practice for well-known issues have been included. The survey sought information about the following issues: Road safety vision, ambition and approach. Road sSafety management arrangements. Population and driver data. Policies adopted to address drink driving, drug driving, speeding, and improve seat belt and helmet use. (motorcyclists and cyclists). 5. Penalties to deter non compliance with these policies. 6. Improvement of the inherent safety on a section of road through policies for infrastructure safety programs and speed limit setting guidelines. 7. Policies to achieve improved standards of vehicle safety. 8. Any relationships between injury insurance premiums and crash risk by vehicle or user. 9. Adoption of intermediate safety performance indicators. 10. Road safety strategies. 11. Vision Objectives, Targets and Action Plans – reflected in the strategy. 12. Aspirational or modelled outcomes (targets). 13. Strategy management responsibilities and arrangements. 14. Evaluation and monitoring. 15. Content of an effective strategy. 1. 2. 3. 4.

28

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

16. Initiatives – Safer infrastructure – Safer road and roadsides. 17. Initiatives – Safer speed limits. 18. Initiatives – Safer vehicles supplied to the market. 19. Initiatives – Safer road users – Alert and compliant road users.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “policy” as “a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual”. Similarly “strategy” is defined as “a plan designed to achieve a particular long-term aim.” A road safety strategy seeks to identify the necessary vision, actions, targets, performance measures, institutional arrangements, research and development and funding requirements to deliver desired road safety performance. The fundamental elements of an effective strategy are discussed in Chapter 2. A separate survey was sent to jurisdictions seeking information about existing (and planned) strategies. Chapter 1 describes what is in place as policies in jurisdictions. Chapter 2 describes what is proposed by and within strategies to achieve improved performance. The inclusion of the survey material and its treatment in Chapters 1 and 2 attempts to reflect the relevance of the material and the different emphases in each of the two chapters. It is considered, for example, that the second survey about strategies forwarded to the same group of countries/states/provinces contains some material in the responses that more appropriately relates to road safety policy. For example, while the issue of road safety vision is most important to strategy development, it also underpins the policy settings which any government adopts. The specific issues around strategy development that relate for example, to road safety management and coordination, are addressed in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents the road safety performance by jurisdictions using various performance measures. Chapter 4 sets out a number of conclusions about policy and strategy settings in countries and examines the link to performance. The relatively high income countries have high quality infrastructure safety, high safety standards for vehicles, substantial road safety legislation, and sophisticated data systems. Typically, the better performing nations have comprehensive institutional management arrangements in place for road safety. These nations have a clear vision or a set of principles, strategies and action plans to achieve long term safety

29

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

performance. They have been pursuing road safety improvements for more than 50 years. Chapter 5 describes how a national road safety strategy could be established and gives a step-by-step approach covering the most important aspects of this process. Chapter 6 covers some of the current opportunities available to nations to improve their road safety performance. There are remarkable opportunities now and in coming years as new and emerging safety technologies are introduced into the vehicle fleet. Vehicle to vehicle and infrastructure to vehicle communications are expected to be developed and become more widespread in the near future. The further development and application of iRAP is expected to lead to improved road safety infrastructure at targeted locations. Culture change, although difficult is a rich area of opportunity. The consumption of alcohol in excess, and driving is becoming less socially acceptable. Further work is needed to curb crashes attributed to drug taking, fatigue, excessive speed and non-wearing of seat belts. The better road safety performing nations need to be challenged to continually improve. A major world challenge is to assist the most underperforming nations to dramatically improve their road safety as quickly as possible. A key issue is whether the underperforming nations should take the same path of improvement as the best performing nations or should they try to take short cuts.

30

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

1. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES Most nations, states or provinces that have improved their level of road safety have benefited from the use of well-developed road safety plans and policies. These plans have helped guide stakeholder efforts to address their most critical road safety challenges. 1.1. ROAD SAFETY VISION, AMBITION AND APPROACH

1.1.1. Long term visions The adoption of long-term aspirational visions that seek to eventually eliminate traffic-related deaths and serious injuries ‘will alter the community’s view of the inevitability of road trauma, alter institutional and societal responsibilities and accountability and change the way in which road safety interventions are shaped’6. Achievement of these types of visions ‘will require the development of altogether new, more effective interventions’.7 A number of countries and states have already achieved considerable progress following the adoption of ambitious long-term visions and related interim targets. Sweden – the Parliament adopted the following in 1997: “The long-term goal for road safety shall be that no one is killed or severely injured by traffic accidents within the road transport system (the “Vision Zero”), and that the design and the function of the road transport system should be adjusted to the demands of such a vision”. Sweden led the world in proclaiming that loss of life on the road network was unacceptable and trade-offs which involved loss of life were to be considered unethical. CASE STUDY: SWEDENS’ VISION ZERO

Human life and health are paramount ethical considerations. According to Vision Zero, life and health should not be allowed to be traded off against the benefits of the road transport system, such as mobility. Rather than placing responsibility for crashes and injuries on the individual road user, Vision Zero responsibility is shared between the providers of the system and the road users. The road user remains responsible for following basic rules, such as obeying speed limits and not driving while under the influence of alcohol. The system designers and enforcers – such as those providing the road infrastructure, the car-making industry and the police – are responsible for the functioning of the system. In the event that road users make errors or even  OECD ITF JTRC Towards Zero, Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach, Summary Document, 2008  ibid.

6 7

31

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

fail to follow the rules, the responsibility reverts to the system designers to ensure that these failings do not result in death or serious injuries. The Vision Zero philosophy is based on two premises – that human beings make errors, and that there is a critical limit beyond which survival and recovery from an injury are not possible. The safety philosophy recognises that a system that combines human beings with fast-moving, heavy machines will be very unstable, and a human tragedy can occur if a driver loses control for just a fraction of a second. The road transport system should therefore be able to take account of human failings and absorb errors in such a way as to avoid deaths and serious injuries. Crashes and even minor injuries, on the other hand, need to be accepted. The chain of events that leads to a death or disability must be broken, and in a way that is sustainable, so that over the longer time period loss of health is eliminated. The limiting factor of this system is the human tolerance to mechanical force. The components of the road transport system – including road infrastructure, vehicles and systems of restraint – must therefore be designed in such a way that they are linked to each other. The amount of energy in the system must be kept below critical limits by ensuring that speed is restricted. Driving mechanisms for change While society as a whole benefits from a safe road transport system in economic terms, Vision Zero relates to the citizen as an individual and his or her right to survive in a complex system. It is therefore the demand from the citizen for survival and health that is the main driving force. In Vision Zero, the providers and enforcers of the road transport system are responsible to citizens and must guarantee their safety in the long term. In so doing, they are necessarily required to cooperate with each other, because simply looking after their own individual components will not produce a safe system8. The Netherlands adopted Sustainable Safety some 15 years ago as the basis of their Vision for their successful programme. It relies on the principle of mutual responsibility between road users and those who provide the road system, vehicles, employ drivers using the roads, consign freight, are responsible for land use planning, pedestrian and cycling facility provision and more.

 OECD ITF JTRC Towards Zero: Ambitious Targets and the Safe System Approach, 2008

8

32

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN CASE STUDY: NETHERLANDS SUSTAINABLE SAFETY VISION

Key issues are: • man as the reference standard: physical (humans are vulnerable) as well as

psychological (humans are error prone, humans do not always obey rules);

• prevention is preferred to a curative approach; • de-centralised approach where possible, central approach where needed.

This vision leads to the following safety principles: • functionality of roads; • homogeneity of masses and/or speed and direction; • predictability of road course and road user behaviour by a recognizable road

design.

Recently two principles have been added: • state awareness (judgement of own capacity compared to the demands of

the driving task)

• forgivingness of the environment and of road users9.

USA (at national level). The Department Of Transport Strategic Plan lists safety as the first of 5 transport goals: “Enhance public health and safety by working toward the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries”. The situation with road safety visions within the 50 States is most diverse. Washington State plan to achieve their “Target Zero”, i.e., zero traffic deaths and zero disabling injuries, by the year 2030. In 2001, Public Safety and Transportation departments in Minnesota collaborated on a conference called “Toward Zero Deaths”. Since that time, all the road safety programs supported by the Office of Traffic Safety are designed to reduce traffic crash fatalities to zero. Norway has adopted a “Vision Zero” approach for the long term in which “nobody should be killed or seriously injured in accidents within the road transport system”. The Vision Zero approach has been adopted by Parliament, government and public bodies. South Africa’s Department of Transport seeks to reduce road traffic crashes by half by 2015 in line with Millennium Development Goals, agreed by African Ministers of Transport.  ibid

9

33

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The United Kingdom in preparing for its new strategy considers that a vision for road safety will be an important factor in enabling a diverse range of road safety stakeholders to work effectively together. “We feel that any vision should be credible, challenging and engaging for all concerned. We are proposing a long-term vision of “Making Britain’s roads the safest in the world”. Canada’s long-term ambition and current road safety vision is “to have the safest roads in the world”. Japan’s Prime Minister in January 2009 affirmed the “traffic safety goal is to halve traffic accident fatalities in 10 years, ie., 2,500 or less fatalities by 2028.” New Zealand’s current strategy (to 2010) does not have a stated vision. However, the new strategy under preparation is intended to have a vision. For Switzerland, agreements between the Federal Roads Office (FEDRO) and the Ministry contain a vision statement “the long term reduction of the severe injuries and fatalities by half”. It has been adopted on the level of the Ministry, but not yet adopted by Parliament. This is in course of action. Hungary has the primary objective to reduce personal injury accidents and fatalities by 30% by 2010. In responding to the circumstances in Hungary, the objective of their Transport Policy for 2003-2015 is modest, but realistic: by 2010, (compared to 2001), the number of accidents with personal injuries and that of accident fatalities shall be reduced by 30% and at least by 30%, respectively. The levels in 2015 shall be reduced by 50%, in compliance with the EU requirement. The Queensland, Australia strategy and associated action plans have the vision “safe4life”, which “emphasises a desire to prevent road trauma, and a belief that all road users are entitled to safe travel regardless of who and where they are”. Victoria, Australia has adopted the safe system approach 10 since 2003 and in its new strategy Arrive Alive 2008-2017, seeks to “continue to be a world leader in road safety.” In Western Australia (March 2009) the Government and the Parliament endorsed Towards Zero, the road safety strategy for 2008–2020. “Towards Zero” includes a long-term aspirational vision for a road system where death and serious injury are virtually eliminated. This was the first parliamentary endorsement of a road safety strategy in Australia. Australia is in the process of developing a new national road safety strategy for the next ten years.  OECD ITF JTRC “Towards Zero: Ambitious Targets and the Safe System Approach”, 2008

10

34

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Germany has not adopted specific road safety visions or targets at National government level, but the Board of the German Road Safety Council (DVR) has adopted the safety philosophy (of co-ordinated road safety activities) of the “Vision Zero” approach for its further work on road safety (See: www.dvr.de). Denmark has a 40% reduction target in fatalities/serious injuries and slight injuries by 2010 compared with 2005, but it is adopted by its government appointed National Road Safety Council and not officially by government. Ontario Province (Canada) has adopted a target for fatalities per 10,000 licensed drivers for 2010, 2011 and 2012 of 1.01, 0.99, and 0.97. It achieved a rate of 0.87 in 2006 and considers it will meet its targets. Malaysia is using the safe system approach to guide its thinking in seeking to reduce fatalities per vehicle and per population by more than some 50% between 2005 and 2010, utilising the Malaysian Road Safety Plan. Poland has a short term ambition for improved road safety which is to achieve at least a 50% reduction in fatalities by 2013 compared to 2003. Poland’s long-term ambition and current road safety vision is zero fatalities on Polish roads. The Government of the Czech Republic approved in 2004 the goal to reduce road fatalities by half by 2010 compared with 2002. At the end of 2009, a reduction of 37% was achieved. A new national strategy is under preparation with the goal to achieve by 2020 a fatality rate identical with the EU average and to reduce the number of serious injuries by 40%. Best Practice

Commitment to a long term goal of zero fatalities with strong interim targets that establish the path to success. This commitment at the highest level of government, e.g., Poland (and for Sweden, Norway and Western Australia – by Parliament) will influence and underpin road safety management and road safety policy in a jurisdiction and will be clearly reflected in the proposals described in a strategy and action plan to achieve the ambitious interim targets. Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, Norway, Western Australia, The Netherlands and Japan.

35

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

1.1.2. The Safe System approach Extract from the evolving focus on results11

Focus on system-wide interventions, long-term elimination of deaths and serious injuries and shared responsibility. By the late 1990s, two of the best performing countries had determined that in improving upon the ambitious targets that had already been set, would require rethinking of interventions and institutional arrangements. The Dutch Sustainable Safety (Wegman et al., 1997) and Swedish Vision Zero (Tingvall, 1995; Committee of inquiry into road traffic responsibility, 1999) strategies re-defined the level of ambition and set a goal to make the road system intrinsically safe. The implications of this level of ambition are currently being worked through in the countries concerned and elsewhere. These strategies recognize that speed management is central and have re-focused attention on road and vehicle design and related protective features. The ‘blame the victim’ culture is superseded by ‘blaming the traffic system’ which throws the spotlight on operator accountability. These examples of Safe System approaches have influenced strategies in Norway, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland and Australia. ....... Achievement of the ultimate goal of eliminating death and serious injury will require continued application of good practice developed in targeted programmes coupled with innovative solutions which are yet to be determined based on well-established safety principles. Source: (Bliss, A & Breen, J 2009) The Safe System approach recognises and seeks to build upon opportunities for improved alignment of road safety policy with other societal goals - for example important synergies exist with environmental protection policies, with occupational health and safety policies that target safety while driving for work related purposes and with broader travel policies which seek to improve broader economic outcomes and improve travel cost efficiency. A Safe System approach is the key to achieving longer term ambitious road safety targets. It is central to the achievement of targets set in many of the countries that have been most successful in reducing road deaths and serious injuries. It is part of an ambitious vision which influences road safety management and road safety policy as well as being the foundation and guiding set of principles for any effective road safety strategy. A more detailed outline of Road Safety Vision and the Safe System approach to road safety is set out in appendix A.

11

 OECD ITF JTRC “Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach”, 2008

36

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Sweden’s Vision Zero and the Netherlands Sustainable Safety both apply safe system principles to realise their vision in their strategies. Norway has adopted the Vision Zero approach and therefore is also applying safe system thinking. Western Australia has fully embraced the safe system in its “Towards Zero” strategy, 2009. Victoria, Australia has adopted the safe system approach since 2003, and it underpins its ‘Arrive Alive, 2008 – 2017, Strategy. Australia has adopted the safe system approach within its national road safety action plans since 2005. The recently published “Country Guidelines for the Conduct of Road Safety Management Capacity Reviews and the Specification of Lead Agency Reforms, Investment Strategies and Safe System Projects”12 by the World Bank, includes guidance on the use of a Safe System approach, specifically for low to middle income countries but with applicability to high income countries.

Selected jurisdictions moving towards formally adopting a safe system approach In the United Kingdom, the Department for Transport (DfT) in their proposed road safety strategy are seeking to deliver a safe, holistic road safety system where road design, vehicles and education work in combination to minimise the risk to road users. They recognise that human beings make mistakes, and the holistic system needs to reduce the chances of mistakes on the roads having serious or fatal consequences. DVR, the German Road Safety Council, in adopting Vision Zero as its guiding philosophy, notes that while human beings have to accept responsibility for their actions, they make errors – including errors on the road network. “This reality must be considered in the design of our mobility and our transport system so that such mistakes do not lead to fatal consequences”. In New Zealand, the replacement strategy from 2011 is moving to a safe system approach to road safety – safe roads and roadsides, safe road use, safe vehicles, safe speeds. The new Czech Republic strategy applies safe system principles towards Vision Zero.

12

 World Bank, Country Guidelines for the Conduct of Road Safety Management Capacity Reviews and the Specification of Lead Agency Reforms, Investment Strategies and Safe System Projects, 2009

37

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

A road safety approach that takes a systematic view of all road transport design elements to manage crash forces to within human tolerances – an inherently safe system which accommodates human error. It should also accept and reflect the obligation of shared responsibilities between users and ‘system providers’. (See Appendix A for detail) Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, The Netherlands, Norway, Australia, Western Australia and Victoria 1.2. P  OLICIES (BASED ON SYSTEM WIDE CRASH ANALYSIS) ADOPTED TO ADDRESS DRINK DRIVING, DRUG DRIVING, SPEEDING, AND IMPROVE SEAT BELT AND HELMET USE (MOTORCYCLISTS AND CYCLISTS)

1.2.1. Drink driving and drug driving Drink driving is a persistent challenge to road safety professionals. Even in countries with good road safety records, drinking driving has been cited as a contributing factor in up to 30% of annual fatal crashes despite concerted efforts to address the issue. A number of tough strategies have been introduced to address the issue in several countries that have at least prevented the problem from escalating. Table 1 – Drink driving – Limits Jurisdiction

Bac level

Czech Republic

Zero

Hungary

Zero

Comment

Sweden

0.2 g/l

Norway

0.2 g/l

Poland

0.2 9g/l

Japan

0.3 g/l

Victoria (Australia)

0.5 g/l

Zero limit for novice drivers for 4 years – ie., to at least 22 years, and for truck and bus and taxi drivers.

Western Australia (Australia)

0.5 g/l

0.2 for novice drivers, truck and bus and taxi drivers.

Germany

0.5 g/l

Zero limit for novice drivers

Switzerland

0.5 g/l

Zero for professional drivers and novice drivers

Tasmania (Australia)

0.5 g/l

0.2 g/l for novice drivers, truck and bus and taxi drivers.

38

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 1 – Drink driving – Limits (follow) Jurisdiction

Bac level

Comment

Netherlands

0.5 g/l

Denmark

0.5 g/l

USA

0.8 g/l

Heavy truck drivers have a legal limit of 0.4. A zero BAC limit applies for young drivers (under the legal drinking age of 21 - 18 in Puerto Rico)

Canada

0.8 g/l

Drivers may have a 0.4 or 0.5 administrative limit depending on the province or territory. Provincial graduated licensing schemes for novice drivers impose a 0.0 BAC limit.

Ontario Province (Canada)

0.5 g/l

(Administrative limit for province) Drivers under 21 and learners and probationary drivers have zero limit

New Zealand

0.8 g/l

0.3 g/l for drivers under 20

United Kingdom

0.8 g/l

Singapore

0.8 g/l

0.2 for novice drivers

Best Practice

Internationally, the great majority of countries with legal blood alcohol limits set a limit of BAC 0.5 g/l or lower. Britain, the United States, New Zealand and four of Canada’s 13 provinces and territories (who have a limit of 0.8g/l), are the only developed nations that do not. A limit of BAC 0.5 g/l or lower is recommended by the World Health Organization as key to reducing alcohol-related deaths and injuries. A level of 0.2 g/l BAC is good practice. Model Jurisdictions: Norway, Sweden, Hungary, Japan, Poland and Czech Republic.

Drink driving - Testing Extensive and random roadside blood alcohol testing programs (including both specialist units and general operational police) are conducted in the majority of jurisdictions surveyed. However, a number of jurisdictions (specifically – in the case of developed countries – Canada, the United States and the UK) continue to require probable grounds (e.g., suspicion of illegal behaviour) in order for police to undertake either a breath test or standardized field sobriety test. (Indicative numbers of tests undertaken and offences are shown in the table). See appendix B for testing levels and offence levels in a number of jurisdictions

39

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

Roadside random (including an element of targeted) breath testing for alcohol and saliva testing for illicit drugs. Alcohol interlocks fitted to the vehicles of repeat offenders. Model Jurisdictions: Norway, Victoria (Australia) and Western Australia.

Drink driving – Countermeasures and penalties Drink driving penalties in a range of countries are included in appendix C to this report. Penalty levels vary substantially between jurisdictions. Mandatory alcohol ignition interlock requirements are increasingly being employed to counter repeat drink driving after drivers return from suspension. These programs are very extensive in North America; Victoria, Australia and some other Australian States and some European countries are introducing schemes. Minnesota recently expanded its voluntary ignition interlock program. From January 2008, the so-called “zero tolerance” approach to drinking and driving applied in Hungary. The driving license shall be withdrawn on the spot if a driver is under the influence of alcohol (even in case of a small amount of it). This measure was the reapplication of an earlier successful but abandoned practice. Best Practice

Program evaluations have consistently shown alcohol interlocks to be highly effective (for the period the driver is required to use them) in preventing drink driving. Problems can (and often do) re -emerge when the interlock use period is completed. Drink driving penalties should be comprehensive, with minimal exemptions and substantial penalty levels to achieve strong deterrence Model Jurisdictions: Norway, Victoria (Australia) and Western Australia.

Drug driving Most jurisdictions test drivers for drug impairment in cases of visible gross impairment. Random drug testing, based on saliva testing is relatively new. It is only conducted in an extensive and systematic way to date in a few jurisdictions such as Norway, and a number of Australian states.

40

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

Roadside random (including an element of targeted) saliva testing for specific drugs. Model Jurisdictions: Norway, Victoria (Australia) and Western Australia Policy Gaps

Some jurisdictions still do not have the capability to undertake random alcohol and drug tests. With these substances found in a very large percentage of drivers killed in road crashes, this represents a significant policy gap. Inconsistent limits of BAC especially for inexperienced and young drivers. This is important given the emerging evidence of differential effects of these substances on young people. Management of dependent alcohol and drug users. Traditional sanctions are likely to be ineffective on these drivers. Early detection and effective management within the road system (e.g., through the use of interlocks) presents as more promising approach. Inadequate penalty regimes.

1.2.2. Speeding A number of jurisdictions reported significant effort focused on detecting speeding related offences as a major initiative to prevent crashes. In general, limited information was available. The Netherlands operate more than 1,400 speed cameras (mobile, fixed and point to point section control). Mobile cameras are often deployed in a random and covert fashion. Cameras detect over 10 million speeding infringements every year. Sweden has a very limited speed enforcement program. They have more than 700 fixed cameras with a limited schedule of operating hours. Sweden issues approximately 60,000 speeding infringements from their camera network. The cameras are installed in a manner highly visible to the motorist. The United Kingdom deploys some 2,000 mobile cameras and 2,000 fixed cameras. The mobile camera deployment is not covert. In New Zealand, speed camera vehicles must be deployed in a manner that is visible from the roadside.

41

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Denmark utilises some mobile cameras but there is resistance to extension of speed camera control. The number of automatic speed cameras is continuously increasing in Hungary. The most important legal prerequisite for their application was the introduction of the vehicle owner’s responsibility for a speed related offence. This rule became effective from May 2008. Although speeding in the Czech Republic is associated with almost half of the road fatalities there are inadequate countermeasures. The use of automated speed cameras is limited because of legal complexities in linking speeding offences to the vehicle owner. France has experienced a significant reduction in travel speeds since the introduction of a substantial speed camera program. Prior to the speed camera program, approximately 60% of motorists exceeded the speed limit by less than 10 km/h, 35% by more than 10 km/h and 5% by more than 30 km/h. The speed camera program has led to a significant reduction in average travel speeds across France. During the first few years of the program, there was a decrease of 86% in accidents in the vicinity of speed cameras. Across France, fatalities relative to billion vehicle km travelled fell by more than 60%. The reduction in fatalities closely follows the trend line for reduction in travel speed. Speed reduction is clearly the main factor in the reduction of fatalities, but other factors include higher seat belt wearing rates and less drink driving. Speed enforcement information from the survey is summarised in brief in appendix D. The information contained in each Appendix demonstrates that there is a most uneven approach by jurisdictions to enforcement effort, extent of covert operation and fines and other penalties for offending, indicating the considerable scope to achieve improvement if the political support for these proven measures could be galvanised. It is contended that those jurisdictions with a strong speed enforcement regime, for example with many mobile cameras deployed unpredictably, demerit point penalties linked to offence severity and other penalties that are a substantial deterrent, will have a greater level of compliance with speed limits than other jurisdictions. The UN Road Safety Collaboration through GRSP have published the Speed Management manual for decision makers and practitioners in 2008. It provides useful advice for jurisdictions about achieving improved speed management13.

 S peed Management: a road safety manaual for decision makers and practitioners, Geneva, Global Road Safety Partnership, 2008

13

42

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

Effective program of covert speed cameras, combined with other speed enforcement technology. Cameras systems programmed with minimal tolerance levels before offence prosecuted. Efficient penalty processing and follow up processes if unresolved. Model Jurisdictions: Victoria (Australia), The Netherlands and United Kingdom. Policy Gaps

Many jurisdictions with underutilised camera technology deployed in less effective methods. Relatively high tolerance levels creating a higher default speed limit. Minimal reported use of alternative camera technologies such as time over distance (point to point). Serious penalties only applying at very dangerous levels of excessive speed. Management of excessive speed through alternative sanctions such as mandatory speed alerting systems.

1.2.3. Red light running at intersections (Red light camera offences) In the US, over 400 local jurisdictions (cities) utilise red light cameras. The exact number is not readily available, but the total number of cameras is believed to be over 6,000. In Canada there are a total of 353 red light cameras in the major cities, but the total number of infringements is not collated. The total number of cameras in The Netherlands is not known but their use is widespread and they process over 270,000 red light camera infringements each year. Victoria has 173 red light cameras, 117 of these also capture speeding offences. There are a total of 150,000 red light infringements each year. Sweden, Norway and Japan do not have any red light camera infrastructure. Switzerland, the UK and South Africa deploy red light cameras. Western Australia operates 60 red camera sites and issued 39,199 infringements in 2008/2009. Singapore operates 240 red light camera sites and in 2009, 16,570 summonses were issued for red light running offences.

43

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

Strategic deployment of red light cameras, particularly at high risk locations. Consider combining with speed cameras to detect those speeding through intersections which are known to be a risk points in the road network. Model Jurisdictions: USA, Netherlands and Victoria (Australia). Policy Gaps

Requirement for improved monitoring and evaluation of red light camera use. Research required to understand how to deploy these measures strategically to change behaviour at intersections.

1.2.4. Seat belt and helmet use Most jurisdictions require all seats to have seatbelts and vehicle occupants to use those belts. However, there are only a few jurisdictions where all vehicle occupants are required to be belted. The regulations in most member countries require that seat belts be worn by drivers and passengers. In the US there is only one state that does not require front seat drivers and passengers to wear seat belts and some states have laws for rear seat passengers to wear seat belts. Seat belt wearing rates in the US are around 83%, which has increased from 71% since year 2000. Most other jurisdictions require all occupants front and rear to wear seat belts though exceptions exist in a number of locations. Typically this relates to where there is no available seat belt in the rear. However, some jurisdictions also have exceptions for specific reasons or purposes such as due to illness (Japan) or if it is a special vehicle that is frequently stopping (Canada). Germany reports some of the highest wearing rates with between 96% and 98% usage rate for front seat vehicle occupants and between 89% and 96% in the rear. Most jurisdictions with enforceable seat belt wearing regulations typically report the percentage of compliance in the mid 90s for the front seat and 85%-90% in the rear. There is a similar situation in regards to motorcycle helmet wearing. In the US requirements vary by State. All but three states require younger riders (typically those under 18) to wear helmets and 20 states require all riders to wear helmets. Helmet wearing rates in 2008 were reported to be 63%, up from 58% in 2007. This is far short of jurisdictions like Germany with 97% of riders and 98% of passengers wearing motorcycle helmets and other jurisdictions with helmet wearing rates around 95% (Victoria, Sweden, Canada).

44

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Regulation for mandatory helmet wearing for cyclists is much less common than for motorcyclists. All Australian jurisdictions have mandatory helmet wearing laws. In Canada, regulations vary by province; mandatory laws sometimes apply to young cyclists, sometimes for all cyclists and in some jurisdictions helmet wearing laws do not exist. Northern European countries typically do not have mandatory helmet wearing laws for cycling except in some cases for children (Sweden). While data for cyclist helmet wearing rates is scant, they are known to be much lower than in places where helmet laws exist. European countries typically report less than 35% wearing rates. Denmark reports that campaigns to encourage bicycle helmet wearing are effective up to the 12 to 14 year age group, but not effective for older young people and adults. Seat belt wearing is compulsory for all vehicle seats in the Czech Republic. The wearing rate improved significantly after the introduction of the demerit point system on 1 July 2006, and supported by intensive campaigns. The average wearing rate on rural roads increased from 75% in 2005 to 92% in 2007, and on urban roads from 69% to 88% over the same period. Use of helmets is compulsory for motorcyclists and bicyclists under 15 years of age. Hungary has reliable performance indicators on the rate of safety belts’ users. Safety belt wearing (for all road types and all seat positions) declined from 1993 to 1999 and increased from 2000 on until the present time. The increasing rates reflect the further development of the demerit point system, the co-ordinated awareness campaigns, intensive police enforcement and more serious consequences for non-wearing. Further substantial improvement is necessary (wearing rate was 79.2% for front seats and 49,3% in the back seats of passenger cars in 2009.) The usage of child restraint systems is improving with the rate of unrestrained children decreasing from 65% (1994) to 28% (2009). Further improvement is necessary. Ontario requires all persons under 18 years to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle on a highway and holds a parent or guardian accountable for helmet wearing by persons under 16 years of age. Malaysia reports good driver wearing rates (93% expressways and 84% non-expressways) but rear seats wearing rates are poor at 37% for expressways and 21% for non-expressways.

45

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The UN Road Safety Collaboration through: • the FIA Foundation, have published the “Seat Belts and Child Restraints” manual

for decision makers and practitioners in 2009. It provides useful advice for jurisdictions about achieving safe practice and improved compliance;14 • the World Health Organisation, have published “Helmets: a road safety manual for decision makers and practitioners” in 2006. It provides useful advice for jurisdictions about achieving safe helmet wearing.15 Best Practice

Require all vehicle occupants to wear seat belts and no more occupants than available belts. Combination of effective regulations, enforcement, public awareness and technology. Monitoring and evaluation also required. Regular surveys of wearing rates is required good practice. Mandatory wearing of helmets complying with relevant standards by motorcycle riders, no exceptions or exemptions and mandatory wearing of helmets complying with relevant standards by bicycle riders. Model Jurisdictions: Germany, Australian States. Policy Gaps

Anomalies allowing vehicle occupants in some jurisdictions to not have to wear a seat belt under some circumstances, such as a seat belt not being available. Poor application of highly effective road safety measures. 1.3. PENALTIES TO DETER NON COMPLIANCE WITH THESE POLICIES

Appendix E includes speed infringement related license suspension penalties data.

 Seat Belts and Child Restraints: a road safety manual for decision makers and practitioners (2009), London, FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society. 15  Helmets: a road safety manual for decision makers and practitioners, Geneva, World Health Organisation, 2006. 14

46

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

1.4. I MPROVEMENT OF THE INHERENT SAFETY ON A SECTION OF ROAD THROUGH POLICIES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY PROGRAMS

1.4.1. Policies for infrastructure safety programs In the US there are states that use “system-wide” and “spot location” approaches for their safety programs. For example, the state of Missouri places a strong emphasis on a systematic application of low-cost, safety improvements. A variety of improvements have been applied using this methodology including rumble stripe treatments and median cable barriers. The majority of States focus on running their safety programs through the analysis of individual crash locations but more States are showing interest in the system-wide approach. For example, the lengths of the network where run off road crashes have the highest incidence per unit length can be identified from a network wide analysis. Treatment options for these lengths are identified and prioritised on a cost effectiveness basis. Funding is provided for the lengths with the most cost effective characteristics. On the other hand, most jurisdictions identify specific locations where crashes are highest and identify appropriate treatments (blackspot treatments). The most cost effective treatments are funded, usually at point locations such as intersections, but rarely as treatment of lengths of the network to address a particular crash type. While there is a place for both treatment types, building a safer system requires higher risk lengths across the whole network to be treated to reduce risk over time. At the system-level, some states will conduct cost effectiveness analyses to make network decisions on where to place safety treatments. Other states will have policies in place for certain countermeasures on certain specified facilities. While there is not yet a system wide risk assessment approach in place in South Africa, the National Roads Agency is developing a Road Safety Management System to accurately identify Road Safety Risk. Attempts are made to highlight hazardous locations with higher Road Safety Risk. This will improve as crash data improves. In Norway, development of countermeasures is based on risk analysis. In Sweden, all new investment projects undergo cost-benefit analysis where safety benefits are included. Denmark has been working to install roundabouts for more than 20 years and is still obtaining crash reduction benefits at freshly treated locations, even if treatment is expensive.

47

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

To address run off road crashes Ontario (Canada) requires shoulder rumble strips on all rural freeways. It also has a general clear zone policy that requires roadside hazards first to be removed or relocated, then, if that is not possible, the hazard should be shielded with barriers or crash cushions. A new policy for centre-line rumble strips is being developed to address locations where inattentive driving is a concern. Roundabouts are used as an alternative to intersection control by signalization. Most roundabouts in Ontario are at urban arterial junctions. In the Czech Republic, technical guidelines for blackspot identification and treatment, for safety audits and inspections are approved by the Ministry of Transport. The implementation of the guidelines does not have a legal base and their application is based on decisions of the road administration. Malaysia has recently conducted an iRAP assessment of its major highway network. Funding availability limits upgrades of rural roads. Poland implemented the EuroRAP program in May 2008. (http://www.eurorap.pl). Evaluation is conducted according to the methodology established by a consortium of EuroRAP partners. Information about latest results is provided to the public and reports of findings are also sent to key institutions.

The potential for the application of the RAP family of tools Several European countries have implemented EuroRAP, the program of analysis of rural networks that identifies the safety quality of those network links. AusRAP in Australia is currently being reviewed to extend its use and coverage and New Zealand has recently launched KiwiRAP. The iRAP model which is used to date in assessing crash risk on roads in lower income countries utilises a range of data about a road length to calculate the safety quality of that road. This is of great benefit when crash data is unavailable or of limited coverage or quality. iRAP also produces a range of potential treatment types which are cost calibrated to the country of application. This is not only a highly useful tool for practitioners in providing treatment options but is also an invaluable source of insight and training about what elements of a road, its operation and its environment contribute to its inherent crash risk and how certain countermeasures can more effectively address that risk than others. Enhanced RAP programs in high income countries are picking up and seeking to apply many of the iRAP features.

48

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

It is imperative that highway authorities concentrate on route treatments, as over time it is more likely that the quantum of casualty reduction would be greater. This approach also allows greater emphasis on concentrating on those routes where total accident reduction would be greatest. At present, if a highway authority reports a relatively homogeneous accident rate along its single carriageways or even along its motorways, it may not invest significantly, particularly if the accident rate was near the national average. Is this appropriate? Designing ‘to the average’ will generally perpetuate the average. While it is natural to direct resources to the most deserving sites (and it is noted that this provides a good legal defence), it may be time to challenge some of the historical theories used by the road safety industry. Model Jurisdictions: United Kingdom and Victoria.

1.4.2. Policies/guidelines for speed limit setting The speeds beyond which crash types have a higher probability of a fatal outcome are set out in the table 2. These speeds are at the centre of the Swedish Vision Zero and the Dutch Sustainable Safety approaches and are a powerful indicator of safe system limits. Their application should reflect road side and on road conditions applying in roads and streets in any and every jurisdiction. Table 2 - Speed thresholds for different road types Road types combined with allowed road users

Safe Speed (km/h)

Roads with possible conflicts between cars and unprotected users

30

Intersections with possible side-on conflicts between cars

50

Roads with possible frontal conflicts between cars Roads with no possible frontal or side-on conflicts between road users

70 ≥ 100

The range of speed limits applying in the countries for which returns have been received are set out in appendix F.

Urban speed limits Most countries have lowered urban speed limits to reduce pedestrian risk (to 40 km/h or less) and the risk of fatal crash outcomes from intersection crashes (to 50 km/h or less, see appendix F). There are exceptions to this position and again those jurisdictions who have not yet applied these lower limits should carefully examine what others are doing and look to gain the benefits in their country/state.

49

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Ontario has a default limit of 50 km/h in urban or built up areas and an 80 km/h default limit elsewhere. Freeway speeds are 100 km/h, divided highway limits are 90 to 100 km/h and two lane two way highways are 70 to 90 km/h. Urban arterials are 60 to 80 km/h and Collector/ distributor road limits are 60 km/h. The OECD/ECMT Report ‘Speed Management’16 was released in October 2006. It identified speeding as the number one road safety problem in a large number of OECD/ECMT countries which is responsible for around one third of road fatalities. Reducing average speeds on the roads by only 5% will save around 20% of current fatalities. It identifies a broad range of measures which would assist improved speed management and deliver reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. Best Practice

Speed limits set according to safe system modelling taking into account crash risk, road users, road function, density of flow, and the environment. Low urban speed limits where conflicts with vulnerable road users is likely. Higher highway/freeway/expressway speed only where highest safety design standards applied. Model Jurisdictions: The Netherlands, Sweden and Germany. Policy Gaps

High urban speed limits in some jurisdictions. Speed limits set on perceived mobility balance not safety. Limited consideration of road users and road function in setting limits. Use of variable speed limits where conditions warrant.

16 OECD / ITF JTRC Speed Management , 2006

50

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

1.5. P  OLICIES TO ACHIEVE IMPROVED STANDARDS OF VEHICLE SAFETY Table 3 – Policies to achieve improved standards of vehicle safety Jurisdiction

Regulatory reforms

Provision of information to the market

Netherlands

Contributes to ongoing EU reforms based on government submissions

Germany

Range of reforms by European Participation in EuroNCAP govts.

Sweden

EuroNCAP participation and promotion State agencies required to purchase cars with Alco locks, 5-star EuroNCAP occupant protection and minimum 2-star EuroNCAP pedestrian protection. NPRA’s official website provides EuroNCAP’s crash test results. NPRA has recommended the public buy only new cars with 4 or 5 stars in EuroNCAP’s star rating. NPRA annually calculates the distribution of the EuroNCAP crash ratings of new cars purchased in Norway.

Norway

Switzerland

Notes additional safety regulation for Heavy Goods Vehicles, including front undercarriage protection, 2005, the frontal design of light vehicles for pedestrian protection, 2007 and regulations to protect occupants in collisions, 2008.

Denmark

Range of reforms by European govts.

Victoria (Australia)

A regulatory requirement that all new vehicles manufactured after 31 Dec. 2010 be fitted with Electronic Stability Control and all new vehicles manufactured after 31 Dec. 2011 be fitted with head protecting technology.

• Promoting ANCAP vehicle safety ratings • Promoting vehicle safety of used cars through

the Used Car Safety Ratings published by road authorities and MUARC • Promoting Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and head protecting technology and now introducing regulatory requirements • Implementing systems to allow Intelligent Speed Assist technology to function

51

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 3 – Policies to achieve improved standards of vehicle safety (follow) Jurisdiction

Regulatory reforms

Canada

Transport Canada continuously evaluates its vehicle safety regulations, modifies them and develops new ones when needed.

Ontario (Canada)

Worked with manufacturers to enhance safety items such as beter head rests and air bags

Provision of information to the market Transport Canada has information lines and web services for consumers providing information on vehicle safety technology (e.g., electronic stability control, child restraints, vehicle telematics)

• Developed - Safe Driving: A Policy

Framework for Western Australian Government – currently awaiting approval • In 2006 the WA Road Safety Council, together with the WA Royal Automobile Club, launched a campaign to educate the community about the benefits of purchasing vehicles with appropriate safety features and challenge the assumption that all new vehicles provide the same standard of safety.

Western Australia

Tasmania

New Zealand

Mandated minimum safety standard in 2008 for Government vehicles, requiring minimum four star ANCAP safety rating. If not rated by ANCAP, vehicles must meet a minimum set of safety features. Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and Curtain Airbags will be made mandatory for Government passenger vehicles from 2010.

Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and Curtain Airbags are encouraged. A public education campaign promoting ESC, Curtain Airbags, and the website www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au has commenced.

The www.rightcar.govt.nz website has been established – enabling consumers to readily access considerable vehicle safety information in one place – for both new and used cars manufactured since 2000. Television campaigns and vehicle safety presentations to potential new vehicle buyer groups have been undertaken. Buying safety has been actively promoted amongst government department vehicle fleet purchasers and guidelines have been produced around safe vehicle purchasing decisions.

52

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 3 – Policies to achieve improved standards of vehicle safety (follow) Jurisdiction

Japan

Regulatory reforms

Provision of information to the market

Action taken on a number of automobile safety measures which include the completion and strengthening of safety standards - such as the provision of pedestrian head protection standards, offset collision passenger protection standards, and electric shock protection standards for electric cars, etc.

The provision of safety information based on motor vehicle assessments and the development, introduction and popularization of Advanced Safety Vehicles (ASV).

Data analyses are performed on specific vehicle types – large trucks, motorcycles – in documents called Traffic Safety Fact Sheets. These analyses are updated annually. In addition to these analyses, targeted research is done on crash types or populations of interest and areas of interest related to activities within the agency – electronic stability control, ejection mitigation, etc. For further information on US vehicle safety related activities, including policies for new vehicles, visit NHTSA’s website to get information about policies for new vehicles: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/ menuitem.e649cd1b2b018c71d8eca01046108a0c/ NHTSA produces the SaferCars.gov website (http://www.safercar.gov/) which is a major source of vehicle safety information.

USA

Policies are consistent with European Directives. Poland

Czech Republic

All regulatory reforms of vehicle standards are harmonised with EU regulations

International institutions and organizations (for example World Bank, the Global Road Safety Partnership or European Transport Safety Council) have promoted the need for improved fleet safety, especially for heavy vehicles. The best-known initiative from this area is the Safe Fleet Program (implemented by the GRSP). http://www.pbd.org.pl/bezpiecznaflota/

53

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

High standards for design requirements and registration (especially ESC and head protecting airbags). Strong promotion of vehicles with high levels of occupant and vulnerable road user protection. Utilisation of NCAP ratings as consistent safety standards. Incorporation of high standard vehicles into government fleets. Power restrictions for inexperienced drivers. Model Jurisdictions: Sweden and Germany. Policy Gaps

Use of new technologies within vehicles including, fatigue monitoring, smart locks connected to licences or licence conditions, active alcohol detection, vehicle identification for enforcement, seat belt reminders and speed alerting systems. Prevention of the distracting effects of new in car entertainment/communication technologies. No vehicle safety considerations for motorcycles with the exception of voluntary uptake of ABS brakes. This is a critical oversight in the area of vehicle safety policy. 1.6. CRASH DATA AND IRTAD

The IRTAD Database (for a description of IRTAD’s membership and objectives see Appendix G) The most visible product of the IRTAD Group is the International Road Traffic and Accident Database. The IRTAD database includes aggregated data on injury accidents, road fatalities, injured and hospitalised road users as well as relevant exposure data such as population, car park, network length, vehicle kilometrage and seat belt wearing rates from 30 countries covering every year since 1970. Moreover, key road safety indicators are compiled on a monthly basis. The IRTAD Group is currently developing a set of new variables to be progressively included in IRTAD.

54

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN 4th IRTAD Conference, SEOUL, 2009 – Key Recommendations

• The development of a comprehensive road accident data system should be

fully integrated into national road safety plans. At the same time, objectives for investments in improving data collection systems need to be clearly established. • Systematic exchange and sharing of safety data among key agencies (including transport authorities, police, local government, health authorities) involved in road safety is critical to developing effective road safety policies and interventions. Where necessary, governments should improve the institutional framework to facilitate data exchange and analysis. • Public authorities should be accountable for road safety records and inform the public on progress by regularly publishing key safety indicators. • International definitions should be adopted in all countries. Participants encourage continued efforts in IRTAD and the WHO to develop guidelines for road safety data collection and analysis. • Data quality can be improved in all countries. In particular, methodologies should be established to compare police collision reports with comparable hospital data and to link these records to improve data quality and consistency, especially with regard to serious injury crashes. • Consistent with the recent ITF/OECD report Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach, participants recommend that all countries adopt road safety targets to drive improved performance and accountability. These targets should include an ambitious vision backed by realistic interim targets that are based on the analysis of data and modelling of the potential benefits of planned program and policy interventions to improve safety performance. Monitoring progress in meeting targets is important and useful for informing the public of the challenges to be met. This includes studies to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented policies. • International co-operation and knowledge transfer should be pursued. International benchmarking is a useful tool to raise road safety issues on political agendas. Initiatives to involve more low and middle income countries in the IRTAD network, including cooperation with the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, were welcomed as a tool for the effective transfer of knowledge on data collection and analysis. See also, www.irtad.net

55

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

1.7. ROAD SAFETY MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS INTRODUCTION

In reviewing the scope and effectiveness of road safety policies (and strategies) within a jurisdiction it is recommended that the road safety management system is considered in its entirety. The system is represented in the diagram of figure 117.

Social cost Final Outcomes

Results

Intermediate Outcomes Outputs Road Network Planning, design, operation and use

Interventions

Recovery and rehabilitation of crash victims

M a n o n it d e or va i ng lu a t io n R& kn D t ra owl and ns ed fe r g e

on ot i om Pr

Fu a n nd all d re ing o c sso at i u on r ce

io n lat g is

Co

Le

i na

t io

n

Results Focus

ord

Institutional Management Functions

Entry and exit of vehicles and drivers

Source: Bliss and Breen, building on the frameworks of Lane Transport Safety Authority, 2000, Wegman, 2001; Koomstra et al, 2002; Bliss, 2004.

Figure 1 – Schematics of a road safety management system

Issues relevant to overall performance (results) and to individual countermeasures (interventions and their interactions) are reviewed later in this document. What is the capacity in a jurisdiction to establish and operate institutional management functions – the lowest level in the triangle – to adequately devise and deliver those interventions and to achieve overall results? – To provide a framework for evaluating current practice in jurisdictions, the above model is used. The seven functions within the road safety management institutional management functions component are: • the existence of a results focus within a jurisdiction (a clear lead agency, the

existence and active performance of a road safety decision hierarchy within

 OECD ITF JTRC “Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach”, 2008

17

56

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

government, clarity of roles and responsibility for the key road safety agencies and identification of the capacities that need to be strengthened); • coordination between the agencies; • the existence of adequate legislative and judicial practices within the jurisdiction; • the adequacy of funding and resource allocation to achieve road safety performance. • the adequacy of advocacy and promotional activity to encourage implementation of change; • the quality of monitoring and evaluation of road safety activity; • adequate research and development arrangements within the jurisdiction and adequate knowledge transfer arrangements.

1.7.1. Results Focus In Germany, Bast is the lead agency and parliamentary liaison is achieved through regular meetings of the Committee on Transport, Construction and Urban Development of the German Bundestag to consider road safety matters. In the Netherlands, there is a shared lead agency responsibility within the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. Both agencies within the Ministry work together in policy development and road authority operations and programmes. In the USA at Federal level, three agencies within the US DOT - the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrations (FMCSA) are responsible for administering safety infrastructure, behavioural safety and motor carrier safety programs, respectively. They coordinate their strategies and programs to avoid duplication and work with State and local highway safety agencies to develop and implement Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)s, Highway Safety Plans and Motor Carrier Safety Plans. At the State and local levels, leadership for road safety is divided between the State Departments of Transportation, Governors’ Highway Safety Representatives, State Motor Carrier Safety representatives, and local transportation agencies. The decision-making on where to target safety resources is made at the State level. Responsibilities may be clearly defined in some States and not in others. A few States are responsible for almost all public roads. In most others, the State assumes responsibility for only a small proportion of public roads. The rest are the responsibility of local county or city based agencies. A State-developed SHSP became a federal requirement in 2005. In Washington State, the Traffic Safety Commission is the lead agency responsible for coordination in the preparation of the SHSP. The DoT and the Traffic Safety Commission share responsibility for coordination and leadership in the delivery of the strategy with active participation from the Washington State Patrol.

57

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

In Japan, the Cabinet Office integrates and executes the general affairs of the Central Traffic Safety Countermeasure Conference which is in charge of promoting the enactment and implementation of the traffic safety programs. The Cabinet Office oversees preparation and implementation of the fundamental traffic safety programs. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has responsibility for vehicles and roads and the police have responsibility for operation of people and traffic. In New Zealand, the Ministry of Transport is the lead agency. In South Africa, the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC), is the coordinating body, responsible for the development and monitoring of the delivery of the primary goals of the National Road Safety Strategy. See www.rtmc.co.za for details including the 10 functional areas of responsibility. In Ontario, responsibilities are shared between agencies. The Road User Safety Division, Ministry of Transportation, deals with a wide range of driver and vehicle issues. Traffic infrastructure issues are the responsibility of the Provincial Highways Management Division. The two Divisions work together. In Malaysia, the road safety Department of the Ministry of Transport is the lead agency and is responsible for coordination of the government road safety activity. The 2006 – 2010 Road Safety Plan was approved by the Prime Minister’s Committee on Road Safety. The Land Transport Authority and the Traffic Police are the joint lead road safety agencies in Singapore. In Poland, government agencies share responsibilities with a National Road Safety Council in the Ministry of Infrastructure endeavouring to coordinate individual agency efforts together annually. In the Czech Republic, the Ministry of Transport is responsible for the overall co-ordination of road safety activities, including the National Road Safety Strategy. It is supported by the Government’s Council for Road Safety that includes representatives of the key road safety stakeholders, including Non Government Organisations.

