Road
Why Does Road Safety Improve When Economic Times Are Hard?
IRTAD, Policy Insights,
5 October 2015
- There is clear evidence that when economic growth declines, and particularly when unemployment increases, road safety improves.
- The financial and economic crises which started in 2007 were accompanied by marked falls in annual numbers of road deaths in most OECD countries.
- It is important to understand how much of the accelerated reduction in numbers of deaths during the downturn that began in 2008 was attributable to the changed economic conditions.
- The economic downturn in 2009-10 may well have contributed to about two-thirds of the decrease in fatalities from 2008.
- The recent downturn has had repercussions on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and unemployment rate and has influenced the number of road deaths through a reduction in vehicle kilometres driven, especially by young men and by heavy goods vehicles, a reduction in speeding and in drink-driving, and a reduction in learning to drive by young men.
- Policy makers need to take careful account of these results when setting road safety targets and when designing road safety strategies for the future.
Urban Mobility System Upgrade
Corporate Partnership Board Report, Policy Insights,
31 March 2015
- Self-driving vehicles could change public transport as we currently know it.
- The potential impact of self-driving shared fleets on urban mobility is significant. It will be shaped by policy choices and deployment options.
- Active management is needed to lock in the benefits of freed space.
- Improvements in road safety are almost certain. Environmental benefits will depend on vehicle technology.
- New vehicle types and business models will be required.
- Public transport, taxi operations and urban transport governance will have to adapt.
- Mixing fleets of shared self-driving vehicles and privately-owned cars will not deliver the same benefits as a full TaxiBot/AutoVot fleet - but it still remains attractive.
Cycling, Health and Safety
Research Report, Policy Insights,
19 December 2013
- Insufficient evidence supports causality for the “safety in numbers” phenomenon – policies increasing the number of cyclists should be accompanied by risk-reduction actions.
- Efforts must be made to harmonise definitions of bicycle accident terminology so as to be able to make reliable international comparisons on cyclist safety.
- National authorities should set standards for, collect or otherwise facilitate the collection of data on non-fatal cycling crashes based on police reports and, in either a systematic or periodic way, on hospital records.
- Authorities seeking to improve cyclists’ safety should adopt the Safe System approach - policy should focus on improving the inherent safety of the traffic system, not simply on securing marginal improvements for cyclists in an inherently unsafe system.
- Authorities should establish top-level plans for cycling and cycling safety and should ensure high-level coordination among relevant government agencies to ensure that cycling grows without aggravating safety performance.
- Speed management acts as “hidden infrastructure” protecting cyclists and should be included as an integral part of cycle safety strategies.
- Cyclists should not be the only target of cycling safety policies – motorists are at least as important to target.
- Where appropriate, traffic speeds should be limited to less than 30km/hr where bicycles and motorised traffic mix but care should be taken so that speed control devices do not create hazards for cyclists.
Better Regulation of Public-Private Partnerships for Transport Infrastructure
Roundtable Report, Policy Insights,
24 September 2013
- A mix of financing models spreads risks.
- A dedicated budget for PPPs, set in relation to the rate at which future liabilities will be accumulated, can provide such a limit.
- Explicit consideration of alternative financing arrangements should be employed in determining whether to proceed with PPP projects.
- It is recommended that governments require PPP projects to pass tests of affordability and to clear the hurdle rates of return generally applied to publicly financed transport projects.
- The expected cost of PPP projects should take account of cost inflation resulting from the propensity for projects to be renegotiated.
- At the individual project level, risks should be assigned to the party best able to manage them, along with rights to make related decisions.
- Assigning demand risk is not straightforward and risk sharing arrangements are therefore common.
- Continuity of resources and expertise is essential for addressing strategic behaviour and optimism bias more generally.
- Regulatory agencies are well placed to ensure transparency and accountability by publishing reports on the criteria employed to make decisions and publishing contracts.