1.7.2. Coordination and Consultation Case Study: Victoria, Australia In Victoria, Australia there are regular Ministerial Road Safety Council meetings between Ministers with responsibilities for road safety (eg., Police, Road Authority – VicRoads, Insurance Commission, Justice) – together with Agency Officers. The Ministers meet three times each year to discuss policies and strategy development

58

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

and review the performance of agreed implementation. This has proven to be a considerable assistance to whole of government commitment and to cabinet support for contentious measures. The road safety decision making hierarchy includes an Executive Group of Agency CEO’s (VicRoads, Police and TAC plus the Department of Justice) meeting quarterly and a Management Group of senior road safety managers (meeting monthly). Other consultative and special interest groups support the decision making process. One consolidated Report on performance from all agencies is provided to each Ministerial Council meeting. Parliamentary involvement is achieved through an all party Parliamentary Road Safety Committee which conducts regular public inquiries into current road safety issues, which require government responses. The Victorian road safety management decision making, coordination and information/ consultative arrangements for strategy and action plan implementation are shown in figure 2, following page.

59

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Figure 2 – Managing and co-ordinating the strategy in Victoria (Australia)

In Japan, coordination is carried out through the Central Traffic Safety Countermeasure Conference (CTSCC) and Traffic Countermeasure Headquarters (consisting of Administrative Vice Ministers of concerned ministries and agencies). The CTSCC is chaired by the Prime Minister and the members are twelve Cabinet Ministers with relevant responsibilities. Expert committees have been established under the CTSCC and various workshops examine traffic safety countermeasure topics. Committee meetings or public hearings are also conducted in association with these workshops.

60

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

While there are no formal coordination mechanisms at national level in the USA, it often occurs informally through forums such as the FHWA’s Highway Safety Partners Venture (comprised of a cross section of engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services organizations) where Federal officials meet regularly to discuss key issues with leaders of national organizations whose members represent key safety stakeholders. Across the US, some States may have clearly defined responsibilities for road safety agencies and some will not. Increased program monitoring and improved safety decision making are likely to be addressed by an emphasis on performance-based programs in the next Federal Transport Programs reauthorization bill. Washington State seeks to better coordinate safety programs, align goals and objectives, and leverage resources through seeking out and valuing partnerships. The Washington Traffic Safety Commission consists of the Governor (who serves as Chair), and the executives of six State agencies, two local government representatives and a judiciary representative In Norway, clear roles and responsibilities for road safety agencies are in place as are coordination arrangements to support whole of government monitoring and decision making. Arrangements for consultation with government and non – government agencies are in place and reports to parliament and parliamentary committee hearings are further public consultation mechanisms. In Sweden the Swedish Road Authority (SRA) has overall responsibility for government road safety outcomes and carries out most of the (substantial) coordination arrangements. SRA operate a range of collaboration councils for different road safety stakeholders. The Netherlands operate a National Mobility Council which meets twice a year and NGO’s are regularly consulted about policy proposals. In Germany coordination between agencies is supplemented by a national round table for organisations with an interest in road safety and regular meetings of the Transport, Building and Urban Affairs Committee of the Bundestag which assist public and parliamentary consultation. In New Zealand, a National Road Safety Committee and a National Road Safety Management Group carry out the coordination function. These groups have high-level representation from all the key road safety partner agencies – the Ministry of Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency, the Police, the Accident Compensation Corporation (insurance body), Local Government, as well as the government Ministries of Health, Justice, Labour and Education.

61

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

In Denmark, there is a monitoring group within the National Road Safety Council. However, fresh proposals for this organisation are receiving attention. In Ontario, coordination within government takes place on an as needed basis, such as in the development of a cabinet submission. Coordination arrangements which apply in Singapore are in accordance with the National Road Safety Action Plan. Poland relies upon the National Road Safety Council (NSRC), which is supported by a secretariat within the Ministry for Infrastructure. It meets quarterly and is made up of representatives of Ministries and invited experts. The government adopts the annual report of the Council. NRSC staff engage in ongoing liaison with representatives of various governmental and non-governmental institutions. While preventive countermeasures in Poland are implemented by different ministries and institutions, a multi – sectoral government program (GAMBIT) sets out the responsibility of various national institutions for task implementation and timing. Best Practice

A coordination framework which links road safety senior managers through executive management, across relevant sectors, to a group of Ministers meeting regularly which makes operational decisions at lower levels and formulates policy recommendations for, and reports on strategy performance to Ministers reflects the necessary systematic view of road transport operation and its professional and political challenges. Provision for public inquiry at parliamentary level and broad consultation arrangements with stakeholders including special interest groups. Model Jurisdictions: Victoria, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Western Australia, Sweden and The Netherlands

1.7.3. Adequate legislative and judicial practices United Kingdom believe that they now have a legal and regulatory framework that is broadly fit for purpose for delivering improved road safety. A key focus is on dealing with certain dangerous road user behaviours, which persist despite generally good levels of compliance with road traffic law. UK aim to work smartly to understand motivations behind the most dangerous road user behaviours, and characteristics of individuals undertaking them. The Netherlands based on the principal of mutual responsibility there’s close co-operation between all related organizations in the field of legislative, enforcement

62

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

and road authorities. The judicial system is largely supportive of road safety goals. Real time road safety data (licensing and offence records) is available to the police. The Netherlands note the constant effort required to have the most effective legislation for the road system which also translates into ‘how to do’ for designing, building and operating roads infrastructure. For the USA, judicial support varies between the States and thousands of local jurisdictions. Overall, most systems are supportive of existing legislation. Many jurisdictions typically do not see their role as deterring certain behaviour. There is caution at the US national level about dictating to States about legislation. The Federal government provides guidance and incentives to the states to implement safety policies. In Sweden, road safety legislative settings are fairly supportive of good practice policy. Penalties for traffic offences were drastically increased in 2006. However, Sweden notes that the judicial system does not automatically consider excessive speed as being grounds for “reckless driving” along with drink driving etc. Further shifts in community attitudes would be supported by a stronger stance on speeding in future from the Courts. Denmark consider that the settings are of good standard and that the courts system is supportive of the deterrence efforts. In New Zealand, data systems are considered broadly accessible and able to be used effectively by the Police in enforcement. While the judicial system is generally highly supportive of existing legislation and does actively play its role in deterrence of illegal and high risk behaviours, the court sentences given for high risk driving behaviour and unlicensed driving are highly variable. Germany notes the availability of highly effective data which supports law enforcement across the country. In Japan traffic data systems are provided for all items, and are presumed to be operating effectively. The traffic safety program is based on the Fundamental Traffic Safety Law and is considered to be functioning effectively. South Africa has a comprehensive live traffic safety database, and while the legislative settings are very supportive of improved road safety, implementation is often hampered by lack of resources. Resource shortages for the judicial system can result in workload “overload”, which has a negative impact on effective prosecution. Victoria, Australia has a fully developed legislative framework which is continuously reviewed and upgraded – in both of the parliamentary sessions in each year. This practice and associated expectation serve to support ongoing improvement in deterrence arrangements. The Department of Justice is a member of both the Road Safety Executive and Road Safety Management Groups.

63

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Ontario notes strong support by Government in recent years for fresh legislation with significant support at the bureaucratic and political levels. While the judicial system is supportive they note that some less serious offences can easily be pleaded down so there are no demerit points or penalties are lessened in other ways. This means the full range of existing penalties is not being implemented as intended. In the Czech Republic, road safety legislation supports safe behaviour. In order to avoid repeat offenders, a demerits point system was introduced on 1 July 2006. Administration of the demerit point system is undertaken by the close co-operation of traffic police, local administrations and the Ministry of Transport. Its efficiency is strongly influenced by masmedia work and its acceptance by politicians. The demerit point system has contributed to the positive safety results in the last few years but it needs to be modified to reflect the changing traffic behaviour. Best Practice

A comprehensive (and constantly updated) legislative and regulatory framework, utilising accurate, timely and accessible license and offence data systems, quality enforcement, penalties and an engaged judicial system to achieve strong deterrence. Model Jurisdictions: Victoria, The Netherlands, Japan, Norway, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand Western Australia and Sweden.

1.7.4. Adequacy of funding and resource allocation For the USA, transport reauthorization legislation establishes long term priorities for the nation but States and local authorities set actual priorities through their planning processes such as the SHSP and the State and Metropolitan Planning Processes. In Japan, the Cabinet (in March 2009) adopted a supporting Priority Program for Public Capital Provision to underpin its commitment to reducing fatalities in accordance with its current vision and strategy. In South Africa, Provincial Departments of Community Safety allocate budgets to road safety initiatives. Tasmania, Australia operates a road safety levy for all annual vehicle registrations (up to $AUD 20) which is invested in a Trust Fund which can only be expended on road safety measures which meet strict criteria. Some 75% of the levy is allocated to best practice infrastructure projects in rural and urban settings. Switzerland allocates fuel tax to infrastructure and road safety activities. Consultation on the new Road Safety Plan suggests additional special financing for road safety be introduced. In Sweden, road safety funding levels are seldom specified by government. Government sets annual targets and requires the administration to meet these within existing budgets.

64

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the USA are examples of countries who have invested substantially in motorway construction over many years which has lowered overall crash risk in each country. Sweden is investing substantially in lower cost highway retrofitting treatments (e.g., median and side barriers) to gain greater safety coverage of the network compared with motorway construction costs per kilometre. The Transport Accident Commission and the role of insurers in Victoria

The Transport Accident Commission (TAC) in Victoria, Australia is a relatively rare example of an injury insurer which is re-investing in road safety. As the compulsory injury insurer, the TAC’s objectives include both providing suitable and just compensation respecting persons injured or killed as a result of transport accidents and reducing the incidence of transport accidents. TAC has identified road safety as a critical mechanism for maintaining its financial viability and for reducing the cost of compensation to the Victorian community. TAC has moved well beyond considering whether or not road safety expenditure is a cost or an investment. It reports that its hospitalised claim rate and its accepted no-fault claim rate to be key results in determining both the success of its road safety investments and the success of its insurance business. The corporation’s involvement began with investment in advertising support for enforcement, taking responsibility for ensuring that an intensive, research led advertising program was well integrated with enforcement operations. This program, augmented by specific capital purchasing assistance for Victoria Police in the form of random breath testing and speed enforcement technology, was the first to demonstrate the highly cost-beneficial effect of well orchestrated enforcement and advertising campaigns and has influenced road safety practice the world over. As TAC became comfortable with its road safety role, it has branched out into other significant funding programmes, each time testing and assessing the impact on its core business. Most significantly, it is now moving into major systemic interventions in the safety performance of the road network. Its 2006 Annual Report referred to: • continuation of a $130 million program to improve roads to reduce

run-off-road crashes;

• implementation of a $110 million program to improve dangerous

intersections;

• new commitment of $60 million per annum (indexed over 10 years) to

further improve road safety infrastructure.

65

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

New Zealand: The Road Safety Strategy to 2010 provides guidance only for required funding. Germany: Road Safety funding relies on its priority in the eyes of government - which is high. The Netherlands note that prioritisation and funding are integral parts of the political process. In Canada, data on funding levels for road safety at provincial level were not available. Ontario notes that priorities are set and allocations are sought within each Ministry’s budget. Western Australia allocates a substantial proportion of speed camera revenues to a dedicated Road Trauma Trust Account for road safety investment. Singapore achieves a component of funding for traffic police road safety activities and associated campaigns through corporate sponsorships. In the Czech Republic, a new financial model is under preparation, combining resources from the Fund for transport infrastructure and shared incomes from traffic penalties and the administration of vehicles. Poland suggests that while actions identified in the overall government annual program, including road safety, activities should be funded by individual institutions. In practice this has proved difficult to achieve. (This is considered a useful and refreshingly candid observation which highlights the need in all countries for a lead agency to be identified and resourced in order to drive multi-sectoral performance and accountability for road safety outcomes by agencies across government.) Financial Incentives

A mid-term review of the 2006 European Road Safety Action Programme (ECORYS, European Commission 2006) included an impact assessment with comments on alternative policy options, one of which was financial incentives. It concluded that several possible financial incentives could be used to improve road safety, as follows: Price/tax policy: this includes fiscal incentives to encourage private and business investments in safety measures and to promote the design of safer infrastructure and vehicles. The incentives could relate to certain categories of equipment with proven effectiveness in terms of safety for which it would be difficult to otherwise find outlets. Examples include the possible production of safety belt reminders for retrofitting in existing vehicles. Insurance premiums: behaviour that reduces safety on roads could be discouraged by adjusting premiums to:

66

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

• ensure that road safety gets prominent attention within companies (through

safe fleet management practices, for example);

• spread the costs of risks associated with crashes causing bodily injuries

more fairly;

• assign the total costs of a crash cover from society to the person who caused

the accident.

Using Financial incentives Using financial and fiscal incentives, to change the behaviour of road users and to stimulate safety measures by car manufacturers and infrastructure managers, has the advantage of conforming with market principles and might be more acceptable than direct interference by governments: unsafe behaviour becomes more expensive, while safe behaviour is rewarded18 19. Increased Financial Investment - Road Safety Investment Opportunities

Road crash costs usually represent between 1% and 3% of a country’s GDP (depending on whether a human capital or willingness to pay approach is used). While a survey conducted for this report shows that many countries are unable to estimate the annual costs of road trauma to government and injury insurers, the available evidence suggests that costs substantially outweigh the funds put into prevention programmes. The adoption of a Safe System approach can produce important economic savings for society. To compete for limited resources with other government programmes, the road safety case needs to include sound economic arguments. This requires road safety managers to be skilled in assembling business cases for initiatives, including economic analysis. Accurate estimates of crash costs are necessary to show the scale of the problem and to attract investment in road trauma prevention. Cost benefit analyses from various member countries show that carefully targeted road safety activity can be a viable investment opportunity, providing a competitive return for the insurance industry as well as government especially when the aggregate costs to the two sectors are considered and not solely the costs to government. Opportunities to attract funding by offering commercially acceptable rates of return for investors need to be vigorously pursued.

 ECORYS (2006), Impact Assessment, Road Safety Action Programme, European Commission- DG Energy and Transport  OECD ITF JTRC “Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach”, 2008

18 19

67

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

A step change in resources invested in road safety management and in safer transport systems is required to realise the achievement of ambitious road safety targets in most of the world. Best Practice

Examples of committed funding from earmarked sources by government for road safety investment are few. Some jurisdictions have set up arrangements to achieve this. Opportunities exist for commercial returns on road safety investment to be achieved by injury insurance organisations. Motorway construction is likely to be effective in high density population countries in improving safety but lower cost alternatives (which are available) need to be promoted to and adopted by decision makers in lower density population countries. Some countries have responded to their circumstances with substantial appropriate infrastructure investment. Funding is fundamental to achieving agreed road safety strategy outcomes. Without adequate dedicated funding any road safety strategy across the disciplines has no chance of achieving success. This is a particular challenge for low and middle income countries but it is critical that politicians resist the temptation to announce ambitious targets unless there is an appropriate allocation of funding to deliver the interventions needed for achievement. Model Jurisdictions: Switzerland, Japan, Sweden, Germany, Victoria, Western Australia and USA.

1.7.5. Adequacy of advocacy and promotional activity Parliamentary consultation with agencies In the USA government agencies can evaluate and comment on proposed provisions or bills based on their expertise and experience in implementing Federal programs, and if requested by Congress, can, educate, inform and provide technical assistance for specific road safety policies. Administrations have also developed and shared reauthorization proposals with Congress which include their best thinking regarding national priorities, specific programs, and funding levels for national programs and initiatives. These administration proposals help to set the policy agenda and can include programs and initiatives that are adopted in final legislation. Federal officials often testify before Congressional committees on proposed legislation related to road safety or respond to questions posed by members of Congress on specific safety issues. These policy statements or clarifications provide an opportunity to address key issues.

68

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

In New Zealand as in most countries surveyed, there is opportunity within the normal executive/legislative processes for Parliamentary consultation to occur, with each arm of Government able to initiate such consultation. There the National Road Safety Committee presents the united high-level road safety voice of the key road safety partner agencies to government. In Japan, the Cabinet office coordinates overall traffic safety countermeasures including the fundamental traffic safety programs. In Victoria, Australia, a Parliamentary Road Safety Committee conducts Public Inquiries about road safety issues and a Ministerial Road Safety Committee interacts regularly with key agencies to monitor progress and resolve policy proposals. Western Australia operates a Parliamentary Reference Group available to all parliamentarians which provides a forum for government agencies and others to discuss road safety matters with elected representatives. It also operates a Ministerial Road Safety Council which meets regularly with agency chief executives. In Norway, agencies regularly appear before Parliamentary Committees to discuss road safety issues. Germany achieves parliamentary involvement through regular meetings of the parliamentary Committee on transport, Construction and Urban development of the German Bundestag. Tasmania involves a representative of each major party as a member of the Tasmanian Road Safety Council and operates a Parliamentary Select Committee on Road Safety. In Ontario, staff will occasionally present at a Parliamentary Committee hearing. In Poland, a Parliamentary Group on Road Safety was established in 2008. The Group conducts dialogue with non-governmental organisations and public authorities in order to initiate and support all activities which could impact positively on improving road safety in Poland. One of the main tasks of the road safety section of the Ministry of Transport in the Czech Republic is to raise public awareness of road safety. They organise and contract several companies every year at the national level and share them at the regional and local level and with key stakeholders. The topics of campaigns target the most sensitive road safety issues, such as children, pedestrians, young drivers, drink driving, speeding and seat belts.

69

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

Mechanisms to enable parliamentarians for all parties to meet with government agencies on a regular basis for briefings and input and the existence of Parliamentary (or Congressional) Committees which focus on road safety matters and conduct Public Inquiries are two good practice activities. In addition the operation of Ministerial Road Safety Committees which meet regularly and formally with road safety agency chief executives and senior road safety managers is considered good practice. Model Jurisdictions: Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, Germany, Norway and Japan.

Public Information campaigns - Risks, countermeasures and building safety demand NHTSA within the USA DOT conducts national media campaigns to encourage seat belt use and to discourage drinking and driving. There are also publicity campaigns for specific road safety issues such as work zone awareness week and national child passenger safety week. Efforts are taken at the national, state, and local level to educate consumers, however, the safety culture in the US competes against the desire for mobility and personal freedom. Western Australia operates community education campaigns to influence behaviours (targeting speeding, drink driving, drug driving, fatigue, novice driver risk taking and restraint wearing) in ways that promote and encourage the safe system approach to road safety. Extensive community consultation was carried out in developing the current strategy to encourage awareness and demand for safety. In Norway, the Public Roads Administration (NPRA) has carried targeted national campaigns in association with other agencies. It recommends purchase of only 4 or 5 star new cars. Its website promotes the EuroNCAP star ratings. New Zealand conducts extensive road safety advertising campaigns on television aimed at reducing the incidence of drink driving and speeding. Other topics covered include driver fatigue and vehicle safety, where current advertising seeks to promote market demand through highlighting the safety benefits of key vehicle safety features. In the Netherlands, the Strategic Plan identifies the national public awareness campaigns to be conducted on key issues, e.g. drink driving, speeding, seatbelts and also includes building demand for green cars, 5 star cars, motorcycle guard rails etc. In Tasmania, public education campaigns are firmly based on crash data and research linked to enforcement activities. Public campaigns on choosing safer

70

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

vehicles include promotion of the howsafeisyourcar.com.au website. In Switzerland, the BFU, a private foundation, considered the Swiss Competence Centre for Accident Prevention. It conducts campaigns targeting drink driving, speeding and wearing of safety belts. In Canada the provinces evaluate their own needs and deliver promotional, information and countermeasure programs as required. Police lead two national events focusing on seat belt use, drink driving, speeding and dangerous driving. Transport Canada leads a national campaign to encourage car buyers to purchase electronic stability control in new vehicles. Germany conducts national road safety campaigns through the German Road Safety Council (DVR), while South Africa is yet to develop a National Strategic approach to informing the public about road safety issues, extensive road safety campaigns are specifically conducted over the Christmas and Easter holiday periods, when traffic volumes are at their highest. In Sweden, non – governmental stakeholders use extensive promotion to get the risk message across. Consumer guides on child restraints, cars, helmets are provided on the Road Authority, Insurance Company and non-profit safety organisations. Denmark conducts substantial national and regional campaigns. The Ministry of Transportation in Ontario produces public education materials, hosts provincial campaigns and sponsors local and provincial awareness initiatives on a broad spectrum of road safety issues, focusing on the risks and consequences of the behaviour; the penalties and sanctions under the law; and strategies for avoiding these risks through best practices. Campaigns and materials are tailored to address prevailing attitudes and beliefs and are based on relevant road safety research and collision statistics. Information on new legislation is incorporated into campaigns and materials and often drives their production. In Malaysia, the Road Safety Department in the Ministry of Transport arranges public information campaigns on an ongoing basis. Best Practice

While most responding jurisdictions conduct public information campaigns with a focus on restraint wearing, speeding and drink driving, a lesser number promote safer vehicles and fewer again promote information about crash risks on road networks and the concept of a safe system approach to address those risks. Model Jurisdictions: Victoria, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands and USA.

71

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Public Information campaigns- promoting safety for employment related road use The New Zealand Transport Agency and the Accident Compensation Corporation, with the support of the Department of Labour, promote guidelines for safe driving policy in the workplace – your safe driving policy. Germany promotes occupational health and safety advice for on road employment related activity. In Norway, the Public Roads Administration (NPRA) has lead introduction of a safety charter for employment related road safety with business groups and other organisations. NPRA applies this safety policy for its own employment related journeys and its own purchases of transport services. Western Australia has adopted safe vehicle policies within government, member organisations on the Road Safety Council have implemented road safety policies within their organisations and partnership programs are implemented to encourage adoption of safe system strategies within private sector organisations. Tasmania operates a community partnership program to promote fleet safety, including advice on introducing a fleet management program, safe driving policies and improving fleet safety. Sweden conducts systematic work to influence organisations to treat transport issues in a sustainable manner. Employers are encouraged to operate safe fleets and given guidance on driver safety policies. In Ontario employers are encouraged to promote safer work related driving practices especially related to impaired, aggressive, drowsy and distracted driving. Campaigns encourage both employers and employees to obey legislation and adopt best practices and to consider their potential liability in relation to work-related driving. Employees themselves are encouraged to expect and demand a safe work place including when driving on the job. Malaysia has commenced programs promoting driver health and safety through fleet operators and is commencing to strengthen relevant licensing measures. Best Practice

Encouraging safer practices within workplaces for vehicles and driving is an important opportunity to utilise the characteristics of the employment relationship to bring about safety improvement and also to reach out to the broader community about these issues. It also reminds the community that a road safety focus needs to operate across many activities to be effective. Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, Victoria, Norway, Netherlands and NHTSA (USA).

72

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

1.7.6. T  he quality of monitoring and evaluation of road safety activity, particularly the use of intermediate data to measure change This issue is addressed in chapter 2 in section 2.5 on Safety Performance Indicators.

1.7.7. Adequacy of research and development arrangements Most jurisdictions conduct substantial road safety research programs through specialist tertiary affiliated research based units. In the USA, the DoT funds road safety research through a number of programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). (See appendix H for more details) While a lot is accomplished with the research funding provided to USDOT, TRB, and other organizations, there were however, over 37,000 lives lost on US highways in 2008. The transfer of research knowledge to build capacity among practitioners, policy makers and to inform public debate appears to be the most relevant challenge in achieving road safety gains from research. In New Zealand, road safety partners are active in funding and commissioning road safety research, but they tend to have their own programme focus with the consequent research agenda set by the funding agencies. The NZTA is also a member of the Austroads (Australia and New Zealand) Road Safety Task Force which commissions an extensive research programme. In Japan, the content of R&D programs is determined by the Transport Ministry. The leading road safety research organisation is the National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management. No particularly marked research gaps have emerged at this time. With some exceptions, including South Africa, research funding was considered generally adequate. The key issue therefore is about obtaining best value for the research investment, including long term visionary research. Denmark is endeavouring to examine older projects to assess what can be learned from them as a means of countering the diminished road safety budget over recent years. Demonstration of new layouts is almost non- existent and research depends on university priorities and available funding. In Ontario the Ministry of Transport identifies road safety areas of special interest (e.g., novice drivers, impaired driving, commercial vehicles), monitors collision trends and when warranted - conducts internal and external studies to better understand the related issues, reduce number and severity of motor vehicle collisions by identification and implementation of most effective road safety regulations and

73

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

other countermeasures. The Canadian based Traffic Research Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) provides research services. Other leading organizations commission road safety research at a National and International level such as Transport Canada, Transportation Research Board, NHTSA or IIHS. The result of their work is available on their respective websites. Best Practice

Many jurisdictions are investing considerable amounts in road safety research. Two issues arise: • It is advisable that all jurisdictions in supporting a robust research program

can operate as an informed client in developing high level research questions which need to be discussed within the road safety agencies to guide and prioritise programs selection.

• • How can greater research effort be encouraged into how road safety

interventions which are demonstrably effective but often slightly controversial can be more rapidly introduced into jurisdictions?

Model Jurisdictions: Netherlands, Sweden, Victoria, Norway and USA

1.7.8. Adequacy of knowledge transfer arrangements to build capacity and effectiveness In Germany, road safety research results are widely published. Two road safety conferences are organised each year and regional seminars and working groups are organised with traffic safety as an important topic. The further development of guidelines and recommendations for the development, maintenance and operation of the road network is based on current research results. Netherlands: The principle of mutual responsibility plays a major role. Websites, conferences, programs and projects are run by participants from various (non-) governmental bodies and organizations thus enabling open exchange of views and research results. Review of standards is part of the Plan-Do-Check-Act policy Netherlands has broadly adopted. The USA is very much in favor of learning about successful practices, policies and programs within and outside the country. The US conducts domestic and international scans, as well as commissioning special studies to determine common denominators of success. Various organizations track the status of legislative actions that have the most significant impact on roadway safety. The States prefer that “proof” of safety benefits be well understood, but many are amenable to pilot projects and conduct

74

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

analysis to determine effectiveness. There is considerable caution at the national level to dictate or mandate that states adopt specific safety policies. The states get very involved in determining amongst themselves standards to adopt through various committee forums. In many cases, the federal government provides guidance and incentives to states to institute specific safety policy and standards. Significant training programs are offered by DOT and others to facilitate knowledge transfer. The transfer of safety knowledge from research to practice is a challenging task in the US. One concept that has been implemented is the “Lead State Initiative”. This type of initiative has been used to implement a number of safety strategies in the US including the ones outlined in the twenty-two volumes of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 500 series. The approach taken under the Lead State Initiative typically follows the steps shown below: • identify a number of state highway agencies that are taking a lead role in

implementing a certain strategy, program, analysis approach, etc.;

• convene peer-exchange meetings involving representatives from the selected states

and experts familiar with the implementation of the particular strategy;

• facilitate the exchange of experiences and examples related to implementation

among the lead states;

• develop a User Guide based on the experiences and examples of the lead states to

assist other highway agencies in implementing the Highway Safety Manual.

Individual agencies in New Zealand have their own processes for ensuring evidence based road safety research is applied to policy development. Research funding tends to require the dissemination of the research within New Zealand, by publications, research websites, presentations to stakeholders/funders or at conferences. There are also a number of collaborative cross-government/agency working groups on different road safety topics where information on research can be passed on. Austroads also have a knowledge sharing program. The Ministry of Transport in Ontario co-operates with other government agencies and road safety shareholders/organizations to exchange road safety expertise and knowledge based evidence. An official Ministry website provides all information related to road safety and research, the most popular topics and links to relevant websites. In Malaysia, MIROS, the government road safety research institute, carries out much of the knowledge transfer between agencies around safe system, vehicle safety and road issues.

75

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

Major international road safety conferences have a crucial role to play in spreading knowledge and building practitioner and researcher networks. Annual road safety conferences in Canada, the USA (TRB safety stream), Sweden (Tylosand) and in Australasia, are examples of high quality events that will improve knowledge and awareness by those attending. From the surveys, some jurisdictions acknowledge that this represents a challenge to the application of road safety strategy and achievement of targets, and therefore work on mechanisms for sharing and transferring knowledge so that capacity can be built among road safety stakeholders. Other jurisdictions have limited or no systematic mechanisms for this to occur. There appear to be particular limitations relating to transference of road safety research and contemporary thinking to road systems practitioners and managers. Those where the road safety management is closely aligned with the road authority appear to have an advantage. Where the road authority is somewhat removed from the road safety management agency, there is a risk that there may be a lesser road safety culture reflected in the agencies and, in some cases, the public. Public information campaigns are critical, not just to change specific behaviours, but to assist understanding of the principles and evidence on which road safety policy must be set.

1.7.9. Road safety management arrangements Road safety management and coordination adequacy is a difficult matter to assess equitably from inside government or from outside government. The key elements of what makes road safety management more effective were set out at the commencement of this section of the document. While the importance of these criteria is reasonably well understood, the extent to which they are achieved in each jurisdiction is not always clear. Road safety management is strongly influenced by political models and the legal systems within government as well as historical and cultural practices that limit how well road safety management can coordinate the development and implementation of effective road safety policy. For example the USA has some of the best and most well-funded research programs in the world. They also have extensive programs to transfer knowledge to road safety practitioners, but are limited by political agendas and

76

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

cultural beliefs which still have strong political influence. As a consequence there are many easily preventable deaths on American roads and road safety performance in the USA is well below what is achievable in a technically advanced nation. It is also not necessarily clear from the outside – for all jurisdictions - how well in practice the arrangements operate. Even in cases where there is no clear lead agency, the cooperation arrangements may be effective enough and engender mutual ownership to garner strong political support. Alternatively, a jurisdiction may have strong political support, effective coordination between agencies but lack the road safety capacity to deliver on ambition. Road Safety Management is the most critical factor in improving road safety and ultimately, road safety performance is the measure of effective road safety management. Best Practice

There is no one paradigm of success in road safety management, but the system in Victoria has demonstrated its success in this area. It incorporates one lead agency with a road safety partnership of Government Ministers leading to strong political support, close cooperation, regular reporting and monitoring, proactive and challenging advocacy and promotion, entrenched links with research organisations with a strongly evidence based policy endeavour within the lead agency. It has its funding allocation modelled on the requirements to achieve road safety goals. Victoria also has a government owned no fault injury insurer that returns profits to road safety research and implementation. Its history in recent decades of being able to introduce world first initiatives is a clear demonstration of effective road safety management. Model Jurisdictions: Victoria (Australia), Sweden, The Netherlands and Japan Management Gaps

There are gaps in each jurisdiction. However, consistent limitations occur in the collection, measurement and performance monitoring of key intermediate performance measures as well as the transfer of research and development knowledge and expertise to road system designers especially those not specifically involved in specialist road safety programs. 1.8. PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING ROAD SAFETY

The survey responses do not provide any information about the process used to develop road safety policies, but the key steps in the process that are known to be used by some nations are as follows:

77

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

1. Understanding of the factors that mostly contribute to serious casualty crashes. This

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

requires a good data set that is regularly updated and analysed to identify key factors and trends. The sharing of data and information can help to facilitate valuable discussion and to draw common conclusions about what are the key factors. Identification of potential countermeasures to the key factors contributing to serious casualty crashes. There is considerable reliance on research to be able to determine the potential gains that could be achieved through the implementation of specific countermeasures. It is essential that only evidence based initiatives be considered. The pursuit of “good ideas” without the support of evidence or research relies on a leap of faith to try and achieve satisfactory results. Preparation of a discussion paper incorporating proposed policies and distributed to the community (including key stakeholders) for consideration. It would be beneficial to involve enforcement agencies, judges and magistrates at this step in the process. This document needs to clearly explain the proposed policy (or policies), include a brief summary of the research used as the basis for the policy and indicate the associated benefits and costs. It may also be beneficial to include the alternative policies that were considered and the reasons why they have been rejected. The greater the distribution of this document, the greater the involvement of the community in the process of developing policy and hence the potential for greater community ownership of the eventual policy. Debate about proposed policy is healthy and should be strongly encouraged. Policy finalisation. Careful consideration of the responses from community is required in order to properly gauge the reaction to the proposed policy. Based on the proposed feedback, the policy is finalised. Legislation submitted to Parliament. The legislation for the proposed policy is prepared and submitted to Parliament for debate. Information on the key aspects of the proposed policy is provided to the Members of Parliament to help facilitate the debate. It is important to engage with all government departments to ensure their comments are addressed before submitting proposed policy to Parliament. Legislation is made. Following the making of legislation, it would be beneficial to brief enforcement officers, judges and magistrates in the court system about the details of the policy. Such briefings could include information about the problem and the research leading to the development of the policy. With a reasonable understanding of the background to the policy, enforcement offices, judges and magistrates are better informed and prepared to exercise their judgement. Wide communication of new road safety legislation is essential so that road users are well informed about its introduction and it raises the expectation that they will comply. A communications campaign is an effective means to ensure a broad reach of the community. Policy is monitored and evaluated. Soon after introducing the policy, it is important to monitor and assess that it is achieving the desired outcomes. It is during this time that further community reaction to the policy can be experienced. The availability of any information to demonstrate early positive effects of the new

78

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

policy helps to reinforce and support the policy. Alternatively, if the policy is not having the desired effects or if there is overwhelming community dissatisfaction, the policy may need to be amended.

2. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY STRATEGIES 2.1. INTRODUCTION

A second survey of 11 countries and 4 states/provincial jurisdictions (in countries with federated government systems) was carried out and the results have informed this chapter. This second survey sought information on the road safety strategies (including action plans, use of performance indicators and strategy management arrangements) in place in those PIARC member countries/ states. A summary of the strategies survey results for all countries which responded is attached as appendix S. It is important for jurisdictions to fully understand the essential elements of, and supporting arrangements for, a successful road safety strategy. Castle and Kamya-Lukoda (2006) conducted a review of international road safety good practice and identified the major strengths of road safety strategies: ‘A crucial component of an effective road safety strategy is to have a quantitative target. However, a road safety strategy should include policy objectives, a special budget, new design safety features, integrated community programmes and new technologies. The major factors for the success or failure of road safety initiatives are political will, proper organisation, and knowledge’. Through a detailed analysis of various road safety strategies in different countries, Loo et al. (2005) developed a framework, with nine main components, of a road safety strategy: vision, objectives, targets, action plan, evaluation and monitoring, research and development, quantitative modelling, institutional framework, and funding.’20 The “Handbook of road safety measures”21, authored by Elvik and Vaa (2004) is an invaluable compendium of evidence based interventions and approaches which is recommended to all jurisdictions who are devising policies and strategies to improve road safety performance. Successful strategies rely on a number of critical support elements. As indicated in chapter 1, the existence of a clear ambitious vision is a valuable support for aligning community, road safety agency and government thinking in striving for  Road Safety Research Report No. 105, Road Safety Strategy Beyond 2010: A Scoping Study, DfT, UK, 2009  Elvik, R., Vaa, T. eds, Handbook of Road Safety Measures (2004)

20 21

79

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

maximising achievement of an interim associated target on the journey towards the long term vision. 2.2. VISION, OBJECTIVES, TARGETS AND ACTION PLANS REFLECTED IN STRATEGY

A comprehensive Vision provides the underlying rationale for a strategy. The “Towards Zero” report recommends a Vision of an ultimate elimination of death and serious injury on the road system, as a necessary support for progressive achievement over the intervening years of a road transport system that is increasingly safe. This commitment to an ambitious longer term outcome is reflected explicitly in a growing number of published strategies. The Netherlands achieved its target in its previous strategy and based on the Sustainable Safety Vision, adopted the current Strategic Road Safety Plan 20082020 (SRSP) in July 2008 which sets out the current Vision for road safety in the Netherlands. It was adopted by Parliament in August 2008. The Dutch Minister of Transport, Public Works and Water Management letter to Parliament accompanying the strategy (which targets a reduction of over 25% by 2020 compared to 2007) commented that “… Of course the number of road casualties could be reduced far more if we were to make fundamentally different choices: free up significantly more funds for safety, or limit the freedom of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Those are not the choices I am making now. I am staying within the framework of the Mobility Policy Document and introducing an ambitious package of measures in that context.” This reflects the decision making tension confronting governments. Agreements with local and provincial governments are executed to reflect shared commitment to the target. See link: http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat. nl/english/Images/strategischplan-E_tcm249-249506.pdf Norway’s Vision is based on “Vision Zero” as the guiding principle for the National Transport Plan (NTP) for the period 2010-2019. The NTP22 seeks to reduce fatalities and seriously injuries by 1/3 over the period 2010 to 2020. National Strategies can be challenging within countries with a federal system of States/Provinces/Territories and a National Government, such as the US, Canada and Australia. In the USA, the importance of integrating interventions to target various specific crash types is highlighted in advice the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has given to US jurisdictions in recent years. The AASHTO Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety developed the   http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/sd/tema/nasjonal_transportplan.html?id=12198 (in Norwegian).

22

80

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

AASHTO (US) strategic highway safety plan (2005), which includes 22 strategies, and believes that a comprehensive, integrated approach has great potential to significantly reduce motor vehicle-related deaths and injuries, on US highways. This current Strategic Plan covers the period FY 2006-2011. The new Strategic Plan under development will be for the period from FY 2009-2014. Federal transportation funding requires States to develop and implement Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs), which include all aspects of safety. All States (and DC) have developed and are implementing SHSPs. As of September 2009, the nation is just starting discussions on developing a National Strategic Highway Safety Plan that is expected to provide a national framework in Spring 2010. The state of Minnesota (USA) has as its road safety Vision – “Toward Zero Deaths” (TZD) 23 which is given effect through a comprehensive Highway Safety Program updated in 2007 into its SHSP24. Minnesota establishes interim aspirational goals for fatalities and seeks to achieve less than 400 fatalities by 2010. The previous interim goal of less than 500 fatalities by 2008 was achieved. Cross departmental coordination has increased the system-wide response to traffic safety problems. The long term goal is to move total fatalities Toward Zero. Missouri’s “Blueprint to Arrive Alive”25 identifies numerous Emphasis Areas as well as strategies. This SHSP runs until the end of 2012. Washington State (USA)’s Strategic Highway Safety Vision and Plan, “Target Zero”26 has a high level of ambition. It aspires to Zero traffic-related deaths in 2030. It has an interim timeframe of approximately 3 years and is in the process of being updated. While Canada does not have a national strategy, it does have a comprehensive national plan (2002 – 2010) with targets and actions that are a focus of Canadian road safety professional effort27. Canada’s Vision within their National Plan is to have the safest roads in the world. A plan that will succeed Canada’s current national plan is currently being developed. Ontario has adopted the national Canadian strategy (Vision 2010) and it is supported by instrumental public and private sector stakeholders, including the enforcement community. The Police – at national, provincial and municipal police levels – have incorporated Road Safety Vision 2010 targets into their business plans. Ontario has been meeting the targets set out in that Vision.  http://www.minnesotatzd.org/   http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/shsp/index.html 25   http://www.savemolives.com/documents/BlueprintforSaferRoadways2008.pdf 26  w ww.wsp.wa.gov/publications/reports/shsp.pdf 27   http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/safedrivers/trafficsafety/index.htm or http://www.ccmta.ca/english/committees/rsrp/rsv/rsv.cfm. 23

24

81

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

In Australia, most road safety activity is conducted by the States and Territories. However a National Strategy is developed jointly by the States/ Territories and the Federal Government. The current strategy runs to 2010 but it has been refreshed each two years since 2000 through action plan development and adoption. The Australian approach to road safety improvement is guided by the Safe System framework. The National Road Safety Action Plan: 2009 and 201028 highlights measures to significantly reduce road trauma over the next few years and to lay the foundation for longer term gains, under four major headings; Safer speeds, Safer roads and roadsides, Safer vehicles and Safer road users/safer behaviour. Australia’s target was a 40% reduction in the number of deaths per 100,000 population from the 1999 level to 5.6 by 2010. This target is not likely to be reached. Victoria’s (Australia) vision is given effect by a commitment to a Safe System approach with its new strategy, “Arrive Alive 2008 – 2017”29 addressing three critical elements of safer roads, roadsides and speed limits, safer vehicles and safer road users. The Strategy seeks to reduce serious casualties between 2008 and 2017 by 30%. Victoria’s previous strategy, arrive alive 2002 – 2007, met its 20% fatalities reduction target. The current strategy in the United Kingdom expires in 2010. It sought a 40% reduction in fatalities or serious injuries and a 40% reduction in child serious casualties from 2000 to 2010 compared to the average serious casualty levels for 1994 to 1998. The proposed long term Vision for the new Strategy is ‘Making Britain’s roads the safest in the world’. The goal in the current New Zealand strategy (from 2003 to 2010) is to reduce the number of road deaths per year to no more than 300 and hospitalisations to no more than 4,500 by 2010 - from 404 deaths and 6,670 hospitalisations in 2002. A new road safety vision will be adopted to support the new strategy currently under development. South Africa’s Road Safety Strategy, the “2009-2015 Road Traffic Safety Management Plan” includes consultative and communication structures to monitor progress with implementation. The broad objectives of the Plan are to reduce road traffic crashes and critical road traffic offences that lead to road crashes by half by 2015; and then to focus on a series of institutional management and capacity development matters (See appendix I). The matters to be addressed (set out in the appendix) are an interesting reminder of the road safety issues confronting middle income countries such as South Africa.

 http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/actionplan_0910.aspx  w ww.arrivealive.vic.gov.au

28 29

82

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Vision Zero is Sweden’s strategy and vision, which seeks the ultimate elimination of fatalities and serious injuries from Sweden’s road system. The current strategy adopted in 2008 seeks to reduce fatalities to 220 (from an average for 2005 – 2007 of 460) by 2020, a 50% decrease over 12 years. Japan adopted its Eighth Fundamental Traffic Safety Program in March 2006. The program refers to Vision Zero and has as its ultimate aim a traffic accident –free society and a people-first traffic safety concept. Japan’s Prime Minister (Jan. 2009) affirmed the traffic safety goal is to halve traffic accident fatalities in 10 years, i.e., 2,500 or less fatalities by 2028. A supporting Priority Program for Public Capital Provision was enacted by the Cabinet in March 2009. Denmark’s national plan (2005 – 2012) comprises 100 different actions. The main objectives of the Hungarian Traffic Policy for 2003-2015 are to reduce personal accidents and fatalities by 30% by 2010. Hungary has also adopted the ambitious targets set in the EU White Paper – to reduce personal accidents and fatalities by 50% by 2015. The vision within the Western Australian “Towards Zero”30 strategy 2009 – 2020, recently adopted by government, was outlined in section 1.1.1. Malaysia’s Road Safety Plan and target was adopted at Parliamentary level, is using the safe system approach as a guide and seeks to reduce fatalities from 4.2 per 10,000 vehicles (2005) to 2.0 in 2010 and from 23 per 100,000 population to 10 per 100,000. Poland seeks at least a 50% reduction in fatalities by 2013 compared to 2003. Its long-term ambition and current road safety vision, adopted by government, is zero fatalities on Polish roads. The National Strategy – “GAMBIT - National Road Safety Program” runs from 2005 to 2013. See (Please note that these websites and documents are in Polish) http://www.krbrd.gov.pl/gambit/gambit_2005.htm http://www.krbrd.gov.pl/download/pdf/Gambit_2005_RM.pdf English summary: http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2007/wp5/ECE-TRANS-WP52007-07a7e_annex5.pdf Singapore has set a target of saving 100 lives over a five year period from 2005 to 2010 in its National Road Safety Action Plan. The current National Road Safety Strategy in the Czech Republic expires in 2010. The goal of reducing fatalities by half compared to 2002 will not be achieved. The new strategy that is now in the final stage of preparation is based on the Vision Zero  http://www.ors.wa.gov.au/StrategiesRoadSafety/Pages/NewStrategy/2008-2020.aspx

30

83

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

approach. The new strategic goal is to achieve by 2020, the number fatalities comparable with the average fatalities of the EU countries. Specific goals will be set for selected target areas, such as, children, young drivers, elderly, motorcyclists, pedestrians, alcohol, speeding and aggressive driving. 2.3. ASPIRATIONAL OR MODELLED OUTCOMES/ TARGETS

2.3.1. Aspirational Targets The USA Department of Transport has set a target for the year 2011 of 1.13 to 1.16 fatalities per 100 million miles of travel. Currently the USA is examining longer term targets beyond 2011 tied to the next (legislative) surface transportation Bill. Missouri has numerous action plans that are ongoing and are a direct result of identified strategies in the Blueprint. These have various timelines. For many of the actions, fatal crash reductions have been estimated. Washington State’s interim and long term targets are aspirational – it is not set based on historical data trends or modelling of intervention outcomes. In Norway, the road safety targets are both aspirational and based on estimated effects of some detailed measures. In Canada, the targets in Road Safety Vision 2010 (RSV 2010) are aspirational. However, national task forces are developing interventions that jurisdictions can adopt to help achieve the national plan’s eight specific sub-targets. In addition, some provinces have developed strategies to specifically address these sub-targets. Canadian police services have adopted most of the targets of RSV 2010 into their business plans. The Australian National Road Safety Strategy Action Plan 2009 – 2010 is extensive. However, outcomes to date have not matched the target underpinning the adoption of the initial strategy document in 2000 (which was modelling based) nor the aspirational target underpinning the 2009/10 Action Plan. In South Africa some of the strategy targets are evidence based and some are aspirational. Neither Sweden nor the Netherlands have set targets on the basis of formal calculations or modelling of impacts of various intervention options. They are based on a political calculation that a given percentage fatality reduction should sufficiently motivate those involved in improving road safety31. For Sweden, Vision  Road Safety Research Report No. 105, Road Safety Strategy Beyond 2010: A Scoping Study, DfT UK, 2009

31

84

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Zero is an aspirational level of ambition guiding strategy development. There is no Action Plan in a traditional sense. The interim 2020 target is derived from the aggregated effect of proposed changes of selected road safety performance indicators (for example seat belt usage and speed compliance). There is an analysis report on the current state of road safety in Sweden, pointing out the most important challenges. This analysis report was to be available in English at the SRA web site by late 200932. Tasmania’s Road Safety Strategy 2007-2016, seeks a 20% reduction in serious injuries and fatalities in each of the 5 year periods from 2005 to 2010, from 2010 to 2015 and from 2015 to 2020. These are aspirational targets. Poland has adopted an aspirational target.

2.3.2. Modelled targets (Target setting based on quantitative modelling) Victoria’s target of a 30% reduction from 2008 – 2017 is based on detailed modelling of intervention options by the Monash University Accident Research Centre, (MUARC), which was the basis of dialogue and decision making between the road safety partners and government Ministers – before the finally adopted target was selected by Government. The target therefore reflects detailed estimation of future outcomes and a prior commitment by government to future implementation of the measures specifically identified as necessary to achieve that target. This does not preclude new opportunities being adopted during the life of the strategy, with action plan reviews every two years. The United Kingdom set targets based on an empirical analysis of past performance and a statistical assessment of what could be achieved through continued delivery on a number of actions. The national target adopted in 2000 was to reduce numbers of Killed and Seriously Injured (KSIs) by 40% from the 1994-98 baseline level (DETR, 2000) by 2010. Actual performance33 based on updated KSI forecasts for 2010 suggest that the target of reducing KSI by 40% (relative to the 1994–98 baseline) by 2010 will be achieved. The updated fatality forecasts suggest, however, that the number of deaths may fall by less than the target. New Zealand used a modelling approach with the targets adopted derived from the estimated outcomes of implementation measures. The current Road Safety to 2010 Strategy, launched in October 2003, set targets of no more than 300 deaths by the end of 2010. Actual performance at the end of 2009 was 384 deaths. 32

 http://www.vv.se/Andra-sprak/English-engelska/Road-safety/  TRL Report No. 663 (Broughton and Buckle, 2007)

33

85

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Malaysia has developed its targets on an empirical basis using estimation of fatality reductions for each potential intervention.

2.3.3. Targets for Serious Injuries The extent to which serious injuries are specifically referred to in jurisdictions’ road trauma reduction strategies is reflected in the survey returns. Some 50% of the returns indicate targets for serious injuries form part of current strategies or will shortly do so. As well as fatality targets, Minnesota, Victoria, New Zealand, Denmark and Canada have serious injuries targets while Sweden seeks the elimination of disabling, longer term serious injuries. The United Kingdom targets a combined serious casualties figure. 2.4. S  TRATEGY MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND ARRANGEMENTS

While overall road safety management issues – particularly for results focus and consultation and coordination activities – are considered in sections 1.7.1 and 1.7.2, this section considers specific management arrangements that jurisdictions have in place for strategy management.

Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) - a Board of State agency heads Progress is reported at WTSC quarterly meetings and annually to the Governor. Norwegian Public Roads Yes, NPRA, the National Clearly defined in writing Administration (NPRA) Police Directorate, the Directorate for Health and Social Welfare, and the Norwegian Council for Road Safety Ministry of Transport, Yes Telecommunication and Energy

Washington

Hungary

Norway

Highway Safety Office of DOT

Missouri

Yes, all agencies across government are expected to embrace TZD and incorporate strategies into their business. Yes, meets quarterly “Missouri’s Blueprint to Arrive Alive” clearly identifies the multi sectoral actions required Yes To be addressed in the current updating of the plan.

Roles and responsibilities

Table 4

Transport and Public Safety Departments co-chair

Multi sectoral Involvement

Minnesota

Jurisdiction

Lead Agency for strategy development

Timeframes and individual agency responsibilities plus coordination requirements for action plan delivery are recorded for the six involved departments. Progress is reported yearly to a joint agency Heads meeting.

Action plan timeframes are recorded, managed and reported against regularly to the Transport Ministry and the agencies.

Reporting Efforts are underway to form an Executive Advisory Council chaired by the Governor with agency heads as members. Each Region across the State is responsible for an annual plan.

Comment

86 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Transport Canada, with input from representatives of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA).

Road User Safety Division, Ministry of Transportation and Provincial Highways Management Division.

VicRoads, State road and licensing and registration Authority.

Canada

Ontario

Victoria, Australia

Jurisdiction

Lead Agency for strategy development Roles and responsibilities

Table 4

Yes, see Sec. 1.3.2

Individual Ministries to their Ministers

Reporting Only one of Canada’s ten provinces currently has a clearly defined road safety action plan in place.

Comment

The Ministry positions Ontario as a leader in road safety with roads that are the safest or among the safest in North America. Safe roads are promoted as contributing to strong communities. Social marketing and social norms are used to convey that high risk behaviour is socially unacceptable and the thoughtless act of a small minority. Messaging reinforces the fact that road safety is everyone’s responsibility. Clearly defined in writing Combined reporting from VicRoads liaises with agencies (with individual other jurisdictions about agency accountabilities national road safety identified) To meetings of issues. agency heads and then to joint meetings of Ministers on a regular basis.

New strategies that have been developed and adopted during the timeframe of this initiative were coordinated either by CCMTA task forces or by individual provinces or territories. Yes, including Health Understanding Ministries – (1) Promotion and (2) Long term care who have both identified road safety as a key issue for injury prevention.

Multi sectoral Involvement

87 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

South Africa

Yes

Multi sectoral Involvement

Yes. The Ministry of Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency, the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Department of Labour, and the Police. Road Traffic Management Yes Corporation (RTMC)

Department for Transport (DfT).

New Zealand National Road Safety Committee (NRSC)

United Kingdom

Jurisdiction

Lead Agency for strategy development

Defined in the 2009-2015 Road Traffic Safety Management Plan

Set out in written memorandum of understanding between the agencies.

Outlined in legislation – Highways Act 1980; other Acts e.g., Road Safety Act 2006

Roles and responsibilities

Table 4

Regular reporting to a joint agency heads meeting is still in the development phase: monthly and quarterly reports are provided to the RTMC Board and Shareholders Committee (the national Minister and provincial Members of the Executive Committee responsible for road traffic). Progress review meetings conducted on a quarterly basis at a high level.

Individual local highway authorities have to report annually on performance to DfT. Overall progress is reported to a joint road safety agency heads meeting and joint Ministers meeting held quarterly.

Reporting

Comment

88 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Swedish Road Administration (SRA).

Office of Road Safety

Road Safety Department, Ministry of Transport

Road Safety Department, Ministry of Transport

LTA and Traffic Police

Sweden

Western Australia

Netherlands

Malaysia

Singapore

Jurisdiction

Lead Agency for strategy development Roles and responsibilities

Table 4

Yes

Yes

Yes

yes

Yes. Plus WA Road Safety Agreed in strategy and Council (Police, Main action plan. Roads, Transport, Education, Health, Local Government, Insurance Commission, RAC + independent Chair) Yes Yes

Yes

Multi sectoral Involvement Progress in is reported annually at a so called “Results Conference”. Any agency, organisation or company working within the field of road safety is encouraged to participate in those follow-ups of progress. Progress regularly reported to the Department of Enterprise but not to joint meeting of Ministers. To Ministers, individually and in joint meetings (of Ministerial Road Safety Council) and to WA Road Safety Council which reports to the Minister for Road Safety. Yes. Monitoring documents are published regularly by the road safety agencies outlining trends and developments, and distributed within government and to non-government organisations. Yes. Road safety KPI’s are reported to heads of agencies annually. Yes

Reporting

Comment

89 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Czech Republic

Poland

Jurisdiction

National Road Safety Yes Council, supported by a secretariat within the Ministry of Infrastructure Ministry of Transport Yes

Lead Agency for strategy development

Multi sectoral Involvement

Unambiguously specified in the National Road Safety Strategy

Yes

Roles and responsibilities

Table 4

Annually to government with a (non-evaluation) discussion once a year in the Parliament. Annual evaluation report is prepared by the Ministry of Transport in co-operation with other bodies and submitted to the government for approval

Reporting

Comment

90 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

91

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Strategy management – Research and development Three key issues of importance are: • longer term and fundamental research needs and priority identification, • shorter term intervention focused research identification and application, • the noteworthy lack of research into institutional management and outcome

facilitation in road safety – the “how to” issues.

Strategy management – Funding This is a threshold issue for the success of any strategy implementation and needs to be addressed as a priority as an integral part of the strategy development process. The issues around funding are detailed in section 1.7.4. Best Practice

Multi – sectoral involvement, a designated lead agency, clear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities and strong coordination arrangements are critical matters for strategy development by government agencies/ departments which sets the scene for successful implementation, which requires clear reporting arrangements which link key agencies and accountability to a Committee of Ministers. Modelling of intervention outcomes which links inputs to expected outcomes when strategies and targets are devised and adopted. Model Jurisdictions: Victoria (Australia), Western Australia, United Kingdom 2.5. EVALUATION AND MONITORING - USE OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (SPI’S)

The quality of monitoring and evaluation of road safety activity, particularly the use of intermediate data to measure change is a vital component of effective management arrangements to progress road safety strategies. Carefully selected intermediate safety outcomes or safety performance indicators are highly effective predictors of fatal and serious injury movements. The Netherlands is looking at integrating EUROAP/IRAP-Road protection scoring into the strategy plan and its implementation with road authorities. The development of a Road Protection Score (RPS) is also monitored in the National Roads Safety Monitor. As a matter of policy, countermeasures are evaluated, with the effects of campaigns targeting seat belt and child restraint use, drink driving and bicycle lighting also being measured.

92

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Safety belt and helmet wearing rates are measured across the USA. Some states have evaluation programs for their strategies and implemented countermeasures. However, there’s a concerted effort to move many of the evaluations into a partnership effort among the states and the federal government. The new Highway Safety Manual (HSM) being developed by AASHTO does require States in the US to develop Safety Performance Functions (SPF). Minnesota will be doing this. For Missouri, key performance indicators are outlined in the Highway Safety Division’s Highway Safety and Performance Plan 34. In Washington State, intermediary goals between the start of the plan and 2030 have been set below the trend shown by the historical data for all of our objective areas. In the update, more sophisticated forecasting methods will be used to set the goals. New Zealand makes the point that the level of monitoring and evaluation of road safety programs varies within the country and there are gaps. This is possibly the situation for most jurisdictions. It does operate ongoing measurement of intermediate safety performance indicators, including mean travel speed, illegal BAC or drugs positive random test rates, seat belt wearing rates, and helmet wearing rates. New Zealand has not traditionally reported action plan progress against agreed timeframes to the National Committee (NRSC) on a regular basis or to a joint agency Ministers’ meeting. In Sweden most countermeasure programs are monitored and evaluated, with thirteen SPI’s defined: Speed compliance (rural roads and urban roads), Driving while impaired, Seat belt usage, Bicycle helmet usage, Vehicle safety, Heavy vehicles, Safer Rural roads, Safer Urban roads (2 indicators), Rapid and Qualitative Emergency Care, Fatigue, and Valuing of road safety by the public. Tasmania and Hungary record mean travel speed and seat belt wearing rates and drink and drug driving offence rates. Hungary records daytime running lights usage, percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit and 85th % speed as well. Canada measures seat belt wearing rates, alcohol related and drugs related driver and rider fatalities and other road users fatally injured in crashes involving drink drivers or riders. Germany monitors seat belt and helmet wearing rates and usage of daylight running lights. The United Kingdom measures mean travel speed, seat belt and helmet wearing rates, excess alcohol detection rates from breath testing and new vehicle safety standard, and is planning to introduce a range of additional performance indicators with its new strategy. Norway measures safety performance indicators including travel speeds, seat belt wearing rates, helmet wearing rates, heavy duty vehicles (technical and administrative conditions), technical condition of the vehicle population, driver training and cyclists  http://www.modot.mo.gov/safety/documents/2009highwaysafetyPLAN.pdf

34

93

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

respect for red lights, excess alcohol detection rates from breath testing and new vehicle safety standards. Western Australia measures mean vehicle speeds, number and percent of drivers and riders tested over the legal BAC limit, number of alcohol retail sales outlets and amount of alcohol sales ($ millions), percent of vehicles measured travelling over posted speed limits, percent of drivers who say they drive over posted speed limits; and percent of drivers, passengers and children using restraints. Victoria measures mean travel speeds, illegal BAC or drugs positive random test rates, seat belt wearing rates, uptake of vehicle safety features. South Africa has agreed and adopted desired maximum offence rates for behavioural compliance issues – such as not more than 5% of vehicles exceeding the speed limit on a road or street, not more than 0.4% of drivers testing positive to illegal blood alcohol levels, a maximum of 1% of red light running at intersections and illegal overtaking across a barrier line, a maximum of 15% of vehicle occupants not wearing seatbelts, and more. Malaysia utilises outcome indicators and has identified a number of intermediate indicators. They are looking to strengthen indicator monitoring and measurement. Poland measures and uses mean travel speed, seat belt wearing rates, excess alcohol detection rates from police controls plus outcomes fatality rates and overall crash outcome severity measures. Since 2005, the Czech Republic has been monitoring safety performance indicators that over speed, seat belts wearing and day running lights. Performance indicators are prepared two times a year. Intermediate outcome performance measures (a key subset of safety performance indicators) are further discussed in section 3.3 in chapter 3. Best Practice

Broad range of SPI’s as for Sweden, which are clearly defined and whose information requirements are readily understood. SPIs which will be most efficient in measuring underlying change in the level of safe operation of the road system and will drive a shift towards Safe System outcomes. Include measurements of public opinion to know what it is at any time in relation to new or proposed initiatives as this can provide guidance about implementation readiness and style to the political level. See appendix J for further information about SPI’s. Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, Norway and Western Australia.

94

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

2.6. CONTENT OF AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY

The development and implementation of effective actions to give effect to the adopted strategy is the core of any strategy. Strategic directions introduced by the responding jurisdictions are set out in following sections of the report based on the survey returns and by drawing on other international and national research based documents. These directions are categorised under the four key elements of the safe system model: • safer infrastructure (safer roads and roadsides); • safer speed limits; • safer vehicles; • safer road users (Alert and complaint road users (including legislation and

enforcement)):

––speed limit compliance, ––reducing impaired driving – alcohol, drugs and fatigue, ––seat belt and helmet wearing, ––countering distraction, ––technology in vehicles (and on road) to address unsafe behaviours; and also the supporting safe system elements including: • effective controls on drivers/riders and vehicles entering the system, • public information and education programs, • improving understanding of crash risk on the network, • improving the responsiveness and effectiveness of emergency medical care for

crash victims.

In addition, most jurisdictions have considered it useful to provide a special focus in any strategy on vulnerable road user safety and heavy vehicle safety given the particular safety challenges applying to these users. These initiatives can be summarised under the following headings: • improving pedestrian safety, • improving cyclist safety, • improving motor cyclist safety, • reducing heavy vehicle crash involvement.

Understanding and addressing the less obvious underlying issues As noted by Rumar (ECMT 2002), there are several levels of road safety problems, ranging from the obvious problems known and seen by many people (for example,

95

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

excessive speeding by young males) to the less known, hidden problems (for example, low level speeding by many people). Rumar states that it is these hidden problems that contribute the most to road trauma. See appendix K for details. 2.7. INITIATIVES – SAFER INFRASTRUCTURE – SAFER ROADS AND ROADSIDES Table 5 Jurisdiction Sweden

Netherlands

United Kingdom

New Zealand

Network wide crash risk assessment Yes

Treatments

• Substantial program to safely separate opposing lanes of traffic on two lane two way rural roads by building median barriers. • Measures to protect vehicle occupants against road side objects by installing side barriers on the roads. • Roundabout construction at intersections. Yes. Sustainable Safety, • Many measures for urban which was developed in the and rural roads derived early 1990s, aims to from the sustainable safety reclassify roads clearly into plan from 1994. three categories (through • I nvestigating use of Euro roads, distributors roads, and RAP RPS especially as a access roads) leading to a means of identification of functional hierarchy of roads higher return locations for and streets. To support the road side treatments. reclassification, the infrastructure for each road category will be unique in character, two urban classes and three rural classes are envisaged. EuroRap assessment and star Specific consideration to rating of the TERN network safer road design is to be is being expanded to the part of the new strategy local road network currently out for consultation. Benchmarking the safety of Developing and the road network – the implementing innovative KiwiRAP programme (part safety engineering solutions of the international series of on State highways – e.g. Road Assessment increased use of wire median Programmes – iRAP). barriers, clearance of hazardous roadside objects.

Comments Strategy is to create a road system which is adapted to the general safety requirement (that is, a system where human errors and mistakes do not lead to fatal or severe injuries).

See SWOV Report Advancing Sustainable Safety, National Road Safety Outlook for 2005 – 2020, (2008)

The Road Safety Foundation is active in the UK and is a supporter of application of the RAP procedures. From Strategy, current approaches include: • evaluation of the safety benefits of road engineering projects; • reviewing management and delivery of road safety on local authority owned roads; • development and implementation of Safety Management Systems guidelines for road controlling authorities.

96

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 5 Jurisdiction Victoria

Norway

Missouri

Minnesota

Hungary

Malaysia

Network wide crash risk assessment Yes, by crash type for complete network. Commenced with run off road crash risk assessment using Netrisk, forerunner to RAP tools.

Treatments • I mprove road side safety by installing barriers, removing road side objects and or sealing shoulders, tactile edgelining, delineation; • intersection improvements including roundabout installation and protected turn provisions with signals and traffic islands.

Comments

Training, development and transmission of operating experience to and from regional staff who analyse risk across the system, identify the potential locations/ lengths for treatment and develop the candidate projects is a substantial exercise requiring commitment over many years. Yes To reduce head-on accidents Increased funding for the NPRA has operation and maintenance, recommended: foot-and bicycle paths and • increased use of central minor traffic safety guardrails on two and three investments (measures after lane roads; and road safety inspections, road • a more systematic approach lighting, upgrading to preventing single junctions, median guard rails accidents (run-off- the-road etc.) on trunk roads. accidents) through traffic safety inspections. N/A Wider line marking, transverse painted stripes, rumble strips, better and brighter signs, improved delineation and paved shoulders, chevron installation on curves for the entire system and edgeline stripes on all state system roads that carry at least 400 vehicles daily. N/A Installation of cable median barrier, wider pavement markings, rumble strips, curve delineation, widening through curves, and rural intersection lighting. Participation in EuroRAP is Traffic engineering Seeking a Forgiving traffic proposed. measures are carried out on environment performance, an ongoing basis. new infrastructure Road safety inspection will investments to reduce road be carried out in the crash likelihood and framework of EuroRAP. outcome severity, road Safety Audit and Inspection, Black Spot Analysis and use of passive safety equipment. Pilot iRAP review of state Road safety audit and safety highway network carried out assessment on existing roads conducted.

97

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 5 Jurisdiction Canada

Network wide crash risk assessment

Treatments

N/A

South Africa N/A

Review of maintenance standards emphasising the establishment of road safety benchmark levels, prioritising gravel roads for alternative surfacing methods/ safety perspective and providing facilities for buses and mini-buses.

Singapore

Include Road Safety Assessments, Black Spot Programme, Hazardous Road Locations treatments, Crash Site Investigation. These road safety schemes are often implemented by the LTA road safety practitioners in consultation with Traffic Management, Traffic & Community Partnership, Road Infrastructure Management and Road Design colleagues.

Comments Introduced a number of specific measures: • Synthesis of Practices for Collision Prone Location Screenings. • http://www.tac-atc.ca/ english/projects/collision. cfm • National guidelines on the use and installation of chevron alignment signs (currently under development). • National guide for the use of bridge barriers and railings (currently under development). Various initiatives are to be completed in the 2009 – 2015 timeframe including implementation of appropriate road safety audit procedures by all road authorities, creating/ upgrading accident information systems to provide hazardous location information, development of an ongoing process to evaluate the costs of accidents and the potential benefits of low cost remedial measures, utilising safety measures/ products that would reduce the risk of night time driving.

98

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 5 Jurisdiction

Network wide crash risk assessment

Poland

EURORAP – European Road Assessment Programme – is being applied in Poland

Czech Republic

EURORAP- European Road Assessment Programme has been applied since 2006.

Treatments GAMBIT outlines the program for safety improvements on National Roads carried out by the General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways. A Dangerous Spots Liquidation Program is carried out by the National Road Safety Council and a National Road Rebuilding Program 2008-2011 is carried out by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Countermeasures are included in the National Road Safety Strategy

Comments

Lack of financial resources limits systematic implementation of improvement measures.

The SUNFLOWER 35 study (2002) identified that the share of overall traffic in each country carried by motorways was: Netherlands - 40%, UK - 20% and Sweden 13.6%. The safety standard in safe system terms of the road network in any country is a key factor in determining road safety performance. The greater the overall share of traffic operating on high standard roads, the lower the overall level of serious casualties. The RAP programs, especially the promising results from iRAP36 , offer new opportunities for road authorities to identify risk and analyse a range of potential treatments to readily establish cost effectiveness. Best Practice

Carrying out network wide crash risk assessments of the road system to identify sections which are higher risk – by crash type. Developing innovative and traditional interventions and prioritising these on a cost effective basis and an appropriate scale of program funding (with supporting evidence) sought.

 SUNflower: A comparative study of the development of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands Matthijs Koornstra (SWOV), David Lynam (TRL), Göran Nilsson (VTI), Piet Noordzij (SWOV), Hans-Erik Pettersson (VTI), Fred Wegman (SWOV), and Peter Wouters (SWOV), SWOV, 2002 36  Vaccines for Roads - iRAP, 2008 35

99

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Refocusing road treatments to give higher safety benefits per unit of cost while assisting capacity. Training staff in the new approaches and revising guidelines and standards in all road related activities to reflect safe system thinking. Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom. 2.8. INITIATIVES – SAFER SPEED LIMITS

As indicated earlier speed limits should not be considered in isolation from infrastructure safety standard but often they are not considered adequately at all. Safe System speeds are described in section 1.4.2 and existing speed limits by jurisdictions are set out in appendix F. The sensitivity of fatal crash risk to travel speed is summarised in appendix L. The work of Göran Nilsson and the recent (2009) work by Rune Elvik 37 on speed and crash risk are essential references for this topic for all practitioners. The importance of integrated actions across disciplines in addressing certain crash types is detailed in appendix M. United Kingdom: The UK carried out a speed review five years ago. Information can be found at the Department for Transport website at Speed management.

Rural roads The new strategy discussion paper identifies rural roads as a particular issue for review of speed limits. Many of these roads are single carriageways where the national speed limit applies (60 mph). It is known that speed is a factor in many of the fatalities, and compliance with the speed limit on these roads is good. The high casualty figures suggest therefore that speed limits are not at the appropriate level on some of these roads. UK research has shown that reducing speed limits on the most dangerous of these roads could save a great number of lives. Existing guidance to highway authorities is to be reviewed, recommending that lower limits are adopted where risks are relatively high and there is evidence that a lower limit would reduce casualties. To support the review process clear comparative information on the safety performance of rural ‘A’ roads will be provided to highway authorities.

 T he Power Model of the relationship between speed and road safety, Update and new analyses, Rune Elvik, 2009

37

100

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Urban roads The UK is proposing to amend guidance on speed limits, recommending that highway authorities, over time, introduce 20 mph zones or limits into streets that are primarily residential in nature, or other areas where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high (for example around schools or markets) and which are not part of any major through route. In Sweden, vast changes to the speed limit system are currently being implemented. The criteria for speed limit setting is now based on the inherent safety level of the road. This impacts both rural and urban roads all over the country. The effects of changing rural interstate speed limits in the United States38

Up until 1973, individual States could set their own limits on rural interstate highways, which were generally above 55 mph. In 1973, and in response to a national oil crisis, the US set a National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) of 55 mph on these roads. Then in 1987, the NMSL was raised to 65 mph, for certain rural highways, with 40 States over the subsequent years raising their limits to the new maximum. In 1995, the US Congress repealed the NMSL, allowing States once more to set their own limits. Many jurisdictions promptly increased the maximum permissible limits, generally to either 70 or 75 mph. Each change in the NMSL was accompanied by a series of evaluation studies. As a broad summary, the 1973 reduction in the NMSL resulted in reduced fatalities, the 1987 increase in the NMSL resulted in increased fatalities and the 1995 repeal resulted in increased fatalities for those States that chose to increase the maximum limit above 65 mph. One of the more sophisticated evaluations of the safety impact of changing speed levels was conducted by Patterson et al (2002), focusing on the 1995 decision to allow States to set their own limits on rural interstate highways. Based on statistical modelling, it was estimated that in the subsequent four years, States that raised the NMSL to 70 mph had a 35% higher fatality level compared to States that did not change their limits – whereas States with a 75 mph limit had a 38% increase in fatalities. It was estimated that an extra 1,900 people died in association with the 1995 change, with the increased speed limit considered the most likely causal factor. In Minnesota some two-lane roads had speed limits higher than 55 mph before the national speed limit was enacted. 3 years ago, the State decided to raise the speed limit on some of these roads to 60 mph (in order to speed up traffic) and coupled it  Patterson, T. L., Frith, W. J., & Small, M. W. (2000) and Patterson, T. L., Frith, W. J., Povey, L. J. & Keall, M. D (2002)

38

101

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

with aggressive speed enforcement. Outcomes for use in this Report in terms of effects on mean speeds have not been advised. Missouri and Washington State advise that no new initiatives have been introduced in recent years for reviewing speed limits. In Norway speed limit criteria have been a matter of public discussion for many years. New speed limit criteria in urban areas were implemented some years ago. New limit criteria for rural roads are being considered. The development of the Canadian Guide for Establishing Speed Limits (Transportation Association of Canada) was considered an important initiative in Canada. In Victoria the Strategy is to set speed limits according to the safety standards of road and roadsides and locations with high pedestrian and/or cyclist activity, and review limits at higher risk intersections. South Africa has prepared a National standardised procedure for the rational setting of speed limits. Best Practice

Jurisdictions should carefully examine good practice and give effect to a safe system approach by moving over time to a safe system based set of speed limits. The UK advise that the characteristics of single carriageway roads vary greatly and can offer very different levels of safety. Some are well engineered; others are not suitable for high speed limits. For this reason it is important to get the right speed limit for each road. Good practice is urban travel speeds/ speed limits of 50 km/h on arterial roads, and 40 or 30 km/h on residential streets and in pedestrian areas. For rural areas, limits of 70 km/h on 2 lane 2 way highways without median barriers should apply and up to 100 km/h on high quality motorways. Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway Strategy Gaps

For many countries there is little evidence that speed limits are considered to be an important safety element and management tool. There is little evidence that limits are reviewed to take into account the effect of abutting development and on-road environment on overall travel crash risk levels.

102

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

2.9. INITIATIVES – SAFER VEHICLES SUPPLIED TO THE MARKET

Minnesota and Washington State both advise that vehicle safety is not a major focus at State level. At a national level USDOT has the IntelliDrive initiative that works in cooperation with auto manufacturers. In Norway the Road Authority’s (NPRA) official website promotes the results from EuroNCAP’s crash tests and recommends to the public that they should buy only those new cars with a 4 or 5 star EuroNCAP rating. NPRA annually calculates the distribution (on a EuroNCAP star ratings basis) of new cars sold into the Norwegian market. NPRA in cooperation with the Norwegian Council for Road Safety has taken initiatives to bring more attention to employment related safe road use including development, adoption and promotion of a safety charter for employment related journeys involving the NPRA, business groups and other organisations and purchases of safe transport services. The Canadian government influences vehicle safety by developing and enforcing vehicle safety standards applying to all new vehicles that are manufactured or imported for use in Canada. Research and development work is carried out that drives the development and modification of new vehicle safety standards and regulations, and a safety regime is in place consisting of vehicle compliance testing, defect investigation and enforcement measures. An awareness program to increase consumer demand for such technology is proposed. Victoria, Australia, has adopted a range of measures to improve vehicle safety. These include: • accelerating introduction of vehicle safety features through promotion of these (eg.,

electronic stability control, side head protecting air bags and whiplash protective seating). See the crash test website www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au; • supporting and promoting improved vehicle crashworthiness levels through the ANCAP ratings system; • promoting vehicle safety of used cars through the Used Car Safety Ratings published by road authorities and MUARC Research Centre www.vicroads.vic.gov.au; • promoting selection of safer vehicles by corporate fleets, including through OH&S policies; • promoting seat belt wearing and retrofitting of integrated seat belts in heavy vehicles; • implementing systems that will allow Intelligent Speed Assist technology to function; • introducing a regulatory requirement that all new vehicles manufactured after 31 Dec. 2010 are to be fitted with ESC and all new vehicles manufactured after 31 Dec. 2011 are to be fitted with head protecting technology in order to meet registration requirements.

103

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The United Kingdom fully supports EuroNCAP vehicle testing. New Zealand has operated television campaigns since 2007 encouraging purchasers to choose ESC and Side Curtain Airbags when buying a new car. A website has been established that guides vehicle purchasers to make safe purchasing decisions. The website includes ANCAP and EuroNCAP crash test ratings for vehicles since 2000, as well as Used Car Safety Ratings. The web reference is www.rightcar.govt.nz. Government purchase guidelines recommend a minimum ANCAP four star rating for vehicles and also that additional safety features and higher ANCAP ratings should be considered where available. In South Africa special road safety features were required to be incorporated in the new taxis compared to the existing ones – as part of a Minibus recapitalisation project. Sweden focuses very directly upon the development of, and support for, the EuroNCAP system (that is one of the RSPI’s included in the management by objectives system supporting progress towards the road safety target in 2020). A collaboration between the SRA and Volvo operates in order to make sure that new car technology for reading (for example) speed signs is compatible with the SRA standards for speed signs etc. Since January 2009 the law obliges all governmental agencies to follow agreed standards when purchasing vehicles. The standard is that new purchased cars should have, at a minimum, 32.5 credits in the EuroNCAP rating system. In 2012, 75 % of all government agency owned or leased cars should have alcolocks fitted. Malaysia utilises UNECE regulations which the Road Transport Department oversee and (through the MIROS Research Agency) is developing MYVAP – Malaysian Vehicle Assessment program – to strengthen vehicle safety. In Singapore all new make and model of vehicles need to be type-approved to meet necessary safety standards such as UNECE or equivalent. Vehicles that comply with internationally-recognised vehicle safety standards such as those adopted by the USA (FMVSS), Japan (JSR) and the European Union (EU) countries, or their equivalent are accepted. For vehicles produced by new vehicle manufacturers, Singapore require information such as the manufacturers’ background, design, manufacturing and testing facilities, quality management system, and production volume for evaluation.

104

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

Jurisdictions should actively promote and provide information to consumers about NCAP crash test results and highly effective vehicle safety features such as ESC and head protecting air bags. Government vehicle purchases should require 5 star NCAP test standard, alcohol interlocks and capacity for ISA in vehicles. Governments should require new vehicles registered from a certain date to have key features fitted – currently ESC, head protecting air bags and in future, alcolocks, ISA, and other emerging technologies (such as lane departure warning, intelligent cruise control, crash avoidance braking and more). Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, Norway and Victoria Strategy Gaps

While many jurisdictions indicated awareness of the important role of vehicle safety technologies, the lack of specific detail in strategies would appear to indicate that there is insufficient in depth understanding of the relative value of those potential features. It will be critical that this understanding is increased as quickly as possible so that the necessary advocacy within government and with the community and industry can be carried out at sufficient intensity to bring forward the features which will deliver the greatest safety benefits. Any road safety strategy should not only fully provide for opportunities available today in the vehicle safety area, but should consider what is likely to become available in the next 5 years which will improve travel safety. 2.10. SAFER ROAD USERS – ALERT AND COMPLIANT ROAD USERS

Strategy approaches to Road User behavioural improvement utilised in various jurisdictions are set out below. Initiatives in Missouri are outlined in the Highway Safety Division’s Highway Safety and Performance Plan, which can be found at http://www.modot.mo.gov/ safety/documents/2009highwaysafetyPLAN.pdf and Missouri’s Blueprint to Arrive Alive, at http://www.savemolives.com/documents/BlueprintforSaferRoadways2008.pdf

105

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

In Norway the NPRA recommend that the control activity on the roads should be strengthened in order to monitor road traffic compliance with statutes and regulations. Victoria’s road safety Strategy “Arrive Alive 2008 – 2017” and action plan initiatives can be accessed at www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au. Victoria has leading programs in; enforcement and deterrence of speeding, drink driving (including an extensive alcohol interlock program) and drug driving; graduated licensing for novice drivers; and motorcycle safety programs. Numerous initiatives in all road user areas are employed by local authorities in the United Kingdom. New Zealand utilises extensive public education via media to encourage safe road user behaviour, at both a national and regional level. Organisations such as the Road Safety Trust also contribute to this effort (the trust has run campaigns on driver distraction for the last two years). South Africa supports road traffic law enforcement by road safety education, communication and awareness programmes. Enforcement technology introduction is promoted for speed, alcohol and other compliance issues. Freight & public passenger transport operator self-regulation projects are encouraged. Hand held cellular phone use while driving is prohibited. A national road traffic law enforcement code for traffic officers is proposed which will include a strict performance measurement system for individual officers. Points will be earned for enforcement of identified critical offences that contribute most to the occurrence of road crashes.

2.10.1. Speed limit compliance Washington State utilises photo radar enforcement, high visibility enforcement patrols, traffic calming devices, education targeted at demographics likely to speed. Norway has a robust speed compliance program with an increased contribution from the police, strengthening speed enforcement. Hungary has introduced objective responsibility or vehicle owner – onus for offences, increasing the number of fixed and mobile speed-cameras and introduction of automated processing. Victoria relies on extensive use of mobile speed cameras operated in a covert manner plus fixed cameras on major country freeways and at intersections (with red light cameras), plus a pilot point to point camera system operating on one rural freeway combined with low operating tolerance for speeds above the limit and strong penalties for non-compliance, supported by extensive publicity campaigns supporting enforcement and detailing risks- have led to very high levels of speed compliance by motorists.

106

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Case Study: The National Safety Camera Programme in Great Britain

Speed and red-light enforcement cameras (referred to collectively as ‘safety cameras’) were first deployed in the early 1990s. It was soon concluded that, while cameras were effective at reducing crashes, the full benefits were not being realised due to budgetary constraints, i.e. insufficient funding to cover installation and running costs. The same study noted that these constraints could be removed by allowing local road safety partnerships to recover their enforcement and other related costs from fines incurred by offenders. In 1998, the national government decided to allow local road safety partnerships to recover their enforcement costs, subject to strict criteria to prevent abuse. In 2000, the new system was introduced for eight pilot areas, with a national programme subsequently established. In December 2005, an independent research report analysed the effectiveness of the system in 38 areas over the first four years, from April 2000 to March 2004 (PA Consulting Group and UCL 2005). • Vehicle speeds at camera sites dropped by around 6%. At new sites, there

was a 31% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. At fixed sites, there was a 70% reduction and at mobile sites there was an 18% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (i.e. 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 91% at fixed camera sites, and 36% at mobile camera sites. • Cameras were associated with a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean). Overall, 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (32% fewer). There were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004. • There was an association between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs. • There was a positive benefit to cost ratio of around 2.7:1. In the fourth year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £258 million compared to enforcement costs of around £96 million. The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level, that have shown support consistently from at least 70% of respondents.

107

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

In New Zealand, advertising campaigns are backed up and reinforced by a robust programme of Police enforcement targeting speeding. In Sweden an action plan for increased speed compliance is in development by the SRA and the Swedish Transport Agency in cooperation.

2.10.2. Reducing impaired driving – alcohol Illegal concentrations of alcohol are found in the blood of drivers involved in some 30% or more of fatal crashes in most counties. This is a disturbingly high figure and indicates the role that inappropriate use of alcohol has on road injury and death. It demands serious attention. Along with speed it is the greatest factor in fatal crashes. Washington State operates statewide, high-visibility enforcement and media campaigns; has created sobriety checkpoints; expanded judicial and prosecutorial education; and developed a system of centralized screening, assessment, referral and monitoring of hard-core driving under the influence (DUI) offenders. The objectives relating to alcohol and drug related impaired driving will be separated in the forthcoming updated strategy plan. Norway has reduced drink/drug driving through strengthened police enforcement. Hungary has in place a “Zero tolerance” against drinking and driving. The alcohol limit is zero, and the driving license will be withdrawn on the spot if the driver is under the influence of alcohol. Canada is considering what it can do to increase deterrence of drink driving which is a substantial problem, with illegal alcohol involvement in over 30% of fatal crashes and a blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for the Federal law of 0.8% g/l, is giving preliminary consideration to Random Breath Testing legislation; has introduced a Zero BAC level for new/young drivers; is penalising non-compliance with a demand for a breath test at the same level as a conviction; and has introduced escalating sentences for repeat offenders and vehicle impoundment. In Victoria, Australia, the new strategy seeks to achieve increased enforcement, ensure routine blood sampling of all injured drivers in crashes, extend the large alcohol interlock program to young and inexperienced motorists and strongly encourage voluntary take up of interlocks, encourage vehicle manufacturers to include alcohol interlocks in new vehicles, examine tougher sanctions for recidivist drink drivers including extension of vehicle immobilisation provisions and encourage responsible alcohol serving practices and workplace policies that reduce the likelihood of drink driving.

108

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Case Study – Drink Driving Enforcement Effectiveness - Victoria

Major initiatives to tackle drink driving and speeding in the 1991 to 1993 (and after) period had a dramatic effect on Victoria’s road toll. A MUARC Research Report “Strategic Principles of Drink Driving Enforcement”, in 2006, refers to evaluation work by Newstead S.et al., in 1995 which calculated the contribution to the reduced road toll from the speed enforcement and associated publicity activity and from the expanded drink driving and associated publicity activity from 1991 onwards. The aggregate contributions of these measures were a 25% to 28 % reduction in fatalities over the 1991 to 1993 period. Both Reports are referenced [39] and [40]. Switzerland, in 2005, reduced the allowable BAC level from 0.8 g/l to 0.5 g/l and introduced random breath testing. In 2008, 16% of fatal crashes involved a driver under the influence of alcohol (including those with BAC below the legal maximum). (IRTAD) This is a very positive result. The UK are reviewing their BAC limit and drink driving policies generally. Sweden, Norway, Japan and Poland have low legal BAC limits – 0.2 g/l for Sweden, Norway and Poland and 0.3 g/l for Japan. Since 2006 police in Sweden have increased drastically the number of police controls, reaching over 2 million breath tests in 2007. Alco-lock programmes for drink-driving offenders have also been introduced. The mandation of alco-locks in certain professional traffic categories is being examined. Unambiguous legislation prohibiting drinking before and during driving was introduced in the Czech Republic in 1960. The combination of police enforcement and public campaigns emphasises the social unacceptance of drink driving. In the United Kingdom, The Academy of Medical Sciences Report “Calling Time – The Nation’s drinking as a major health issue” (2004), drew attention to the change in alcohol consumption in the UK from 1960 to 2002 (Tighe, 2003). (See figure 3, following page). The international literature shows clearly that server training and clear house rules on refusing service to those who are already intoxicated can be effective in reducing rates of service, and of such sequels as drink-driving casualties, if such programmes are backed up by regulatory enforcement (Babor et al., 2003). There are also promising results from a controlled trial of staff training in reducing pub-related violence (Graham et al., 2003, and further). The Report has considered  Delaney A, Diamantopolou K, Cameron M. Strategic Principles of Drink Driving Enforcement Monash University Accident Research Centre, 2006 40  Newstead SV, Cameron MH, Gantzer S and Vulcan, AP. Modelling of some major factors influencing road trauma trends in Victoria 1989 93. Report No. 74, Monash University Accident Research Centre, 1995 39

109

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

above only a limited range of the whole spectrum of potential measures to reduce rates of alcohol-related problems. It has focused particularly on strategies where there is the greatest evidence of effectiveness: price and taxes; limiting hours and days of sale and otherwise restricting availability; drink-driving countermeasures, particularly (lowering) the legal blood alcohol level and (increasing) random blood alcohol testing (of drivers); and harm reduction in drinking environments. Even this limited range, however, extends across the jurisdiction of many government departments and different levels of government, etc. But such a broad reach is necessary to build an effective strategy to reduce alcohol-related problems. The impacts of alcohol on health are various, with both occasions of intoxication and inveterate heavy drinking playing important roles. To reduce the burden of alcohol on British health, there is a need to press on several fronts: the prevention of intoxication in hazardous situations (such as before driving) and the reduction of intoxication goes hand in hand with the urgent need to reduce the overall level of drinking (figure 3).

figure 3 – consuption of alcohol in the uk (per person aged 15+) relative to its price 1960-2002 Best Practice

Low legal BAC limits (0.2 g/l) for all drivers and riders, random breath testing of drivers and riders, interlocks for all offenders, for public transport vehicles and heavy vehicles and requirements for interlocks in all vehicles. The attractiveness of alcohol needs to be examined (see the UK Academy of Medical Sciences Report referred to above) and measures such as tax incentives, (including lower sales taxes on lower strength alcohol compared to those on higher strength alcohol) access restrictions and responsible serving practice obligations considered in order to limit consumption or at least reduce it from current levels in most countries. Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, Norway and Victoria

110

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Strategy Gaps

Mandation of interlocks in all vehicles, mandatory interlocks for life for repeat drink driving offenders.

2.10.3. Reducing impaired driving – drugs Canada (and many jurisdictions) has introduced measures to counter persons suspected of being under the influence of drugs when driving. These include the Drug Recognition Expert Program; Penalty for refusal of the demand for sample at same level as a conviction; Public awareness for sub targets; All drugs to be targeted, not just illicit, in order to combat impaired driving – not as a tool in the ’war’ on drugs. Victoria was the first jurisdiction internationally to introduce random roadside saliva testing of drivers/riders for certain drugs – since 2004. (Testing for the active component of cannabis, ecstacy, methamphetamine). The number of tests has steadily increased since then and the program seeks to achieve a general deterrence effect. Western Australia is increasing the level of roadside saliva tests to be conducted by Police. Research is taking place in Sweden. Best Practice

Random roadside saliva testing for certain drugs. General deterrence program. Model Jurisdictions: Victoria Strategy Gaps

Test equipment for drugs in addition to cannabis, methamphetamine and ecstasy.

2.10.4. Reducing impaired driving – fatigue Washington State strategies to counter fatigue include: shoulder rumble strips; improved rest areas for drivers; development of a drowsy driver awareness and prevention program and encouraging employers to offer it to employees who rotate shifts or work nights; development of education campaigns for high-risk populations. Victoria seeks to incorporate fatigue avoidance practices within corporate OHS guidelines, and to effectively enforce “Chain of Responsibility” laws for the heavy vehicle industry, including suppliers, clients in the logistics chain. Other measures include developing a roadside test for fatigue, carrying out improvements to address run-off-road crashes and head-on crashes through infrastructure measures such as:

111

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

tactile centre-lines and edge lines, safety barriers, clearance of roadside hazards and texture changes on road surfaces to provide warnings to motorists – and carrying out improvements to (and providing additional) rest stop facilities. New technologies to detect fatigue are to be trialled and if proved effective, their use will be promoted to vehicle fleet and private vehicle purchasers. Strategy Gaps

Fatigue remains a substantial concern in most jurisdictions especially for heavy vehicle drivers. However, the range of available countermeasures appears limited with regulatory regimes requiring effective monitoring equipment to ensure compliance is effective. Infrastructure measures to prevent head on and run off road crashes will be important countermeasures on freight routes.

2.10.5. Seat belt and helmet wearing Washington State use statewide high-visibility enforcement and media campaigns; Target efforts towards sub-populations (as shown through research) of non-seat belt users; Target children 7-15 years of age to ensure they are buckled up properly. There is not a strategy for increased helmet wearing as not wearing a helmet is illegal, and readily enforced. Norway has effectively increased seat belt and helmet wearing over the years. Canada is introducing a further range of measures to increase belt and helmet wearing including; Examining gearbox interlock in vehicles if belt not used; Increasing public awareness; Demerit points incurred by driver for non-wearing for all seating positions; Drivers responsible for children being appropriately belted; Specific enforcement campaigns. Mandatory use of helmets for child cyclists, or all cyclists in some jurisdictions. In Sweden, the number of new car sales with seat belt reminders is monitored as are the seat belt usage via annual surveys. For bicycle helmet wearing, there are campaigns at the municipal level to encourage voluntary wearing (depending how much of an issue this is for respective municipality). Bicycle helmet usage is monitored by annual surveys. In the Czech Republic, the introduction of demerit points for not wearing seat belts supported by massive public campaigns has increased wearing rates up to 92%. In Singapore, in addition to regular helmet wearing enforcement efforts, traffic police check that helmets are of the approved type and interact with motorcycle shops to remind them that it is an offence to sell helmets that are not the approved

112

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

type. Traffic Police also engage with motorcycle clubs, tertiary institutions and companies employing delivery riders to disseminate road safety messages that emphasise the importance of wearing protective helmets. Strategy Gaps

Gearbox interlocks for vehicles if belt not used. Mandatory use of helmets for all cyclists.

2.10.6. Countering distraction Currently, Missouri has introduced legislation prohibiting texting while driving for drivers age 21 and under, while Washington State has strengthened the conditions of the intermediate driver’s license law to reduce distracting activities for young drivers. Norway has implemented a number of measures to reduce distraction, including measures to counter fatigue while in Canada, bans on handheld phones apply in some jurisdictions and there is a ban on any technology use by drivers in the learner driver phase. Victoria has adopted legislation prohibiting any hand held use of a phone for any purpose while driving, conducted public campaigns promoting risks of distracting activities, and is engaging vehicle manufacturers in relation to design principles for in vehicle technology, including awareness of driver distraction in the driver licensing processes. New Zealand legislation came into effect in November 2009 which prohibits the use of hand held mobile phones while driving. Strategy Gaps

Measures to counter distraction await better information about certain distracting behaviours and their crash risk (which is expected to flow from the US - and EU - instrumented vehicle studies now in progress) and until means of achieving compliance with any carefully drafted future legislation in response to an understanding of these relationships are developed.

2.10.7. Technology to be required in vehicles (and on road) to address unsafe behaviours Washington State considers that while these opportunities are a Federal not a State matter, public demand needs to be encouraged from a grass roots level by the States. Norway has an ITS-strategy which recommends ambitious objectives when it comes to development and use of devices such as: Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA), linked automatic speed enforcement (multiple speed cameras), alcolocks, dynamic speed limits, electronic edge and centre line warning systems.

113

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Canada has commenced an ISA experiment and is involved in an international project looking at OEM interlock systems. It is also examining seat belt interlock systems which delay the starting of the vehicle, reduced top speed of vehicles and is examining technology which could block cell phone use while the vehicle is in motion. Victoria is taking measures that will increase the proportion of vehicles with intelligent speed assist (ISA) (see box below) and is considering top speed limiting devices to assist motorists to comply with speed limits. In New Zealand, neither ISA nor alcohol interlocks are currently required technology in vehicles, however both of these features are being considered under the new road safety strategy Safer Journeys which will come into effect from 2010. Sweden is investigating mandatory introduction of alco-locks in certain professional transport vehicles. INTELLIGENT SPEED ADAPTATION (ISA)

Also known as Intelligent Speed Assistance, is any system that constantly monitors vehicle speed and the local speed limit on a road and implements an action when the vehicle is detected to be exceeding the speed limit. This can be done through an advisory system, where the driver is warned, or through an intervention system where the driving systems of the vehicle are controlled automatically to reduce the vehicle’s speed. Intelligent speed adaptation uses information about the road on which the vehicle travels to make decisions about what the correct speed should be. This information can be obtained through use of a digital maps incorporating roadway coordinates as well as data on the speed zoning for that roadway at that location, through general speed zoning information for a defined geographical area (e.g., an urban area which has a single defined speed limit), or through feature recognition technology that detects and interprets speed limit signage. ISA systems are designed to detect and alert a driver when a vehicle has entered a new speed zone, when variable speed zones are in force (e.g., variable speed limits in school zones that apply at certain times of the day and only on certain days), and when temporary speed zones are imposed (such as speed limit changes in adverse weather or during traffic congestion, at accident scenes, or near roadworks). Many ISA systems will also provide information about locations where hazards may occur (e.g., in high pedestrian movement areas, railway level crossings or railroad grade crossings, schools, hospitals, etc.) or where enforcement actions is indicated (e.g., speed camera and red light camera locations). The purpose of ISA is to assist the driver in keeping to the lawful speed limit at all times, particularly as they pass through different speed ‘zones’. This is particularly useful when drivers are in unfamiliar areas or when they pass through areas where variable speed limits are used.

114

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Most motorists do not appreciate the extra risks involved in travelling just a few km/h over the speed limit. Most think that the risk of a casualty crash is doubled if you are travelling at least 25 km/h over the speed limit. Research has found that that, in urban areas, the risk of a casualty crash is doubled for each 5 km/h over the limit. So travelling at 70 km/h in a 60 km/h zone quadruples the risk of a crash in which someone is hospitalised. As a result, it is estimated that about 10% of casualties could be prevented if the large group of motorists who routinely travel at up to 10 km/h over the limit were encouraged to obey the speed limits. About 20% of casualties could be prevented if all vehicles complied with the speed limits. Savings in fatal crashes would be larger. “Minor” speeding therefore makes up a large proportion of preventable road trauma. It is difficult for enforcement methods alone to have an effect on this minor speeding. An added problem is that even motorists who want to obey the speed limits (to keep their life, licence or livelihood) have difficulty doing so in modern cars on city roads. This is where an ISA system comes into its own. The two types of ISA systems, passive and active, differ in that passive systems simply warn the driver of the vehicle travelling at a speed in excess of the speed limit, while active systems intervene and automatically correct the vehicle’s speed to conform with the speed limit. Passive systems are generally driver advisory systems: They alert the driver to the fact that they are speeding, provide information as to the speed limit, and allow the driver to make a choice on what action should be taken. These systems usually display visual or auditory cues, such as auditory and visual warnings and may include tactile cues such as a vibration of the accelerator pedal. Some passive ISA technology trials have used vehicle modified to provide haptic feedback, wherein the accelerator pedal becomes more resistant to movement (i.e., harder to push down) when the vehicle travels over the speed limit. Active ISA systems actually reduce or limit the vehicle’s speed automatically by manipulating the engine and/or braking systems. Most active ISA systems provide an override system so that the driver can disable the ISA, if necessary, on a temporary basis. An often unrecognised feature of both active and passive ISA systems is that they can serve as on-board vehicle data recorders, retaining information about vehicle location and performance for later checking and fleet management purpose.

115

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The following table is extracted from the UK DfT “Road Safety Strategy Scoping Document”41 (2009) and focuses on the vehicle technologies which could affect driver behaviour and overall fatalities positively. Table 6 System

Change in fatalities %

Electronic Stability Control

-16.6

Emergency Braking

-7.0

Lane Keeping Support

-15.2

Driver Drowsiness Monitoring and Warning

-5.0

Speed Alert

-8.7

Best Practice

Encouraging provision of voluntary ISA (a step up from speed assist to provide reduced crash risk from 8% to 40% depending on the travel speed/ speed limit) and alcohol interlocks in all new vehicles, reducing top speed of vehicles, examining introduction of lane keeping support, and emergency collision avoidance braking in all new vehicles Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, Canada and Norway Strategy Gaps

Encouraging introduction of drowsiness warning systems, mandation of limited top vehicle speeds and power, mandation of lane departure technology, ISA, alcolocks and emergency collision avoidance braking.