Sharing Road Safety: Developing an International Framework for Crash Modification Functions
Research Report, Policy Insights,
1 December 2012
- Road safety policies should undergo performance and efficiency evaluations. Such evaluations cannot be undertaken without Crash Modification Functions (CMFs). Evaluation processes should be documented to ensure they are transparent.
- Research conducted to develop CMFs should follow the guidance provided in this report and, in particular, provide specific information that describes the countermeasure under consideration, the safety issue being addressed and the roadway environment in which it was tested.
- It is recommended that an international group be composed under an existing organization (e.g. Transportation Research Board, World Road Association, etc.) to foster dialog among researchers and practitioners on CMF research and reporting standards with the aim of increasing transferability of results. Coordination of research across countries on top priority countermeasures should be considered.
- International cooperation should aim to capture documentation and reporting of CMF research in a widely available transnational database.
- A concerted effort should be made to publicize the benefits of decision-making based on CMFs. This should take the form of: presentations and workshops at transport, injury prevention and health conferences; press releases; letters to political leaders and senior bureaucrats.
Sharing Road Safety: Developing an International Framework for Crash Modification Functions
Policy Insights, Policy Brief,
31 May 2012
- Road safety policies should undergo performance and efficiency evaluation. Such evaluations cannot be undertaken without Crash Modification Functions (CMFs). Evaluation processes should be documented to ensure they are transparent.
- Research conducted to develop CMFs should follow the guidance provided in this report and, in particular, provide specific information that describes the countermeasure under consideration, the safety issue being addressed and the roadway environment in which it was tested.
- It is recommended that an international group be composed under an existing organization (e.g. Transportation Research Board, World Road Association, etc.) to foster dialog among researchers and practitioners on CMF research and reporting standards with the aim of increasing transferability of results. Coordination of research across countries on top priority countermeasures should be considered.
- International co-operation should aim to capture documentation and reporting of CMF research in a widely available transnational database.
- A concerted effort should be made to publicise the benefits of decision-making based on CMFs. This should take the form of presentations and workshops at transport, injury prevention and health conferences; press releases; letters to political leaders and senior bureaucrats.
Reporting on Serious Road Traffic Casualties
IRTAD, Policy Insights,
1 December 2011
- A complete picture of casualty totals from road crashes is needed to fully assess the consequences of road crashes and monitor progress.
- Injury information should complement information on fatal crashes to give a fuller picture of road crashes. Information on injuries should become more important for international comparisons.
- Police data should remain the main source for road crash statistics. However, because of underreporting problems and possible bias (for example with differing rates of reporting by vehicle type), police data should be complemented by hospital data, which are the next most useful source.
- The data from hospital emergency departments, available in some countries, should be monitored regularly and researched to determine if they might shed more light on road casualties.
- The assessment of the severity of injuries should preferably be done by medical professionals, and not by the police officer at the scene of the crash.
- Medical staff should be trained in order to systematically classify (road traffic) injuries using ICD International Classification of Diseases and to assess severities with indices such as the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) or the Maximum Abbreviated Injury (MAIS). This information -- without personal information -- should be made easily available for statistical purposes, policymaking and research.
- Besides police data and hospital data, other data sources are available. These have a limited value on their own, and cannot replace police or hospital data, but can be used to build a more balanced and comprehensive picture, to enrich the main data sources, and as a quality check.
- For linking data, the deterministic method is preferred if a unique personal identifier is available; otherwise the probabilistic method is a good alternative.
- The six assumptions needed to use the capture-recapture method must be considered carefully. Using this method combined with linking police and hospital data may be appropriate to give a fuller picture of road casualties.
- Having an internationally agreed definition of “serious” injuries will help the safety research community to better understand the consequences of road crashes and to monitor progress. Given the existing knowledge and practices, IRTAD proposes to define a ‘seriously injured road casualty’ as a person with injuries assessed at level 3 or more on the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale i.e. "MAIS3+".