2.10.8. Initiatives - To improve pedestrian safety Minnesota operates safe routes to school programs and is working on educational material about pedestrian safety for other agencies/coalitions to use Missouri targets countermeasures in the higher pedestrian activity areas, for instance, the St. Louis and Kansas City regions. Washington State has a focus on school children; with education efforts seeking improved public understanding of Washington’s crosswalk laws and enforcement. This enforcement is to be expanded and safer crossings provided. Moves to reduce pedestrian exposure to vehicular  DfT, UK, Road Safety Research Report No. 105, Road Safety Strategy Beyond 2010: A Scoping Study, TRL, 2009

41

116

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

traffic, to improve sight distances and/or visibility between motor vehicles and pedestrians and to reduce vehicle speeds are also priorities. Norway has allocated increased funds for foot path construction. Canada is seeking the Safe Accommodation of Vulnerable Road Users and Large Commercial Vehicles in Urban Areas42. Public awareness on sharing the road with cars is to be improved and enhanced enforcement programs for disobeying traffic rules for pedestrians are being implemented. In Victoria the “Arrive Alive 2008 – 2017 Strategy” notes issues which are critical to improving road safety for pedestrians and seeks to improve existing pedestrian infrastructure, install traffic calming measures, lower speed limits, conduct public education campaigns to discourage purchase of large, aggressive vehicles, and to increase take up of vehicles with features that do less harm to pedestrians, improve compliance with road rules by all road users using enforcement and education, review penalties for illegal pedestrian behaviour, review Australian (vehicle) Design Rules to improve vehicle safety standards to reduce pedestrian crashes and influence land use planning to facilitate safe travel for pedestrians. Improvement in child pedestrian safety in the life of the current strategy has been a particular achievement in the United Kingdom. Some of the major initiatives introduced to improve pedestrian safety can be found at the following links. Let’s decide – Walk wise, Step Forward guidelines. New Zealand focuses on promoting good practice guidelines for walking and cycling infrastructure and for ‘share the road’ campaigns. Guidelines and information guides have been developed to assist road controlling authorities in improving pedestrian (and cyclist) safety. Other initiatives include neighbourhood accessibility plans (formerly known as safer routes to school). The planned strategy in South Africa seeks to reduce pedestrian fatalities in line with national targets, through identifying pedestrian facilities needs, correctly recording pedestrian crash details, educating drivers about pedestrian safety issues, enforcing the give way to pedestrians law for drivers at pedestrian crossings, educating pedestrians to use crossings and sidewalks and public transport operators about safe off-loading/loading of passengers, focusing on intoxicated walking (alcohol & drugs) and encouraging improved pedestrian visibility. In Sweden increased safety for pedestrians relies upon safer road design by the municipalities (as the road administrators for all the urban roads). Reduced speed limits – 30 km/h in cities – have reduced fatality risk.

42

 http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/projects/vulnerable.cfm

117

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The Czech Republic introduced new legislation in 2001 giving priority to pedestrians on crossings. Police enforcement, public information and implementation of traffic calming measures on urban roads have resulted in pedestrian fatalities being halved over the period 2002 to 2006. Malaysia has major challenges with extensive linear development in place on roadsides and with many cases of access severance due to interurban roads being upgraded from single carriageway to multiple lane dual carriageways. Road shoulders are being upgraded in rural areas and walkways extended in urban areas to provide for improved pedestrian safety. Singapore utilises a range of engineering measures such as Dashed Pedestrian Crossing Line (DPCL), Pedestrian Crossing Ahead Markings (PCAM), Integrated Pedestrian Crossing Signals and Intelligent Road Studs (IRS) to improve pedestrian safety. Traffic Police conduct enforcement to deter jaywalking and supplement this with public education, targeted at both the elderly and school-going children. In 2008, Traffic Police distributed about 25,000 handy bags carrying the road safety message “Be Seen, Be Safe, Walk Bright” to senior citizens through a series of Community Safety & Security Programme presentations and worked with groups such as the Singapore Action Group of Elders to reach out to the aged about road safety. In 2009, Traffic Police launched a Road Safety Programme specially tailored for elderly pedestrians. Educational materials, bright handy bags and tissue packs carrying the message “Take it slow and easy. Be seen, be safe.” were distributed to 2,000 senior citizens. A new road safety video entitled “The Golden Years, Safety First” was produced in different languages to showcase practical road safety tips and was the basis for TV commercials aired in conjunction with Senior Citizens’ Week. Best Practice

Encouraging safer driver and pedestrian behaviours, lowering speeds, safer vehicles for pedestrian crashes, targeting areas of disadvantage and focusing on child and elderly pedestrian safety. Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, Norway and Netherlands Strategy Gaps

Addressing intoxicated walking/ inappropriate serving of alcohol from licensed premises.

118

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

2.10.9. Initiatives – To improve cyclist safety Washington State continues to adopt policies to better accommodate bicyclists on all public roads, builds an inventory of existing bicycle infrastructure to identify deficiencies, and encourages local planners to consider non-motorized transit options. Norway has increased funds for dedicated bicycle paths. Canada is promoting mandatory bike helmets, either for kids or all riders; experiencing development of increased dedicated bike routes in some municipalities; conducting public awareness campaigns; and carrying out selected Traffic Enforcement Program campaigns. Victoria has increased off road cycling paths and facilities that separate cyclists from motorised traffic, has reviewed legislation to ensure that cyclists can be charged with serious traffic offences similar to those applied to drivers and is seeking to influence land use planning to facilitate safe travel for cyclists. For information about cycling strategies in the United Kingdom, visit the Cycling and motorcycling section of the DfT website. New Zealand is funding programs including Bike Wise and Feet First weeks (integrates promotion with safety) and skills training. The Czech Republic introduced a National Strategy for Development of Cycling in 2004. Following this strategy, numerous activities have been undertaken including construction of cycling infrastructure. South Africa has developed and introduced effective communication and education campaigns and projects directed at cyclist and driver road use behaviour. Sweden supports activities and campaigns at municipal level (depending how substantial the issue is for respective municipality) and monitors bicycle helmet usage via annual observations. Some municipalities are developing their city planning provisions, taking more account of cyclists needs for safe travel. Best Practice

Mandatory helmet wearing, separation of vehicles from cyclists (off road paths), especially where vehicles can travel at speeds above 40 km/h, land use planning and retrofitting to provide for safe cycle travel. Model Jurisdictions: Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. Strategy Gaps

Continuing encouragement of cyclists sharing the road with vehicles where vehicle speeds are greater than 40 km/h.

119

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

2.10.10. Initiatives – To improve motorcyclist safety Minnesota do not have a mandatory helmet law (it was repealed) and do not foresee getting this changed anytime soon. Missouri has recently completed a motorcycle safety assessment. It hopes to use some of the identified concerns to offset increases in serious casualties. Washington State has increased the number of required safety classes and developed public safety campaigns. It has supported specialized law enforcement training in motorcycle DUI detection and motorcycle crash investigation. In Norway the NPRA have started a four year research programme aiming to raise knowledge about high risk groups of road users including motorcyclists. Measures to improve safety of “high risk groups” will have high priority in the 2010 – 2019 period. Canada has mandatory helmet use; recommended rider training; and mandatory graduated licensing in some jurisdictions. Malaysia has constructed separate lanes for motorcyclists on many carriageways with substantial improvement in operating safety. This is complemented by extensive enforcement and advocacy programs to promote helmet wearing. Singapore utilises engineering measures such as road resurfacing to increase skid resistance and requires all motorcycle headlamps to be automatically switched on at all times. Traffic Police conduct regular educational programmes targeted at motorcyclists to support enforcement activities and have strengthened the training programs for learner riders to emphasise risk reduction while riding. Victoria – Motorcycle (Powered Two Wheeler) Safety Strategies

In Victoria considerable progress has been made in addressing a range of priority safety issues for PTW (powered two wheeler) riders and pillion passengers under the Victorian Motorcycle Road Safety Strategy 2002–2007, and through arrive alive! Victoria’s Road Safety Strategy 2002–2007. This has contributed to a 31% reduction to end 2009 in PTW rider and pillion passenger fatalities in Victoria since the introduction of the Victorian Motorcycle Road Safety Strategy 2002–2007, even though there has been an increase in PTW sales and registrations. Elsewhere in Australia, rider and pillion passenger deaths increased over the same period. In 2002, a Motorcycle Safety Levy was incorporated into the Transport Accident Commission injury insurance premium on PTWs of 126cc capacity and over as a road safety initiative. The levy has enabled funding of projects that have complemented a broad range of PTW safety initiatives. This funding is to continue to be used to deliver many of the actions contained in the plan.

120

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Significant achievements to date have included: • research

into better understanding PTW crashes and potential countermeasures, including an enhanced motorcycle crash investigation study and a motorcycle exposure study; • a program of PTW specific road improvements and road maintenance developments. This included a Motorcycle Blackspot Program and PTW friendly improvements to popular routes, and the development and dissemination of communications materials for those involved in the design, construction and maintenance of roads. The program, made possible by the Motorcycle Safety Levy, has proven successful with a 24% reduction in PTW casualty crashes at the first 85 treated sites; • the implementation of the new Learner Approved Motorcycle Scheme (LAMS) in 2008. This was designed to reduce the risks for novice riders by limiting them to moderately powered PTWs that are appropriate for their level of experience. This has included more PTWs that have safety features such as ABS and combined braking systems, and restricted access to high powered race replica motorcycles; • a range of targeted enforcement activities designed to address issues such as speeding and unlicensed riding; • education and information campaigns about appropriate and safe behaviour when using the road network. This has included several print publications, a DVD for riders and television commercials designed to promote safety to riders and raise driver awareness of PTW riders. Victoria’s recently published its “Road Safety and Transport Strategic Action Plan for Powered Two Wheelers, 2009–2013” see http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/ Motorcycles/RoadSafety/. For information about the United Kingdom visit the Cycling and motorcycling section of the DfT website. New Zealand recently added demerit points for non (or incorrect) helmet wearing offences and Introduced a requirement for motorcycle and moped riders to ride with daytime running lights or their headlights on during hours of daylight. Based on research, the Accident Compensation Commission (ACC) have developed two websites (www.rideforever. co.nz and www.scootersurvival.co.nz) and undertake promotion of rider safety. In Sweden a strategy for safer PTW-traffic is currently being established addressing rule compliance by riders, safer vehicles by providers, better surveillance by the police and better infrastructure and road maintenance for PTWs. The strategy is planned to be introduced by the start of 2010.

121

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Best Practice

Mandatory helmet wearing, engineering (on – road) treatments, graduated licensing, compliance with road laws, safer protective clothing, education materials especially about safe recreational (weekend) use of PTW’s. Model Jurisdictions: Victoria, Sweden and Malaysia (separated motorcyclist lanes). Strategy Gaps

Travelling on a motorcycle at a speed greater than 40 km/h even with a helmet is unfortunately outside the current application of safe system principles. The likelihood of serious injury or death is 34 times higher than for the occupants of a car. More work is needed to determine how motorcycling can be brought inside the safe system.

2.10.11. Initiatives – To reduce heavy vehicle crash involvement Minnesota has developed a separate Truck Safety Plan and office that works on this initiative in conjunction with the Feder Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The NPRA in Norway has increased its resources for road side inspections of heavy vehicles. In Canada the implementation and modification of key National Safety Code standards, are one of the principal legal mechanisms in place to reduce heavy vehicle crash involvement. Key standards in place include an hour of service regulation and a safety ratings system based on a carrier’s on- road safety performance. A task force is examining human factors issues for drivers of commercial vehicles. In Victoria the strategy focus for heavy vehicle safety is on improving seatbelt use, improvements to road and roadside infrastructure to support the anticipated growth in heavy vehicle traffic, provision of rest stops, improving speed compliance, enforcement of Chain of Responsibility and OHS legislation to reduce the incidence of impaired driving, (Chain of Responsibility means that anybody, not just the driver, who has control in a transport operation can be held responsible for breaches of road laws and may be made legally liable), safer heavy vehicles with improved seatbelt systems, improved cabin strength, better underrun protection and safer trailer features and promotion of a code of safe practice for transport operators and heavy vehicle drivers. In the United Kingdom the Highways Agency as part of their safety action plan are examining heavy vehicle issues. New Zealand introduced new work time and log

122

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

book rules in 200743. Chain of responsibility legislation was implemented as part of these new rules. An Operator Safety Ratings system is being developed to rate all transport licensees in NZ by their performance with safety-related legislation (vehicle and driver). Sweden is seeking to stimulate the industry to develop emergency brake systems. See Appendix N for details of the safety features of the Volvo concept truck. Singapore imposes a vehicle speed limit of 40 km/h to 60 km/h on heavy vehicles depending on their maximum laden weight. Since 1993, heavy vehicles are required to be fitted with rear under-run protective devices and side guards to minimise the risk of motorcyclists and cyclists falling under the rear or sides of such vehicles. In addition, all long vehicles (goods vehicles exceeding 10 metres and trailers exceeding 5 metres in overall length) are required to display rear and side reflective markings to enhance their conspicuity on the roads. Best Practice

Measures to ensure safe operating (driving hours and rest periods) or performance based standards, safer vehicles including cabs, braking, new technologies, compliance with speed limits, wearing of seat belts, unimpaired driving, higher quality infrastructure for freight routes now and for the anticipated rapid growth. Model Jurisdictions: Canada, Europe – Sweden, United Kingdom, Victoria and USA. Strategy Gaps

Mandating vehicle safety features. 2. 11. I NITIATIVES – LICENSE SYSTEM CONTROLS ON DRIVERS/ RIDERS ENTERING THE SYSTEM INCLUDING PROGRESSION THROUGH THE ACCOMPANIED AND UNACCOMPANIED NOVICE DRIVER/RIDER YEARS

Minnesota recently passed a stronger Graduated Driver’s License law. In general, the driver’s education program is an area which needs to be strengthened. Details of Missouri’s Graduated Driver Licensing law can be found on the Department of Revenue’s website44. Washington State is considering adjustments to intermediate license laws (for drivers under 18 yrs.) as research based data suggests is needed.   http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/commercial/docs/work-time-and-logbooks.pdf   http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/

43

44

123

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Measures proposed or in place in Canada include: dual stage driver learning phase with progressive privileges; night-time driving restrictions; zero BAC and technology usage; limit on the number of passengers; restriction on freeway use; tests to exit each driver level stage. Victoria introduced a comprehensive enhanced graduated licensing system for novice drivers in their first four years of driving in 2008, building upon the existing 3 year program. The features are: • P1 (one year) and P2 (three year) periods for drivers after obtaining their license,

minimum age 18 years, with requirement for good driving record to progress through license stages to full license; • passenger restriction of one peer passenger in P1 stage; • zero alcohol limit throughout both P1 and P2 stages; • promoting voluntary take up of alcohol interlocks and ISA to reduce young driver risks; • mandatory alcohol interlocks for any drink driving offence for drivers up to 26 years of age; • mandatory hazard perception test before on road test; • learner driving following a road law knowledge test – with accompanying fully licensed driver from age 16 with mandatory 120 hours on road driving experience (as an accompanied learner with yellow and black L plates displayed) before eligible to sit P1 license test. The United Kingdom Driving Standards Agency has an extensive range of initiatives. The website is http://www.dsa.gov.uk. New Zealand has a three stage Graduated Driver Licensing System (GDLS). Each stage has a test that applicants must pass and as they move from one stage to the next they are given a new licence, with different requirements and more responsibilities. South Africa plans to regulate and control the driving school industry; introduce computerised learner licence testing procedures and additional controls at driving licence testing centres (cameras in test vehicles, tracking devices in test vehicles, etc.); introduce stricter measures for obtaining professional driving permits and require driving licences to be renewed every 5 years. Sweden has increased education about risks in traffic within its novice driver programs over the last two years. Ontario utilises a Graduated Licensing Arrangement which has six important constraints in the first year of driving (as a G1 learner) before undertaking an on road test. This can be reduced to eight months if drivers successfully complete a Ministry-approved Beginner Driver Education Course. As a G1 driver, you are required to:

124

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

• maintain a zero blood alcohol level while driving; • be accompanied by a fully licensed driver, who has at least four years driving

experience, and a blood alcohol level of less than 5g/l;

• ensure the accompanying driver is the only other person in the front seat; • ensure the number of passengers in the vehicle is limited to the number of working

seat belts;

• refrain from driving on Ontario’s “400-series” highways or on high speed

expressways; (unless accompanying driver is licensed instructor);

• refrain from driving between midnight and 5 a.m.

Further stages with reduced restrictions apply before full licensing. Poland applies a lower penalty points limit for offences during the first year of driving. The OECD/ECMT published a comprehensive Report on Young Drivers45 which examined risks and various graduated driver licensing opportunities for improving safety in 2006. Best Practice

Measures to maximise the supervised learning period, mandatory hours of experience before the license test, stages of progression through the probationary period, four year probationary period from 18 years with no alcohol or technology use, alcolock requirement for all drink drive offenders, return to commencement of probation if license suspended, record of no offences to progress through stages. Model Jurisdictions: Victoria, Europe: Sweden and United Kingdom Strategy Gaps

Courses or instruction to reduce crash involvement of newly licensed probationary drivers safety features. 2.12. INITIATIVES – VEHICLE REGISTRATION CONTROLS ON VEHICLES ENTERING THE SYSTEM

Canada has mandated Electronic Stability Control (ESC) as a condition for registration for all vehicles manufactured after September 2011, while Victoria has mandated ESC as a requirement for registration for all new vehicles from January 2011.  Report on Young Drivers, OECD/ECMT 2006

45

125

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Satisfactory automated vehicle registration systems which are up to date (owner names and addresses) and accessible by police are essential in deterring inappropriate behaviour by drivers, particularly the small proportion who flout the law. 2.13. INITIATIVES – ASSOCIATED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS

In Norway the present strategy of having sizable traffic safety campaigns, limited to a maximum of 2 – 3 themes each year, will continue. Research shows that the simultaneous application of several types of measures (i.e., information measures and enforcement measures) has the most effectiveness. Across Canada individual organizations and jurisdictions carry out their own print, multi-media, Web and in-person activities. See inventories of these activities46. To support road users to behave responsibly as part of a safe system, Victoria will harness a combination of mass media and targeted education campaigns in conjunction with all key government road safety partners. This will include new media. In the United Kingdom DfT undertake a considerable number of programs and many are listed on the THINK campaign website47. In New Zealand, the Practice programme is an example of an on-line resource that has been developed to assist drivers progress through the graduated license system from a learner to a restricted licence – www.practice.co.nz In South Africa a range of education and public information programs are identified in an education and communication strategy, including pedestrian safety, passenger safety and vehicle and driver fitness. Sweden a major campaign on why speed limits are changing is taking place currently. Twice every year there are campaign weeks stressing the importance of speed compliance and seat belt usage. Best Practice

Research has shown the value of public information campaigns using electronic and print media in support of major and ongoing police enforcement activity.

 http://www.ccmta.ca/english/pdf/inventory_ public_education_awareness_material_2007.pdf  http://www.dft.gov.uk/think.

46 47

126

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

2.14. I NITIATIVES - IMPROVING UNDERSTANDING OF CRASH RISK ON THE NETWORK

The Netherlands among a number of countries, has conducted, and is leading, system wide crash risk analyses of its road network. In most states of the USA, the data collected on state owned roads is generally adequate to permit informed crash analyses. On local owned roads, crash recording quality hampers analyses conducted for local safety programs. Significant demands placed on police officers at crash sites can affect the quality of data collected. NTHSA publishes crash data information on an annual basis, at the national level as well as the state level. Data analyses are performed annually on special populations – children, young drivers in documents called Traffic Safety Fact Sheets. Targeted research is done on crash types or populations of interest and areas of interest related to activities within the agency –All data is available on the internet; data publications have a specific link through the NHTSA website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/); data is shared at conferences and through requests by other safety agencies, organizations and the public. Minnesota operates an active Traffic Records Coordinating Committee that plays a key role in improving data used to make decisions and in implementing “Safety Analyst” and AASHTOWare software for safety management. In Washington State “Target Zero” utilises traffic records and information systems to develop strategies to improve driver licensing and vehicle registration systems, upgrade law enforcement data collection software, improve accuracy of highway location referencing systems, develop/acquire collision analysis tools, and improve the current layout and content of the existing collision report form. Different methods of risk analysis are used by NPRA in Norway – e.g.: Road safety audits, road safety reviews of existing roads and risk evaluations connected to plans and projects, existing roads, junctions in urban areas with high pedestrian and cycle traffic and road maintenance. NPRA has established regional accident analysis groups. The work is to develop more knowledge about causal factors behind crashes, both within road user behaviour, vehicle safety and road conditions, and to propose measures in order to prevent similar accidents. In Hungary, road safety classifications on the whole road network are constantly reviewed. There is a law requiring a 5 yearly review on the whole road network with the police, road managers, local governments, public transport companies and road safety experts. Victoria’s move towards a safe system approach represents a significant shift in thinking, including the shared responsibility of road system and vehicle designers, providers and users in achieving this outcome. This approach

127

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

cannot function without extensive quality crash and other data and detailed analysis of risk across the network. The United Kingdom has supported EuroRap assessment of its major network plus all highway authorities collect accident data on their network, map and analyse the information and monitor trends on a regular basis to determine future priorities. New Zealand have supported the development and use of KiwiRAP – part of the international series of Road Assessment Programmes (iRAP). Denmark looks at grey routes and tries to make connections along lengths. However, it is mostly individual locations that are identified and treated South Africa carries out annual road traffic offence surveys of critical offences that are major contributors to crashes. These indicate the general “level of lawlessness” on the roads. Feedback to the public is provided through the media. In Sweden In-depth studies are carried out on every fatal crash and the SRA operates a crash literacy and awareness program built upon systematic collaboration between different organisations, companies and authorities that have been designated as the designers of the road transport system. This is achieved through OLA – ‘Objective data, List of solutions and Addressed action plans’. OLA is a systematic review of a series of similar crash types with data sharing and workshopping between stakeholders to build crash literacy. The program has been adopted with some variation by VicRoads in Victoria, Australia and NPRA in Norway. Malaysia relies upon research findings from in-depth crash analysis, crash reconstruction activity and more recently, iRAP findings. Best Practice

An understanding of underlying crash risks in the road system supported by multi sectoral crash analysis and a network wide assessment of severe outcome crash risk considering all safe system factors. Model Jurisdictions: Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, Victoria and USA. 2.15. I NITIATIVES - IMPROVING THE RESPONSIVENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE FOR CRASH VICTIMS

Minnesota has adopted a State Wide Trauma System by law and are working toward all hospitals becoming designated at their appropriate level. Missouri has placed considerable focus on improving incident management through coordinated effort with enforcement and EMS.

128

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Washington State ensures that all pre-hospital EMS personnel receive adequate trauma training; the efficient and adequate geographic distribution of Designated Trauma Centers; that all major trauma patients are transported to the highest level of designated trauma center within a 30 minute transport; an increased percentage of EMS on-scene arrival responses are within State requirements; all response time data for pre-hospital EMS agencies is gathered and archived in a central EMS data repository for analysis. In Canada, a 911 site location system applies in most parts of the country to better able to identify sites. A linear reference system is used on highways to locate collision sites and Automatic collision notification is offered by some manufacturers. The Netherlands Ministry of Public Health has legislated about the maximum allowable time lapse for arrival of emergency services at the scene. In South Africa, Incident Management Systems (IMS) are now implemented on all National Routes. They seek to improve response times of emergency services including medical care, and the normalization of road conditions. In most high income countries emergency services for retrieval of crash victims and conduct of road trauma treatment operate at a high level of effectiveness. Nonetheless it would be advisable to work with the medical profession to examine opportunities for further improvement in many related matters in this area as part of any new strategy. Emergency medical care for crash victims is part of the Integrated Rescue System in the Czech Republic. Identification of accident location by GPS and e Call was introduced in recent years and pre-hospital care is accessible within 20 minutes of any location.

3. NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY PERFORMANCE Road safety is a global concern. The world’s safest nations are endeavouring to become even safer. Developing nations are striving to introduce strategies and measures that address their most critical road safety concerns. Long term aspirational road safety visions and intermediate term quantitative targets have become common mechanisms that are utilized by governments to raise the profile and to monitor the progress of jurisdictional road safety efforts. The following section lists quantitative targets and actual trends of key road safety performance indicators found in OECD and/ or IRTAD member countries. 3.1. THE NUMBER OF FATALITIES AND INJURY CRASHES

Figure 4, following page, shows the change in the number of fatalities and injury crashes for 32 OECD/ECMT countries since 1990. The number of injury crashes has tended to decrease slowly compared to the reduction in the number of fatalities.

129

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN Evolution in the number of fatalities and injury accidents for 32 OECD/ECMT countries Index 100 = 1990

Figure 4 – Change of the number of fatalities and injury crashes Source: OECD country reports on road safety performance, Sep 2006

3.2. COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY PERFORMANCE

3.2.1. Examples of outcome performance indices for road safety targets Table 7, following page, shows examples of road safety targets adopted over a period of years by many countries. Fatalities are usually the key outcome indices adopted within road safety targets. Many countries also adopt serious injuries, injuries or other sub targets (by fatality and/or injury categories).

130

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 7 – Examples of adopted road safety outcome targets Country National fatalities target * Australia -40% in fatalities per 100,000 population by 2010 compared to 1999 Austria -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 1998-2000 Other specific targets Belgium -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 1998-2000 Bulgaria -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 1991-2004 Canada -30% in fatalities and serious injuries by 2010 + many sub targets Czech Republic -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 2002 Denmark -40% fatalities and seriously injured by 2012 compared to 1998 Finland Less than 250 fatalities by 2010 Greece -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 2000 Hungary -50% fatalities and injury accidents by 2015 compared to 2001 Fatalities per 100,000 population should not be higher than the best Iceland performing countries by 2016 -5% reduction every year in killed and seriously Ireland -25% fatalities by 2006 compared to 1998-2003. Several sub targets Japan Less than 5750 fatalities in 2012 Korea -35% fatalities by 2006 compared to 2002. Several sub targets Latvia -50% fatalities and -20% injured persons by 2006 compared to 1999 Lithuania -50% fatalities and -20% injury accident by 2010 compared to 2004 Malta -50% fatalities and -50% injury accidents by 2014 compared to 2004 Mexico -27% fatalities by 2015 compared to 2002 Netherlands Less than 580 fatalities by 2020. Several sub targets New Zealand Less than 300 fatalities in 2010. Several sub targets Norway -30% killed and seriously injured by 2015 compared to 2004 Poland -50 % fatalities by 2013 compared to 2003 Portugal -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 1998-2000 several sub targets Romania -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 2002 Slovak Republic -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 2002 Slovenia -50% fatalities by 2005 compared to 1995. Several sub targets Spain -40% fatalities by 2008 compared to 2003 Sweden -50% fatalities by 2007 compared to 1996 Switzerland -50% fatalities and – 50% serious injuries by 2010 compared to 2000 Turkey -40% fatalities by 2011 compared to 1999 United Kingdom (Great -40% in fatalities and serious injuries. Several sub targets Britain) United States 1.13 – 1.16 fatalities/100 million vehicle-miles in 2011. Several sub targets Source: OECD country reports on road safety performance, Sep 2006 * A number of countries have also set up different sub targets. Please refer to the individual responses of each country for more detail.

131

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

3.2.2. Absolute number of fatalities Table 8 shows absolute number of road fatalities in 2008 and 2007 and fatality trends since 1970. In most countries, the number of road fatalities reduced sharply in 2008 compared to the previous year. The change in absolute number of fatalities may reflect change of population or a substantially altered economic situation. For these and many other reasons, particular care needs to be exercised in interpreting changes experienced from year to year in the level of fatalities.

Country Australia Austria Belguim Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Malaysia Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovenia Spain

Table 8 – The number of road fatalities Long-term trends – Average annual Recent data variation Evolution 2009 2008 2000-2009 1990-2000 1980-1990 1970-1980 2008-2009 1,507 1,603 -8.5% -2.6% -2.5% -3.3% -1.5% 679 691 -1.7% -4.4% -4.6% -2.5% -2.5% 922 1,067 -13.6% -5.7% -2.9% -1.9% -2.4% 2,401 2,767 -13.2% -2.6% -3.0% -3.2% 0.7% 1,076

1,222

-11.9%

-4.0%

1.4%

0.2%

-4.4%

406 344 4,275 4,477 1,559 996 12 279 412 4,731 6,023 5,870 35 6,527 677 366 255 5,437 885 214 3,100

406 380 4,620 4,949 1,612 1,232 15 338 382 5,131 6,639 6,166 43 6,282 709 421 233 5,583 974 293 3,823

0% -9.5% -7.5% -9.5% -3.0% -19.2% -20.0% -17.5% 7.9% -7.8% -9.3% -4.8% -18.6% 3.9% -4.5% -13.1% 9.4% -2.6% -9.1% -27.0% -18.9%

-2.5% -1.7% -7.6% -6.3% -3.3% -2.3% -11.5% -4.8% -1.2% -4.9% -6.6% -6.7% -9.2% 1.0% -5.7% -2.9% -3.6% -1.8% -8.9% -4.7% -7.5%

-2.4% -4.8% -3.2% -3.8% -0.1% -6.8% 2.9% -1.4% 0.8% -0.1% -3.3% -3.2% 0.7% -2.4% -4.5% 0.3% -1.5% -3.5% -4.9% -4.4%

-0.8% 1.7% -1.8% -3.0% 3.6% 4.1% -0.4% -1.6% -0.2% -2.5% 2.5% 8.2% -3.2% -3.7% 2.0% -0.9% 2.0% 0.3% -0.8% 3.3%

-5.45 -6.3% -2.0% -3.4% 2.8% 0.0% 2.3% 0.4% -2.0% -1.8% -6.3% 6.2% -2.9% -4.6% -0.9% -4.3% 5.7% 4.8% -1.0% 1.8%

132

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Table 8 – The number of road fatalities (follow) Long-term trends – Average annual Recent data variation Evolution 2009 2008 2000-2009 1990-2000 1980-1990 1970-1980 2008-2009 397 471 -15.7% -4.9% -2.6% -0.9% -0.3% 357 384 -7.0% -6.1% -4.4% -2.6% -3.0%

Sweden Switzerland United 2,645 3,059 -13.5% -3.7% -4.0% -1.3% Kingdom United States 37,261 41,259 -9.7% -1.5% -0.6% -1.3% Source: IRTAD, see www.irtad.net 1. Police-recorded fatalities. Death within 30 days unless otherwise indicated. 2. Provisional data for 2008 3. Source: MIROS

-2.3% 0.3%

3.2.3. Risk of road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants Table 9 shows the changes which have occurred over time in the number of fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants. In most countries, remarkable progress has been demonstrated. Table 9 - Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants Country

Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants 1970

1980

1990

2000

2008

Australia

30.4

22.3

13.7

9.5

6.80

Austria

34.5

26.5

20.3

12.2

8.15

Belgium

31.8

24.3

19.9

14.4

10.08

Canada

23.8

22.7

14.9

9.5

7.18

Czech Republic

20.0

12.2

12.5

14.5

10.37

Denmark

24.6

13.5

12.4

9.3

7.37

Finland

22.9

11.6

13.1

7.7

6.49

France

32.6

25.1

19.8

12.9

6.91

Germany

27.7

19.3

14.0

9.1

5.45

Greece

12.5

15.0

20.1

18.7

14.43

Hungry

15.8

15.2

23.4

12.0

9.92

Iceland

9.8

11.0

9.5

11.5

3.81

Ireland

18.3

16.6

13.6

11.0

6.34

Israel Italy

16.4

8.67

5.50

12.4

8.68

133

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 9 - Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants (follow) Country

Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants 1970

1980

1990

2000

2008

21.0

9.3

11.8

8.2

4.72

Korea

17.2

33.5

21.8

12.72

Luxembourg

27.0

18.8

17.5

7.23

Japan

Malaysia

23.50

Netherlands

24.6

14.2

9.2

6.8

4.13

New Zealand

23.0

18.9

21.4

12.1

8.57

Norway

14.6

8.9

7.8

7.6

5.38 14.26

Poland

10.6

16.8

19.2

16.3

Portugal

18.6

27.7

28.3

18.1

9.19

Slovenia

35.8

29.2

25.9

15.8

10.40

17.7

23.2

14.5

6.85

Sweden

16.3

10.2

9.1

6.7

4.32

Switzerland

26.6

19.2

13.9

8.3

4.70

United Kingdom

14.0

11.0

9.4

6.1

4.31

United States

25.8

22.5

17.9

15.3

12.25

Spain

Since 1990, remarkable progress has been made in all countries and for most countries the risk has been reduced by more than 40%. Greatest improvements were found in Spain (-70%), Portugal (-67%), Switzerland (-66%) and France (-65%). In 2008, the lowest risks were found in Iceland (3.81), the Netherlands (4.13), the United Kingdom (4.31), Sweden (4.32) and Japan (4.72) which all had rates below 5.0. Source: IRTAD Member countries, selected years including 200848 In addition, fatality levels on a per population basis are shown for jurisdictions included in the Surveys for this report and for which data was not available through IRTAD.

48

 Annual Report, IRTAD, (International Traffic Safety Data an Analysis Group), 2009

134

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 10 - Fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants for jurisdictions included in the surveys but not available from IRTAD data Country/ State

Rate

Tasmania, Australia

9.04 (2007)

Victoria, Australia

5.72 (2008)

Western Australia

8.9 (2009)

Queensland

7.64 (2008)

Ontario, Canada

6.03 (2007)

Argentina* +

19.5 (2007)

Singapore

4.5 (2008)

South Africa

29.9 (2007)

Brazil +

18.32 (2006)

Turkey +

6.18 (2006)

Washington State, USA

7.8 (2008)

Missouri, USA

14.7 (2009)

Minnesota, USA

8.7 (2008)

* Draft Argentina national road safety strategy identifies the fatality risk for the whole country as 19.5 deaths per 100,000 population in 2007. ANSV, Argentina. + Survey returns not received and data drawn from WHO Global Status report on Road Safety, Time for Action, 2009

Those countries which are EU members and IRTAD members, but where survey returns have not been received (20.07.10) are: Czech Republic, Austria, Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Ireland, Finland, France, Belgium. Malaysia and South Korea are IRTAD members and responded to the survey request.

figure 5 – deaths per 100,000 population – irtad data, 2008

135

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

3.2.4. Fatality rates per vkt of travel and per 10,000 registered vehicles for jurisdictions surveyed which are included in IRTAD data Table 11 shows the number of fatalities per billion vehicle-km. In most countries, remarkable progress has been shown. Table 11 - Fatalities per billion vehicle-km Fatalities per billion veh-km Country 1970 1980 1990 2000 Australia 49.3 9.3 Austria 109.0 56.2 27.9 13.2 Belgium 105.0 50.0 28.1 16.3 Canada 9.5 Czech Republic 53.9 48.3 37.0 Denmark 51.0 25.0 17.3 10.7 Finland 20.6 16.3 8.5 France 90.0 43.6 25.7 15.1 Germany 37.3 20.0 11.3 Greece Hungry Iceland 21.1 13.5 16.0 Ireland 28.4 19.2 Israel Italy Japan 96.0 29.3 23.2 13.4 Korea 49.5 Luxembourg Malaysia Netherlands 26.7 14.2 8.5 New Zealand 12.4 Norway 19.3 12.0 10.5 Poland Portugal Slovenia 167.0 96.1 65.1 26.7 Spain Sweden 35.0 16.4 12.0 8.5 Switzerland 56.5 30.9 18.5 10.4 United Kingdom 7.4 United States 29.7 20.9 12.9 9.5 Source: IRTAD annual report 2009

2008 6.51

19.45 8.22 8.12 6.49

3.87 5.66

6.60

9.13

7.60 5.59 5.2 8.00

136

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Risk expressed in killed / billion veh-km for IRTAD countries Data on risks expressed in terms of deaths per billion vehicle-kilometers are included in table 11, above. Analysis risk in terms of fatalities per distance travelled is a very useful indicator to assess the risk of travelling on the road network. However, only a subset of IRTAD countries collects regular data on vehicle-kilometres. This risk indicator suggests that the situation has improved substantially between 1990 and 2007/2008. In 2007-08, the indicator ranged from 4.8 to 19.5, while it ranged from 12 to 65 in 1990. In all countries, the risk has diminished by more than 50%. Slovenia is the country showing the widest variation and the risk has been divided by four (from 65 to 17). In 2008, the best performing countries had risk below 6 deaths per billion vehicle-kilometers (Iceland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland and the United Kingdom).49 Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the fatality rate - on a distance travelled and a per vehicle basis.

figure 6 – deaths per billion vehicles-kilometres in 2008 (or 2007 when indicated)

figure 7 – deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles 49

 IRTAD Annual Report, 2009

137

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

3.3. EXAMPLES OF INTERMEDIATE OUTCOME PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR KEY BEHAVIOURAL RISK AREAS (A KEY SUBSET OF SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS)

Road safety performance can be readily assessed (often in advance of receiving final outcome indicators of fatalities and serious injuries) through monitoring and measuring intermediate indicators with a clearly proven linkage to outcomes, such us the extent of speeding above speed limits and levels of drink driving or rates of non-wearing of seatbelts or helmets.

3.3.1. Speeding as a risk factor Figure 8 below shows the contribution to fatal crashes (from a number of OECD countries) for excess or inappropriate speed. It is likely this understates the contribution of speed to fatal crashes.

figure 8 – rate of fatal crashes with speeds as a factor Source: OECD country reports on road safety performance, Sep 2006

It should be noted that this indicator is often based on the subjective assessment of the police officer at the scene of the crash. The “percentage of speed to crashes where speed is a causation factor” is a potentially misleading statistic as it does not capture the relevance of speed to crash severity and is often based on somewhat subjective and imprecise criteria (which can vary between jurisdictions and over time). The number of accidents where speed is a factor could therefore be much greater.

138

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

It is known that small variances over time in travel speed on any part of the road network result in substantial changes in fatal crash levels. Based on extensive internationally accepted research and empirical evidence, it is known for example that a 1km/h change in mean speed of travel on a length of road will result in a 4% to 5% change in the level of fatal crashes. Changes in mean speeds are powerful predictors of changes in fatal crash levels. Drivers are usually very surprised to learn of the remarkable influence of changes in mean speeds upon fatal crashes. Measuring and tracking changes in mean speed levels across the network is an important intermediate outcome performance measure activity. This is made even more salient by the relatively high levels of speeding above limits by motorists in most countries. Appropriate controls on travel speeds are essential even if control measures are often unpopular. But if mean speed are allowed to increase, fatal crashes will increase sharply. Table 12 – Proportion of drivers of passenger cars above the speed limits and different types of roads in 2003 Motorways Country

Rural roads

Urban roads

Limit

% above the limit

Limit

% above the limit

Limit

% above the limit

Austria (2004)

130 km/h

23%

100 km/h

18%

50 km/h 30 km/h

51% 78%

Canada

110 km/h 100 km/h

15-53% 15-81%

80 km/h

15 to 45%

Denmark

110 km/h 130 km/h

56% 18%

80 km/h

61%

50 km/h

55%

Iceland

90 km/h

80%

90 km/h

77% 40 mph (arterial rds) 30 mph (arterial rds) 30 mph (local sts)

75% 86% 36%

45%

50 km/h (arterial rds) 50 km/h (local sts)

73% approx 45%

57%

50 km/h

81%

Ireland

70 mph

23%

60 mph

8%

Korea

100-110 km/h

50%

60 km/h

Not available

Lithuania Netherlands Poland (2005)

42% 100 km/h 120 km/h

45% 40%

47% 80 km/h

139

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 12 – Proportion of drivers of passenger cars above the speed limits and different types of roads in 2003 (follow) Motorways Country

Limit

% above the limit

Rural roads Limit

Urban roads

% above the limit

Limit

% above the limit

80 km/h (arterial rds) 50 km/h (collect or sts)

50% 70%

Portugal

120 km/h

46%

90 km/h

55%

Sweden

110 km/h

68%

30 to 110 km/h

58% (all state roads)

Switzerland

120 km/h

38%

80 km/h

24%

50 km/h (arterial rds)

21%

9%

40 mph (arterial rds) 30 kmph (local sts)

27% 58%

47%

40 mph (arterial rds) 30mph (local sts)

73% 74%

United kingdom

United States

70 mph 65-75 mph vary from state to state

57%

41-66%

60 mph

55 mph

Source: OECD/ECMT(2006) Reports on speed management. Responses to the survey of the Target Working Group

3.3.2. Drink driving as a risk factor Figure 9, following page, below shows the contribution to fatal crashes (from a number of OECD countries) for drink driving, where drivers or riders involved in fatal crashes were found to have a blood alcohol level in excess of legal limits.

140

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

figure 9 – rate of fatal crashes with alcohol as a factor Source: OECD country reports on road safety performance, Sep 2006 * Fatal crashes, where at least one of the collision partner has a BAC above the legal limit.

It is known that drivers with blood alcohol levels above legal limits are at increased risk of crash involvement. An intermediate outcome measure used widely is the level of detection of drivers and riders with illegal BAC levels based on widespread random breath testing. Small variances over time in the levels of detection (which could be due to variation in economic conditions or changed intensity of RBT enforcement or shifts in community culture towards drink driving) will result in a predictable changes in drink driver involved fatal crash levels. This is also based on extensive internationally accepted research and empirical evidence. Changes in RBT detection rates are reliable predictors of changes in fatal crash levels. In addition changes in the scale of RBT activity by police will rapidly translate into changed drink driver involved fatal crash outcomes.

3.3.3. Failure to wear a seatbelt or helmet as a risk factor Figure 10, following page, shows the reported levels of seat belt wearing from a number of OECD countries. It is known that in most countries 20% to 30% of fatalities involve an unbelted vehicle occupant.

141

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

figure 10 – seatbelt wearing rate Source: OECD country reports on road safety performance, Sep 2006

Small variances over time in the levels of seat belt wearing or motorcyclist helmet wearing result in readily predicted changes in fatal crash outcomes. These changes in wearing rates are vital intermediate outcome performance measures or indicators. 3.4. HISTORY OF ROAD SAFETY MEASURES IN JAPAN

The number of traffic accident fatalities in Japan reached 16,765 in the early 1970’s. This is the worst record in history. The first traffic safety programs (5 years) started in 1971. Following its introduction the number of traffic accidents in Japan decreased sharply. Table 13, following page, shows road safety programs and targets in Japan since their inception in 1971. Table 14, following page, shows recent safety targets with several types of indices in Japan. In an early stage of the traffic safety program in the 1970’s basic safety measures such as building sidewalks or pedestrian overpasses were conducted. These safety measures worked effectively in the terrible traffic safety situation called the “traffic war” in 1970’s Japan. Following the end of 1970’s the number of traffic accidents started to increase again prompting the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) to promote strategic road safety management using scientific data or indices. As a result of various types of safety measures that included using a scientific approach, the number of traffic accidents started to decrease again in Japan in recent years.

142

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 13 – Traffic safety programs and targets in Japan

Fatalities: death in 24 hours Table 14 – Recent safety targets in Japan Programs

Targets

8th Traffic Safety Program

5,500 fatalities or less by 2010 5,000 fatalities or less by 2012 1 million casualties or less by 2010

Priority Program for Public Capital Provision

Approx. 108/100million veh-km in 2007 Approx. 100/100 million veh-km by 2012

Conversation of Minister Fukushima in Jan. 2010

2,500 fatalities or less by 2018

Fatalities: death in 24 hours

143

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

4. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN POLICIES AND PERFORMANCE 4.1. GROUPING JURISDICTIONS ON BASIS OF PERFORMANCE

As shown in table 8 and 9 from the IRTAD Annual Report (2009) in chapter 3, above, remarkable progress has been made in all countries since 1990 and for most countries the risk has been reduced by more than 40%. Greatest improvements were found in Spain (-70%), Portugal (-67%), Switzerland (-66%) and France (-65%). In 2008, the jurisdictions with the lowest fatality rates per population risks were Iceland (3.81), the Netherlands (4.13), the United Kingdom (4.31), Sweden (4.32), Japan (4.72) and Switzerland (4.7), which all had rates below 5.0. The jurisdictions responding to the surveys conducted for this Report grouped by fatality rates per 100,000 population (for 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009) are summarised in table 15. This is just one way of making a comparison. If fatalities per 10,000 vehicles or fatalities per100 million vehicle km travelled is used, the various countries could fall into different groupings to that shown in table 15. Therefore, some care needs to be taken in comparing national performances. GROUP A Less than 5 fatalities per 100,000 population Netherlands (4.13), the United Kingdom (4.31), Sweden (4.32), Japan (4.72), Switzerland (4.7), Singapore (4.5)

Table 15 – fatality rates per 100,000 population GROUP B GROUP C GROUP D GROUP E 5 to 7 fatalities per 100,000 population

7 to 9 fatalities per 100,000 population

Australia (6.8) Victoria, Australia (5.72) Turkey (6.18), Finland (6.49) France (6.91), Germany (5.45), Ireland (6.34), Norway (5.38), Spain (6.85) Ontario (6.03)

Austria (8.15), Canada (7.18) Denmark (7.37), Italy (8.68), New Zealand (8.57) Queensland (7.64) Washington State (7.8), Minnesota (8.71), Western Australia (8.9)

9 to 11 fatalities 11 to 15 per 100,000 fatalities per population 100,000 population Belgium USA, (12.25), (10.08), Korea (12.72), Czech Poland (14.26), Republic, Greece (14.43), (10.3), Missouri (14.7) Hungary (9.92), Tasmania (9.04)

GROUP F >15 fatalities per 100,000 population South Africa (29.9), Argentina (19.5), Malaysia (23.5), Brazil (18.32)

See appendices O and P for summaries of aggregate past and projected impacts of road safety measures.

144

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

4.2. LINKS BETWEEN THE ROAD SAFETY APPROACH OF NATIONS AND THEIR PERFORMANCE

While virtually all nations have improved their road safety performance since 1970, the trend in terms of fatalities has varied substantially (up and in recent decades – down) in some countries, while in others the improvement since 1970 has been much more consistent.

4.2.1. C  ountries where performance since 1970 was initially poor, but in recent decades has improved Assessment of the basis for poorer performance in some countries between 1970 and 1990, followed by improved performance since that time has been limited by the poor response to the survey requests for this report received from a number of countries in this general category. It is noted from the IRTAD Report that performance in countries such as Poland, Portugal and Korea actually declined in the 1970 to 1990 period. Two of the fundamental underlying factors that affect road safety performance over a period of time in any country are the level of motorisation and the trend in economic activity levels. Increases in motorisation lead inevitably to increased fatalities until a point is reached (it is contended) where road user behaviour improves (and often road infrastructure safety as well) as respect for the road laws and their enforcement become the accepted social norm. This is more likely to occur it is suggested if economic activity is improving. On the other hand if economic activity falls it is likely that travel will decline leading to reduced exposure and reduced fatalities and serious injuries. The nett beneficial effect of falling or rising economic conditions in the short term is difficult to predict.

Korea In Korea, fatalities increased substantially from 1970 to 1992 while motorisation levels increased substantially over the period from 1970 to between 1990 and 2000. Economic conditions in Korea improved during the 1980’s and particularly from the late 1980’s to 1997, with difficult conditions for two years due to the Asian financial crisis and a resumption in growth from 1999 onwards ( figure 11, following page).

145

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

figure 11 – road safety performance in korea: 1970 to 2008

Table 16 - Fatality and motorization rates in Korea: 1970 to 2008 % change over: Rates (reported)

1970

1980

1990

2000

2008

20002008

19902008

Deaths/100,000 population

11.0

16.9

33.1

21.8

12.1

-44%

-63%

Deaths/10,000 motor vehicles

-

69.9

28.9

6.9

2.9

-58%

--90%

Deaths/billion veh-km

-

-

-

49.5

20.1

-59%

-

Motorisation (number of vehicles/1,000 inhabitants)

-

24.9

114.2

317.6

339.0

7%

-+197%

Motorisation levels climbed rapidly in the period to 2000 (table 16). Up to 1991 this was accompanied with an increasing fatality level. However from 1991 fatalities began to fall, due possibly to the improving safety level of new road construction and improved behaviour by road users as the number of vehicles on the network increased and drivers interacted more extensively with each other. This reflects the greater likelihood that agreed social norms about acceptable behaviours will emerge which are increasingly reflected in the behaviour of road users as economic conditions improve and mutual benefit is envisaged through road law compliance by all. (i.e., recognition by road users that their individual compliance with road laws will support compliance by all and improve the level of risk to which they are exposed and predictable flow conditions).

146

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

This transition can be summed up as Korea effectively moving from being a developing country in the 1970’s to becoming a developed economy in the 1990s and a member nation of the OECD in 1996.

South Africa South Africa experienced a distinctive variation in fatality levels since 1970, with increasing levels until 1990, then reduction until 1998 when the trend again increased rapidly ( figure 12). The years prior to 1990 and post 1998 reflect increased motorisation levels and the 1990 to 1998 reduction is likely to have reflected the transition in government arrangements and the economic adjustment period in South Africa. This is likely to have limited the amount of vehicle travel.

Figure 12 – Annual fatalities in South Africa (1970-2006)

The motorisation rate in 2008 in South Africa was 191 per 1,000 inhabitants50.

Portugal In Portugal, road deaths increased between 1970 and 1975 with a peak in 1975 of 3,051 persons killed ( figure 13). Although fatalities began to fall after 1975, the combined number of fatal and injury crashes continued to increase until 1989. Between 1990 and 2000 there was a steady decrease in the number of fatalities and injury crashes. Since 2000, (until 2008 at least) the rate of decrease has accelerated (table 17).

 Statistics South Africa, Population Estimates 2008

50

147

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Figure 13 – Road safety performance in Portugal (1970 - 2008)

Table 17 - road safety performance in portugal (1970 - 2008) % change over: Rates (reported)

1970

1980

1990

2000

2008

20002008

19902008

Deaths/100,000 population

18.6

27.7

28.3

18.1

8.7

-51.9%

-53.2%

Deaths/10,000 motor vehicles

20.5

13.3

12.1

3.9

1.5

-61.5%

-92.7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91

207.9

233.6

462.4

564

+22%

+519.8%

Deaths/billion veh-km Motorisation (number of vehicles/1,000 inhabitants)

As shown in the table above, the motorisation rate in Portugal increased to 1980, was stable to 1990 (as was the fatality rate) increased rapidly during the 1990’s and further from 2000 to 2008. Gross Domestic Product was stable from 1990 to 2000 and then more than doubled to 200851. This level of economic improvement is likely to reflect increased EU investment including investment in infrastructure during that period for which the fatality rate fell sharply.

 World Bank, World Development Indicators.

51

148

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

4.2.2. C  ountries where performance since 1970 was initially good, but in recent years has slowed. In Australia there was a marked reduction from 1970 to 2000. However, in the decade since 2000, a reduction in fatalities of 14.5% overall has been achieved, well below the levels achieved by most OECD countries ( figure 14).

Figure 14 – Australian road death (1999 – 2009)

4.2.3. Countries where performance since 1970 has lagged international good practice country performance Argentina The performance of countries such as Argentina reflect a number of underlying issues. There, the major rural highway network requires improvement but is at a generally reasonable safety standard. What is missing in urban and rural areas is enforcement of speed compliance, drink driving and seat belt wearing. In some provinces, until recent years, enforcement was abolished as a result of other perceived problems. This leads to uncontrolled behaviours by many motorists on the roads including buses in major cities. Recovering from this situation requires substantial sustained political commitment, higher multi – sectoral governance standards and organizational reforms. USA In the USA, many States have very high fatality rates compared to better performing jurisdictions. This is likely to reflect a traditional resistance to behavioural compliance measures which impinge on individual freedoms in the interests of community benefit.

149

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

For example, improving seat belt wearing (through legislation and enforcement) has been a long journey in many States. A number of US States have repealed their motorcycle helmet laws resulting in increased fatality rates for motorcyclists. Random breath testing for alcohol is not in place in the US, leading to very high rates of alcohol involvement in fatal crashes. Speed enforcement (of widespread low level speeding) is limited. While institutional management arrangements vary substantially across the individual States, the level of safety of infrastructure, associated speed limits and vehicles is generally very high.

Summary Each society develops its own position on the balance between personal freedoms and community benefit. To the extent that societies determine that on balance their duty of care lies with the community through protection of innocent community members from fatal crashes and in reducing the major (usually hidden) costs of all serious trauma to the community, there are movements over time to reign in uncontrolled or unacceptably risky behaviours, vehicles and road networks. 4.2.4. C  ountries where performance since 1970 has consistently improved The leading jurisdictions by performance as indicated from the data in section 3.2.3 (with fatality per population figures shown) are the Netherlands (4.13), the United Kingdom (4.31), Sweden (4.32), Switzerland (4.7), Japan (4.72) and Singapore. What do these countries have in common that supports high performance in safe operation of their road systems? This is a challenging question. In each of these countries there are different policy settings, penalties for offences and tactics for operation of enforcement. In addition, there are different rates of car ownership which influences rates of road travel. At a detailed level for example, pedestrians in Japan (which has high levels of population density in urban areas) represent a very high proportion (one-third) of fatalities, a very different scenario to the other high performing countries. The situation in Singapore is somewhat different to the other jurisdictions, with Singapore having a level of fatalities per 10,000 vehicles much higher than the other high performance countries. This reflects relatively lower vehicle ownership levels in Singapore, which results in lower vehicle travel. This is a characteristic of many cities worldwide. However, all are high income countries, which supports capacity for higher quality infrastructure safety, higher safety standard vehicles, more substantial courts and justice arrangements and support for more sophisticated data systems (e.g., crash

150

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

data, registration and licensing data and traffic offence data linked to license databases). Each of these countries has been aware of, and has sought to constrain road trauma, for more than 50 years in an active manner. Most have a clear long term road safety vision which is extensively articulated to their professionals and the political level and to the broader community, who to varying degrees, “own” the road safety problem. These countries have been near the forefront of international road safety performance for many years reflecting adjustment over a long period to better understanding of road system crash risks and enabling longer term development of professional, political and community capacities to respond to the safety requirements of the system. 4.3. WHY HAVE SOME JURISDICTIONS HAD GREATER SUCCESS THAN OTHERS?

In reviewing performance by jurisdictions, there appear to be a number of crucial elements which are present in the better performing countries. It is useful to look at institutional management issues as well as the breadth and depth of interventions in place.

Institutional management issues In countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Japan there are comprehensive institutional management arrangements in place for road safety. These arrangements constitute the “how to” of implementation challenges and while differing in each jurisdiction, provide a distinguishing sense of purpose across government for achievement. They all follow a multisectoral approach across government; there is a clear vision or set of principles setting out desired long term road safety performance; there is a clearly designated lead agency; effective coordinating mechanisms are in place across government (and with non-government stakeholders); there is a robust safety performance framework in place with all agencies knowing their shared and individual agency responsibilities and accountabilities and regular measurement of performance; there is regular contact between key agency chief executives who meet to discuss policy, funding and public information needs, manage implementation across sectors and monitor and review progress; and there is usually effective ministerial involvement supported in some instances with a multi - sectoral ministerial council meeting regularly with agency chief executives to endorse among other decisions – approaches to Cabinet about major policy and funding recommendations. Good public communication activity is evident with road safety being almost a daily item of news interest.

151

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Effective research institutions exist and they interact closely with practitioners to build the essential support for evidence based policy adoption. They also provide a broader pool for training of road safety professionals who can move on into policy development areas within government agencies. Comprehensive and reliably derived crash data systems, supplemented with driver impairment and offence data in place are essential for professional road safety analysis of system level crash risks. The scope and reliability of license record data systems and the inclusion of offence data within these is an unseen but essential data support for effective enforcement and risk analysis. These high performing countries have good practice systems and data and conduct capable data analysis. A further characteristic of these leading jurisdictions is that they publish their performance widely (in some cases daily summaries of fatal crashes with comparisons to previous year data are provided to Chief Ministers/ Governors and Ministers and to the media to build ownership of the issues). They have, in general, adopted a comprehensive set of actions which are challenging and are derived from a road safety strategy which has a clear vision for the longer term and is evidenced based. Without such a plan – publicly adopted by governments – commitment by agencies and others will usually be limited. They employ competent road safety practitioners, backed up by research expertise, with the ability to devise strategies, to convince Ministers that the political risks are manageable, and to deliver some benefits in a short period - which can then be promoted to the public to increase support for the strategy and its future implementation. There is good funding support by government for recommended interventions, which is critical for raising the standard of infrastructure safety as well as improving compliance with laws by road users. Good performing countries measure performance and continuously strengthen their professional knowledge. It needs to be said that those countries with good performance usually have a long experience with motorisation. Most of the countries at the other end of the performance scale from the surveyed nations are experiencing the surge in motorisation that can be initially overwhelming until the society gathers the intent to build the strengths outlined above which are necessary to address this. Larger countries benefit from regional (or provincial or state) strategies. Indeed in countries such as Australia, State road safety activity is the great majority of road safety effort. This is also seen to varying degrees in the US, Canada and Argentina. Countries such as Poland have regional road safety strategies which supplement their national strategies.

152

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Intervention breadth and depth In terms of specific policies for interventions and their implementation, the reasons for success are difficult to confidently predict and much more in depth work would be required. The influence of institutional management approaches is important as noted earlier. However, from an analysis of the survey returns and with assistance from other sources (including IRTAD data), a number of inferences can be drawn and some hypotheses suggested. Intervention breadth and depth – User Compliance Critical road user compliance issues identified in the OECD/ITF, Country Reports on road safety performance, Responses to the survey conducted by the Targets Working Group, Sep 2006, are drink driving, speeding and seat belt wearing. Other substantial issues include drug impaired driving and the issues of distraction of drivers. Successful countries exhibit extensive legislation and regulation, comprehensive enforcement, a robust independent judicial system, and a penalty structure which all result in effective deterrence of all but a small proportion of non-compliant behaviours. The following comments about drink driving deterrence are illustrative of differences in policy and implementation even in high performing countries. The comments are supported by information drawn from IRTAD, 2009. Japan lowered its maximum authorised BAC while driving (in June 2002) from 0.5 g/l to 0.3 g/l. The effects have been positive, since the number of fatal crashes where alcohol is a causation factor is decreasing and in 2008, accidents caused by drink driving decreased by 17.7%. In 2005, the maximum legal BAC for drivers in Switzerland was reduced from 0.8 g/l to 0.5 g/l and random breath testing was introduced. In 2008, 16% of fatal crashes involved a driver under the influence of alcohol (including those with BAC below the legal maximum), a very good result. In Sweden, the legal BAC limit is 0.2 g/l. Figure 15, following page, shows the evolution in the number of killed car drivers with a BAC above 0.2 g/l. In 2008, 15% of motor vehicle drivers killed in crashes were under the influence of alcohol (i.e. above 0.2 g/l BAC).

153

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Figure 15 – Sweden, driver fatalities where driver was influenced by alcohol

Until 2006, the BAC limit in the Netherlands was 0.5 g/l for all drivers. Since 2006, a lower limit of 0.2 g/l has applied for novice drivers (first five years). Driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs was a contributing factor in an estimated 30% of fatal crashes in 2008. The prevalence of driving under the influence of alcohol on weekend nights is stable at 3%. Among novice drivers the prevalence is higher at 5%, and in about half of these cases the BAC is between 0.2% and 0.5%. Great Britain is something of an exception with the maximum authorised blood alcohol content set at 0.8 g/l. While British police do not have authority to stop motorists randomly for breath testing they utilise other police powers to effectively achieve a strong element of random activity. In 2008, it was estimated that in 17% of fatal crashes one of the drivers had a BAC above 0.8 g/l. Fatalities resulting from drink drive accidents are estimated to have risen from 410 in 2007 to 430 in 2008. Singapore also has a 0.8 g/l BAC limit. In summary, it can be seen that while there are substantial differences in approach, there is a strong commitment to reducing drink driving in all these countries with positive progress being achieved in all of these countries - except Great Britain where the legal BAC limit is high (thereby leading to a potential underestimate of the contribution of drivers with impairing BAC’s to fatal crashes) and where random breath testing is not in place. This is an opportunity for Great Britain to further improve performance.

154

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

All the high performing countries would appear to have achieved reasonable compliance with speed limits (although this differs between them) and high rates of seat belt wearing through active enforcement activity.

Intervention breadth and depth – Safety of road infrastructure and environment In all countries the level of safety of roads is high and Britain, Netherlands, Switzerland52 and Japan have a high percentage of their higher speed travel on motorway standard (relatively low crash risk) roads. This reflects a policy position supporting high investment levels in the transport system over many years and a (relatively) low length of required motorway per taxpayer. While Sweden does not at this stage have this condition in place due to the size of its network and lower population density (reflecting lower capacity to pay for motorways) it is successfully compensating for this by constructing safer 2 + 1 median separated highways (from conventional two lane two way roads) with side barrier protection for road side objects. A 2 + 1 median separated highway is an arrangement where there are 2 traffic lanes in one direction and 1 traffic lane in the other direction separated by a median safety barrier. Intervention breadth and depth – Safety of speed limits Speed limits away from motorways in these high performing countries are at the low end of applicable limits internationally with many 30 km/h limits in residential areas and in high pedestrian activity areas. Arterial roads in urban areas are generally speed limited to 50 to 60 km/h. In rural areas, arterial road speed limits (two lanes, two ways) are generally 60 to 80 km/h. These limits are in contrast to many lower and middle income countries and Australia, where limits on urban arterials are often 60 to 80 km/h, and rural two lane two way road limits are 100 to 110 km/h. Intervention breadth and depth – Safety of vehicles A high standard vehicle fleet is a characteristic of the higher performing countries, especially Europe and Japan. In summary then, high performing countries display most of the following characteristics: Summary The high performing jurisdictions display most (but not necessarily all) of the above characteristics. That is. • results focused institutional management arrangements; • comprehensive legislative provisions supported by effective enforcement

and judicial systems to achieve high levels of deterrence of illegal behaviours

 SUNflower: A comparative study of the development of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands Matthijs Koornstra (SWOV), David Lynam (TRL), Göran Nilsson (VTI), Piet Noordzij (SWOV), Hans-Erik Pettersson (VTI), Fred Wegman (SWOV), and Peter Wouters (SWOV), SWOV, 2002

52

155

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

and a good user compliance (with road laws) culture evidenced in prevailing community norms; • a high standard road network (a high proportion of their travel is on motorways, eg., some 40% for Netherlands, some 30% for UK); • safe speed limits (i.e. appropriate for the infrastructure); • a vehicle fleet which is near the high end of safety performance. It should be noted that many jurisdictions in the second column for performance (Australia, Victoria, Australia, Turkey, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Spain and Ontario, Canada) display most of the above characteristics – but not all. For example, Australia has good road safety institutional management arrangements, very good compliance policies and implementation and reasonable vehicle safety levels. However, infrastructure safety levels do not match those of the high performing countries and speed limits do not reflect that lesser infrastructure standard in many cases. In Canada, there are institutional management challenges especially at provincial level with, for example, few provinces having a road safety strategy adopted by government. In addition drink driving policy has been problematic in Canada with efforts to improve the policy now in train. France, Spain and Ireland have all made remarkable relative progress in recent years with Spain improving infrastructure, devoting resource to substantial speed compliance programs and strengthening institutional management arrangements. France has dramatically reduced fatalities through a major speed enforcement program in recent years. Ireland has strengthened compliance activities for speeding and drink driving and improved institutional management arrangements. There is a strong possibility that the recent rate of improvement in these countries will continue.

Governance and road safety In addition there is some merit in the observation that in order to achieve good levels of road safety performance, effective systems and standards of governance need to operate in that country and strong social norms which balance public good with individual rights are present. The countries to the left of the table in section 4.1, from Group A to C in particular, would generally be recognised as providing good standards of governance.

156

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

5. ESTABLISHING NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY STRATEGIES Introduction This chapter describes how a road safety strategy can be established and gives a step-by-step approach covering the most important aspects of the process. Begin by identifying the most important stakeholders to take part in the strategy work. Then establish a foundation of knowledge about the current situation and trends and the most important prerequisites for a successful process. Using this knowledge, organise the process to create ownership, commitment and involvement among important stakeholders. The next step will be to establish a set of road safety objectives based on knowledge of the current situation. Then implement the strategy in cooperation with the involved stakeholders at all levels. Progress and achievements should be evaluated as a basis for updating both the strategy and action plans. A proposal for a road safety strategy is given as an example when establishing a national road safety strategy using this approach. Examples of success stories from selected countries are also included.

Step 1 - Identify Stakeholders In order to establish a national road safety strategy, relevant stakeholders to be involved in the process must be identified. A broad and open process, consulting all stakeholders, is needed to set up clear targets and policies, to ensure implementation and necessary funding and to monitor progress. Throughout both planning and implementation, the process should include dialogue on the political level, from central government to municipalities (public administrations, e.g. police, road administration and health authorities) and with road users (road user organisations and traffic safety associations). Key partnerships should be established between central actors to implement policies and actions and to work towards a safe driving environment. Through partnerships the different stakeholders or other relevant institutions can gain synergies in their efforts to promote road safety. A road safety strategy needs political involvement on different levels. The strategy must encourage ambitious political objectives for road safety and gain ownership and commitment for the implementation of policies and funding of actions. The public administrations will be the active bodies in preparation and implementation of the strategy, with respect to setting up requirements, data collection, enforcement of laws and regulations, responsibility for implementation and monitoring of

157

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

on-going progress. The road user organisations are important stakeholders with a strong capacity to influence road user behaviour in partnership with public agencies. When establishing a national road safety strategy, it is crucial to enlist all stakeholders to be involved or addressed in the different phases. This is important for commitment and ownership and as a basis for establishing key partnerships. A selection of stakeholders is listed in the table 18. Table 18 – Stakeholders Political level

Public administration/ department

Road users

Others

National/Federal Government

Police

Road user organisations

Research institutes

Regional/ State

Road authorities

Road safety associations

Insurance companies

County

Health authorities

Public transport companies

Schools

Municipality

Civil protection and emergency planning agency

Private transport companies

Media

Cities

Accident Investigation Board

Other private companies

Society

Decision-makers

Influence behaviour

Step 2 - Establish a Road Safety Initiative The dimension of the national road safety problem and the willingness and capacity of the government to tackle the problem are major contributing factors when establishing a road safety initiative. An important part of the process will be to create awareness, commitment and ownership on all political levels. The necessary funding and availability of resources should be adequate with respect to the targets set for the initiative. Then identify the partners to join and stimulate the lead agency in road safety efforts. In Europe, national road agencies are most often the starting point for such a lead agency. But in Jordan, Eastern Europe, China and others countries the police or Ministry of Internal Affairs is the lead agency. The lead agency should develop road safety policy and coordinate its execution. This implies that staff should have skills as brokers, coordinators and project management, as well as within communication, safety, knowledge and policy development.

158

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Analyse the role of road safety champions; if none exist, try to create them. A road safety champion can be a private citizen, a high ranking official, an organisation or a group of individuals. The potential impact of road safety champions should be estimated and strategically planned. Later on sustainability and continuity are essential. A national committee or safety council, like those in Jordan, Costa Rica, and Morocco or as proposed in Lebanon, is a must to enlist the support of all relevant agencies in road safety planning. Setting road safety targets will make the policy more effective, but all agencies should be energised to play their role.

Step 3 - Knowledge of the Current Situation and Trends The availability of complete, uniform and timely crash and exposure data is a key precursor to the development of an effective road safety strategy. In developing countries or countries in transition, this information facilitates the identification of existing or emerging crash and victim trends, road infrastructure and emergency medical services deficiencies. For mature economies, comprehensive collision and exposure information facilitates the evaluation of the effectiveness of new technologies and the development and implementation of new or revised motor vehicle safety regulations. In order to ensure that the elaboration of the current road safety situation is an accurate depiction of the level of road safety in a country, it is important to verify the quality and completeness of the crash data being captured and analysed. A legislative agreement (e.g. memorandum of understanding) between the national agency responsible for crash data analysis and provincial/state or national agencies responsible for data collection should be in place to facilitate standardized data collection practices (i.e. standardized crash report forms, harmonized crash data elements and data element values, complete and timely reporting). Police services responsible for collecting crash data information should be made aware of the value and uses of having reliable and complete data for analysis and planning purposes. Once the integrity of the data (e.g. crash, exposure, trauma) has been verified, an analysis of serious crash and victim trends can be undertaken. Major crash characteristics such as where (e.g. intersections, curves, rural), when (e.g. hour, day/ night, day of week) or how (e.g. single vehicle run-off, head-on) collisions most often occur and the environmental factors (e.g. weather/road conditions) that are most often associated with them can be identified. Trends of road victim types (e.g. drivers, passengers, vulnerable road users) most often involved in serious crashes, victim characteristics (e.g. age, gender, driver experience) and the contributing factors most often cited among victims of serious crashes (e.g. speed, alcohol, non-use of restraints) can also be identified.

159

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

With knowledge of the current situation, key stakeholders from agencies with a strong interest in road safety (e.g. transportation, police services, justice, health) should meet periodically to share information and discuss on-going or emerging issues. If feasible, the collection of revised crash, exposure (e.g. travel patterns) or vehicle data (e.g. VIN for airbags fitment/side curtain, ESC etc.) that may help explain emerging trends or issues should be pursued. One of the key challenges faced by transportation agencies, even in mature economies with longstanding data collection protocols in place, is the timely collection of complete and uniform crash data. Regional/provincial/state authorities sometimes need to be convinced of the benefits of amending their reporting practices in order to capture new or missing data. Open channels of communication between the most senior levels of federal and state/province/local agencies responsible for data collection and analysis often facilitate the understanding of issues and lead to cooperation and the complete and timely reporting of uniform data. The resulting analysis of crash and exposure data then provides direction to programme and policy makers for the development of strategies and the introduction of interventions to address the most critical road safety concerns (e.g. high-risk road users, vulnerable road users).

Step 4 - Prerequisites Most national road safety strategies set quantitative targets for a decrease in road accident fatalities. This could be considered as the first priority. Some strategies set further targets regarding the decrease in the number of personal injury accidents, serious or slight injuries or so-called sub-targets regarding fatalities among children or specific performance indicators (safety belt wearing rate, rate of driving under the influence of alcohol, etc.) These targets could be based on forecasts made by using mathematical-statistical methods or on summaries of the road safety potential of different measures. The Danish programme “Towards new objectives 2001-2012” is a good example of the latter. This programme proposes 62 initiatives by calculating their cost-effectiveness. Target setting is the first and basic step in the elaboration of such a strategy (Summary of ETSC’s Transport Safety Launch, Target Setting for Road Safety in the EU, Brussels, 14th January 2010). In the absence of solid funding, the best road safety strategy could simply be a “wish list”. Even having the necessary funding is not all that is needed; another important step is allocation of the resources according to the principles of cost-effectiveness.

160

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Appropriate legislation, though required, is not enough to reach the planned road safety targets. Even when there is up-to-date legislation, the efficiency will be very low if enforcement is lacking. The different guidelines and manuals (Supreme project, GRSP, PIARC and WHO manuals, EU directives, etc.) are necessary when implementing road safety measures. These documents contain useful information on how to carry out the measures in a cost-effective way. An important prerequisite for implementation is the availability of the necessary knowledge, competence and expertise. Although so-called best practices are already available, their adaptation to the local circumstances is necessary in order to achieve the planned efficiency. In other words, professional experts are necessary in all areas of the road safety activities in order to achieve optimal implementation. The role of research is crucial as well – both when adapting measures to the national or local circumstances and when evaluating alternatives. In the field of infrastructure the development plays a key role. Vehicles, roads and the environment have to be emphasized in addition to intelligent transport systems and telematics.

Step 5 - Set Road Safety Objectives Road safety targets can be depicted as a hierarchy, as illustrated below (LTSA, 2000). Targets at the more detailed levels assist in setting final targets or in monitoring progress towards final targets. Figure 16 from New Zealand describes the various levels of targets that can be adopted. Social cost

Final outcomes

Intermediate outcomes

Outputs

Figure 16 – Target hierarchy in New Zealand (Source: Land Transport Safety Authority)

161

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

• The overall target is to reduce the socio-economic costs of road crashes. • This is to be achieved by meeting the second level of targets, requiring specific

reductions in the numbers of fatalities and serious injuries.

• A third level of targets consists of performance indicators (including those related

to speed, drink driving and rates of seat-belt wearing) that are consistent with the targeted reductions in final outcomes. • A fourth level of targeting is concerned with institutional delivery output such as the enforcement outputs that are required to achieve the third-level targets. • Final outcome targets represent the desired result of road safety policies and

usually refer to the total annual number of road casualties (fatalities or injuries). These may include both long-term visions (such as zero deaths and serious injuries) and interim targets to be met over a specific time period, often 10 years. • Intermediate outcome targets, often known as safety performance indicators, set goals for progress in implementing key elements of road safety strategies. They may include average traffic speeds, the level of drunk drivers using the network, seatbelt-wearing rates, helmet-wearing rates, the physical condition of the road network and the standard of the vehicle fleet (measured for example in terms of safety ratings). They may cover different crash categories (for example, reducing run-off-rural-road crashes by a specified amount); specific geographic regions (for example, reducing urban travel speeds by five kilometres per hour); or different types of road user (for example, reducing dangerous loading infractions by heavy vehicles). • Output targets represent physical deliverables required to produce intermediate and final outcomes. They may include, for example, the number of speed enforcement operations required to reduce average traffic speeds or the time spent by the police to control drink driving. Final outcome targets can be expressed in terms of reduction in: • absolute numbers (e.g. -40% fatalities within the next 10 years), • rates (-40% in fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles travelled by 2011 compared

to 1996).

There is debate among experts on the appropriateness of defining targets in terms of rates. In general, rates are not easy for the general public or decision makers to understand. Targets are useful to communicate a strong desire to get things moving and to improve road safety. As targets expressed in terms of rates can be more difficult to understand or “visualize” and therefore present the risk of losing the support of the public or policy makers, it seems better to set targets in terms of a reduction in the absolute number of casualties.

162

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Setting targets in developing countries 2011 – 2020 - A Decade for Action The first Global Ministerial Conference on road safety was held in Moscow in November 2009. The focus of the conference was on road safety in low and middle income countries and the actions needed in particular to protect vulnerable road users and to build capacity. The conference resulted in a declaration that was subsequently adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2010. This declaration calls for the implementation of a “Decade of Action for Road Safety” to stabilize and then reduce the forecast level of global road deaths by 2020. Examples of national targets Malaysia Malaysia adopted a road safety plan for 2006-2010. This strategy includes the following goals presented in table 19. Table 19 – Targets for Malaysia for 2006-2010 Targets

Results as of 2008

Reduce the number of road deaths per 10 000 vehicles by 52.4% from 4.2 in 2005 to 2.0 in 2010

3.7

Reduce the death rate per 100 000 population from 23 in 2005 to 10 in 2010

23.5

Reduce the death rate per billion vehicle-kilometres from 18 in 2005 to 10 in 2010

17.30

Norway In 2009, Norway had 4.4 fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants. This is a fairly good record with respect to traffic safety. In the National Transport Plan 2010-2019, a target was set by the Norwegian Parliament to lower the number of fatalities and severe injuries in road transport by 1/3 by 2020.

Spain In 2001 the EU approved the white paper: “European transport policy for 2010: time to decide”, which set the goal of reducing traffic fatalities by 50%. The Spanish Government decided to support the challenge by setting the intermediate goal of reducing fatalities by 40% from 2003 to 2008. Japan In 2003 the prefectural public safety commissions and road administrators in Japan jointly set as their goal the reduction of fatal traffic accidents by approximately 30% by 2007. The goals were to be achieved through planned concentrated accident prevention countermeasures at hot spots.

163

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Step 6 - Organise a Road Safety Strategy Project Preparation of a Safe System project According to World Bank guidelines, preparation of a Safe System project is conducted through eight distinctive steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

set project objectives, determine scale of project investment, identify project partnerships, specify project components, confirm project management components, specify project monitoring and evaluation procedures, prepare a detailed project design, address project implementation priorities.

Project objectives should differentiate between core objectives and “related objectives”. Core objectives are broadly the acceleration and transfer of road safety knowledge to project participants and the rapid strengthening of capacity (particularly the lead agency) among participating agencies and stakeholders, as well as the achievement of quick proven results to obtain benchmark performance measures. “Related objectives” include reforms of institutional management functions shaped by a critical review of the country’s road safety management capacity. The scale of the project is determined in part by budgetary constraints, but investment needs to be sufficient to guarantee achievement of the core project objectives. Stand-alone projects are preferable to projects that are components added onto a primary operation; however, reality in low and middle-income countries reveals that component projects are more common. These can be effective projects for demonstrating strategy provided that they adhere to the Safe System principles. Project strategy should engage all relevant partners and stakeholders who share an interest in the outcome. These may include global and regional partners (such as the World Bank, WHO, or UN regional bodies), local research centres (especially for monitoring and evaluation purposes), community groups and NGOs, and the private sector. The strategy for specifying project components should be prioritized in accordance with identified national road safety management weaknesses. Broadly, these would target lead agency reform through the specification of a central role for the lead agency to enable it to build and strengthen its leadership and partnership capacity. It would also target high-risk corridors in order to demonstrate a rapid reduction in death and injury, as most countries’ bulk of their social cost in road deaths and injury can be traced to a small portion of national and city networks where high speeds are common. Project components will almost always focus on a combination of improving infrastructure safety, road user behaviour, and post-crash response in high-risk corridors, and appropriate performance targets should be established.

164

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Project management components should revolve around the role of the lead agency (or designated body) in executing the project, and appropriate coordination should ensure effective working relationships across the road safety partnership for decision-making and consultative measures. This includes monitoring and evaluation procedures, the requirements of which should be worked out early in the process and in consultation with the appropriate project partners. Project design can move forward after agreements on the project concept and related management and monitoring/reporting arrangements for the targeted area are in place. Implementation priorities are designed to ensure that project goals are sequenced and targeted appropriately. Where national road safety management capacity is weak, external technical assistance may be called upon to guide project implementation, especially in a mentoring role to local teams. Promotion of the project is also important beyond simple road safety campaigns. The government’s ambition level should be reflected in the dialogue it undertakes with its citizens regarding the project goals, implementation, and long-term implications. Finally, a knowledge transfer and roll-out programme should be put in place to build capacity in a targeted way, demonstrating that good practice measures equate to improvement in road safety performance. The project must then be seen as a first step in a longer process.

Inspections and on-site visits In the process of developing road safety infrastructure projects, it is important to inspect the road network to better understand the road safety risks. “Blackspots” and “blacklengths” are where serious casualty crashes have occurred and are usually regarded as the highest priority sites. However, a risk assessment of the entire road network provides an indication of the potential for crashes to occur at particular sites based on the condition of the road. Making improvements to roads at “blackspots” and “blacklengths” is very beneficial, but this is a reactive approach. A proactive approach involves inspecting the road network, assessing crash risks, developing countermeasures and prioritising improvements. Several countries are now using iRAP (the International Risk Assessment Programme) to determine road network risks. A road network risk assessment provides some of the important information required for the development of a strategic approach to addressing road infrastructure risks. Site inspections can reveal problems with the horizontal or vertical alignment of a road, the presence of roadside hazards (such as trees and poles) in close proximity to the road, poor visual cues to drivers approaching hazardous conditions, poor street lighting and other road conditions that may affect road safety. Field inspections should preferably be carried out during both daylight and dark conditions to better appreciate the risks that road users may encounter.

165

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Site inspection information is essential for a thorough understanding of road infrastructure risks and to develop effective countermeasures.

Step 7 - Implementation of the Road Safety Strategy Once the road safety plan has been developed and its key elements have been identified and agreed to by key governmental (e.g. transportation, health services, public insurers, justice, education) and non-governmental (e.g. public safety groups, police services, automobile associations, private insurers, researchers, citizen advocacy groups) organisations as a result of a broad-based consultative process, the strategy can be implemented. The road safety strategy should first be formally introduced at the national or jurisdictional level by government ministers responsible for road safety issues. Information should be provided on the reasons behind the development and introduction of the new plan, its key elements, the focus of intervention efforts and the expected benefits to the general public once the strategy is fully implemented. Following the strategy’s introduction, comprehensive efforts should be made through various media to extensively promote awareness of and ownership for the new plan among the general public. Efforts should be made to shift society’s views towards road safety. Road users should be encouraged to assume responsibility for their road use behaviours and to ultimately take ownership of the road safety strategy. It is important that a road safety strategy is implemented in a coordinated, collaborative and cooperative fashion among various levels of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in order to maximize its outreach. It would also be beneficial if the road safety plan were sufficiently flexible to allow for the adaptation of strategies to address jurisdictional or regional-specific issues. The implementation of various countermeasures as part of a national road safety strategy should also involve benchmarking, where various aspects of a country’s road safety performance are evaluated in relation to other ‘best-in-class’ practices. These benchmark results enable countries or jurisdictions to identify and understand gaps in performance and to modify the key components of road safety programmes accordingly. Prior to engaging in a benchmarking exercise, it is important to decide on the objectives desired during the timeframe of a strategy and to determine if benchmark information can be identified and tracked so that progress can be measured. It is critical that adequate funding is available to carry out the initiatives identified in a road safety strategy. Actions that are proposed in a strategy should be realistic and achievable with the existing level of resources. Strategies or treatments that are low-cost or cost effective and have been proven effective in treating similar road safety challenges in similar nations/jurisdictions (e.g. road safety audits, sealed

166

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

shoulders, roundabouts or rumble strips) should be among the first measures to be considered for implementation. Measures requiring a level of resources that currently does not exist in a country should not be considered.

Step 8 - Evaluate and update of the Road Safety Strategy Following the implementation of a road safety strategy, it is important that road safety remains at the forefront of the many competing interests on government ministers’ agendas. High-level monitoring reports, which summarise progress being made as a result of the implementation of a road safety strategy, should be provided to ministers responsible for road transportation at regular intervals (i.e. at least annually) throughout the tenure of the strategy. In addition, other key stakeholders that also have a strong vested interest in the outcomes of the strategy (e.g. health, justice, police services, non-governmental safety organisations and the general public) should also be kept informed of actions that have been implemented and of progress being made. Ambitious quantitative targets that are inherent to a road safety strategy should be evaluated at regularly scheduled intervals throughout the timeframe of the road safety plan to ensure that progress is being made at a rate that ensures that the objectives of the strategy are likely to be met. Benchmark crash, victim and exposure information should be available for all targets identified under the road safety strategy to facilitate the evaluation of the targets in place. The evaluation of targets should then enable a determination to be made as to whether or not the risk of serious crashes or casualties has diminished in the areas targeted under the strategy. If progress has not yet occurred or is minimal, consideration should be given to the steps that are necessary (political, financial, strategic) to enable the targets to be met. Alternatively, evaluations of existing targets at regular intervals may demonstrate to the plan’s stakeholders that the targets may have been too ambitious or that unforeseen circumstances (e.g. economic conditions) necessitate adjustments to the targets to reflect more realistic goals. Ideally, assessments or evaluations of the effectiveness of actions or strategies undertaken to help achieve targets should be carried out. If feasible, performing cost benefit analysis of actions planned or cost effectiveness analysis of actions implemented would provide a fairly clear indication of the financial benefits of implementing an activity or of the casualties avoided as a result of the adoption of specific measures. It may not be feasible to evaluate all actions implemented as part of a road safety strategy. Lack of evaluation criteria or financial impediments may act as barriers. In

167

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

these circumstances, documented evaluations of similar actions undertaken in other jurisdictions should be referenced and adapted to the current environment. It is important to have targets, strategies and actions in place that allow a road safety strategy a reasonable opportunity to succeed. Once a determination has been made regarding the level of progress (or in some instances, the lack of it) that has occurred in the areas targeted under the road safety strategy, adjustments may need to be made to targets or to the strategies implemented to increase the likelihood of the plan’s success. If the strategy is modified, key stakeholders should be informed of the reasons for revising the plan and of any new or revised expected outcomes.

Road Safety Success Stories Spain In 2001, the EU approved the white paper: “European transport policy for 2010: time to decide”, which set the goal of reducing traffic fatalities by 50%. The Spanish Government decided to support the challenge by setting the intermediate goal of reducing fatalities by 40% from 2003 to 2008. Preparation For that purpose the 2005-2008 Key Strategic Action Plan was adopted, in which civil society and government administration play a crucial role in the elaboration, performance and monitoring process. The elements of the 2005-2008 Key Strategic Action Plan were: • to coordinate the ministries and regional and local authorities, • to identify specific targets from the accident pattern analysis, in order to set up

targets and measures for the priority road users,

• to establish a system of indicators to measure and evaluate the targets and the

progress of actions and measures,

• monitoring the plan each six months.

In order to address traffic accidents in urban areas, a Basic Urban Road Safety Plan was drafted to define a methodology for interventions in this specific area of road safety policy. The preparation of the plan is based on three main pillars: 1. Analysis of data and reports. Historical data were analyzed, and the resulting

pattern was as follows:

––a high number of people killed by night (37%) and at weekends (42%), ––motorcycles were the only group of vehicles with increasing incidence of injury accidents,

168

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

––57% of the fatalities were occupants in passenger cars, and the main problems were alcohol (36% of the drivers who were killed), speeding (29% of the fatal accidents) and not using seat belts in cars or helmets on mopeds. 2. Interviews with the main stakeholders, whose opinions were collected and used

in the identification of the priority problems and key projects. These stakeholders included research institutes, insurance companies, the automotive industry, NGOs, mass media, driving schools, ministries, local governments, and town and city councils. 3. Analysis of the best practices on road safety. The plan is an integral model with measures from the point of view of road-user behaviour, vehicle safety and infrastructure. 26 strategic objectives were identified for substantial improvement of road safety in Spain. Main projects The following measures have been carried out between 2003 and 2008: • the National Road Safety Observatory was created in July 2004; • in September 2004 the automatic speed camera plan 2005-2008 was launched; • the Road Safety Strategic Plan 2005-2008 was designed at the end of 2004; • a new system for collecting crash data was established in January 2006; • road safety was introduced as a compulsory subject in the educational system in

May 2006;

• the penalty point system was introduced in July 2006; • specific prosecution for road safety was created in November 2006; • the Urban Road Safety standard pattern plan was finished in 2007; • estrada, an administrative centre for processing speeding fines, was created in 2007; • a strategic plan for motorcycles was launched in 2007; • the Spanish Penal Code was revised at the end of 2007: the main issues were

alcohol, speeding and driving without a licence.

The strategic objectives, taking 2003 as base year, established goals for accident reduction by the year 2008, including reducing the number of deaths by 40%, the number of serious injuries by 24%, and the number of deaths and serious injuries at weekends. In addition to these goals, the objectives targeted road safety performance indicators such as reaching 90% seat belt use in front seats in urban areas and 95% helmet use by moped drivers in urban areas, a lower percentage of drivers who exceed the speed limit, and a reduction in the rate of drivers killed with blood alcohol levels over the legal limit to 20%.

169

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Evaluation Three bodies are involved in following up and evaluating the plan: • the National Road Safety Observatory, which provides the indicators each six

months and prepares the Report of Activities, the Annual Action Plan and the Annual Evaluation Report; • the Director Committee, which includes the DGT General Director, the Infrastructure General Director, the Public Health General Director and other directors involved in Road Safety. This committee follows evolution of the targets and the degree of implementation of the Action Plan. This is an executive committee which meets each six months; • the Road Safety Council is advised of the status of the Plan’s performance and the achieved results. It is a body of participation through working groups that are created within it. Results Thanks to the effort of all the stakeholders, there has been a change in the behaviour of road users: the problem of driving under the effects of alcohol has been reduced, the use of seat belts and helmets has increased, and the average speed has been reduced. The number of fatalities has fallen by 43% between 2003 and 2008. This indicator has declined every year during the period observed without rebounding upward, and the number of deaths in 2008 (3,102) is lower than the goal set in the Road Safety Plan (3,250). Of the objectives outlined in the Plan, the following were reached in 2008: total number of deaths, total number of seriously injured, moped rider fatalities, child casualties in tourism, traffic victims in the summer months (July + August) and young victims (18 – 29 years old) at weekends. There is another set of goals that are unlikely to be achieved, although they show a downward trend. This is the case of pedestrian more than 49 years old in urban areas or the rate of drivers killed with blood alcohol levels over the legal limit. And finally, the targets set for motorcyclists still show a negative trend.

Victoria, Australia Stakeholders VicRoads (Victoria’s road authority for the principal road network) is the lead agency for road safety policy in Victoria. VicRoads engages other key government departments and non-government organisations in various fora for the development of road safety policy, strategies and action plans.

170

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Engagement and consultation Engagement with all stakeholders about what has been working and what has not is a core element of VicRoads’ practice. The “arrive alive” strategy, and each action plan within it, receives a public launch to build community awareness. Presentations are made to key stakeholders and interested groups. Both the general public and key stakeholders are involved in formal consultation and feedback processes that provide further input to the action plans and “arrive alive” strategy. Regular dialogue with the community about road safety problems and potential action areas is part of a continuous improvement process. Activities include citizen forums and regional Road Safety Committees, together with financial support programs such as seed funding for Victoria’s municipal councils to develop their local road safety responses. The ultimate aim is to create strong community ownership of Victoria’s road safety strategy and its supporting action plans. Knowledge of current situation and trends: High quality crash data is used to identify problem areas and causal factors. Daily reporting of fatalities and monthly reporting of serious injuries provide a constantly updated snapshot of performance. That picture highlights areas where gains have been made and areas where road safety is deteriorating. During implementation, research is also undertaken to gauge effectiveness. This ensures that expected gains from road safety initiatives are delivered. Potential initiatives are used as inputs to a specially developed model that provides predicted reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. The model can be applied successfully in a variety of situations, including: • investments decisions – e.g. determining the relative merit of the construction

of more roundabouts and installation of more traffic signals to reduce crashes at intersections; • research on potential initiatives to determine the relative benefits that can be achieved by introducing particular safety initiatives – e.g. assessing the impact of mandatory Electronic Stability Control (ESC) fitted in all new vehicles; • predicted road safety benefits of planned behavioural change initiatives – e.g. introducing a new Graduated Licensing System.

171

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Prerequisites Government needs to be able to make good decisions about investment, targets and resourcing road safety measures. The strong evidence-based approach used by VicRoads and its road safety partner agencies helps the government set appropriate targets for reduction in fatalities and serious injuries. Victoria’s target is a thirty per cent reduction in fatalities and serious injuries by 2017. For the first time, the targets also include a reduction in the degree of severity of injury (measured by the period of time road crash patients spend in hospital). Victoria utilises legislation as a powerful means of improving road safety. Victoria has a Road Safety Act supported by various regulations that provide the rules for the safe use of roads (vehicles and people). There are other Acts of Parliament that control the development and maintenance of the road network in which road safety is a key focus. The road safety rules and regulations are widely publicised and are strongly enforced. The community is supportive of road safety and is generally accepting of new evidenced based measures to improve road safety. There is a rich source of road crash data which is collected by Victoria Police. This data is analysed by various key stakeholders to develop information which can be used for targeted research, policy development, education, enforcement and action planning. Establish a road safety initiative/road safety strategy Victorian crash data indicates that the highest number of fatal crashes are run-off-road crashes. This crash type makes up over 45% of fatal crashes in rural Victoria and is also a high fatal crash type in urban areas. To counteract this type of crash, Victoria has introduced a program for the installation of safety barriers on the side of roads to prevent vehicles from hitting fixed objects on the roadside. (particularly trees and poles). Other countermeasures include sealing the roadside shoulders to provide better road conditions for vehicles to recover, installation of tactile edgelines and improvements to road delineation. This targeted approach has resulted in a significant reduction in run-off-road fatal crashes. Run-off-road crashes are typically caused by drivers being fatigued, under the influence of alcohol/drugs, excessive speed and driver distraction. Run-off-road crashes can occur anywhere on the road network and it is difficult to identify

172

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

particular road characteristics where there is a high risk of a run-off-road crash occurring. Victoria uses its crash information to identify sections of the road network where run-off-road crashes are most prevalent. Site inspections are undertaken at these sections of the road to examine the roadside conditions. A risk assessment is undertaken, countermeasures are developed and costed. An analysis of benefits and costs is undertaken for proposed projects, with financial investment directed to proposals with the highest relative benefits to cost ratio. Victoria’s road safety strategy is a Government strategy. The Victorian Government provides the resources required to deliver the strategy. However, a strong message that is provided to community on a frequent basis, is that all members of community have a role to play in improving road safety. Monitoring performance and results The key road safety partners in Victoria (VicRoads, Victoria Police, Transport Accident Commission and Department of Justice) work with the government to monitor constantly: • progress towards targets; • delivery of each action item in the plan; • identification of the most effective measures.

Through this process we can quickly determine what is working, what is not, and what else needs to be done. As a result of this structured blend of strategic planning, solid research, community involvement and interagency cooperation, Victoria has achieved a drop in the rate of road fatalities from 30.9 per 100,000 population in 1970 to 5.34 in 2009, a reduction of more than 80%. In absolute terms, fatalities have dropped from 1,061 in 1970 to 290 in 2009.

Serbia The country of Serbia, an upper middle-income country with European Union accession aspirations, faced a difficult situation in 2003 with regards to the institutional management of its national road safety apparatus. In that year a Road Safety Department was established within the Ministry of Transport, but without the mandate of a lead agency and with little horizontal or vertical coordinative capacity. While the traffic police had clearly defined road safety responsibilities, the role of the transport, justice, health and education sectors in road safety was unclear.

173

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Following the publication of the World Bank-WHO World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention in 2004 and increased domestic attention to the issue of road safety, the Serbian government increased dialogue with the international community about best practice methodology for reducing the toll of death and injury on the country’s roads. This resulted in an official request from the Government of Serbia to the World Bank, through its Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF), to conduct a Road Safety Management Capacity Review in 2007. The review, following World Bank guidelines, included holding more than thirty meetings with government officials, non-government stakeholders and organisations, as well as inspections of the road network. In parallel, through the GRSF, grant financing was obtained for the safety rating of portions of the Serbian road network through iRAP, the International Road Assessment Program. Cumulatively, these actions clarified accountability and decision-processes in the government, aimed towards forming a scaled-up results-focus for road safety as well as bolstering infrastructure safety and road asset-management capacity. These helped form the basis for the formal adoption of new national legislation on road safety in Serbia. By seeking – and then acting on – a focused investment plan for scaling up road safety in the country, Serbia has moved closer towards becoming a country utilizing best-practice Safe System designs.

Argentina Road safety is now recognized as a serious public health issue in Argentina, with approximately 25 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants and over 70,000 serious injuries annually due to road traffic crashes. Moreover, road fatalities have been on the rise, increasing on average 20% per annum in recent years. At the institutional level, recent measures have been enacted which point towards a stronger results-oriented strategy. For example, in April 2008, the National Road Safety Agency (ANSV) was created as an act of law in the Ministry of Interior at the federal level. As a separate legal entity, ANSV’s mission is to reduce Argentina’s crash rate in the federal territory through managing the promotion, coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of national and international road safety policies. Seeking to maximize the potential gains for road safety development at both the national and provincial level, the Government of Argentina officially requested and received assistance from the World Bank, both from its Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF) and in securing a stand-alone road safety project loan which conforms to up-to-date Safe System design principals. Specifically, the project provides strategic support to the ANSV for the implementation of the National Plan for Road Safety, with a strong focus on creating accountability in achieving outcomes. In particular, the design of the project includes institutional capacity building, demonstration corridors and incentive funds programs, and a road safety monitoring and evaluation system.

174

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Through the GRSF, Argentina also benefitted from a) the carrying out of high-level technical workshops at the World Bank for ANSV leadership staff; b) provincial-level Road Safety Management Capacity Reviews; and c) iRAP (International Road Assessment Program) inspections in two provinces, which helped feed into designs for the national-level program. These efforts are helping boost ANSV, and ensuring investment for increasing road infrastructure safety within high-risk corridors is addressed. The GRSF further provided technical support through its partnership with IRTAD, the International Road Traffic Accident Database working group (coordinated through the OECD and International Transport Forum). Specifically, it enabled a technical exchange between ANSV staff and the General Traffic Directorate (DGT) in Spain in order to strengthen cooperation with Spanish experts advising on data collection and analysis for the Argentine Road Safety Observatory. Finally, through its RoadPOL global traffic safety police network program, the GRSF has provided early high-level analysis of ANSV’s road enforcement capacity.

Japan 1. Designating accident hot spots and setting accident prevention goals: • past traffic safety countermeasures based on the provision and improvement of

road space were undertaken jointly by a police department (prefectural public safety commission) and a road administrator (regional branch office of the national government or local public authority) according to the roles filled by each body; • the police department provided facilities such as signals, regulatory signs, and regulatory road markings etc. to control road traffic, while the road administrator improved facilities by, for example, dividing sidewalks from carriageways, installing safety barriers or road illumination, and improving the structures of intersections; • in July 2003, the National Police Agency and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism jointly designated a total of 3,956 locations where the rate of accidents causing injuries or fatalities was high or where fatal accidents occurred frequently (uninterrupted flow locations: 1,239, intersections: 2,717) as accident hot spots; • at the same time, prefectural public safety commissions and road administrators jointly set, as their goal, the reduction of fatal traffic accidents by approximately 30% by 2007 through planned concentrated accident prevention countermeasures. 2. Planning, implementing, and evaluating countermeasures in accordance with a

manual prepared by the national government:

• in order to efficiently perform the series of measures – planning, implementing,

and evaluating countermeasures – at accident hot spots, the National Police Agency and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism have prepared

175

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

the Traffic Accident Countermeasure and Evaluation Manual, and each body has undertaken projects and evaluations in conformity with this manual; • the manual is structured as follows: ––goal and positioning of the manual; ––outline of the procedure from countermeasure planning until effectiveness evaluation; ––as countermeasure planning method, preliminary survey procedure and method followed to classify the situation prior to the countermeasures, select the countermeasure locations, analyse the causes of accidents, plan the countermeasures, and evaluate the countermeasures; ––as the method of evaluating the countermeasure, post countermeasure project survey and evaluation procedure and method to classify and evaluate the situation after the countermeasure has been implemented; ––accumulation in an accident countermeasure database of the contents of countermeasures and the results of post countermeasure project evaluations. 3. Ensuring budgets necessary for accident hot spot countermeasure projects:

the priority allotment to the implementation of countermeasures at accident hot spots of the national government budget appropriated in the past to improve traffic safety facilities has ensured the budget needed for countermeasures at the same time as it has contributed to prioritisation needed for each project implementation body to carry out prioritised implementation of countermeasures at accident hot spots. 4. Effectiveness of implementation of countermeasures and future actions: • the priority implementation of countermeasures at traffic accident hot spots as

described above has successfully reduced the number of traffic accidents occurring at accident hot spots by 25%. Systematically implementing countermeasures to improve traffic safety has also reduced the number of fatalities caused by traffic accidents in Japan by 31% between 2002 prior to the start of the countermeasures and 2007, which was the final year of the countermeasures; • in response to the success of these countermeasures, in March 2009, 3,396 accidents hot spots were newly designated and the implementation of priority countermeasures was continued.

176

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

6. OPPORTUNITIES 6.1. INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

There are major road safety challenges ahead for the World, especially for lower and middle income countries, as summed up in the ‘Decade of Action for Road Safety, 2011 - 2020’ Declaration of the UN General Assembly in March 2010. This activity was promoted by the Make Roads Safe53 Campaign supported by the Commission for Global Road Safety and many other international organisations in the lead up to the UN General Assembly Resolution. Road traffic crashes kill 1.3 million people and injure up to 50 million each year, according to the World Health Organization. As the lower income countries continue to rapidly motorise over coming years, and as travel speeds will increase unless regulated, the World Bank says that unless something is done to make roads safer, road traffic crashes and the associated personal tragedies could become the fourth or fifth leading cause of death in low and middle-income countries by 2030. Children are the most at risk. The WHO produced a Global Status Report on Road Safety - Time for Action54, in 2009. It details the road safety situation in every country across the globe. The ‘Make Roads Safe’ report, endorsed by the world’s leading road safety experts, urged UN governments attending the first ever global governmental conference on road safety in Moscow in November 2009, to support the ‘Decade of Action for Road Safety’ between 2011-2020. During the Decade the international community should invest in a $300 million action plan to catalyse traffic injury prevention and re-focus national road safety policies and budgets. Highlights of UN General Assembly Text Proclaiming Decade of Action for Road Safety (2011-2020), aimed at reducing traffic-related deaths, injuries; Adopted March 10th, 2010 55

Recognizing the tremendous global burden of fatalities resulting from road crashes, as well as the 20 million to 50 million people sustaining non-fatal traffic-related injuries each year, the General Assembly today proclaimed the period 2011-2020 as the Decade of Action for Road Safety, with the goal of stabilizing and eventually reducing the number deaths and injuries.  http://www.makeroadssafe.org  Global Status Report on Road Safety: Time for action, Geneva, World Health Organisation, 2009 55  Text Proclaiming Decade of Action for Road Safety (2011-2020), Aimed at Reducing Traffic-Related Deaths, Injuries Sixty-fourth UN General Assembly Plenary, 74th Meeting (PM) 53 54

177

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

By the terms of a draft resolution on improving global road safety, one of three texts introduced by the Russian Federation and passed unanimously this afternoon, the Assembly called on Member States to implement activities in the areas of road safety management, road infrastructure, vehicle safety, road-user behaviour, road-safety education and post-crash care. Also by the text, the Assembly requested the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations regional commissions, in cooperation with partners in the United Nations Road Safety Collaboration and other stakeholders, to prepare a plan of action for the Decade. It invited Member States to set their own national road traffic casualty-reduction targets, to be achieved by the end of the Decade. By other terms, the Assembly would call upon Member States to implement road safety activities, particularly in the areas of road safety management, road infrastructure, vehicle safety, road-user behaviour ‑‑ including distractions in traffic ‑‑ road safety education and post-crash care. Inviting all Member States to set their own national road traffic casualty-reduction targets ‑‑ to be achieved by the end of the Decade ‑‑ the Assembly would call for the inclusion of activities that pay attention to the needs of all road users within the plan of action, in particular the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users in low- and middle-income countries. Also by the text, the Assembly would call for joint multi-sectoral action to increase the proportion of countries with comprehensive legislation on key risk factors, including seat belts, child restraint and helmet use, drink-driving and speed, to over 50% by the end of the Decade.  The U.N. General Assembly called on the WHO, the U.N. Road Safety Collaboration and other stakeholders to prepare a “plan of action” for the decade. It is also encouraging Member States to plan their own road traffic casualty-reduction targets. “A Joint Statement on road safety, coordinated by the Global Road Safety Facility, was issued in November 2009 by seven multi-lateral development banks (MDBs).The participating MDBs were the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank, and the World Bank. The statement outlined a program of joint initiatives to be undertaken by the Banks during the Decade of Action. The measures to be carried out fall into four broad categories: • strengthening road safety management capacity; • implementing safety approaches in the planning, design, construction, operation,

and maintenance of road infrastructure projects;

178

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

• improving safety performance measures; and • mobilizing more and new resources for road safety.

In April 2011, these Banks reconvened in Washington DC at the World Bank to launch the MDB Road Safety Initiative, which will commit the seven partner MDBs to a shared program of activities. The aim of the Initiative is to contribute significantly to the achievement of the ambitious Decade of Action goals to stabilize and then reduce the forecast global level of road traffic fatalities, and seek to scale up incentive funds for countries to undertake high value road safety activities with significant leverage effect.” Source: http://www.worldbank.org/grsf This is an opportunity for the members of the World Road Association to play an active role in changing the current situation which if unchecked will lead to the unacceptable loss of life indicated. The support which could be provided could include: understanding crash risk, establishing good data systems and analysis, and through developing skills and knowledge in intervention design and application, at policy and operational levels. Exchanges of staff, provision of training courses in these countries and assisting long term development of networks and knowledge by practitioners over 5 to 10 years could be of great benefit. The Roads Authorities as individual members of PIARC can assist their counterparts through supporting necessary management development to enable road safety issues to be tackled. These could include key institutional management issues such as: • formalising arrangements for cooperative working between agencies; • establishing clear roles and responsibilities; • setting up accountability arrangements with adequate measurement of intermediate

outcomes and regular reporting to the public;

• commitment to supporting mechanisms to enable transfer of road safety knowledge

to senior executives in the agencies and through them to the political level.

Sweden carried out a Review of Road Safety (2008)56 to determine how well their road safety management system was placed to support their objective of achieving “Vision Zero”. Many of the findings in that Review would be relevant to countries seeking to identify ways to improve their road safety management capacity.

 An independent review of road safety in Sweden, Breen,J. Howard, E. Bliss, A. Swedish Road Administration, 2008

56

179

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

6.2. VEHICLE SAFETY

There are remarkable opportunities now and in coming years as new and emerging (and as yet undeveloped) safety technologies are introduced into the vehicle fleet. The eIMPACT project (Wilmink et al., 2008) applied a common procedure to examine the safety potential of twelve systems, and carried out a cost–benefit analysis for those systems. The systems and their effects are shown in table 20, which shows crash effects with 100% penetration of each system. They are substantial. Table 20 – eiMPACT estimates of reduction in injuries and fatalities for the EU at 100% penetration of each system Change in injuries (%)

Change in fatalities(%)

Electronic Stability Control

-6.6

-16.6

Full Speed Range Adaptive Cruise Control

-3.9

-1.4

System

Emergency Braking

-7.3

-7.0

Pre-Crash Protection of URUs

-1.9

-1.8

Lane Change Assistant

-4.8

-2.2

Lane Keeping Support

-8.9

-15.2

Night Vision Wam

-2.0

-2.9

Driver Drowsiness Monitoring and Warning

-3.6

-5.0

eCall

+0.1

-5.8

Intersection Safety

-7.3

-3.9

Wireless Local Danger Warning

-2.5

-4.5

SpeedAlert

-6.2

-8.7

6.2.1. Voluntary ISA and speed alert (Carsten et al., 2008). has produced estimates of the casualty savings that can be achieved with ISA on different road categories. Voluntary ISA is the version with a direct link between speed limit information and vehicle drivetrain, but which the driver can nevertheless override when he or she chooses. Table 21 shows the maximum estimated change in risk of involvement in an injury accident for a vehicle equipped with a voluntary ISA compared with the same vehicle without ISA. These predicted impacts of ISA are very substantial, indicating that ISA is one of the most effective safety interventions on offer.

180

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 21 – Change in risk for a vehicle equipped with voluntary ISA Speed limit (mph)

Risk Impact (%)

30

-43

40

-40

50

-29

60

-14

70

-8

These are far greater effects than Wilmink has reported from speed alert effects above. It will be important to overcome industry reluctance to testing ISA to ensure it becomes available. There are few market pressures for this to occur and it will be important for governments to address this difficulty. “Advisory or warning ISA, i.e. an ISA without any link to the vehicle drivetrain, is sometimes known as Speed Alert. There is relatively little information in the literature on the effectiveness of such systems. In the French LAVIA trials, the advisory ISA only had a fifth of the impact of the voluntary ISA in terms of the amount of time spent driving above the speed limit on 50 km/h roads (Ehrlich et al., 2006). Thus, one can conclude that purely advisory ISA without additional incentives to comply with the warnings will have far smaller impacts on the risk of accident involvement than will voluntary ISA.” Further details of the vehicle safety measures research summarised above are attached in appendix Q.

6.2.2. Other Vehicle safety features The DfT (UK) scoping study report57 also noted that the vehicle manufacturers (EUCAR program for testing new technologies) can be seen to be concentrating on various warning systems and information systems — forward collision warning, lane departure warning, curve speed warning and blind spot information. They are also proposing to prove the safety impact of Adaptive Cruise Control. The systems to be tested affect both longitudinal and lateral control. With regard to systems that affect vehicle maximum speed, Speed Alert (warning Intelligent Speed Adaptation, ISA) and other forms of ISA are not included. However, the speed limiter function in which the driver sets vehicle top speed manually is to be examined. This function is somewhat analogous to the limiting function in a cruise control, but differs in that, with the speed limiter, only a maximum speed is set, whereas with cruise control the vehicle is set to be driven at the set speed and the driver removes his/her foot from the accelerator pedal.  Road Safety Research Report No. 105, Road Safety Strategy beyond 2010: A scoping Study. DfT UK, 2009

57

181

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The safety benefits of ISA were noted in the UK report and it will be important to overcome industry reluctance to testing ISA to ensure it becomes available. There are few market pressures for this to occur and it will be important for governments to address this difficulty. The results in the table 22 below show that the use of a speed limiter in a French study substantially decreased speeding. While DfT acknowledge that it was a small study and one in which the participants may have felt somewhat obligated to engage the system, they draw attention to the “surprisingly large effect of the speed limiter. If these results are confirmed by additional studies, then it may indeed be appropriate to promote the introduction of this system”. Table 22 – Results of AIDE trial of the speed limiter Per cent of distance over the limit First drive with speed Second drive with Before (%) limiter (%) speed limiter (%) Urban roads 61 52 53 Rural roads 35 27 26

From DfT Scoping Study Report58 The DfT Scoping Study concluded that some of the systems discussed have significant safety potential. The systems related to longitudinal vehicle control, affecting speed and rear-end conflict situations are perhaps the most mature in technical terms and offer the greatest benefit. ISA, in particular, has been evaluated extensively and offers significant benefits (Carsten et al., 2008). Systems addressing road departure are less mature (certainly less reliable from a technical point of view with many more missed situations and false alarms) and are relevant to fewer accident situations, although such events can have very serious outcomes. The proposition that eCall will have a large impact on fatalities is not convincing, and there are doubts about the benefit-to-cost ratio for the system. It should also be acknowledged that there is overlap in terms of the accident types to be addressed by the various systems. For example, the systems that affect speed and those that affect headway, such as FCW, may affect some of the same situations. The discussion above of the safety potential of various systems can be compared with the conclusions of the eIMPACT project (Wilmink et al., 2008). The project applied a common procedure to examine the safety potential of twelve systems, and carried out a cost–benefit analysis for those systems. The systems were:  Road Safety Research Report No. 105, Road Safety Strategy beyond 2010: A scoping Study. DfT UK, 2009

58

182

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

1. Electronic Stability Control. 2. Full Speed Range Adaptive Cruise Control, i.e. Stop and Go. 3. Emergency Braking (fully automated braking to avoid or mitigate longitudinal

crashes).

4. Pre-Crash Protection of Vulnerable Road Users (automated braking to avoid or

mitigate collisions with vulnerable road users).

5. Lane Change Assistant (warning of relevant vehicles when changing lane). 6. Lane Keeping Support (active steering to keep in lane). 7. Night Vision Warn (enhanced vision at night through near or far infrared sensors,

including obstacle warning).

8. Driver Drowsiness Monitoring and Warning. 9. eCall. 10. Intersection Safety (red light warning, right of way information at signalised

intersections and stop signs, and right-turn assistance).

11. Wireless Local Danger Warning (inter-vehicle communication distributing early

warnings of accidents, obstacles, reduced friction and bad visibility).

12. SpeedAlert, i.e. advisory Intelligent Speed Adaptation.

6.3. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INJURY INSURANCE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTION TO ACCELERATE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

This is an area that warrants further attention. There are at least two areas of opportunity. a. Insurance companies could offer reduced premiums in a truly competitive

environment when overall serious casualty crash levels are reducing. It would be possible for government to request insurers to maintain their premium levels and to contribute the operating surplus derived from annual serious casualty crash (and associated payouts for claims) reductions into a road safety fund which could be allocated, for example, to additional targeted enforcement or to infrastructure safety improvements. The insurers could have a voice in how the funds were expended by government. With transparency and effective governance arrangements such a scheme could transform safety investment. Governments would need to initiate and jointly manage this approach. See appendix H for further information. b. Insurers should be encouraged to progressively introduce differential premiums for higher risk vehicle categories (higher performance cars, motorcycles-low or higher performance, safer feature vehicles) and to further differentiate premiums on the basis of traffic offence history, crash involvement, driving and riding inexperience and preparedness to install drink driving and speed compliance monitoring equipment. There are some examples of this at present but the new technology offers opportunity to substantially extend this and encourage safer behaviours and technologies.

183

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

6.4. POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT

Two opportunities which arose from discussions with practitioners who responded to the surveys for this report were: a. the need for the knowledge of senior decision makers - especially chief executives

of road safety agencies - to be at a sufficient level to support strong advocacy to the political level. There was a consistent view that this was not always the case with many managers coming to the field from other backgrounds. These staff are the gatekeepers in terms of what is recommended to Ministers for policy and funding action. To address this concern and in order to progress the adoption of appropriate policies by governments, knowledge transfer activities for senior managers and chief executives should be recognised as a critical need and suitable programs devised and provided; b. the surveys indicated the concern experienced in many countries that the political level is often reluctant to implement proven legislative and enforcement measures to improve road safety performance, fearing community backlash. Again, there is clearly a knowledge gap at political level. Mechanisms such as a bipartisan parliamentary committee or reference group which can receive regular briefings from practitioners and researchers, seek advice and information about how implementation could be managed to address public acceptance/ political concerns and to enable input to be made into policy development are likely to prove most useful. In addition, recent/current initiatives set out below are those that are known and have been introduced recently in some jurisdictions but are not implemented widely. There are precedents established in some jurisdictions that can be used as models for implementation in other jurisdictions. These are likely to have known road safety benefits, and in some cases, the benefits may be quantifiable. Emerging areas represent new thinking on road safety issues and approaches (table 23, following page). At this time these are mostly underdeveloped and the most effective methods are yet to be determined. The initiatives may be implemented or being trialled in a very limited number of locations. There is considerable potential to improve road safety in these areas, but the benefits for most initiatives will not be well quantified.

184

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Issue Illicit drugs Fatigue Alcohol

Medically unfit/ Cognitively unfit Medications

Distracted

Heavy Vehicles

Motorcycles

Table 23 – Emerging areas for road safety Recent/Current Initiatives Emerging Areas • In vehicle testing (drug interlocks) Roadside saliva testing • Fatigue monitoring devices in vehicles Chain of responsibility legislation and enforcement tests of fatigue (fleet operators) • Smart interlocks with constant Drinking age reviews, responsible detection of alcohol potentially serving, chain of responsibility, through the skin alcohol interlocks, better data/ screening of crash victims, • Alcohol interlock devices linked to the management of alcoholics through person/ driver through a photo or other medical review, fitment of alcohol biometric identifier interlocks to public transport vehicles and/ or to all new vehicles, zero BAC limit for all drivers.

• Equating medically prescribed drugs

to the impairments of alcohol and informing doctors of this level of risk. • New enforcement technologies, Legislation prohibiting certain technology restrictions in vehicles, activities and devices, public in-vehicle workload managers and awareness campaigns adaptive interfaces when better knowledge of certain behaviours and their crash involvement risk is achieved Underrun protection all round, • Vehicle - infrastructure intelligent access program and communications at high risk locations electronic registrations, seat belts i.e., when a train is approaching a rail reminder, chain of responsibility, crossing electronic braking • Fatigue monitoring • New technologies on vehicles (traction Motorcycle blackspot programs, control and ABS), enforcement technologies - moving • Objective measurement devices for mode radar and video recording on training and testing (using police vehicles/motorcycles accelerometers to detect smoothness of License not available restrictions until braking and cornering. minimum car driving experience Insurance premiums that reflect risk. • New motorcycle engineering treatments and road infrastructure products • Survivable speed limits for motorcycles

185

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 23 – Emerging areas for road safety (follow) Recent/Current Initiatives Emerging Areas • Lowering vehicle speeds in high Cycling corridors bicycle use areas (to < 40 km/h) where separation is not feasible, or at times of the week when bicycle use is high. (eg., recreational routes on weekends) Pedestrians Pedestrian effective safe vehicle design, infrastructure design and speed limitations Overseas • Linking with immigration authorities to provide advice on the legal obligations and collection of driver licensing information so that overseas drivers resident in any country cannot maintain two licences (unless dual citizenship is essential). • Development of more effective communication channels to advise of road safety requirements among culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities Economically • Many serious road safety offences and disadvantaged, recidivist offenders are from rural disadvantaged communities. Inability communities, to use a car has high social costs, there indigenous are fewer alternatives and licence communities penalties are less likely to be observed. These groups need targeted measures that reduce both social burden and road safety risks Young New targeted restrictions - night, • In vehicle assessment devices used to passengers, safer vehicles, restrictions record learner or provisional use of a or tighter vehicle controls like in vehicle including log book hours and vehicle drug testing/ISA any unsafe driving behaviour. Needs to link to identity. Older Not much new, but looking to do things better. Better screening, better identification of those unfit to drive, better communication of retiring from driving, obligations and alternatives. Alternative mobility options when no longer able to drive. Issue Bicycles

186

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 23 – Emerging areas for road safety (follow) Issue Recent/Current Initiatives Emerging Areas Driver Identity • The ability to link a driver to a vehicle - identity and or the source database provides the underlies the opportunity for smart/targeted effectiveness of conditions, monitoring of recidivists, all licensing and prevention of unsafe behaviour. regimes/ penalties. Vehicle Identity • Vehicle identity also critical especially - underlies the with heavy vehicles and motorcycles effectiveness of where traditional identity practices are all vehicle less effective. The ability to identify registration motorcycles known to travel at higher regimes/ speeds and exceed speed limits more penalties. often is critical to the safety of this mode. Penalties • Implemented through technology. Limiters or monitoring devices placed in the vehicles of offenders or recidivist offenders. The economic and social burden that taking people off the road or imprisoning people imposes is very high. The same road safety outcomes may be able to be achieved through other measures without the social burden. Speeding ISA, speed limiters, point to point • Limits to top speed and performance (section control) technology of vehicles. Vehicles • Vehicles that prevent drivers from Improved safety design through breaking the law or breaking their complex modelling licence conditions. • Vehicles that have crash prevention safety overrides • Vehicles that drive themselves Community • Communities running their own road Municipalities, developers and and business safety agendas through evidence based manufacturers - road safety charters, road safety grants and awards chain of responsibility and OHS responsibility regulations Urban planning Creating corridors for modes of • Safety neutral development as a transport, provision of safe cycling minimum standard. and pedestrian infrastructure and public transport in new developments/ infrastructure planning.

187

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Table 23 – Emerging areas for road safety (follow) Issue Recent/Current Initiatives Emerging Areas Communications Use of new information channels to access groups using non traditional media Enforcement Point to point technology on all major • Vehicles limited to speed limits routes Alignment with • Seeking ways of using vehicles that other priorities minimise environmental concerns Innovative New lower cost infrastructure means • Stepping away from traditional design infrastructure to address head on, Intersection and approaches and thinking to embrace treatments these treatments and achieve low cost other crash types crashes to achieve high return outcomes. Initial safe system outcomes are now treatments are unlikely to be available. representative of provision costs when Innovation in intersection design the scale of future installation incorporating human factors to increases. So, demonstration projects minimise errors. with a supportive management approach to different ways forward is essential. • Infrastructure that communicates with vehicle operators warning of crashes or other hazards ahead

6.4.1. Summary There are opportunities for all nations to improve their road safety performance. A focus on institutional management issues and the major intervention areas will expose the barriers within jurisdictions to implementation. Often it is the expense of data systems upgrades or infrastructure improvement, very often it is a capacity issue in terms of knowledge among professionals, senior bureaucrats and at the political level. Relative underperforming nations should highlight their level of underperformance and use this as a catalyst for improved commitment. • They can learn from the issues set out in chapter 4 and chapter 6. • They should seek to establish contact with a high performing country and examine

opportunities for information, staff exchanges and decision maker visits.

The best performing nations can continue to improve by focusing on their institutional management effectiveness, strengthening interventions to target the higher volume, higher risk crashes and doing what is necessary to make the road system safe and forgiving of error.

188

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Institutional management • Road safety strategies and policies using evidence based initiatives, which are

developed with community;

• strong leadership by governments for the development and implementation of road

safety initiatives;

• stronger sharing of best practices and road safety research results across all nations

more quickly;

• leading nations can assist struggling nations by continuing to stretch themselves in

setting and achieving tougher road safety targets and sharing the learnings. They can also help to better educate struggling nations with how to overcome hurdles for road safety improvement.

Typical intervention improvements Road Improvements: • Better land use planning to separate pedestrian activities from road traffic; • preventing direct access from abutting properties (shops, houses, factories) to high

traffic volume roads;

• better land use planning so that trip lengths are minimised; • more forgiving roadsides: e.g., use of wire rope safety barriers on roadsides with

objects and in central medians;

• use of rumble lines (tactile lines) on edges of roads and centre of road; • lower speed limits in higher crash rate zones and in pedestrian areas; • use of ITS to better regulate the flow of traffic can also provide road safety

improvements (and reductions in greenhouse gases).

Vehicle safety – continued NCAP programs and technological innovation Road Users – reduced drink driving, drug driving, improved seat belt wearing, better speed compliance. At an overarching level there are areas of societal activity where outcomes should be planned to be - at worst - neutral for road safety outcomes. This could be major infrastructure projects or road user tolling or land use planning and development decisions or changes to public transport arrangements, liquor licensing policy or taxation on fuel or alcohol. Any measure which increases the attractiveness of road use, late night use by young road users, alcohol use, travel speeds or vehicle safety features will affect road safety outcomes. This requires an understanding of these effects, their linkages to levels of serious casualty crash outcomes and a government and community preparedness to consider offsetting arrangements to counter any potential increase in road trauma due to policy decisions in these other policy areas.

189

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

7. REFERENCES [1] OECD ITF JTRC. “Towards Zero, Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach”, Summary Document, 2008. [2] OECD ITF JTRC. “Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach”, 2008. [3] WORLD BANK “Country Guidelines for the Conduct of Road Safety Management Capacity Reviews and the Specification of Lead Agency Reforms, Investment Strategies and Safe System Projects”, 2009. [4] EURORAP PROGRAM, http://www.eurorap.pl/index.php/lang-en/eurorap-wpolsce.html [5] “Vehicle safety promotion”, www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au, Victoria, Australia. [6]  ROAD AUTHORITIES AND MUARC RESEARCH CENTRE “Used Car Safety Ratings”, www.vicroads.vic.gov.au [7] “Vehicle safety promotion”, New Zealand, www.rightcar.govt.nz [8] “Vehicle safety promotion”, http://www.safercar.gov/, NHTSA, US. [9] GRSP “Safe Fleet program”, http://www.pbd.org.pl/bezpiecznaflota/, Poland. [10] ECORYS, “Impact Assessment, Road Safety Action Programme”, European Commission - DG Energy and Transport, 2006. [11] AUSTROADS “Guides to Road Safety, Parts 1 – 9”, www.austroads.com.au, Australia and New Zealand. [12] “Road Safety Strategy Beyond 2010: A Scoping Study”, Road Safety Research Report No. 105, DfT, UK, 2009. [13] h ttp://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/sd/tema/nasjonal_transportplan.html?id=12198 (in Norwegian). [14] “Speed Management: a road safety manual for decision makers and practitioners”, Global Road Safety Partnership Geneva, 2008. [15] “Towards Zero Deaths”, http://www.minnesotatzd.org/, Minnesota, US. [16] “Highway Safety Plan”, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/shsp/ index.html, Minnesota, US, [17] “Blueprint to Arrive Alive”, http://www.savemolives.com/documents/Blue printforSaferRoadways2008.pdf, Missouri, US. [18] “Highway Safety Plan”, www.wsp.wa.gov/publications/reports/shsp.pdf, Washington State, US. [19] h ttp://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/safedrivers/trafficsafety/index.htm or http://www. ccmta.ca/english/committees/rsrp/rsv/rsv.cfm, Canada [20] “  National Road Safety Action Plan, Australia”, http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/ documents/actionplan_0910.aspx, 2009/2010. [21] “Arrive Alive Road Safety Strategy, 2008 – 2017”, www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au, Victoria, Australia. [22] “  Towards Zero”, Western Australia Road Safety Strategy http://www.ors. wa.gov.au/StrategiesRoadSafety/Pages/NewStrategy/2008-2020.aspx

190

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

[23] “National Strategy, GAMBIT - 2005 to 2013”, English summary, http://www.unece. org/trans/doc/2007/wp5/ECE-TRANS-WP5-2007-07a7e_annex5.pdf, Poland. [24] “  Discussion of Netherlands Sustainable Safety approach to target setting”, Road Safety Research Report No. 105, Road Safety Strategy Beyond 2010: A Scoping Study, DfT UK, 2009. [25] “Analysis report on the current state of road safety in Sweden”, http://www. vv.se/Andra-sprak/English-engelska/Road-safety/, 2009. [26] “UK Actual Performance”, TRL Report No. 663, Broughton and Buckle, 2007. [27] “Highway Safety and Performance Plan”, http://www.modot.mo.gov/safety/ documents/2009highwaysafetyPLAN.pdf Missouri, US. [28] RUMAR K, “Past present and future safety work in ECMT”, ECMT, 2002. [29]  MATTHIJS KOORNSTRA (SWOV), DAVID LYNAM (TRL), GÖRAN NILSSON (VTI), PIET NOORDZIJ (SWOV), HANS-ERIK PETTERSSON (VTI), FRED WEGMAN (SWOV), AND PETER WOUTERS (SWOV). “SUNflower: A comparative study of the development of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands”, SWOV, 2002. [30] LYNAM, D. NILSSON, G. MORSINK, P. SEXTON, B. TWISK, D.A.M. GOLDENBELD, C. & WEGMAN, F.C.M. “SUNflower +6: further comparative study of the development of road safety in Sweden, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands - An extended study of the development of road safety in Sweden, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands”, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research / Crowthorne, Berkshire, Transport Research Laboratory TRL / Linköping, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute VTI, 2005. [31] ELVIK, R., VAA, T. eds. “Handbook of road safety measures”, Elsevier, 2004. [32] PATTERSON, T. L., FRITH, W. J., & SMALL, M. W. (2000) AND PATTERSON, T. L., FRITH, W. J., POVEY, L. J. & KEALL, M. D (2002) “The effects of changing rural interstate speed limits in the United States”. [33] “  Calling Time – The Nation’s drinking as a major health issue”, The Academy of Medical Sciences Report, United Kingdom, 2004. [34] TIGHE. “Change in alcohol consumption in the UK from 1960 to 2002”, 2003. [35] DELANEY A., DIAMANTOPOLOU K., CAMERON M. “Strategic Principles of Drink Driving Enforcement”, Monash University Accident Research Centre, 2006. [36]  NEWSTEAD SV, CAMERON MH, GANTZER S AND VULCAN, AP. “Modelling of some major factors influencing road trauma trends in Victoria 1989 – 93”, Report No. 74, Monash University Accident Research Centre, 1995. [37] “Safe Accommodation of Vulnerable Road Users and Large Commercial Vehicles in Urban Areas”, TAC, Canada, http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/projects/ vulnerable.cfm [38] “Road Safety and Transport Strategic Action Plan for Powered Two Wheelers, 2009–2013”, VicRoads, http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Motorcycles/ RoadSafety/, Victoria, Australia.

191

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

[39] Accident Compensation Commission, www.rideforever.co.nz, New Zealand. [40] Accident Compensation Commission, www.scootersurvival.co.nz, New Zealand [41] “Heavy Vehicle Safety”, http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/commercial/docs/work-timeand-logbooks.pdf, New Zealand. [42] “Graduated Driver Licensing Law”, http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/, Missouri, US. [43] “Inventories of public awareness materials”, http://www.ccmta.ca/english/pdf/ inventory_ public_education_awareness_material_2007.pdf, Canada. [44] “THINK campaign”, http://www.dft.gov.uk/think, UK. [45]  IRTAD (INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY DATA AN ANALYSIS GROUP). “Annual Report”, www.irtad.net, 2009. [46] OECD/ITF. “Country Reports on road safety performance”, Responses to the survey conducted by the Targets Working Group, Sep 2006. [47] WILMINK ET AL. “The eIMPACT project”, 2008. [48] TATE F. AND CARSTEN O. “ISA UK Implementation Scenarios”, University of Leeds, May 2008. [49] “Make Roads Safe Campaign”, http://www.makeroadssafe.org [50] MUARC AND ERIC HOWARD AND ASSOCIATES, CORBEN, B., HOWARD E., LOGAN, D. “Development of a Strategic Research and Policy Framework for Road Safety in Queensland for Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland”, 2009. [51] A ARTS,L. & VAN SCHAGEN,I. “Driving Speed and the risk of road crashes: A Review, Accident Analysis and Prevention”, (38) 215-224. [52] TRL, TAYLOR, M.C, BARUYA, A, AND KENNEDY, J.V. “The relationship between speed and accidents on rural single carriageway roads”, TL, 2002. [53] OECD, “Safety Strategies for Rural Roads”, Paris, OECD, 1999. [54] LYNAM, D. AND LAWSON, S. “A EuroRAP case study: Potential for risk reductions on British inter-urban major roads”, 2005. [55] WALMESLEY, S. AND SUMMERSGILL, I. “Accidents on Modern Rural Single Carriageway Trunk Roads”, TRL Report TRL 336. Crowthorne: TRL Limited, 1998. [56] BARKER, J., FARMER, S. AND TAYLOR, M. “The Development of Accident Remedial Intervention Levels for Rural Roads”, TRL Report TRL425. Crowthorne: TRL Limited, 1999. [57] HUGHES, W. AND AMISS, G. “Accidents on Rural Roads: Single Carriageway A Class Roads”, Basingstoke: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research, 1996. [58] BROUGHTON, J. “Contributory Factors in Rural Accidents”. Unpublished note to the Department for Transport, 2006. [59] K LASSEN, N., BERLITZ, J., STOCK, R., KOHLER, W., DZIUB, R., AND DINGELDEIN, J. “UK Trial Survey to Establish Road Protection Scores for the UK”, ADAC Verkehrstechnik, 2007.

192

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

[60] BROUGHTON, J. “Monitoring Progress Towards the 2010 Casualty Reduction Target – 2005 data”, TRL, Crowthorne, 2007. [61] WHO, “Global Status Report on Road Safety: Time for action”, World Health Organisation, Geneva, 2009. [62] “  Text Proclaiming Decade of Action for Road Safety (2011-2020), Aimed at Reducing Traffic-Related Deaths, Injuries” Sixty-fourth UN General Assembly Plenary, 74th Meeting (PM). [63] “Vaccines for Roads”, iRAP, 2008. [64] OECD/ECMT, “Report on Young Drivers”, 2006. [65] BREEN, J., HOWARD, E., BLISS, A., JEANNE BREEN CONSULTING, ERIC HOWARD AND ASSOCIATES, AND THE WORLD BANK, “An Independent Review of Road Safety in Sweden”, http://publikationswebbutik. vv.se/shopping/itemlist____254.aspx, Swedish Road Administration, 2008. [66] Elvik R., “The Power Model of the Relationship Between Speed and Road Safety, Update and New Analyses”, 2009. [67] ALLSOP, .E., “Some traffic safety implications of movement of goods by road, in Transportmetrica”, Swedish Road Administration, 2008. [68] ALLSOP, R.E, “Risk assessment and target setting in EU transport programmes”, European Transport Safety Council, Brussels, 2003. [69] “  Make Roads Safe: A Decade of Action for Road Safety”, Commission for Global Road Safety (2009, in press). [70] DERRIKS, H. AND P. MAK, “Underreporting of road traffic casualties”, IRTAD Special report, OECD, Paris, 2007. [71] “  European Road Safety Observatory ERSO”, Quantified Road Safety Targets, http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/Content/knowledge.htm, 2008. [72] OECD, “Safety on the Road: What’s the Vision”, OECD, Paris, 2002. [73] OECD / ITF, “Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach”, OECD, Paris, 2008. [74] WEGMAN F., V. EKSLER, S. HAYES, D. LYNAM, P. MORSINK AND S. OPPE, “SUNflower+6: a comparative study of the development of road safety in European countries”, SWOV, Leidschendam, 2006. [75] BLISS, TONY AND BREEN, JEANNE, “Implementing the Recommendations of the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention”, The World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, Washington, D.C., 2009.

193

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – ROAD SAFETY VISION AND THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH The OECD/ITF Report “Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach”, (2008), examined the key issues involved in successfully moving to long term elimination of death and serious injury on the road networks of the world and observed that “the fact that some countries are on track to meet their (interim) target demonstrates that targeted reductions in trauma can be achieved with adequate political will, institutional organisation and sufficient allocation of resources”. The key recommendations from the report were: • adopt a highly ambitious vision for road safety, • set interim targets to move systematically towards the vision, • develop a safe system approach, essential for achieving ambitious targets, • exploit proven interventions for early gains, • conduct sufficient data collection and analysis to understand crash risks and current

performance,

• strengthen the road safety management system, • accelerate knowledge transfer, • invest in road safety, • foster commitment at the highest levels of government.

In highlighting the numerous immediate opportunities available to all countries to exploit proven behavioural change measures applied in other countries to reduce road trauma (including speed management, reducing drink driving, improving seat belt use and reducing young driver risk through upgraded graduated licensing systems) the Report acknowledged the considerable barriers to be addressed in most countries to win community and government acceptance of this required deterrence of unsafe behaviours. It would require a substantial commitment to legislative initiatives and tough enforcement to emerge and this is no minor challenge. For the longer term a clear vision is needed, strengthened institutional management arrangements need to be in place and an integrated network design approach such as the Safe System should be embraced by all countries. The concept of a long term aspirational goal for road safety outcomes is an important issue. In addition, interim goals for, say, a 5 to 10 year period (typically) need to be developed to drive change and achievement of reduced trauma levels. The question of published targets associated with new strategy documents for these interim periods and adopted by government is discussed in chapter 2.

194

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Long term visions The vision promoted in the “Towards Zero” Report for adoption by all countries is the ultimate elimination of death and serious injury on the road system – achieving a system that is safe. Delivering a safe road system that is achievable and the ability to implement such a system is to a large degree currently available among the collective knowledge of jurisdictions dedicated to the task. What is required is a political commitment and a recognition of the financial benefits of a safe system in order to generate the funding support for the range of actions that will deliver the vision. The acknowledgement that a zero road toll is possible is part of the change in contemporary road safety thinking and a number of the jurisdictions recognising this have set an aspirational vision of zero deaths. Some jurisdictions have set visions to have the safest roads in the world. Apart from this being achievable for only one jurisdiction, it would presume that those jurisdictions would have to be racing toward a zero road toll if others are approaching their stated zero vision at some point. However, the timeframe in which these are to be achieved may place the goals into the context of a radically different transport system or changed political agendas. Nevertheless, a stated vision with a short term or interim numerical objective allows a government to be measured on their level of road safety commitment on their journey towards the ultimate elimination goal.

The Safe System Approach The Safe System approach is a fundamental shift in road safety thinking which is necessary to generate the required substantial gains towards the ultimate elimination of death and serious injury. A Safe System approach can re-frame the ways in which road safety is viewed and managed. Its aim is to support development of a transport system better able to accommodate human error. This is commonly achieved through better management of crash energy, so that no individual road user is exposed to crash forces likely to result in death or serious injury. While ongoing efforts are required to achieve alert and compliant road users, safe system acknowledges that human beings inevitably make errors of judgement. It therefore seeks to develop and incorporate any number of options to allow the better management of crash forces, with a key strategy being road network improvements (forgiving infrastructure) in conjunction with reviews of posted speed limits, the latter to be set in response to the level of protection offered by the road infrastructure and modern vehicle safety features. A focus on addressing the interactions between these system elements (roads/ vehicles/ travel speeds) is essential to success. As a consequence, the road transport system will be made fundamentally safer in terms of the likelihood of death and serious injury.

195

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The existence of adequate legislation and deterrence including enforcement to achieve high levels of road user compliance with behavioural safety regulations remains an important requirement, as does adequate control over access to the road system for drivers and vehicles (licensing and registration requirements). Successful safe system interventions will be system wide in their application and they will require sound understanding of key factors involved in crash causation and outcome severity. The Safe System recognises that the responsibility for safe operation of the network is shared between many individuals and organisations including those who provide the roads, set the speed limits, provide the vehicles, make the land use planning decisions affecting traffic flows and road accesses, use the network, enter contracts for supply of transport services, employ drivers to use the road network in their work, operate the emergency health system and more. Movement towards a safe system also requires change in traditional road safety culture within our community and the road safety agencies themselves, including the acknowledgement of shared responsibility and accountability for achieving compliance with safe system design and operation by road system managers, vehicle manufacturers and other system designers, such as logistics companies, companies contracting freight carriage operations and employers of staff using the road system, in addition to road users and traffic police. This changed view of road user responsibilities away from a “blame the road user” emphasis is a key feature of a Safe System approach. As an example of the challenges facing system designers (other than the road user), to meet their responsibilities, the European Campaign for Safe Road Design launched by EuroRAP (European Road Assessment Program) in June 2009 – and which embodies safe system principles – contends that the annual European road toll of 200,000 deaths and serious injuries a year will continue if effective action is not taken on safe road design, particularly on roads outside major towns where two-thirds of European road deaths occur. Deaths are concentrated on main national or regional roads which EuroRAP contends can be readily targeted. And so, in commenting upon the development needs which road authorities face and need to address in order to adequately meet their safe system responsibilities, the “Towards Zero” Report calls for competent road authorities to develop a deeper understanding of the linkages between crash rates and the level of protection against fatal and serious crash outcomes (including speed limits), which a length of road offers. Successful application of safe system will rely upon fresh thinking – innovative approaches to reducing fatal and serious injury crash outcomes. This focus on innovation requires particular emphasis – to encourage practitioners to find new solutions, to think beyond traditional approaches and constraints.

196

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX B – DRINK DRIVING DATA (2007 OR 2008) – TESTING AND OFFENCE LEVELS ANNUALLY

Population

Percentage or number of No. of RB drink driving tests annually offences detected annually

Netherlands

16,578,000

2.9% of all drivers tested. 4.8 % of novice drivers tested.

Norway

4,858,000

500,000

4,500

Sweden

9,341,000

2,500,000

13,373

8,152

5,221

Australia

22,204,000 3,400,000

24,800

17,000

7,800

W.Australia

661,486

21,792

n/a

n/a

Tasmania

590,000

4,100 17,369

11,797

1,800

250

Country

Victoria

New Zealand Japan

4,316,000

2,000,000

29,166

127,510,000

74,331

Denmark

5,511,000

15,000

Singapore

4,436,000

7000

2,050

38,167,329

2,305,582 Not full RBT

80,266

Poland

No. of first offences

No. of second offences

30% - 40%

197

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Financial penalty for drink driving

Hungary Japan Netherlands New Zealand

Licence suspension period for drink driving

First offence - $1,000

First offence – 1 year Second offence – 2 years Third offence – 3 years Can be increased by provisional legislation.

Under 0.8 g/l: 40,000 – 200,000 HUF Over 0.8 g/l: 80,000 – 300,000 HUF

Under 0.8 g/l: 3-12 months. Mandatory training to relicence. Over 0.8 g/l: minimum 1 year. Mandatory training to relicence.

Canada

Country

APPENDIX C – DRINK DRIVING PENALTIES

0.3 g/l or higher attracts a penalty

0.22 g/l – 1.0 g/l: 120 Euros 1.01 g/l – 1.5 g/l: 220 Euros

Minimum of 3 months Public prosecutor determines prolongations.

Maximum penalties imposed by a court. For a first or second offence the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500. For a third or subsequent offence the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $6,000.

First or second offence – 6 months minimum Third or subsequent offence – 1 year minimum

198

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

Country

0.2 – 0.4 g/l Fine 0.4 – 0.5 g/l Fine 0.5 – 0.87 Fine + conditional imprisonment (14-21 days) 0.8 – 0.9 g/l Fine + conditional imprisonment (14 – 21 days) 0.9 – 1.0 g/l Fine + conditional imprisonment (14 -21 days) 1.0 – 1.1 g/l Fine + conditional imprisonment (21 – 30 days) or unconditional imprisonment (14 - 30 days) – 1.2 g/l Fine + conditional imprisonment (21 – 30 days) or unconditional imprisonment (14 – 30 days) 1.2 – 1.5 g/l Fine + conditional imprisonment (21 – 30 days) or unconditional imprisonment (14 – 30 days) 1.5 or more g/l Fine + unconditional imprisonment (21 – 36 days) Notes: For repeated offences within 5 years: disqualification period is lifetime (alcohol levels over 0.5). Aggravating circumstances: disqualification period 2-5 years. Serious accidents: disqualification 3-5 years or lifetime. The amount of the fine is in principle one and a half time the monthly salary (taxes inclusive), in general not under NOK 10,000

At least 6 months 12 – 18 months 18 – 20 months 20 – 22 months 20 – 22 months 22 – 24 months At least 2 years At least 2 years

$1,000

First offence: 1 year Second offence: 3 years Third offence: indefinitely, reducible to 10 years. Fourth offence: indefinitely

120,000 ZAR

Varies on a case by case basis

----

0.2 g/l – 0.3 g/l: Up to 2 months Greater than 0.3 g/l: Up to 24 months

Sweden

South Africa

Ontario (Canada)

Financial penalty for drink driving

Norway

2012R31EN

Licence suspension period for drink driving

199

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

Western Australia

Victoria (Australia)

United States of America

Tasmania (Australia)

Country

2012R31EN

Financial penalty for drink driving

Licence suspension period for drink driving

First offence 1 g/l – 1.5 g/l: $480 - $2,400 Greater than 1.5 g/l: $600 - $3,600 Second offence 1 g/l – 1.5 g/l: $960 - $4,800 Greater than 1.5 g/l: $1,200 - $7,200

First offence 1 g/l – 1.5 g/l:6-18 months Greater than 1.5 g/l: 12-36 months Second offence 1 g/l – 1.5 g/l: 12-36 months Greater than 1.5 g/l: 24-72 months

Vary by jurisdiction

Vary by jurisdiction

First offence Up to 1 g/l: $350 - $490 Second offence or above 1.5 g/l: up to $2,900

First offence Up to 1 g/l: 6-14 months Second offence or above 1.5 g/l: 15-48 months, possible jail up to 18 months. Alcohol interlock mandated when re-licensed.

Probationary Drivers 0.2 g/l – 0.7 g/l: 1.5% to 7.8% of monthly wage Other Licence Holders 0.6 g/l -1.4 g/l: 1.95%-11.68% of monthly wage Second offence: 29% of monthly wage

Probationary Drivers 0.2 g/l – 0.7 g/l: Up to 3 months Other Licence Holders First offence: up to 5 months Second offence: 6 months

230,000

Sweden

Victoria (Australia)

Canada

No. of vehicles monitored not available.

Vehicles monitored unknown, perhaps in the tens of millions per year. Approximately 50 jurisdictions in the USA use speed cameras. No records kept on no. of vehicle monitored

120,000,000

Norway

Switzerland Germany United States (National)

9,100,000

No. of vehicles monitored by cameras

The Netherlands

Country

No. of speed limit Covert cameras operating and enforced infringements issued speed in 60 km/h zones by police members per Section Control cameras used? years No data available Cameras not always covert but quite often > 10 million infringements from the case. All cameras note the actual cameras per year (2006) speed. Fines are given with a conditional miscalculation factor of 10%, min 3 km. under 100 km/h, max. 7 km/ over 100 km/h Section Control cameras used (12 lengths of some 3 km each) About 240 000 (2007). About 75 000 (2005). No, cameras not fully covert About 160 000 were fined. Approx. 60 000 No data found. No, cameras not fully covert. A couple of extra km/h is allowed but is not communicated to the public. State responsibility In Germany, there are no 60 km/zones Infringements unknown Unknown based on No, cameras not fully covert. recent data. However, There is no set enforcement speed, the estimated number is however; almost certainly it would 14 million based on typically be within 10 mph above. School 2001 data. zones would typically be even more restrictive. Programs are provincial; This information would No, cameras not fully covert. have to be sought from Speed enforced in 60 km/h zones: Police infringement numbers discretion, no recommendation made by provincial reports. are not available. policy. 1.1 million (2008/ 2009) 140,000 (2008/09) Cameras not specifically signed. Mobile cameras covert but sites listed on web. The total tolerance is not publicly stated No. of speed limit infringements issued by cameras per year

200 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX D – SPEED ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION

Singapore Poland

Ontario (Canada)

Denmark

Japan South Africa

N/A

No. of vehicles monitored not known 35 898 695

Tasmania (Australia) New Zealand

10,153 (2009) 355,440

No data available Unknown

Approx. 50,000 infringements issued 446,227 (2008)

410,893 (2008).

64,885,415

Queensland (Australia)

No. of speed limit infringements issued by cameras per year 237,371 (2008/ 2009)

No. of vehicles monitored by cameras

Western Australia 11,197,211

Country

780,000 convictions (2008) 162,257 (2009) 1,091,481

No data available Unknown

333,378 (2008)

Not fully

Speed camera vehicles are to be legally parked. Speed camera vehicles must be deployed in a manner that is visible from the roadside (from 50 metres) and are prohibited from being deployed in a hidden fashion. Speed enforced in 60 km/h zones: ≥ 71 km/h (unless this is a school zone when it is ≥ 65 km/h) None Cameras covert most of time. Speed enforced in 60 km/h zones: 70 km/h or higher Enforced speeds usually 3 km/h + 10% of limit. No

No. of speed limit Covert cameras operating and enforced infringements issued speed in 60 km/h zones by police members per Section Control cameras used? years 143,795 (2008/ 2009) No, cameras not fully covert. Speed enforced in 60 km/h zones: 67 km/h 255,702 (2008) The majority of mobile camera deployments are overt in nature. Current trial of three unmarked cameras. N/A No, cameras not fully covert.

201 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

202

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Most jurisdictions operate a level of tolerance on speed cameras before an offence is prosecuted. This is typically above what is required by the error of the measuring device. Most jurisdictions do not publish the tolerance limit through fear of creating a defacto higher speed limit.

203

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX E - SPEED INFRINGEMENT SUSPENSION PENALTIES Country The Netherlands

Norway Sweden Switzerland Germany United States (National) Victoria (Australia) Western Australia Queensland (Australia) Tasmania (Australia) New Zealand Japan South Africa Denmark Ontario (Canada)

Poland

Czech Republic

Speed level resulting in licence suspension Speed excess over 69 km/h (all roads and circumstances) leads to temporary invocation of the license. The Public Prosecutor decides for how long. If recidivism applies the case will be taken to court and the license may be suspended / revoked for 6 months up to over 2 years or indefinite. For 30 – 90 km/h zones – 26 km/h over the limit results in license suspension. On 90 – 100 km/h highways, 40 km/h over the limit results in suspension Urban roads: >15 km/h, rural roads: 20 km/h, motorways: 25 km/h Penalties vary by jurisdiction. 10 km/h over = no suspension, 25 km/h over= 1 month suspension, 35 km/h over = 6 month suspension, 45 km/h over= 12 month suspension 12 demerit points in 3 years also leads to likely suspension. (3 points if > 10km/h over limit, 1 point for 38 km/h or more, but less than 45 km/h over limit; 4 months if > 45 km/h or more. > 40 km/h over the limit: Suspension of licence for 28 days. When legal speed limit exceeded by 30km/h or more (40 km/h or more on expressways). New proposed laws indicate speeding in excess of 60% of the posted speed, will result in suspension of drivers license. 60% over limit. 50 km/h over limit: 30 day suspension. If assessed as stunt driving, 12 month licence suspension and 7 day vehicle impoundment. Speeding 16 km/h over the limit also attract demerit points 10 km/h over – 3% of mean monthly wage, 20 km/h over – 6% of mean monthly wage, 30 km/h over – 10% of mean monthly wage, 40 km/h over – 15% of mean monthly wage Urban road:> 40 km/h, Rural roads > 50 km/h, suspension of 6 to 12 months plus 5 penalty points and a fine of USD 280 to 560

Guidelines: Road safety (Vision Zero), type of road and road function. Local government does NOT have authority to set limits on its own roads

The safety standard of the road. There have been exceptions made for some roads with higher speed limit than safety standards, due to commuting etc. Local government has authority to set limits on its own roads

Rural: • General speed limit: 80 km/h • Divided motorway (4 lanes or more): 90/100 km/h • Two lane two way highway: 80/90 km/h • Two lane way with high accident rates: 70 km/h • Two lane way with many junctions and exit ways: 60 km/h Urban: • General speed limit: 50 km/h • Access roads in residential and central urban areas, roads in residential and central urban areas with high cycle and pedestrian traffic and roads near schools: 30 km/h • Collector roads in residential and central urban areas: 40 km/h

Sweden is in the process of implementing new speed limits. These are the general standards for the new system: Rural: • Freeway: 110 km/h or 120 km/h • Divided highway: 100 km/h • Two lane two way highway: 80 km/h • Other arterial: 70 km/h • Local: 70 km/h Urban: • Freeway: 60 km/h • Arterial: 50 km/h • Collector/ distributor: 60 km/h • Local street: 40 km/h (30 km/h around elementary schools)

Speed limit setting guidelines Guidelines: safety, design speed, density of flow, environment. Local government has authority to set limits on its own roads

Urban and rural speed limits

Rural: • Default: 100 or 120 km/h • Freeway: 100 or 120 km/h (some stretches 80 km/h environmental measures) • Divided highway: 100 or 120 km/h • Two lane two way highway: 100 or 120 km/h • Other arterial: 80 or 100 km/h • Local: 60, 70 or 80 km/h Urban: • Default: 30, 50, 60, 70 or 80 km/h • Freeway: none in urban • Arterial: 80 km/h • Collector/ distributor: 50, 60, 70 km/h • Local street: 30, 50 km/h

Norway

Sweden

Country

204 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX F - SPEED LIMITS BY JURISDICTION

The Netherlands

Guidelines: Safety and environmental reasons Competent authorities within the federal states are entitled to restrict traffic with road signs for safety and environmental reasons (e.g. noise) on the basis of the German road traffic regulations and uniform guidelines to have the same conditions, under which limits are set (e.g. 30 km/h zone).

Guidelines: 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic and engineering study [see MUTCD Section 2B.13]. Median speed, roadway characteristics, crash history and pedestrian activity are also considered. Local government has authority to set limits on its own roads

The general rules applying for speed inside and outside built up areas are as follows: Built-up areas: 50 kph for all vehicles; Outside built-up areas: • 80 kph for motor vehicles with a maximum permissible weight of more than 3.5 tonnes up to 7.5 tonnes • 60 kph for motor vehicles with a maximum permissible weight of more than 7.5 tonnes, for all motor vehicles towing a trailer • 100 kph for passenger cars as well as other motor vehicles with a maximum permissible weight not exceeding 3.5 tonnes

In the USA, each of the 50 individual states set speed limits based on a nationwide MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Rural: • Default: 50-70 mph (Rural, 2-lane) • Freeway: 65-80 mph • Divided Highway: 65-75 mph • Undivided Highway: 55-70 mph • Other Arterial: 55-70 mph • Local: N/A Urban: • Default: 20-35 mph (Urban Business or Residential) • Freeway: 55-70 mph • Divided/Undivided Highway: 55-70 mph • Arterial: 30-55 mph • Local/Collector Streets: 25-35 mph

Speed limit setting guidelines Guidelines: Visibility, flow, neighbourhoods Local government has authority to set limits on its own roads

Urban and rural speed limits

Rural: (In) • Default: 80 km/h • Freeway: 120 km/h • Divided highway: 80-100 km/h • Two lane two way highway: 80 km/h • Other arterial: 60-80 km/h • Local: 50 km/h Urban: • Default: 50 km/h • Freeway: 60-80 km/h • Arterial: 60 km/h • Collector/ distributor: 50 km/h • Local street: (20)-50 km/h

Germany

United States (National)

Country

205 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Switzerland

Guidelines: road characteristics, abutting development, potential road user conflicts, crash history and seasonal issues. Local government does NOT have authority to set limits. All authority held with VicRoads. Local road limits set in consultation with local government.

Rural: • Default 100 km/h • Freeway 110 km/h • Divided highway 100-110 km/h • Two lane two way highway 100 km/h • Other arterial 100 km/h • Local 100 km/h Urban: • Default 50 km/h • Freeway 80 -100 km/h • Arterial 60-80 km/h • Collector/ distributor 50-60 km/h • Local street 40-50 km/h

Speed limit setting guidelines Guidelines: Type of road classification, AADT, quality of infrastructure. Local government has authority to set limits on its own roads.

Urban and rural speed limits

Rural: • Default: 70 to 100 k/h m on paved roads (Typically 80 and 90); 50 to 80 on gravel roads • Freeway: 90, 100, 110 (Typically 100 and 110) • Divided highway: 90, 100, 110 (Typically 100 and 110) • Two lane two way highway: 80, 90 and 100 • Other arterial: 40 to 80 (Typically 50 and 60) • Local: 30, 40, 50 (40 and 50 most common); 30 in school zones Urban: • Default: 50 km/h • Freeway: 90, 100, 110 (Typically 100 and 110) • Arterial: 40 to 80 (Typically 50 and 60) • Collector/ distributor: 30, 40, 50 (40 and 50 most common); 30 in school zones or with traffic calming • Local street: Same as collector

Canada

Victoria (Australia)

Country

206 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Guidelines: • Achieving a balance between safety, mobility and amenity. • Risk management based on vehicle, traffic and road characteristics. • Risk management based on crash risk. Local government has authority to set limits on its own roads but the recommendations need to be endorsed by a local Speed Management Committee.

Rural: • Default 100 km/h • Freeway 100 km/h • Divided highway 100 km/h – 110 km/h • Two lane two way highway 100 km/h – 110 km/h • Other arterial 60 km/h – 100 km/h • Local 50 km/h Urban: • Default 50 km/h • Freeway 100 km/h • Arterial 60 – 100 km/h • Collector/ distributor 50 km/h / 60 km/h • Local street 50km/h

Speed limit setting guidelines Guidelines: Minimum seal width, Road function, The extent of roadside development, Road, Road crash history, Minimum road length. The principle legislation (Road Traffic Code Regulation 297) provides for the Commissioner of Main Roads to approve all signing, road marking and traffic control signals. The Commissioner can delegate these powers to ‘Authorised Bodies’ i.e. local governments.

Urban and rural speed limits

Rural: • Default 110 km/h • Freeway 100-110 km/h • Divided highway 80-100 km/h • Two lane two way highway 80-100 km/h • Other arterial 110 km/h • Local 110 km/h Urban: • Default 50 km/h • Freeway 100 km/h • Arterial 60-80 km/h • Collector/ distributor 60-80 km/h • Local street 50 km/h

Western Australia

Queensland (Australia)

Country

207 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Tasmania (Australia)

New Zealand

Japan

The level of roadside development is the primary determinants of the appropriate speed limit. National consistency of speed limits is also important as this improves user compliance with the limit Local government does have authority to set limits on its own roads according to national set criteria.

Guidelines: Ordinary roads: Road conditions roadside conditions etc. Expressways: Design speed, state of central medium, etc. In each prefecture, a Prefectural Public Safety Committee is formed according to regional circumstances.

Rural: • All roads: 80, 90, 100 km/h Urban: • Default 50 km/h • Freeway 50-70 km/h • Arterial 50-70 km/h • Collector/ distributor 40-50 km/h • Local street 40-50 km/h

The maximum speed limit is, for ordinary motor vehicles, set at 60 km/h on ordinary roads and at 100 km/h on expressways. There is no distinction made between urban roads and rural roads.

Speed limit setting guidelines In Tasmania, the standard used for setting speed limits is Australian Standard 1742.4 (“the Australian Standard”). The Australian Standard gives guidance on how speed limits should be determined and applied in various situations. Local government has the authority to set own limits.

Urban and rural speed limits

Rural: • Default = 100 km/h • Freeway = N/A • Divided highway = 100-110 km/h • Two lane two way highway = 100-110 km/h • Other arterial = N/A • Local = 70km/h Urban: • Default = 50 km/h • Freeway = N/A • Arterial = 60-80 km/h • Collector/ distributor = 60-80 km/h • Local street = 50-60 km/h

208 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Difficult to obtain permission to lower speed limits. Police have to approve and will only do so if they consider they can adequately enforce. LIits should reflect the design and vehicle volume – in place now for 20 years in municipalities. Now discussing road standards for rural areas to reflect speeds.

Rural: Default: 80 km/h Freeway: 130 km/h Divided highway: 80 km/h Two lane two way highway: 80 km/h Other arterial: 80 km/h Local: 80 km/h Urban: Default: 50 Collector/ distributor: 50 km/h Local street: 50 km/h, but some 30 km/h zones

Rural: • Default: 90 km/h • Freeway: 110 km/h • Divided highway: 110 km/h • Two lane two way highway: 80 km/h • Other arterial: 60 km/h • Local: 50 km/h Urban: • Default: 90 km/h • Freeway: 110 km/h • Arterial: 80 km/h • Collector/ distributor: 70 km/h • Local street: 50 km/h

Speed limit setting guidelines Guidelines: 85th-%-tile, and Design Speed, and Road Classification. National, Provincial and Local authorities have authority to set speeds limits on roads under their specific jurisdiction.

Urban and rural speed limits

Rural: • Default (100 km/h) • Freeway (120 km/h) • Divided highway (100 km/h) • Two lane two way highway (100 or 120 km/h, depends on design) • Other arterial (80 km/h) • Local (60 km/h) Urban: • Default (60 km/h) • Freeway (100 or 120 km/h, depends on design) • Arterial (60 km/h) • Collector/ distributor (60 km/h) • Local street (60 km/h)

Denmark

Malaysia

Country

209 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

South Africa

Guidelines: safety, design speed. Density of flow, environment. By local adjustment the limits can be decreased or increased. The increase can be up to 30 km/h

Rural: • Freeway: 130 km/h • Other roads: 90 km/h • Lorries: 80 km/h • With snow chains: 50 km/h Urban: • General speed limit: 50 km/h • Freeway: 80 km/h

Speed limit setting guidelines

Speed limits are determined in accordance with the guidelines of the design of roads. Local road authorities do have the authority to set speed limits on their roads.

Urban and rural speed limits

Rural: • Default: 70 to 90 km/h • Freeway: 90, 100, 110 km/h • Divided highway: 130 km/h • Two lane two way highway: 130 km/h • Other arterial: 50 to 110 km/h • Local: 30 to 50 km/h Urban: • Default: 50 to 60 km/h • Freeway: 90, 100, 110 km/h • Arterial: 50 to 110 km/h • Collector/ distributor: 30 to 50 km/h • Local street: 30 km/h in residential zones

Urban: 40, 50, 60 and 70 km/h Highways: 80 to 90 km/h

Poland

Czech Republic

Singapore

Country

210 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

211

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX G – THE IRTAD GROUP The IRTAD Group The International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group (IRTAD) is a permanent working group of the Joint Transport Research Centre of the OECD and the International Transport Forum. It is composed of road safety experts and statisticians from renowned safety research institutes, national road and transport administrations, international organisations, universities, automobile associations, car automobile industry, etc. from OECD and non OECD countries. Its main objectives are to contribute to international co-operation on road accident data and its analysis. The objectives of the IRTAD Group are to: • be a forum of exchange on road safety data collection and reporting systems and

trends on road safety policies;

• collect accident data and conduct data analysis to contribute to the work of the ITF/

OECD, as well as to provide advice on specific road safety issues;

• contribute to international co-operation on road accident data and its analysis.

Currently, more than 50 institutes from 27 countries-- representing a wide range of public and private bodies with a direct interest in road safety -- are members of IRTAD (see list of members at the end of the report). The ambition of IRTAD is to include new countries and to build and maintain a high-quality database on road safety information. IRTAD offers a mechanism for the integration of prospective member countries while assisting – where appropriate – to improve their road safety data collection systems. The IRTAD Group, in cooperation with the World Bank’s Global Road Safety Facility, has also engaged in a strategy to involve low- and middle-income countries, so that they can benefit from the experience of the most advanced countries.

212

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX H – USA: ROAD SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM OUTLINE These programs are closely coordinated with the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) efforts such as the National Cooperative Highway Research Program and the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). The large SHRP naturalistic study with over 2,000 instrumented vehicles is a highly important program for developing new knowledge. Due to the scope and the potential impact, these efforts carry significant international interest. Under FHWA’s leadership, an overall implementation plan is going to be developed in partnership with the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, TRB, and other organizations for the four SHRP topic areas: Renewal, Reliability, Capacity, and Safety, in order to create a shared national agenda and priorities. The Intelligent Transportation Systems Program provides funding for multi-modal and mode-specific initiatives. The program focuses on intelligent vehicles, intelligent infrastructure, and the creation of an intelligent transportation system through integration with and between these two components. The flagship initiative, IntelliDrive (http://www.its.dot.gov/intellidrive/index.htm) has a significant focus on safety. DOT also invests in the future of transportation through its University Transportation Centers Program, which awards grants to universities across the United States.

213

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX I – ISSUES ADDRESSED IN SOUTH AFRICA’S STRATEGY • Commit to educating the general public on road safety matters - taking into

consideration special road user groups;

• promote professionalism and skills development of all officials operating in the

road traffic management environment;

• reduce the occurrence of fraud and corruption within the road traffic management

environment;

• improve the collection, management and use of data for day-to-day tactical planning

and performance management purposes;

• promote the use of technology in all functional areas in road traffic management; • research, set and achieve controllable and measurable targets; • harmonize road traffic management action plans at national, provincial and local

spheres of government;

• establish and strengthen partnerships between government and non-government

organisations towards the promotion of road traffic safety;

• identify, manage, allocate and control the various sustainable income sources for

road traffic safety management;

• mainstream road traffic safety in national and provincial transport policies.

This is an interesting summary and a timely reminder of the road safety issues confronting middle income countries such as South Africa.

214

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX J – SAFETY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS “SPIs should relate to the key Safe System elements of Safe Speeds, Safe Vehicles, Safe Roads and Roadsides and Safe Road Use and are the measures reflecting – directly or indirectly – the operational conditions of the road system that most influence system safety performance. SPIs can be a measure of current condition, trend over a number of years, or represent a proposed target for achievement, based – it would be hoped – on a clear action plan to deliver that achievement. The condition could be a final outcome such as numbers of fatalities, serious and minor injuries; an intermediate outcome such as mean speed levels on various categories of roads or input levels of service delivery by individual agencies. SPIs require a number of commitments if they are to be effective, including relevance, scientific robustness, collaboration between stakeholders, regular analysis and reporting and a preparedness by all agencies to respond promptly to the insights provided by the indicators.”59 The OECD/ITF Towards Zero Report, 2008, pointed out that “Within a safe system approach there is a need to switch from injury based data (final outcomes) to performance data (intermediate outcomes). Some countries such as Sweden have already started to develop systems which give them an opportunity to address road safety problems within the road transport system without needing to wait to measure final outcomes in terms of fatalities and injuries. Focusing on this intermediate data and its measurement builds awareness that for a safe system 100% achievement of safety performance in various sub-target areas is required.” The safe system approach requires considerable attention to be paid to the development and management of performance indicators, and the reorientation of these indicators to the systems and interventions that are going to create the greatest safety value. “There is a lot of opportunity for jurisdictions at different levels of performance to refine their key indicators and better use these to promote delivery of safer services by key system designers. However, work on performance indicators under a safe system approach demands even stronger commitment to ongoing monitoring and evaluation of different interventions.60”

 Development of a Strategic Research and Policy Framework for Road Safety in Queensland for Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland, MUARC and Eric Howard and Associates, Corben,B., Howard E., Logan, D., 2009 60  Ibid 59

215

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX K – RUMAR: HIDDEN PROBLEMS AND LEARNING FROM THE PAST MISTAKES Rumar (ECMT 2002), states that there are several levels of road safety problems, ranging from the obvious problems to the less known, hidden problems, which contribute the most to road trauma. Rumar61 contends that it is necessary to analyse how road safety work has been carried out in the past so that mistakes that were made could be avoided in the future. He identifies a number of failures as common for most countries: • unclear roles and responsibilities of road safety agencies (1); • a focus on activity management rather than performance management using

performance indicators (2);

• no exposure control as traffic volumes continue to increase (3); • too many central decisions are taken which remove any ownership from ordinary

people at local level (4);

• trying to plan future road safety actions in detail and then telling everybody what to

do, rather than setting a simple clearly understood long term vision (5);

• no quantitative road safety targets with associated performance indicators (6); • unclear strategy to reach the adopted targets (7); • separate budgets for costs and benefits (in different departments) of road safety

measures, which provides no economic incentive for proponents of road safety measures (8); • the public has low awareness of the scale and seriousness of the road safety issue (9); • low participation of the private sector in the road safety work (10); • the road safety measures judged necessary must be marketed to win public acceptance (11); • inadequate support by authorities for new technology – for vehicle safety and infrastructure safety improvement including surveillance and enforcement to augment market driven change (12); • lack of follow-up and evaluation of road safety measures based on crash statistics on one hand and performance indicators on the other. (13)

 Rumar, K. Past present and future safety work in ECMT, ECMT, 2002.

61

216

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX L – SENSITIVITY OF FATAL CRASH RISK TO TRAVEL SPEED Estimated percentage change in number of crashes when mean speed is reduced by 1 km/h on different roads62. Reference Speed

50 km/h

70 km/h

80 km/h

90 km/h

4.0%

2.9%

2.5%

2.2%

2.0%

1.7%

Fatal and injury crashes

6.1%

4.3%

3.8%

3.4%

3.0%

2.5%

Fatal crashes

8.2%

5.9%

5.1%

4.5%

4.1%

3.3%

Injury crashes

100 km/h 120 km/h

• These quite high levels of fatal crash reductions are usually surprising when

encountered for the first time for many experienced drivers.

Crash risk depends on the travel speed plus the characteristics of the road and activity on the side of the road • Underlying crash risk varies between roads with different characteristics and

activity including road sides. Some roads are much riskier than others and much riskier than average for that road category.

Speed/road quality/crash relationship • This is highlighted in research from the United Kingdom63 which identified the

relationships between the safety standard of two lane two way rural roads and crash frequency. It found that the lower safety standard roads have the highest crash rate at a given travel speed and the higher safety standard roads the lowest; • the study showed that crash frequency in all road standard categories increased rapidly with mean speed (as demonstrated in many other studies), and was highest on the lower safety quality roads. Mean speed changes were found to have a particularly large effect on the frequency of intersection crashes. The density of sharp bends and minor crossroad junctions increased crashes by 13% and 33% respectively for each additional bend/crossroad per kilometre; • this confirms the potential for crash reductions if travel speeds are reduced and highlights the differences in safety levels which exist between roads with different characteristics but where travel speeds are similar.

 Aarts,l. & van Schagen,I. (2006) Driving Speed and the risk of road crashes: A review, Accident Analysis and Prevention, (38) 215-224 63  TRL, Taylor, M.C, Baruya, A, and Kennedy, J.V. (2002), The relationship between speed and accidents on rural single carriageway roads 62

217

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX M – INTEGRATED ACTIONS ACROSS SAFE SYSTEM ELEMENTS As was noted in the Policies chapter, effective implementation of a safe system approach requires a number of concurrent interventions across the sectors (where relevant) of behavioural compliance, vehicle safety features, infrastructure safety measures and speed limit to be introduced at the same time to maximise the likelihood that crash severity outcomes will be lowered sufficiently to no longer be above fatal levels. This is true for all crash types. A good example is intersections where construction of a roundabout, lowering of approach speed limits to 50 km/h or less and vehicles equipped with head protecting curtain airbags will all individually, but especially in concert, serve to dramatically reduce serious crash outcomes. The need for (and opportunities available from) integrated thinking is best demonstrated through the linkage between road and road side infrastructure safety levels and a safer speed limit. It is not really appropriate to consider these factors separately and yet there is inadequate understanding of the considerable effect on fatal crash risk on any section of road that a lowered speed limit (and lowered travel speed as a result) provides (e.g., a 35% fatal crash risk reduction for a 7 km/h mean speed reduction) compared to the extent and cost of infrastructure work needed to match it. Infrastructure safety requires a system wide view of crash risk and infrastructure and speed, while acknowledging that there is continuing room for blackspot treatments. However, they should generally only be considered where the risk is at a point (e.g., an intersection) and with a recognition that treating high risk locations serves to undermine the economic case for improving whole sections of the network – which needs to be the longer term objective. Inherent crash risks associated with infrastructure layout, access and operation are referred to in the DfT Strategy Scoping Report64 which draws attention to the OECD (1999)65 report which states that about 80% of fatal accidents on rural roads are related to four accident types – accidents involving vulnerable road users, accidents associated with intersections, single vehicles running off the road, and head-on collisions. It then draws upon further analyses, as part of EuroRAP (Lynam and Lawson., 2005)66 which have shown how the proportions of each of these accident types vary in Great Britain for different road types and different traffic flows:

 Road Safety Research Report No. 105, Road Safety Strategy Beyond 2010: A Scoping Study, DfT UK, 2009  OECD (1999) Safety Strategies for Rural Roads. Paris: OECD. 66  Lynam, D. and Lawson, S. (2005) A EuroRAP case study: Potential for risk reductions on British inter-urban major roads 64 65

218

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

• road width – increased road width is generally associated with lower accident rates,

although estimates of the size of the effect vary in different studies. Significant carriageway or lane narrowing potentially leads to lower speeds, particularly in urban settings, but seemingly not enough to balance the increased risk of driving along the narrower roads; • horizontal and vertical alignment – Walmsley and Summersgill (1998)67 found that bendiness and hilliness have only a small effect on accident risk on rural trunk roads, but these are engineered to fairly high standards. On non-trunk roads, Barker et al. (1999)68 and Hughes and Amis (1996)69 both found that increased bendiness led to increased accident risk. Taylor et al. (2002)70 also showed that, across a variety of non-trunk rural road types, more sharp bends per kilometre were associated with higher accident risk. Broughton (2006)71 showed that about 10% of fatal and serious accidents involving loss of control were at bends or on winding roads. Broughton also showed that this factor was associated with a similar proportion of all single-vehicle motorcycle accidents; • roadside characteristics – The width of the safety zone (i.e. the area in which vehicles can recover or stop without serious impact) on the side of the road has a significant effect on casualty outcome. The influence of this area is also affected by the slope and nature of the ground and the presence of ditches. Carriageway edge treatments can help the driver avoid leaving the road. Klassen et al72 has shown that large parts of even the most highly engineered UK roads (motorways) do not comply with the latest standard for roadside protection; • junctions and accesses – The influence of junctions depends on the number of conflicting movements allowed and the speed and angle at which these can take place. Additional major junctions (roundabouts and traffic signals) typically only increase accident rates by a small amount. Movements controlled by give way markings only, without the need for main road speeds to be reduced, lead to potentially greater increases in risk. Significant proportions of accidents have been recorded at private accesses on single-carriageway roads. Projects that consider replacing priority junctions with roundabouts are often difficult to justify due to the monetarised disbenefits (user delays) caused to mainline traffic. This policy may be a future obstacle to the reduction of KSI accidents which are prevalent at high-speed  Walmesley, S. and Summersgill, I. (1998) Accidents on Modern Rural Single Carriageway Trunk Roads. TRL Report TRL 336. Crowthorne: TRL Limited. 68  Barker, J., Farmer, S. and Taylor, M. (1999) The Development of Accident Remedial Intervention Levels for Rural Roads. TRL Report TRL425. Crowthorne: TRL Limited. 69  Hughes, W. and Amiss, G. (1996) Accidents on Rural Roads: Single Carriageway A Class Roads. Basingstoke: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. 70  Taylor, M., Baruya, B. and Kennedy, J. (2002) The Relationship Between Speed and Accidents on Rural Single Carriageway Roads. TRL Report TRL 511. Crowthorne: TRL Limited. 71  Broughton, J. (2006) Contributory Factors in Rural Accidents. Unpublished note to the Department for Transport. 72  Klassen, N., Berlitz, J., Stock, R., Kohler, W., Dziub, R., and Dingeldein, J. (2007) UK Trial Survey to establish Road Protection Scores for the UK.ADAC Verkehrstechnik. 67

219

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

priority junctions. We are aware that, in urban areas, the user delay disbenefits are often disregarded in economic assessments when considering speed reduction schemes. This disparity may become more apparent if urban casualties continue to fall. If KSI rural casualties are to fall at priority junctions, then the economic model which includes user delays at roundabouts may need to be reviewed. Current (UK) practice between rural and urban scheme assessment is inconsistent.

220

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX N – CASE STUDY: VOLVO CONCEPT TRUCK In assessing available heavy vehicle safety developments the DfT Scoping Study Report73 noted that: “The Volvo concept truck developed through a number of European projects illustrates the plethora of driver assistance systems that are currently available or will shortly be available. It features the following: • an enhanced interface with a configurable instrument panel, multifunction buttons

on the steering wheel, the capability for voice control of various functions, and a system for filtering and prioritising information provision to the driver, so that, for example, incoming phone calls can be delayed when driver workload is estimated to be high. The system also features eye-movement cameras to monitor driver fatigue and distraction; • a lane keeping system which warns the driver about straying out of lane through steering wheel vibration. The driver is assisted to steer by the truck helping to turn the wheel in the correct direction; • a lane change assistant with blind spot monitoring. The driver is warned if there is a risk of collision with an overtaking vehicle in the adjacent lane; • all round monitoring indicates to the driver if there are objects or people in the vehicle’s blind spots; • curve speed warning informs the driver if he/she is approaching a horizontal curve at excessive speed; • a forward collision avoidance system that applies automatic braking if the truck is detected as approaching a lead vehicle too fast. At the same time the driver is warned with a buzzer and lights. A start inhibit to prevent starting from rest when a person or object is detected right in front of the vehicle. Such a person or object is likely to be out of the driver’s view.”

 Road Safety Research Report No. 105, Road Safety Strategy beyond 2010: A scoping Study. DfT UK, 2009

73

221

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX O – PROJECTED SAVINGS IN FATALITIES 2000-2010 ATTRIBUTED TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROAD SAFETY INTERVENTIONS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

222

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX P – ESTIMATED PAST AND PROJECTED FUTURE IMPACTS OF ROAD SAFETY MEASURES In addition, work by Broughton74 highlights the following impacts of road safety measures on serious casualties (killed and seriously injured). Estimated past and projected future impacts of road safety measures averaged over all types of road and road use (% reduction in killed and seriously injured).

 Broughton, J. (2007), Monitoring Progress Towards the 2010 Casualty Reduction Target – 2005 data, TRL, Crowthorne.

74

223

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX Q – EMERGING ROAD SAFETY PRIORITIES - Vehicle safety features The DfT scoping study report75 also noted that “the vehicle manufacturers (EUCAR program for testing new technologies) can be seen to be concentrating on various warning systems and information systems — forward collision warning, lane departure warning, curve speed warning and blind spot information. They are also proposing to prove the safety impact of Adaptive Cruise Control. The systems to be tested affect both longitudinal and lateral control. With regard to systems that affect vehicle maximum speed, Speed Alert (warning Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA)) and other forms of ISA are not included. However, the speed limiter function in which the driver sets vehicle top speed manually is to be examined. This function is somewhat analogous to the limiting function in a cruise control, but differs in that, with the speed limiter, only a maximum speed is set, whereas with cruise control the vehicle is set to be driven at the set speed and the driver removes his/her foot from the accelerator pedal. The safety benefits of ISA were noted in the UK report and it will be important to overcome industry reluctance to testing ISA to ensure it becomes available. There are few market pressures for this to occur and it will be important for governments to address this difficulty. The results in the Table below show that the use of a speed limiter in a French study substantially decreased speeding. While DfT acknowledge that it was a small study and one in which the participants may have felt somewhat obligated to engage the system”, they draw attention to the “surprisingly large effect of the speed limiter. If these results are confirmed by additional studies, then it may indeed be appropriate to promote the introduction of this system”.

From DfT Scoping Study Report76

 Road Safety Research Report No. 105, Road Safety Strategy beyond 2010: A scoping Study. DfT UK, 2009  Road Safety Research Report No. 105, Road Safety Strategy beyond 2010: A scoping Study. DfT UK, 2009

75

76

224

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Voluntary ISA and speed alert The recent ISA project for the Department for Transport has produced estimates of the casualty savings that can be achieved with ISA on different road categories (Carsten et al., 2008). This work is being further developed in the current project for the Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) entitled ‘Speed Limit Adherence and its Effect on Road Safety and Climate Change’ (Motorists’ Forum/CfIT, 2008). The estimates are based on: • an analysis of accident numbers by road category; • observed changes in speed choice with ISA; and • relationships between speed choice and risk of accident involvement at various

levels of severity from the scientific literature.

Voluntary ISA is the version with a direct link between speed limit information and vehicle drivetrain, but which the driver can nevertheless override when he or she chooses. Table 6.3 shows the maximum estimated change in risk of involvement in an injury accident for a vehicle equipped with a voluntary ISA compared with the same vehicle without ISA. These predicted impacts of ISA are very substantial, indicating that ISA is one of the most effective safety interventions on offer.

Advisory or warning ISA, i.e. an ISA without any link to the vehicle drivetrain, is sometimes known as Speed Alert. There is relatively little information in the literature on the effectiveness of such systems. In the French LAVIA trials, the advisory ISA only had a fifth of the impact of the voluntary ISA in terms of the amount of time spent driving above the speed limit on 50 km/h roads (Ehrlich et al., 2006). Thus, one can conclude that purely advisory ISA without additional incentives to comply with the warnings will have far smaller impacts on the risk of accident involvement than will voluntary ISA. The DfT Scoping Study concluded that some of the systems discussed have significant safety potential. The systems related to longitudinal vehicle control, affecting speed and rear-end conflict situations are perhaps the most mature in

225

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

technical terms and offer the greatest benefit. ISA, in particular, has been evaluated extensively and offers significant benefits (Carsten et al., 2008). Systems addressing road departure are less mature (certainly less reliable from a technical point of view with many more missed situations and false alarms) and are relevant to fewer accident situations, although such events can have very serious outcomes. The proposition that eCall will have a large impact on fatalities is not convincing, and there are doubts about the benefit-to-cost ratio for the system. It should also be acknowledged that there is overlap in terms of the accident types to be addressed by the various systems. For example, the systems that affect speed and those that affect headway, such as FCW, may affect some of the same situations. The discussion above of the safety potential of various systems can be compared with the conclusions the eIMPACT project (Wilmink et al., 2008). The project applied a common procedure to examine the safety potential of twelve systems, and carried out a cost–benefit analysis for those systems. The systems were: 1. Electronic Stability Control 2. Full Speed Range Adaptive Cruise Control, i.e. Stop and Go 3. Emergency Braking (fully automated braking to avoid or mitigate longitudinal

crashes)

4. Pre-Crash Protection of Vulnerable Road Users (automated braking to avoid or

mitigate collisions with vulnerable road users)

5. Lane Change Assistant (warning of relevant vehicles when changing lane) 6. Lane Keeping Support (active steering to keep in lane) 7. Night Vision Warn (enhanced vision at night through near or far infrared sensors,

including obstacle warning)

8. Driver Drowsiness Monitoring and Warning 9. eCall 10. Intersection Safety (red light warning, right of way information at signalised

intersections and stop signs, and right-turn assistance)

11. Wireless Local Danger Warning (inter-vehicle communication distributing early

warnings of accidents, obstacles, reduced friction and bad visibility)

12. SpeedAlert, i.e. advisory Intelligent Speed Adaptation

Table 6.4 shows the estimated changes in injuries and fatalities with 100% penetration of each system. ESC and Lane Keeping Support have the greatest impact (though perhaps to some extent affecting the same types of accident) followed by SpeedAlert and Emergency Braking. These estimates reinforce the message that new in-vehicle technologies have the potential to deliver considerable safety benefits.

226 2012R31EN

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

Country

The Netherlands

Norway

Road Safety Dept within Directorate General for Mobility reporting to the Ministry for Transport, Public Works and Water Management.

The Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) - an executive agency subordinated to the Ministry of Transport and Communication. A number of executive agencies have responsibility.

National Transport plan (NTP) 2010-2019. Target by 2020: reduce fatalities and seriously injuries by 1/3. Vision Zero approach. “Nobody should be killed or seriously injured in accidents within the road transport system”. Vision Zero adopted by Parliament, government and public bodies. Regions developed action plans – most adopting Vision Zero.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

Strategic Road Safety Plan (SRSP) 2008-2020. Sustainable Safety. Formally adopted by Parliament August 2008. Target by 2020: max. 500 deaths /max. 12.250 hospitalized injuries. No set regional targets.

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

Coordination arrangements in place to support whole of government monitoring and decision making. Clear roles and responsibilities.

Close cooperation with Centre for Transport and Navigation. Road safety groups liaise regularly for decision and implementation. Clear roles and responsibilities.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10

Various meetings across government and non-government stakeholders. Reports to the Parliament and hearings by parliamentary committees. Funding levels and priorities decided in the State budget each year.

Strategy discussions via the National Mobility Council – convened twice a year. NGOs regularly consulted. Major proposals/law put to Parliament for debate. Funding political decision. Political advocacy managed by Road Safety Dept within Ministry.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14

Targeted campaigns by NPRA in cooperation with other agencies & organizations. Promotion of 4 or 5 star cars. Attention to employment related road safety including safety charter with business groups.

SRSP establishes national public awareness campaigns on key issues, e.g. drink driving, speeding, seatbelts. Demand built for green cars, 5 star cars, motorcycle guard rails etc. Lobby groups also have RS promotion responsibilities.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17

-

Real time road safety data for police. Cooperative relationships for supporting road safety legislation. Judicial system largely supportive of road safety goals.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20

Several road safety research programs. Knowledge transfer through conferences, seminars, workshops etc. Risk analysis – road safety audits of existing roads and new projects and evaluations of specific plans and projects road locations and road users. Countermeasures developed on risk analysis.

Active road safety research under SRSP. Both government and private research. Funding supportive of research but competitive for funds. Knowledge transfer via various means. Open exchanges. Standards broadly adopted. Crash data adequate – some underreporting lack some detail on less severe crashes. System wide risk analyses. Results presented regularly. Countermeasures evaluated.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

Injury insurance not linked to crash risk/ trauma costs.

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

227 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX R – SUMMARY OF POLICIES SURVEY RETURNS

Country

Sweden

Switzerland

The Swedish Road Administration (SRA) has the over-all responsibility for road safety strategy. Swedish Transport Agency responsible for monitoring of delivery.

Federal Roads Office (FEDRO).

“Via sicura”: 56 measures proposed in programme to achieve long term reduction of fatalities by half. Adopted on the level of the Ministry, not yet adopted by parliament. In course of action.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

Vision Zero: no person being fatally or severely injured while using the road transport system. Interim target 2020: 50% less fatalities, 25% less severe injuries. Adopted by Swedish Parliament in 1997.

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

Clear roles and responsibilities coordinated by FEDRO. There are not many road safety agencies. There are no regular combined meetings with Ministers with road safety responsibilities.

Most of the coordination arrangements are carried out by the SRA. The over-all responsibility of road safety for the SRA is clearly stated by the government.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10

Standard cooperation between administrative and government bodies. Extensive consultation between Parliamentary actors. Financing via fuel tax. Additional special funding as part of the Road Safety Strategy Plan.

The SRA arranged for several collaboration councils for different road safety stakeholders. The parliament committee for traffic issues is consulted only via the formal decision-making process when new laws proposed. The government sets annual funding targets for the administrations to fulfill.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14

The bfu is a private foundation considered the Swiss Competence. Centre for Accident Prevention. It conducts research in the road traffic sport, home and leisure sectors and passes on its knowledge to individuals and specialist groups by means of advisory services, training sessions and communications. It campaigns to reduce drink driving, for the observation of speed limits and wearing of safety belts.

Public promotion and information provided on why law changes are taking place and the road safety risks. Consumer guides on child restraint system, cars, helmets etc. provided on the SRA, insurance companies and non-profit organisations websites. The SRA encourages employers to adopt safety standards for their fleet.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17

-

Road safety legislative settings fairly supportive of good practice policy. Penalties for traffic offences were drastically increased in 2006. The judicial system does not automatically consider excessive speed being grounds for “reckless driving” along with drink driving etc.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20

Active research into road safety mostly provided by Bfu, FEDRO and ETHs. Funding is considered adequate.

Research divided into different categories, not a general combined program for road safety. Both government and university research. Transport research well-funded. Not enough knowledge transfer arrangements exist. In-depth studies carried out on every fatal crash. All new investment projects undergo cost-benefit analysis where safety benefits are included. Most countermeasure programs monitored and evaluated.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

-

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

228 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Germany

Hungary

Lead agency Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt).

The Secretariat coordinating the work of the Interministerial Committee, is set up by the National Transport Authority.

The main objectives of the Hungarian Traffic Policy for 2003-2015 are to reduce the person accidents by 30%, and the mortality rate by 30% by 2010. These rates – according to the EU White Paper - have to be reduced 50% by 2015. Specific Regional strategies follow Implementation of DIRECTIVE 2008/96/ EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, on road infrastructure safety management. Other strategies include: • black spots analysis; • redevelopment of junctions of accident risk on rural roads; • variable message signs; • comguard, intelligent road safety system tests; • accident scene identification by GPS.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

No specific vision or targets adopted. Member of European Union.

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

The realization of the Action Plan – started in 2008. The secretariat of the Interministerial Committee and its operational assistance team reported on accomplishment to the members of the Committee at the end of 2008 and 2009. A comprehensive review will be completed in 2010. The Secretariat coordinating the work of the Interministerial Committee, is set up by the National Transport Authority.

Coordination arrangements in place to support government monitoring and decision-making. There are clear roles for institutions financed by the federal government for road safety.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10 Round table with national organizations. Regular meetings of the Committee on Transport, Building and Urban Affairs of the German Bundestag. Transport safety is a high priority within the government. Member of European Union.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14 National road safety campaigns. Driving courses German Road Safety Council (DVR) for occupational health and safety.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17 Highly effective data provision to support law enforcement.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20

Yes, road safety research program, in the framework of GRSP. Leading research group is the Institute for Transport Sciences (KTI). System wide blackspot crash analysis. Crash analyses circulated widely. All programs monitored and evaluated.

Active road safety research. BASt is the lead research agency.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

Insurance reflects crash risk.

Most auto liability insurance contracts consider risk factors like i.e. age, gender and vehicle categories.

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

229 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

United States

“1.0 by 2011.” U.S. DOT set target of “one fatality per 100 million vehicle miles travelled,” DOT currently re-evaluating this goal and will likely set new target for 2014. Current Strategic Plan covers FY2006-2011. New Strategic Plan under development 2009-2014. Vision statement: Enhance public health and safety by working toward the elimination of transportationrelated deaths and injuries. States required to develop and implement Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). SHSPs set state-wide priorities and include all aspects of safety.

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

No lead. At the Federal level, three highway safety agencies within the US DOT - the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrations (FMCSA). They administer safety infrastructure, behavioural safety and motor carrier safety programs, respectively.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

Decision-making on targeting safety resources at the State level. Federal highway safety agencies work with State and local highway safety agencies to develop and implement SHSPs. At the State and local levels, leadership for road safety is divided between the State Departments of Transportation, Governors’ Highway Safety Representatives, State Motor Carrier Safety representatives, and local transportation agencies. Responsibilities may be clearly defined in some States and not in others.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10 The FHA has a “Highway Safety Partners Venture” comprises cross section of engineering, education, enforcement, emergency medical organizations - meets every other month. Federal officials cannot advocate specific road safety policies. Can, educate, inform and provide technical assistance, if requested by Congress. Have also developed reauthorization proposals with Congress including their best thinking regarding national priorities. Funding for surface transportation programs are authorized each year over a 5 to 6 year period by multi-year reauthorization bills.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14 NHTSA conducts national media campaigns - seat belt drink driving. Also has awareness weeks on other issues. Efforts at national, state, and local level to educate consumers safety culture competes against mobility and personal freedom. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) promotes safety through enforcement of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to improve truck safety levels. FMCSA website http:// www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ about/outreach/ outreach.htm promote safe commercial motor vehicle use.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17 Access to state licensing systems for law enforcement. Proactive in learning about successful practice but requires a level of proof. Caution at the national level to dictate to states. Federal gov. provides guidance and incentives to the states to implement safety policies. Judicial support varies between States and local jurisdictions. Overall, most systems are supportive of existing legislation.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20 Significant programs funded by US DOT carried out by FHWA, NHTSA, FMCSA and RITA. Various program coordination undertaken through TRB. DOT also provides grants to support university research. Considerable achievements with USDOT research funding. Some specific knowledge transfer initiatives such as “Lead State Initiative” and training programs provided by DOT. Considerable data collection, some data quality issues with police recordings in local areas. A mixture of systematic and localised crash risk analysis more across states. More interest recently in system wide analyses. NHTSA crash analyses published annually across a range of factors. Most states conduct economic appraisals to make decisions regarding safety improvements. Some states have evaluation programs to determine effectiveness. Some done as a partnership between several states and federal government.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

230 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

Canada’s short-term ambition for improved road safety, launched in 1996, is to achieve at least a 30% reduction in fatalities and serious injuries during the 2008-2010 period. Canada’s long-term ambition and current road safety vision is ‘to have the safest roads in the world’. Road Safety Vision (RSV) 2010 was adopted by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) following its official endorsement by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. Most jurisdictional strategies aim to curb drink driving, speeding and non-use of seat belts. Canadian jurisdictions have participated in discussions regarding adoption of an approach to road safety assessment and a framework to guide actions for improvement among road safety agencies for the road safety plan that will succeed RSV2010.

Country

Canada

Road safety is a shared responsibility. Most road safety strategy development is carried out by individual provinces and territories because the development of road safety policies, programs and strategies is their responsibility. National road safety strategy development is usually carried out under the auspices of the CCMTA, with active participation of representatives of all jurisdictions and the federal government. Transport Canada, on behalf of the CCMTA, is responsible for monitoring annual progress of road safety improvements.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

Provinces and territories are responsible for the coordination of decision making and monitoring for road safety policy. The federal government is responsible for development and implementation of motor vehicle regulations, extra-provincial/ territorial commercial vehicle movements and transfer of road safety knowledge to jurisdictions. Regular combined meetings of senior officers may occur at the provincial or territorial level for very topical road safety issues.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10 Provincial/territorial road safety representatives and members of non-government organizations meet twice annually to deal with existing/emerging road safety issues. The three standing committees of road safety professionals meet semi-annually. Arrangements for parliamentary consultations vary among jurisdictions. Jurisdictions wishing to implement changes to highway traffic acts have to follow a rigorous process of parliamentary consultation. Jurisdictions decide what their road safety priorities will be.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14 Individual jurisdictions evaluate their needs and deliver promotional, information and countermeasure programs as required. They update their counterparts at the semi-annual CCMTA meetings. There is a national campaign, led by Transport Canada, to encourage car buyers to look for vehicles equipped with Electronic Stability Control. Information is provided to business groups and other organisations to promote road-related OH&S activity on an ad-hoc basis.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17 Driver and rider licensing and vehicle registration/ownership are administered by the provinces and territories and are also accessible to police services. Rules of the road are specific to provinces and territories. Jurisdictions promote evidenced based good practices but are often the result of media identified problems. Some charges related to impaired driving are taken seriously, others related to traffic laws, such as speed and belt uses are less supported.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20 At the national level, the Road Safety Research and Policies (RSRP) Standing Committee is one of three permanent working groups that is aligned with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. Government agencies attempt to leverage as much funding as possible from the public purse for road safety research aimed at making road travel safer. Formal knowledge transfer agreements within road safety agencies to ensure evidence based road safety research is applied to policy development. All traffic collisions involving a motorized vehicle that occurred on a public roadway are collected by provinces and territories. There is an attempt to study and understand road safety from a systems perspective and the interrelationships among forces and components of the network. Efforts are made to develop countermeasure programs that address individual location risks and system wide risks. The majority of countermeasure programs are monitored and evaluated.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

Insurance is a provincial and territorial matter. Jurisdictions have a facility management system to insure very high risk drivers.

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

231 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Ontario (Canada)

Ontario is committed to a public performance measure, fatalities per 10,000 licensed drivers. In 2006, the last year for which statistics have been published, the rate was 0.87. Our targets for 2010, 2011 and 2012 are 1.01, 0.99, and 0.97. There are a number of factors that can affect the rate, but we expect to achieve our targets. Canadian road safety jurisdictions are approaching the end of a national plan, Road Safety Vision 2010 See above for vision.

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

Road User Safety Division, Ministry of Transportation, deals with a wide range of driver and vehicle issues including policies, legislation and regulation; reporting collision data; monitoring and evaluating programs; developing public education programs. In development road safety curriculum materials, for all grade levels, for use in schools. Traffic infrastructure the responsibility of the Provincial Highways Management Division. Ministry of Health Promotion and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, have identified road safety as a key issue.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

Coordination within government takes place on an as-needed basis, such as in the development of a cabinet submission. Roles for road safety agencies are clear.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10 As above.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14 The Ministry of Transportation produces public education materials, hosts provincial campaigns and sponsors local and provincial awareness initiatives.. Campaigns based on relevant road safety research and statistics. Safe roads promoted as contributing to strong communities. Social marketing conveys that high risk behaviour is unacceptable and the thoughtless act of a minority. The enormous social costs of vehicle crashes illustrate the burden we all carry. Employers encouraged to promote safer work related driving practices. They are encouraged to consider their liability in relation to work-related driving. Employees themselves are encouraged to expect and demand a safe work place.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17 Under the Highway Traffic Act, the Ministry of Transportation responsible for recording all data pertaining to driver, vehicle and carrier records including convictions, suspensions, collisions and licensing-related transactions. All transactions recorded on the Licensing and Control System accessible to law enforcement through the application Inquiry Services System (ISS). Significant support at bureaucratic and political levels, and in the legislature. Ontario Legislature has passed, several pieces of road safety legislation recently. Judicial system focuses on most serious offences. Some evidence less serious traffic offences are being pleaded down and not implemented as intended.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20 Yes active research. MTO identifies road safety areas of special interest and conducts research and countermeasure evaluation. The Canadian based Traffic Research Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) is leading in Canada but also utilise other leading organizations conducting road safety research. Research funding is adequate to conduct basic research and analysis and produce the Ontario Road Safety Annual Report (ORSAR). MTO co-operates with other government agencies and road safety shareholders/ organizations to exchange road safety expertise and based knowledge evidence. The collision data is generally of high quality but some limitations exist. MTO mostly conducts province-wide road safety analysis (e.g., drinking & driving, novice or senior drivers). Most crash location traffic or highway engineering analysis are conducted by our Traffic Office or local municipalities. MTO reviews current safety research and developments to identify opportunities for cost-effective system-wide improvements. Cost-effective countermeasures identified are implemented on a priority basis, based on available funding. Programs monitored generally and specific evaluations carried out as required and available resources.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

Automobile insurance in Ontario determined by a range of factors including: 1. your personal profile, including vehicle type, driving record, how much you drive, where you live and your age; 2. t he amount of coverage you purchase; 3. your deductible; 4. t he insurance company you choose.

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

232 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Victoria (Australia)

Western Australia (Australia)

Coordination arrangements in place to support whole of government monitoring and decision making for road safety policy. Decision making hierarchy includes regular combined meetings of senior officers with the Ministers. Roles and responsibilities of road agencies are clear.

The Office of Road Safety has been established to provide leadership among key agencies, undertake education, research, policy development, and monitor and report progress. In June 2009 the Government decided that regular meetings of the Ministerial Council on Road Safety will be convened. The role of each agency is clearly detailed in Towards Zero.

The Road Safety Council Act 2002 establishes the Road Safety Council which is responsible for identifying how to improve the safety of WA roads.

Towards Zero: Road Safety Strategy to Reduce Road Trauma in WA 2008-2020 incorporates the Safe System. The short term target is to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 10 per cent by 2011. Towards Zero’s vision was formally endorsed by the WA Government and Parliament on 19 March 2009. available at: http://www. officeofroadsafety. wa.gov.au/index. cfm?event=road SafetyStrategies the Government and Road Safety Council have endorsed the Safe System approach and adopted the Towards Zero vision which means that we do not accept that any human being should die or be seriously injured on our roads.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10

Designated lead agency for road safety strategy development and monitoring is VicRoads.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

arrive alive 2008-2017 strategy launched in 2008, building on arrive alive! 2002-2007, aims for a 30% reduction in annual fatalities and serious injuries from 2008 to 2017. arrivealive.vic. gov.au safe systems is the agreed approach to road safety.

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

The Policy and Strategy team members regularly meet and discuss policy, strategy development and legislative and implementation requirements with senior officers from Road Safety Council agencies. The Ministerial Council on Road Safety includes all Ministers with agencies responsible for delivering road safety outcomes. High level directions and priorities for road safety in WA are outlined in Towards Zero. Road Safety Council has senior members appointed by WA responsible ministers to represent key road safety agencies.

Road safety strategy agreed by whole of government through Cabinet process. Regular stakeholder engagement mechanisms in place, e.g. Road Safety Reference group, Speed Limits Advisory Group. Parliamentary Road Safety Committee conducts regular inquiries into specific topic. Funding levels and priorities guided by arrive alive target and committed actions. Normal inter-agencies processes with road safety partner agencies.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14

Towards Zero has a strong focus on educating road users, enforcing the road rules and promoting the Safe System. Currently, community education campaigns are developed to inform, educate and ultimately influence the community (in all aspects) about the various behaviours and Safe System cornerstones where they can take responsibility and change their behaviours. Government and private sector encouraged to adopt safe vehicle purchase and driving policies.

Mass advertising re key behavioural risks: speeding, fatigue, drugs etc. Also campaigns based on NCAP program. Provision of information package to business groups and other organisations to promote OH&S activity for employment related road use.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17

Generally good data exchanges, however, address information sometimes mismatched and out of date. Interpretation of Demerit Points Systems remains an issue. Current legislation is strongly supportive of road safety encouraging road users to comply and to use roads safely. The judicial system continues to play an important role in ensuring that there are strong deterrent messages and consequences for people who recklessly flout traffic laws.

Data systems are effective and broadly accessible for law enforcement purposes. Road safety related legislative settings and judicial system supportive of good practice road safety policy and existing legislation and regulation.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20

Active road safety research and development program conducted by Curtin-Monash Accident Research Centre. Approximately 9% of the Road Trauma Trust Fund is allocated to enhancing data quality, monitoring of trends and developments, research and evaluation. In addition 13.4% of the Road Trauma Trust Fund is allocated to stakeholder agencies (that is, external to the Office of Road Safety) for capacity building, research and evaluation activities. All Road Safety Council agencies have a culture of sharing information through a variety of means.

Active road safety research and development program conducted by MUARC, ARRB. Few formal mechanisms for knowledge transfer. Data collection about crashes adequate but could be improved. A system wide crash risk analysis focus exists, with regular analysis of crash trends segmented by key crash categories, region, road user type, etc. Countermeasure programs developed and prioritised on a cost effectiveness basis Vehicle and user countermeasures based on system-wide risks, infrastructure based primarily on individual location or road length risks. All countermeasure programs are monitored and evaluated.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

Injury insurance policies/ premium structures which relate crash risk by vehicle type or user type to trauma costs are not available, but information is available from the Insurance Commission of WA.

Supplementary levy imposed on motor cycles reflects some of their increased risk.

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

233 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Queensland (Australia)

Tasmania (Australia)

Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR).

Road safety strategy development is primarily the responsibility of the Land Transport Safety Division of the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources. The Tasmanian Road Safety Council is the principle road safety policy and consultative body.

No level adopted – National issue. The Tasmanian Road Safety Strategy 2007-2016 (the Strategy) was launched in June 2007. The Strategy is based on the Safe Systems approach. www.transport. tas.gov.au/safety

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

Queensland Road Safety Strategy 2004-2011 has adopted the target of 5.6 fatalities per 100,000 population, which represents a 40% reduction over the life of the Strategy. The Queensland Strategy and associated action plans have the vision ‘safe4life’, which “emphasises a desire to prevent road trauma, and a belief that all road users are entitled to safe travel regardless of who and where they are”. Road safety agencies have adopted the Safe System approach. The Queensland Strategy was adopted by the Queensland Government. http://www.transport. qld.gov.au/Home/ Safety/Road/Strategy/

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

Currently the two major bodies in road safety, the Tasmanian Road Safety Council and the Road Safety Task Force, have clearly defined – but complementary - roles. Coordination arrangements in place to support whole of government monitoring and decision making for road safety policy. Decision making hierarchy includes regular combined meetings of senior officers with the Ministers.

Dedicated committees of senior executives set up on specific issues, i.e. Executive Management Committee to monitor and make policy decisions on the camera detected offence program. Meetings of the three ministers with responsibility for road safety (Transport, Main Roads and Police) are engaged by the departments on an issues basis. Each agency’s roles and responsibilities are set out in their strategic and/or corporate plans.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10

Tasmanian Road Safety Council includes members from RACT, Tasmania Police, DIER, Coroner’s Office, Tasmanian Motorcycle Council, Local Government Association of Tasmania, road safety expert from Monash University, community representative and reps of the three major parties. Current legislative process involves parliamentary consultation. Road Safety Levy provides approx $9 million each year, for funding road safety initiatives.

DTMR and Queensland Police Service (QPS) regularly consult with other government and non‑government stakeholders in the development of road safety policy. Funding levels and priorities determined as part of the budgetary and corporate planning processes and Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan development.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14

The Road Safety Task Force has a responsibility to provide public education and promotion of road safety. Public education campaigns on choosing safer vehicles, including running of telephone commercials. The Community Road Safety Partnership promotes fleet safety programs and information on introducing a safe fleet driving policies and improving fleet vehicle safety.

DTMR conducts regular public education campaigns on road safety issues, using a variety of media. Information to employers is provided as part of general road safety public education campaigns. Currently no specific fleet safety program running.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17

Separate databases recording licensing/ registration information available to law enforcement agencies. Strategic and evidence based approach to road safety in Tasmania ensures support and consideration of new road safety measures if they are proven to reduce casualty crashes. Judicial system supportive of good practice road safety policy and existing legislation and regulation.

QPS has access to driver and vehicle records and traffic offence history. Road safety related legislative settings and judicial system supportive of good practice road safety policy and existing legislation and regulation. Proposals for new measures are assessed by the Cabinet on the basis of their merit and costs/benefits.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20

Road safety development programs developed in-house, with ad hoc road safety research and advice provided by consultants. Tasmanian crash statistics recorded on Crash Data Manager system. Crash data are analysed to present a picture of the key problem areas for road safety in Tasmania. Tasmanian Road Safety Strategy based on system wide analysis of risk with local and system wide initiatives considered. Other programs focus primarily on locally identified risks. All countermeasure programs monitored and evaluated.

DTMR has a dedicated Road Safety Strategic Policy and Research unit. Both DTMR and QPS carry out their own research and collaborate on some projects when appropriate. Current funding allocations are adequate for a significant road safety strategic research program. Outcomes of research are shared between partners where relevant to their activities. Data collection about crashes is adequate, but improvements could occur in relation to data collection regarding impairment relating to low level BAC and drugs other than alcohol. All countermeasure programs are monitored and evaluated

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

No

PENDING

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

234 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

New Zealand

Japan

The Ministry of Transport.

Cabinet office.

Eighth Fundamental Traffic Safety Program set targets of 5,500 or fewer fatalities by 2010 or 5,000 or less by 2012. Road safety target is set at a regional level. Priority Program for Public Capital Provision enacted by the Cabinet in March 2009. The Strategy is based on Vision Zero.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

Road Safety to 2010 Strategy, launched in October 2003, set targets of no more than 300 deaths and no more than 2200 people injured seriously enough to be hospitalised for more than one day by the end of 2010. This strategy does not have a vision. New strategy, under development, will have a formal vision. Strategy operates under a ‘three Es’ approach – engineering, enforcement and education.

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

The Cabinet Office integrates and executes the general affairs of the Central Traffic Safety Countermeasure Conference which is in charge of implementing traffic safety programs. Roles and responsibilities of road agencies are clear.

A National Road Safety Committee and a National Road Safety Management Group coordinate monitoring and decision making for road safety policy. Decision making hierarchy does not includes regular combined meetings.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10

Coordination in the Central Traffic Safety Countermeasure Conference and Traffic Countermeasure Headquarters established under the Conference. Cabinet office coordinates overall traffic safety countermeasures. A budget of about 300 million yen is provided to prepare and implement fundamental traffic safety programs.

Government consultation guidelines require that government and non-government stakeholders are consulted when developing new policy/ strategy. Opportunity within the normal executive/ legislative processes for Parliamentary consultation to occur. There is no road safety committee of government ministers. Road Safety Strategy to 2010 provides guidance for road safety funding.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14

Public relations with appropriate information are done.

Regular extensive road safety advertising campaign aimed at reducing incidence of drink driving and speeding. Vehicle safety advertising promotes the safety benefits of two key safety features – ESC and side curtain airbags. Guidelines for safe driving policy in the workplace promoted – your safe driving policy.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17

Data systems are provided for all items, and are presumed to be operating effectively. Fundamental Traffic safety program is based on Fundamental law of Traffic safety measure. It is assumed the judicial system is functioning effectively.

Data systems are considered broadly accessible and able to be used effectively by the Police in enforcement. Judicial system highly supportive of existing legislation and regulation, however, the sentences given for high risk driving and unlicensed driving are highly variable.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20

Research and development is conducted according to requirements of the ministry. National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management one of the leading research organisations. Integrated Traffic Accident Database and Traffic Accident Countermeasure Database used to transfer knowledge between agencies. Locations requiring countermeasures are rated according to the rate of accidents causing fatalities and injuries (cases/100 million vehicle-kilometres). Countermeasure programs monitored and evaluated using the PDCA cycle.

Leading Government Agencies involved in road safety research are the MoT, New Zealand Transport Agency, New Zealand Police and the Accident Compensation Corporation. Other organisations include universities and consultants. Individual agencies have own processes for ensuring evidence based research is applied to policy. National road crash data base (CAS) tcan be accessed by all road safety practitioners and researchers. Do not have system wide programs, but do have SH wide programs such as NSC, Blackspot, Safety Retrofit, Rumble strips. Level of countermeasure monitoring and evaluation varies.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

Compulsory automobile liability insurance, Voluntary insurance.

New Zealand has a ‘no fault’ personal injury insurance scheme which does not differentiate by crash risk. However, private insurance companies do differentiate by vehicle and user type.

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

235 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

The Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC), is the coordinating body.

No lead agency but a National Road Safety Council which coordinates government agencies with a secretariat in the Ministry of Infrastructure.

The long term vision is zero fatalities on Polish roads. The mission is: Poland is a safe country thus a friendly one. Polish Road Safety Vision was adopted by the Polish Government. Poland’s short-term ambition for improved road safety is to achieve at least 50% reduction in numbers of fatalities by year 2013 in relation to 2003. Target is aspirational.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

South African National Road Safety Strategy 2006 Onwards aims to halve fatalities by 2014 in line with Millennium Development Goals, adopted by the National Department of Transport. www.transport. gov.za/library/ docs/safety Provincial Road Safety Strategies aligned with the National Strategy. New Road Safety Strategy 2009 onwards is being developed.

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

South Africa

Poland

Country

NRSC meets four times a year. Provides a report to government annually. Liaises with non-government organisations.

RTMC coordinates monitoring and decision making for road safety policy. Decision making hierarchy includes regular combined meetings of senior officers with the Ministers. Roles and responsibilities of road agencies are clear.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10

Liaises with non-government organisations.

Consultation arrangements coordinated by the RTMC. Provincial Departments of Community Safety allocate budgets to road safety initiatives and Traffic Management. Supported fully by National and Provincial Ministers of Transport.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14

Limited activity.

No National Strategic approach to inform the public, but there is extensive road safety campaigns specifically over Christmas and Easter periods promoting safe and responsible road user behaviour. Limited information provided to business groups and organisations to promote OH&S activity.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17

Driver and rider licencing and vehicle registration/ownership are administered by the provinces and territories and are accessible to law enforcement agencies. Traffic offence recording against individual licence records is available and accessible.

South Africa has a comprehensive live database, know as eNATIS (National Traffic Information System) http://www.enatis.com/ Legislative settings very supportive, but implementation often hampered by lack of resources. Judicial system experiences resource issues, resulting in “overload”.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20

No single leading institution devoted to road safety research. Research conducted mainly by Motor Transport Institute, different Technical Universities and Road and Bridge Research Institute.

No active road safety research and development program. Knowledge transfer arrangements limited and ad hoc. Data collection on crashes is not adequate. No system wide crash risk analysis focus. Countermeasure programs not developed and prioritised on a cost effectiveness basis and not monitored and evaluated.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

Discounts for accident-free driving, higher insurance rate for young drivers (18-25).

Yes, Insurance industry integrates premiums to crash risk of individual profiles.

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

236 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

Malaysia has a five year Malaysian Road Safety Plan 2006 – 2010 has targets to reduce fatality/10k vehicles to 2, to reduce fatality/100,000 population to 10 and to reduce fatality/billion VKT to 10. Specifically, adoption at Parliamentary level: to reduce fatality for every 10,000 registered vehicles by 52.4 % from 4.2 in 2005 to 2.0 in 2010; to reduce fatality for every 100,000 population from 23 in 2005 to 10 in 2010; to reduce fatality for every billion VKT from 18 in 2005 to 10 in 2010.

Country

Malaysia

Road Safety Department under the Ministry of Transport.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

The Road Safety Department does the coordination.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10 Many agencies help Malaysia in road safety e.g. GRSP, ADB, WHO, etc.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14 Road Safety department does it throughout the year either through mass media or through direct advocacy to public.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17 System is in place but has shortcomings. Integration between police records and roads department records has problems. Many loopholes in the current legislation. Court proceedings have not helped to give bite to enforcement.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20 Police data is the main source, and complemented by crash reconstruction carried out by MIROS (on a predetermined criteria, i.e. not all crashes are investigated by MIROS).

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

No.

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

237 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Singapore

Denmark

While government has not adopted a vision, the Road Safety Council adopted in 2007 a National Road Safety Plan with a target of 40% reduction in fatalities by 2012 compared to 2005.

Yes. Save 100 lives over a 5 year period officially launched in February 2005. Adopted by Minister of Transport (MOT), and National Safety Council (NSC)’s President, in February 2005. To encourage and facilitate road safety activities in Singapore through 5 keys areas: a) encouragement, b) education, c) enforcement, d) emergency preparedness, e) engineering.

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

Yes, Shared. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police (TP).

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

National Road Safety Council meets 3 to 4 times a year and endeavours to coordinate the activities of government agencies and monitor performance.

Yes, under the NRSAP. Yes, thru regular NRSAP meetings chaired by LTA/TP with respective government agencies such as: a) National Safety Council (NSC); b) Nanyang Technological University (NTU); c) National University of Singapore (NUS); d) Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF); e) Singapore General Hospital (SGH); f) Emergency Department; g)Ministry of Education (MOE).

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10 Thru the regular NRSAP meetings with other government and non-government stakeholders.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14

National Road Safety Council.

New road safety initiatives are publicised through the media including brochures which are distributed to the public.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17 Introduced in 2002, the Electronic Driver Data Information & Enquiry System (EDDIES) is an online enquiry system which allows members of the public, insurance and car rental companies to check a driver’s driving licence status and eligibility for Certificate of Merit (COM). LTA is supportive of good practice road safety policy and is prepared to consider new road safety initiatives such as ‘Your Speed Sign’, ‘Pedestrian Crossing Ahead Markings’, Traffic Calming markings and ‘Dashed Pedestrian Crossing Lines’ to alert motorists to lower their speeds to suit the environment. The first three initiatives are published in the LTA masterplan and the Road Traffic Act has been changed accordingly to adopt the all new guidelines. The judicial system highly supportive of existing legislation and regulation.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20

Effective data base for network but some weaknesses with local road data. Whole route assessment not developed in Denmark but area wide analysis could be interesting. Focus ins mainly on individual locations.

Data collection about crashes are adequate.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

Yes, in the event that the worker is injured by a third party vehicle crashing into the worksite whilst carrying out works, then the LTA arranged Work Injury Compensation insurance will respond. (With the assumption that the construction works are covered under the LTA arranged insurances). For the road structures/street furniture, these are not insured. If they are damaged by a third party vehicle crashing into it, then LTA will have to recover the repair costs from these third party vehicles.

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

238 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Czech Republic

National Road Safety Strategy 2004-2010. Formally adopted by Government April 2004. Target by 2010: to halve the number of road fatalities until 2010 compared with 2002 No set regional targets. New National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 is in the final stage of preparation.

Road safety vision and targets Q1,2,3,4,5,6

Ministry of Transport.

Lead or responsible agency/agencies Q7

Close cooperation with other ministries and regions. Supported by the Government Council for Road Safety that includes the representatives of the key road safety stakeholders, incl. NGOs.

Coordination and decision making Q8,9,10 Meeting of Government Council for Road Safety twice a year.

Consultation government & stakeholders Q11,12,13,14 Main task of the road safety section of the Ministry of Transport in the Czech Republic is to raise public awareness on road safety. It organises and contracts several campaigns every year on the national level and shares them with different stakeholders, incl. regional and local level. The topics of campaigns target the most sensitive road safety issues like: children, pedestrians, young drivers, drink driving, speeding, seat belts, etc.

Public advocacy/ promotion Q15,16,17 Road safety legislation supports safe behaviour. In order to avoid repeated offenders in road traffic the demerit point system was introduced since July 1st, 2006. The whole administration is executed in the close cooperation amongst traffic police, local administrations and Ministry of Transport. Its efficiency is strongly influenced by mass media work and by its actual acceptance by politicians. The implementation of demerit point system contributed to the positive safety results in the last years but its modification reflecting traffic behaviour development is needed.

System supports-data/law Q18,19,20 Active road safety research, lead agency is Transport Research Centre (CDV). Government research. Funding supportive research not sufficient. Knowledge transfer via website of Ministry of Transport and CDV. Standards broadly adopted. Crash data adequate – some underreporting on less severe crashes. Programme evaluated.

Data, research, evidence base for policy Q21-30

TABLE 1 – Road Safety Vision, Targets, Approaches and Performance Indicators

Injured insurance reflex crash risk.

Insurance policies/ structures reflective of crash risk Q75

239 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

The Netherlands

Norway

Sweden

Switzerland

Over 6.5 million.

2,964,540 licenses.

5,902,000.

-

4,799,252 persons.

9,182,927 persons.

7.8 Million (of which 21% without Swiss passport).

No. of Licensed Drivers

16,523,147 persons.

Population

-

2,825,000.

1,446,260 licenses.

Approx: 1.5 million.

No. of Licensed Riders

Yes. New drivers have a provisional driving license for the first three years. During this time two training tests (2 days) have to be attended.

None. There is a trial period of 2 years for driver licenses. If the driver within 2 years after taking the driver license commits a felony that would lead to suspension of the license, the new driver have to redo the test for license in order to get it back.

None in place.

Had a system instated in 2006 of novice drivers ( Figures are not available on a national level

Proportion of two lane rural highways converted to freeway or divided road Small proportion because most of two lane two way roads are in the Netherlands have already a median or barrier in between. Only a few were reconstructed to a freeway.

Scale of infrastructure safety investment programs

The Netherlands

National subsidies for project financing of safety measures is only restricted to national roads and not network wide.

Investments in existing road network 1,000 million SEK / year for the last 10 years. Municipalities roughly 500-1,000 million annually. 500 million annually for R&D, cooperation and support to different actors. These budgets are decided within the administration and not set by government.

Annually about 1,000 mill NOK are used to infrastructure investment programs directly related to road safety on national roads. In addition road safety measures are financed over the road maintenance budget. The state budget provide all funds for road safety programs.

The national government provides funds to regional authorities for regional and local safety policies. These funds comprise part of the Major Targeted Funding for Traffic and Transportation (BDU). The BDU is not restricted to specific measures and regions themselves define a suitable package of measures, set their own priorities and allocate their own funds. Regions must also allocate their own regional and local recourses to achieve the set objectives.

Nature and extent of funding for infrastructure safety programs

TABLE 7 – Infrastructure and Vehicle Safety

Since the start of sustainable safety a lot infrastructure measures implemented: • t he implementation of 30 en 60 km zones in residential areas in and outside built-up areas; • cycles paths on parallel routes for slow motorized vehicles; • forgiving roadsides or barriers; • roundabouts at rural and at urban arterial junctions; • sustainable safe road classification; • Essential recognition road markings (each road type has a unique set of road markings); • Motorcycle friendly guardrails.

Country

Sweden

Switzerland

Norway

2003: additional rear-view mirrors for HGVs, 2003: fire extinguishers for HGVs, 2003: front undercarriage protection for HGVs, 2005: Front design of light vehicles for pedestrian protection, 2007: regulations to protect occupants in collisions, 2008: Bench seats no longer permitted.

There is a recently implemented regulation on safety standards for cars purchased by state agencies. The standard order that the cars should have Alco locks, 5-star EuroNCAP occupant protection and minimum 2-star EuroNCAP pedestrian protection.

NPRA’s official website brings the results from EuroNCAP’s crash tests. NPRA has recommended to the public to buy only new cars with 4 or 5 stars in EuroNCAP’s star rating. NPRA annually workes out statistics regarding the distribution of sold new cars on stars in EuroNCAP’s star rating (see answer to question no. 16).

Innovative vehicle technology is becoming more important in managing and reducing negative traffic safety impacts. The impetus for the development of the new technologies lies with the automotive industry. The government’s task is to provide the proper frameworks and provisions as needed. The governments of European set out the requirements for vehicles and components, and EU contributes to technological developments.

Vehicle fleet safety policies introduced in last 5 years

270 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Germany

Hungary

United States

The basics for the future of mobility in Germany are laid down in the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan. This plan contains for the motorways and the federal trunk roads among others the road class, respectively the cross section and the requirements for the safety equipment of the road. Therefore, a conversion of existing roads to a higher class is only possible by an increased connecting function or traffic role. This enhanced function can only be achieved by a major modernisation of the road trunk.

-

Information not available. It is not collected on a national basis.

Focus on elimination of black-spots by low-cost measures particularly roundabouts at rural arterial junction since 2009.

• Median barriers are generally installed only on multi-lane highways (4+ lanes); • Standard Practice on many highways; • Shoulder rumble strips installed on most rural freeways, and other highways where conditions require them; • Tactile centre line included on most paved highways other than local access roads and streets; • Side barriers used extensively. W-beam steel guardrail is the standard in most locations; • Roundabouts at rural and at urban arterial junctions gaining acceptance in the US. A few thousand have been built. Most are single-lane roundabouts.

Proportion of two lane rural highways converted to freeway or divided road

Traffic safety is integrated in all phases of planning, design and operation of road infrastructure in Germany. Present road designs result from many decades of experience in construction and maintenance, in a time when safety issues were already considered as very important. Even if traffic conditions may have changed since a road was designed and built, there exist in Germany a continuous adaptation to the latest safety requirements. While designing new or re-designing existing roads, safety is implicitly assumed to be achieved by adhering to prescribed technical standards of alignment, layout and traffic safety.

Scale of infrastructure safety investment programs

Information not available. It is not collected on a national basis.

Funding by government.

See previous column.

Nature and extent of funding for infrastructure safety programs

TABLE 7 – Infrastructure and Vehicle Safety

Please visit NHTSA’s website to get information about policies for new vehicles: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/ site/nhtsa/menuitem. e649cd1b2b018c71d8eca01046108a0c/ Also refer to the SaferCars.gov website (http://www.safercar.gov/) which is source of vehicle safety information from the government serving the public’s interest.

-

• Twenty-regulation amending the Road Traffic Licensing Regulations; • D ue to this fact a simple conversion of an existing road trunk in a higher class is not possible. • Regulation on the registration of vehicles on road transport (vehicleregistration decree-FZV); • T hirty-first regulation amending the Road Traffic Licensing Regulations (Road Traffic Licensing Regulations), including their reasons and explanations for their implementation; • Regulation on the EC type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (vehicle EC type-approval regulation EC-FGV); • Regulation on the participation of electronic mobility aids in the transport (mobility aid Regulation MobHV); • Membership in the Euro NCAP; • Forty-regulation amending straßenverkehr legal rules.

Vehicle fleet safety policies introduced in last 5 years

271 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Canada

Ontario (Canada)

This information is not compiled on a national level.

Less than 1% of the two lane two way rural highway network has been converted in the past five years. Ontario has a mature highway network and demand for expansion is relatively stable.

Infrastructure safety investment integrated into Capital Construction Program. There is a Safety & Operations budget which funds intersection improvements, interchange improvements and passing lane construction. Work such as guiderail installation, rumble strips and paved shoulders is generally funded under Rehabilitation Budget or Expansion Budget. • No median barriers on 2 lanes 2 ways. • For two-lane highways, the current shoulder design standard is to partially pave 0.5m. • Shoulder rumble strips required on all rural freeways, can be considered on other roads where run-off-the-road collisions are a concern. • A new policy for centre-line rumble strips being developed. Considered on any facility where inattentive driving is a concern. • Clear Zone policy that requires roadside hazards first to be removed or relocated, then, if that is not possible, the hazard should be shielded with barriers or crash cushions. • Roundabouts used as alternative to intersection control by signalization. Most roundabouts in Ontario are at urban arterial junctions

Proportion of two lane rural highways converted to freeway or divided road

This information is not compiled on a national level.

Scale of infrastructure safety investment programs

No independent funding for infrastructure safety. Work such as guiderail, installation, rumble strips and paved shoulders is generally funded under the Rehabilitation Program or the Expansion Program. The Safety & Operations Program has been significantly reduced over recent years but continues to fund intersection improvements and passing lane construction.

Highway infrastructure that is part of the National Highway system is eligible for 50% federal contribution to all new construction and rehabilitation of roads. This includes any road safety measures that may be included. There is no specific percentage of funding for road safety measures that the province/territory/ municipality must spend of the overall project.

Nature and extent of funding for infrastructure safety programs

TABLE 7 – Infrastructure and Vehicle Safety

The Ontario Government has: A comprehensive maintenance program has been put in place. An aggressive defensive driving training program has been implemented and is on-going. Implemented a distractive driving policy which prohibits the use of hand held devises when driving. Introduced and passed Distractive Driving Legislation which also applies to all road users (with some exemptions). Introduced the integration of more hybrid and electric vehicles over the next few years. Worked with manufactures to enhance safety items such as better head rests and air bags.

Transport Canada continuously evaluates its vehicle safety regulations, modifies them and develops new ones when needed for vehicle safety. Transport Canada also has information lines and web service for consumers providing information on vehicle safety technology (e.g., electronic stability control, child restraints, vehicle telematics).

Vehicle fleet safety policies introduced in last 5 years

272 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Victoria (Australia)

• Median barriers on two lane two way roads: Current initial trial of 2.6 km of WRSB along the centre line of an undivided 4-lane road; • Construction of paved shoulders: 1,938 km as part of Safer Road Infrastructure Program (SRIP) which commenced in 2004; • Tactile edge lining: 1,846 km as part of SRIP which commenced in 2004; • Tactile centre lining: 2,034 km as part of SRIP which commenced in 2004; • Side barriers to protect vehicle occupants from road side hazards: 699 km as part of SRIP which commenced in 2004; • Roundabouts at rural and at urban arterial junctions: 34 roundabouts as part of SRIP which commenced in 2004.

Scale of infrastructure safety investment programs Length of road added to divided roads in last 5 years 85 km. Total length of divided roads 890 km.

Proportion of two lane rural highways converted to freeway or divided road • TAC funded SRIP approximately $60 m p/a; • State Government funded State Blackspot program $4 m p/a; • Federally funded Auslink Blackspot program $13 m p/a.

Nature and extent of funding for infrastructure safety programs

TABLE 7 – Infrastructure and Vehicle Safety

• P romote vehicle safety through the ANCAP Safety ratings; • P romote vehicle safety through the Used Car Safety Ratings; • Develop and Implement new high powered vehicle restrictions for P drivers; • P romote/create a code of safe practice for transport operators and heavy vehicle drivers; • P romote selection of safer vehicles by corporate fleets, including through OH&S policies; • P romote seat belt wearing and retrofitting of integrated seat belts in heavy vehicle’s; • P romote Electronic Stability Control (ESC); • I mplement systems that allow Intelligent Speed Assist technology to function; • I ntroduce a requirement that all new vehicles manufactured after 31 Dec 2010 be fitted with ESC and all new vehicles manufactured after 31 Dec 2011 be fitted with head protecting technology; • Trial/develop real time as it happens road safety info via break in radio; • P romote uptake of heavy vehicle and heavy trailer safety features; • I ntroduce workplace testing for alcohol and drugs for heavy vehicle drivers; • Encourage heavy vehicle operators to ensure the roadworthiness of a vehicle; • Better enforcement through regulatory or legislative change to require clear identification of heavy vehicles; • Encourage heavy vehicle operators to achieve safer standards through accreditation with national standards; • Work with the heavy vehicle industry to enforce Chain of Responsibility laws and implement heavy vehicle maintenance accreditation systems.

Vehicle fleet safety policies introduced in last 5 years

273 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Western Australia

Queensland (Australia)

Tasmania (Australia)

Main Roads manages approximately 18,000 km of State Highway and Main Roads. Over the past five years 13 km of rural highway dual carriageway has been constructed with another 70 km due for opening in a few months time.

-

N/A

_

In 2007/08 the Tasmanian Road Safety Levy funded: • t he installation of 21.5 km of Flexible Safety Barrier on Tasmania’s major highways and arterial roads. • Road delineation along the Southern Outlet • Traffic calming works in shared urban spaces • I nstallation of a wet weather warning system at Constitution Hill (Midland Highway) • Roadside hazard reduction • I nstallation of stack cushions and rub-rail on safety barriers.

Proportion of two lane rural highways converted to freeway or divided road

State Black Spot Program - $20 million per annum. Auslink Black Spot Program - $6.5 million per annum. Safer Roads Program - $36 million 2009/10. Railway Level Crossing Renewal and Improvement Program - $4 million per annum.

Scale of infrastructure safety investment programs

Around three quarters of the Tasmanian Road Safety Levy is allocated to Best Practice Infrastructure projects. Federal and State funding. Auslink funding.

-

Funding to upgrade roads from two lanes to dual carriageway is a project by project assessment against all major projects on the capital works program.

Nature and extent of funding for infrastructure safety programs

TABLE 7 – Infrastructure and Vehicle Safety

In July 2008, a minimum safety standard was been mandated for all Tasmanian Government vehicles, which must: • Have a minimum four star Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) safety rating; OR, if not rated by ANCAP: • Meet a minimum set of safety features. Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and Curtain Airbags are encouraged and will be made mandatory for Government passenger vehicles from 2010. A public education campaign promoting ESC, Curtain Airbags, and the website www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au has commenced. Tasmania makes an annual contribution to the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP).

DTMR supports the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), which conducts crash testing for new vehicles and rates their safety, and the Used Car Safety Ratings Program (USCR), which uses real world crash data to identify used vehicle models that offer drivers and other road users better protection in a crash.

Safe Driving: A Policy Framework for Western Australian Government – currently awaiting approval through Department of Treasury and Finance. ANCAP ratings – since January 2008 – vehicles must have ESC to be given 5 star rating. In November 2006, the Road Safety Council, together with the RAC, launched a new campaign which aimed to educate the community about the benefits of purchasing vehicles with appropriate safety features and challenge the assumption that all new vehicles provide the same standard of safety.

Vehicle fleet safety policies introduced in last 5 years

274 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

New Zealand

Japan

South Africa

Poland

Malaysia

Singapore

Less than 1%.

-

Very small proportion. Limited resources. This is normally only ventured upon if alternative funding sources, such as toll roads are planned.

-

-

Road safety countermeasures are conducted in hazardous spots abstracted based on rate of accidents. Typical countermeasures are Road surface Marking, Coloured pavement, Lighting, Warning signboard, Median or side barriers, Sidewalk, Tactile edge/centre lining, Rumble-strips and Extra lanes in the corner, etc.

Limited in South African road network as a whole. However the National Road Network which comprises approximately 16,000 km of national road is often undergoing upgrade and improvement. Most significant current upgrade is approximately 200 km of freeway upgrade which will include concrete median barriers, street lighting and other safety measures.

-

Malaysia still has significant issues especially on rural roads. IRAP pilot has identified major deficiencies. Public Works Department has a program to upgrade roads but sometimes due to shortage in fund, has some safety issues.

Proportion of two lane rural highways converted to freeway or divided road

Median barriers are usually designed into construction of 2 lane 2 way roads. Broadly speaking, improvements to state highways and local roads comprise about 40% of the total land transport funds available annually. A recent review of road engineering projects found that safety benefits comprised around 12% of the total benefits expected from current projects. Overall, there is not good data on the detail and scale of safety investment programs. Improving our knowledge and monitoring in this area forms an important part of recommendations in the new road safety strategy – currently under development. In 2008/09 we had a SH rumble strip program, a barrier program and shoulder widening program, probably in the order of $20-25M.

Scale of infrastructure safety investment programs

By Public Works Department either through maintenance fund or through development fund.

-

Limited, driven by capacity upgrades, more than safety benefits as implemented in more developed countries.

-

N/A

Nature and extent of funding for infrastructure safety programs

TABLE 7 – Infrastructure and Vehicle Safety

None.

All policies are consistent with European Directives, e.g.: mandatory seat belts in heavy vehicles and buses, digital tachographs, speed limiters, and many more.

Nothing legislated, but the use of GPS tracking has grown significantly. This technology allows for the monitoring of driver behaviour (speeding, excessive breaking, etc.).

Actions taken as automobile safety measures include the completion and strengthening of safety standards including the provision of pedestrian head protection standards, offset collision passenger protection standards, and electric shock protection standards for electric cars, etc., the provision of safety information based on motor vehicle assessments and the development, introduction and popularization of Advanced Safety Vehicles (ASV).

Information efforts have increased. The www.rightcar.govt.nz website has been established – this enables consumers to readily access a lot of vehicle safety information in one place – for both new and used cars manufactured since 2000. Television campaigns and vehicle safety presentations to potential new vehicle buyer groups have been undertaken. Buying safety has been actively promoted amongst government department vehicle fleet purchasers and guidelines have been produced around safe vehicle purchasing decisions.

Vehicle fleet safety policies introduced in last 5 years

275 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country

Denmark

Czech Republic

Median barrier treatments as in Sweden/ Norway are not part of the normal way of working, but attempting to establish pilot studies.

Very limited extend, but only in CASE when demanded by traffic volumes.

The main goals of the road infrastructure investment in general are as follows: • construction of new motorways, • construction of bypasses, • reconstruction of existing roads. The safety aspects are one of the key motivations. More safety is emphasized in the urban road network.

Proportion of two lane rural highways converted to freeway or divided road

Worked for past 20 years to install roundabouts and still upside even if expensive. Limited by capacity in higher flow locations. Need to separate cyclists. 2 or 3 signalised roundabouts, need permission from the road authority. Look at UK where they are common practice, deal well with delays. Other than signalised roundabout proposals, local authorities are not required to inform the centre.

Scale of infrastructure safety investment programs

Special agency is responsible for funding – State Fund for Transport Infrastructure that includes roads, railways, inland wareways, cycling and safety measures. Only very small portion of budget (0,5 %) is directly devoted to road safety. http://www.sfdi.cz Regional and local roads are financed by regional and local governments.

Nature and extent of funding for infrastructure safety programs

TABLE 7 – Infrastructure and Vehicle Safety

All regulations comply with the relevant EU legislation.

Most of key issues in place as European directives impact.

Vehicle fleet safety policies introduced in last 5 years

276 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country/ Jurisdiction

The Netherlands

Norway

Road safety targets are both aspirational and based on estimated effects of detailed measures.

NPRA is working out an action plan for the term 2010 – 2013 based on the NTP (due soon). A detailed list of safety measures will be presented in the Road safety Action Plan for 2010-2013. A joint plan elaborated by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA), the National Police Directorate, the Directorate for Health and Social Welfare, and the Norwegian Council for Road safety. Action plan launched Autumn 2009.

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/ dep/sd/tema/nasjonal_ transportplan.html?id=12198 (in Norwegian) National Transport plan (NTP) for the term 2010-2019.

Strategy target outcomes Q3

Strategy is planned to deliver targets using measures identified in the SP.

Action plan and timeframe Q2

Strategic Plan http://www. verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/ english/Images/ strategischplan-E_ tcm249-249506.pdf 2008-2020

National strategy and timeframe Q1

National Transport plan: Ministry of Transport and Communications. Road safety Action Plan: Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA), the National Police Directorate, the Directorate for Health and Social Welfare, and the Norwegian Council for Road safety. NPRA is responsible for coordination.

Responsible agency is Ministry of Transport, Directorate general for Mobility, Road Safety Department.

Agencies responsible for leadership preparation, coordination and delivery Q 4, 5

Regular monitoring and reporting. Progress is followed up by the NPRA and reported to the Ministry and joint agencies.

Roles and responsibilities clearly defined in writing. Road Authorities (national and regional) will manage operations, DG Mobility for Policy-levels. Have a number of so-called ‘Monitors’ published regularly to follow trends and developments (PDCA circle). Designated agencies are involved in processing data for the Monitors distributed amongst relevant (non) governmental bodies & organisations.

Management arrangements and reporting Q6, 7, 8, 9

Performance indicators: • s eat belt wearing rates; • h elmet wearing rates; • s tudded tyres; • h ours-of service regulations; • h eavy duty vehicles (technical and administrative conditions); • t echnical condition of the vehicle population; • d river training; • c yclists respect for red lights.

Have performance indicators. Some in separate research programmes running regularly (annually, every 2 year, every 5 years etc.), some are monitored via the National Monitoring processes. Every element is reported into the National Monitors and if needed new (extra) action plans are set.

Safety performance indicators Q10, 11

TABLE 1 – Strategies, Action Plans, Management Arrangements and Performance Indicators

277 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

APPENDIX S – SUMMARY OF STRATEGIES SURVEY RETURNS

Country/ Jurisdiction

Sweden

Hungary

Action plan and timeframe Q2

No Action Plan. An analysis report on current state of road safety points out the most important challenges. The report available in English at the SRA web site late 2009. http://www.vv.se/Andra-sprak/ English-engelska/Road-safety/

Action plan web reference: http://www.baleset-megelozes. eu/cikk.php?id=215 Timeframe: 2008-2009; 2009-2010

National strategy and timeframe Q1

Overall strategy Vision Zero has no explicit time frame. There is an interim target for the Vision Zero aiming at year 2020. http://www.vv.se/Andra-sprak/ English-engelska/Road-safety/

The Hungarian National Road Safety Action Program is a three year program, 2008-2010. Web reference: http://www.baleset-megelozes. eu/cikk.php?id=215 The action program’s first section is a detailed road safety analysis, after that the interventions are described under 5 pillars: • personal elements, infrastructure, • regulation, • control, • t raffic accident prevention.

Vision Zero is an aspirational target. Interim target derived from aggregated effect of changes of selected road safety performance indicators (for example seat belt usage and speed compliance).

Strategy target outcomes Q3

Responsible lead agency: Ministry of Transport, Telecommunication and Energy. Coordination and delivery: Ministry of Transport, Telecommunication and Energy, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Local Government.

Swedish Road Administration (SRA).

Agencies responsible for leadership preparation, coordination and delivery Q 4, 5

Timeframes, responsibilities, coordinators are recorded. Yearly progress reported to a joint agency heads meeting.

Yes, clear roles and responsibilities – but currently changes in the infrastructure management system taking place. New roles and responsibilities for road safety implementation not defined yet. In April 2010, SRA and the Swedish Rail Administration will be closed and its activities conducted by a new authority, the Transport Administration. January 2009 a new agency, the Swedish Transport Agency, was formed to formulate regulations for road traffic and exercise supervision within road transport. The Transport Agency’s road traffic department also conduct analyses of road traffic and supply information about injuries and crashes. New management to provide reporting accountability. Progress reported annually at a Result Conference. Any road safety related agency, organisation or company encouraged to participate.

Management arrangements and reporting Q6, 7, 8, 9

Key safety performance indicators defined and measured.

Yes, 13 RSPI’s are defined: •S  peed compliance (rural roads), •S  peed compliance (urban roads), •D  UI, •S  eat belt usage, •B  icycle helmet usage, •V  ehicle safety, •H  eavy vehicles, •S  afer Rural roads, •S  afer Urban roads (2 indicators), •R  apid and Qualitative Emergancy Care, •F  atigue, •V  aluing of road safety.

Safety performance indicators Q10, 11

TABLE 1 – Strategies, Action Plans, Management Arrangements and Performance Indicators

278 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country/ Jurisdiction

UK

Minnesota

Missouri

Action plan and timeframe Q2

Information on delivering the strategy can be found at http:// www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/ strategytargets performance/ delivering strategy/ In terms of action plans this is devolved to individual highway authorities to compile and deliver. Time span 2000 to 2010

No overall action plan for SHSP or HSP. Road safety projects funded through Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), programmed through annual STIP process, updated annually to FHWA. Behavioural program - the Department of Public Safety publishes a Highway Safety Plan annually for NHTSA. All projects driven by crash data. Focusing on lower cost systematic engineering projects and high visibility enforcement of alcohol, seatbelts and speed.

No specific action plan of the strategy. Missouri has numerous actions that are ongoing and are a direct result of identified strategies in the Blueprint. These have various timelines.

National strategy and timeframe Q1

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/ roadsafety/ strategytargets performance/tomorrows roadssaferforeveryone The strategy runs from 2000 to 2010 a new strategy is out for consultation and can be viewed at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/ roadsafety/ roadsafetyconsultation

Minnesota’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): http:// www.dot.state.mn.us/ trafficeng/safety/shsp/index. html Published summer 2007. Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths: http://www.minnesotatzd.org/

“Missouri’s Blueprint to Arrive Alive” identifies numerous Emphasis Areas as well as strategies. This strategic highway safety plan runs until the end of 2012. www.savemolives.com/ documents/Blueprint forSaferRoadways2008.pdf Target for 2008 was less than 1000 fatalities. This was achieved 1 year early. Target for 2012 is less than 850 fatalities. Individual actions also have estimated a fatal crash reduction. For instance, if Missouri passes a primary safety belt law, it is estimated another 90 lives will be saved each year. Fatality reduction goals are also estimated for installation of median guard cable and adding of edgeline striping and/or rumble strips, etc.

The HSP has specific fatal reduction goal - fewer than 400 fatalities by end of year 2010. First goal was fewer than 500 fatalities by end 2008. This was achieved.

The targets were based on an empirical analysis of past performance and a statistical assessment of what could be achieved through continued delivery on a number of actions.

Strategy target outcomes Q3

The Highway Safety office of Missouri DOT is the responsible lead agency and is directly involved in development and delivery of Missouri’s strategic highway safety plans. Because there are many strategies identified in the SHSP, there are numerous players also involved. 10 active Regions vital to success. Each region is responsible for an annual plan.

Lead agency: Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and Department of Public Safety (DPS) co-chair the TZD initiative. Mn/DOT, DPS, and Department of Health have coordination and delivery responsibilities.

Lead agency is Department for Transport (DfT). Information on delivery and achievement can be found at http://www.dft. gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/ strategytargetsperformance

Agencies responsible for leadership preparation, coordination and delivery Q 4, 5

Missouri DOT meets quarterly with department leaders to assess performance through MoDOT Tracker. The tracker establishes performance measures http://www.modot. mo.gov/about/general_info/ Tracker.htm Quarterly meetings for Regions to discuss progress. The Executive Committee of the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety meets to discuss progress.

The TZD leadership team (members from DPS, Mn/DOT, and DOH management) meet monthly. Efforts are underway to form an Executive Advisory Council chaired by the Governor with agency heads as members. Progress is regularly reported within each agency.

Roles and responsibilities outlined in legislation – Highways Act 1980 and other Acts such as Road Safety Act 2006. Yes individual local highway authorities have to report annually on performance to DfT . Joint agency Ministers meeting quarterly.

Management arrangements and reporting Q6, 7, 8, 9

Key performance indicators are outlined in the Highway Safety Division’s Highway Safety and Performance Plan, which can be found at http://www.modot. mo.gov/safety/documents/2009 highwaysafetyPLAN.pdf

Performance indicators to measure intermediate outcomes not routinely recorded. SHSP identifies critical emphasis areas for Minnesota based on data. The new Highway Safety Manual (HSM) being developed by AASHTO does require states to develop Safety Performance Functions (SPF). Minnesota will be doing this. Plan in progress to introduce a serious injury measure and goals for reducing serious injuries.

Performance indicators are routinely collected.

Safety performance indicators Q10, 11

TABLE 1 – Strategies, Action Plans, Management Arrangements and Performance Indicators

279 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country/ Jurisdiction

Washington State

Canada

Action plan and timeframe Q2

www.wsp.wa.gov/publications/ reports/shsp.pdf. The plan is updated every 2-4 years. The current plan’s timeframe is approximately 3 years and is in the process of being updated.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/ safedrivers/trafficsafety/index. htm or http://www.ccmta.ca/ english/committees/rsrp/rsv/ rsv.cfm Note a national action plan does not exist. However, this web reference describe the national plan and targets and actions planned for jurisdictions during the 9-year (2002-2010) timeframe of the national plan.

National strategy and timeframe Q1

www.wsp.wa.gov/publications/ reports/shsp.pdf This is the Strategic Highway Safety Plan for Washington State, “Target Zero”. The plan is updated every 2-4 years. The current plan’s timeframe is approximately 3 years and is in the process of being updated.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/ safedrivers/trafficsafety/index. htm or http://www.ccmta.ca/ english/committees/rsrp/rsv/ rsv.cfm Note a national strategy does not exist. Web reference to the national plan and areas that road safety professionals in Canada focus their intervention efforts during the 9-year (2002-2010) timeframe of the national plan. No. The strategy targets of Canada’s Road Safety Vision 2010 derived from crash trend analysis to identify critical road safety issues, assumptions about progress in the world’s safest nations during the timeframe of RSV 2010, consistent with Canada’s ‘vision’ of having the safest roads in the world. Targets are aspirational. National task forces, comprised of governmental and non-governmental representatives, help achieve eight sub-targets in the national plan.

The target of “Zero traffic-related deaths in 2030” is aspirational and not set based on historical data trends. However, these strategies are intended to bring traffic fatalities to zero eventually.

Strategy target outcomes Q3

Lead Agency: Transport Canada, with representatives of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), prepared national road safety plan. New strategies developed are coordinated either by CCMTA task forces or by individual provinces and territories. All road safety delivery under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. Federal government responsible for development of new motor vehicle safety regulations, standards, commercial vehicle movements and conducting research on emerging road safety issues and sharing the results.

The Washington Traffic Safety Commission is the lead agency responsible for coordination in preparing the plan. The Washington State Department of Transportation and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission share delivery responsibility with active participation from the Washington State Patrol.

Agencies responsible for leadership preparation, coordination and delivery Q 4, 5

Provincial Departments of Transportation Highway Safety who partner with road safety agencies on implementation of strategies decide whether roles defined in writing. Results from specific jurisdictional action plans are not reported against nationally. Monitoring and reporting of progress for jurisdictionspecific strategies occurs, but nature and frequency differs. At national level, progress (deaths and serious injuries rates) in the areas targeted, is reported by the federal department of transportation to representatives of all jurisdictions at semi-annual meetings of the CCMTA. Progress at the national level is also reported annually to a joint federal/provincial/territorial Council of Deputy Ministers of Transportation and Highway Safety meeting. The Council holds meetings twice annually.

Defined written roles are not in the current plan. The updated plan will include this. The update will report on the strategies for which data is available. Progress is reported regularly at the Traffic Safety Commission meetings. The commission is a board of state agency heads and meets quarterly. Progress is reported annually to the Governor as part of her Government, Management, Accountability, and Performance (GMAP) program. The Safety program reports in person annually with quarterly written updates. The GMAP program can be accessed at: http://www. accountability.wa.gov/reports/ transportation/

Management arrangements and reporting Q6, 7, 8, 9

Research and evaluation used to provide the most authoritative information on injury reduction measures. Other indicators are generated annually (e.g. seat belt use, positive blood alcohol concentration) that provide a general indication of the state of road safety in Canada, but which do not accurately predict final fatal and serious injury outcomes.

Intermediary goals between the start of the report and 2030 are identified. Set below the trend shown by the historical data. Provided for all objective areas. In the update, more sophisticated forecasting methods will be used to provide a range of future trends, and then set the goals accordingly.

Safety performance indicators Q10, 11

TABLE 1 – Strategies, Action Plans, Management Arrangements and Performance Indicators

280 COMPARISON OF NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY POLICIES AND PLANS

2012R31EN

Country/ Jurisdiction

Victoria

New Zealand

South Africa

Arrive alive! Action Plan 1 2008 - 2010

No action plan.

www.rtmc.co.za – 2008-2009 financial year business plan.

The strategy covers the period from the end of 2003 to 2010. www.transport.govt.nz/ ourwork/Land/landsafety/ RoadSafetyto2010Strategy/ Safer Journeys. The new strategy will come into effect from 2010.

www.rtmc.co.za – 2009-2015 Road Traffic Safety Management Plan (National Strategy) and 2009-2012 Strategic Plan for the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC).

Action plan and timeframe Q2

Arrive alive! www.arivealive.vic.gov.au 2008 - 2017

National strategy and timeframe Q1

Some targets are estimated evidence based and some are aspirational.

Yes. The targets are derived from the estimated outcomes of implementation measures.

Strategy targets based on evidence. Target based on model of potential gains in different road safety components. Target of 30% reduction in deaths and serious injuries by 2017.

Strategy target outcomes Q3

The Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) established as lead agency in terms of Act 20 of 1999. The Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) responsible for delivery.

The National Road Safety Committee - comprises the Chief Executives of the key road safety partner agencies – being the Ministry of Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency, the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Department of Labour, and the New Zealand Police.

VicRoads, the state road authority and licensing agency. Delivered through strong coordinated road safety partnership across different government Ministries. Includes Victoria Police, Department of justice, Transport Accident Commission (the Government injury insurance body) and VicRoads. Local Government also key road safety delivery partners.

Agencies responsible for leadership preparation, coordination and delivery Q 4, 5

Roles and responsibilities are defined for the 2009-2015 Road Traffic Safety Management Plan used as the blue print for development of annual business, action, operational and financial plans. Reporting: monthly electronic and quarterly reports to the RTMC Board and Shareholders Committee – (consisting of the national Minister and provincial MECs responsible for road traffic). Progress meetings conducted quarterly.

Roles and responsibilities defined in a Memorandum of Understanding. Progress on the high level 2010 targets and other key road safety information is reported quarterly to the National Road Safety Committee. The Minister of Transport receives monthly updates on road safety progress with reference to the high level 2010 targets.

Roles and responsibilities of Victoria’s road safety partners is clearly defined. Action Plans have timeframes which are reported against. Reported to agency heads quarterly. Progress reported to lead Minister.

Management arrangements and reporting Q6, 7, 8, 9

Intermediate outcomes: Speed: