CPB

Corporate Partnership
Board

Monitoring Progress in
Urban Road Safety2022 Update

Safer City StreetsMonitoring Progress in
Urban Road Safety2022 Update

Safer City Streets

The International Transport ForumThe International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 64 member countries. It acts
as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is the only
global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively
integrated with the OECD.
The ITF works for transport policies that improve people’s lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper
understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social
inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy.
The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and prenegotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promoteexchange among transport decision makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest
gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy.
The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cambodia, Chile, China (People’s Republic of),
Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates,
the United Kingdom, the United States and Uzbekistan.

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

Case-Specific Policy Analysis Reports
The ITF’s Case-Specific Policy Analysis series presents topical studies on specific issues carried out by the
ITF in agreement with local institutions. Any findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Transport Forum or theOECD. Neither the OECD, ITF nor the authors guarantee the accuracy of any data or other information
contained in this publication and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the ITF. This document, as wellas any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any
territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory,
city or area.
Cite this work as: ITF (2022), “Monitoring Progress in Urban Road Safety: 2022 Update”, International
Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 108, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Acknowledgements
This report was written by Dominic Streuber and Rachele Poggi of the International Transport Forum (ITF).
Rachele Poggi carried out the statistical calculations and data visualisation work.
The report is part of the ITF Safer City Streets initiative and was funded by the FIA Road Safety Grant
Programme, supported by the FIA Foundation.
The authors are grateful to the members of the Safer City Streets network, in particular, the local
government road safety teams that collected and shared their road safety data with the ITF.
The document was reviewed by Stephen Perkins and copy-edited by Lauren Chester at the ITF.
Safer City Streets benefits from the guidance of the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group(IRTAD), which established the methodological framework for the initiative. It has benefitted from funding
from the European Commission that supported the development of some of the risk indicators used tobenchmark performance.
The Safer City Streets network involves not only local governments but also national and internationalorganisations, academia, road user groups, multilateral development banks and philanthropies committed
to improving the use of robust evidence in the elaboration of road safety policies. The list ofpartners includes the World Bank, Bloomberg Initiative for Healthy Cities, iRAP, Vital Strategies, POLIS,Inter-American Development Bank, WRI, GDCI and FIA Foundation. All contribute to improving thequality of data and analysis of urban road safety.

Foreword
Every minute, someone in the world dies in urban traffic. Local governments are at the forefront of efforts
to prevent these needless road deaths. Their actions – speed limit reductions and radical changes in street
design, for example – are delivering measurable results. One city, Warsaw, achieved the UN target forhalving road deaths between 2010 and 2020. Barcelona and Edmonton came close to meeting the target.
With the launch of the Second UN Decade of Action for Road Safety and its target to halve road deaths
and injuries by 2030, all cities need to adopt measures that have proved to be effective. This report
investigates the progress made in the First Decade of Action from 2010 to 2020. Some cities have achieved
more promising results than others. Therefore, there are opportunities to accelerate progress using
evidence of success in peer cities to support the adoption of more effective policies.
Under the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), road-injury prevention is explicitly mentioned in theGoal for Health and the Goal for Cities (SDG 11.2: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe,
resilient and sustainable). Safer streets are crucial for making cities more liveable. If streets are dangerous,
efforts to promote walking and cycling are undermined. Reducing the risks of urban traffic not only saves
lives but also opens doors to sustainable forms of transport, which can reduce pollution, cut emissions,fight congestion and improve citizens’ physical and mental health.
The International Transport Forum (ITF) at the OECD launched the ITF Safer City Streets initiative at the
UN Habitat III conference in 2016. It brings together road safety experts working in cities and explores thesolutions developed at a local level. Cities in the network improve their urban road safety performance bysharing data, experience and knowledge and learning from each other. Safer City Streets replicates, at thecity level, the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group (IRTAD). IRTAD is a global road safety
network of countries hosted by the ITF that has been running for more than 25 years.
The ITF Safer City Streets initiative consists of a global city-level database on mobility and road safety
statistics. A global network of experts supports the data collection and shares experience in the fields ofroad safety and urban mobility at Safer City Streets meetings, online webinars and workshops.
The ITF published the world’s first road safety benchmark at the city level in 2018 and developed indicators
to monitor progress. The ITF updated this road safety benchmark in 2020 to monitor the developments.
This is the third in a series of urban road safety benchmarking reports, providing updates on road safety
data in cities in the Safer City Streets network. Drawing on Safer City Streets meetings, conferences andwebinars, it highlights best practices and identifies room for progress towards better urban road safety
policies. A complete list of the cities mentioned in this report is available in the Annex.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents
Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. 7
Cities participating in this report .......................................................................................................... 9
Progress in reducing road deaths and serious injuries....................................................................... 11Road deaths fell 4% annually ......................................................................................................... 11
Serious injuries fell 2.9% annually ................................................................................................. 13
Traffic safety by transport mode ................................................................................................... 15
Cycling safety ................................................................................................................................. 16Road traffic deaths in cities compared to the national average .................................................... 17
Benchmarking urban road safety ....................................................................................................... 19Road deaths in cities ...................................................................................................................... 19Road deaths by mode .................................................................................................................... 20
Road deaths by gender and age .................................................................................................... 27
Road user behaviour in cities ......................................................................................................... 30
Alternative road safety indicators.................................................................................................. 32
Notes ................................................................................................................................................. 35
References ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Annex A. Input data and statistics ...................................................................................................... 37

FiguresFigure 1. Cities contributing to the ITF Safer City Streets database in 2022.......................................... 9
Figure 2. Bogotá rapidly increased its cycle lane network in response to the Covid-19 pandemic...... 12
Figure 3. Road traffic deaths, 2010-20 ............................................................................................... 12
Figure 4. Serious injuries, 2010-20 ..................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5. Road traffic deaths by mode, 2020...................................................................................... 15
Figure 6. Serious injures by mode, 2020 ............................................................................................ 16
Figure 7. Cycling trips and risk per trip, 2020 ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 8. Change in road traffic deaths by city and country, 2010-20................................................. 17

Figure 9. Road traffic deaths per 100 000 daytime population, average 2018-20 .............................. 20
Figure 10. Modal share of road fatalities by city, average 2016-20 .................................................... 21
Figure 11. Pedestrian fatality risk across cities, average 2016-20 ....................................................... 22
MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figure 12. Rapid sidewalk extension in Fortaleza ............................................................................... 23
Figure 13. Cycling fatality risk across cities, average 2016-20............................................................. 24
Figure 14. Flexible posts to separate cyclists from motorists ............................................................. 25
Figure 15. Powered two-wheeler fatality risk across cities, average 2016-20..................................... 26
Figure 16. Ratio between male and female fatalities, average 2016-20 ............................................. 27
Figure 17. Fatalities per 100 000 population by gender and city, average 2016-20 ............................ 28

Figure 18. Fatalities per 100 000 population by gender and age, average 2016-20............................ 29
Figure 19. Improved street lighting under Mexico City’s Walk Free Walk Safe programme................ 30
Figure 20. Fatalities per 10 000 registered vehicles, average 2016-20 ............................................... 33
Figure 21. Fatalities per billion vehicle-kilometre, average 2016-20................................................... 34
Figure 22. Fatalities per 1 000 km of road network length, average 2016-20 ..................................... 34

TablesTable 1. Protective equipment wearing rate by city ........................................................................... 31

Boxes
Box 1. Road safety and the Covid-19 pandemic ................................................................................. 11
Box 2. Vision Zero and the Safe System.............................................................................................. 13
Box 3. Injury data and Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale ................................................................ 14
Box 4. Safer walking in Fortaleza ........................................................................................................ 23
Box 5. Safer cycling in London ............................................................................................................ 25
Box 6. Road safety and gender in Mexico City.................................................................................... 30

6MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive summary
What we did
This report tracks developments in urban road safety to help reduce the number of serious traffic crashes
on city streets. It traces the number of road fatalities and serious injuries in 32 cities around the world forthe period 2010-20 using different indicators that measure the risk of dying in traffic for various road usergroups. The indicators use three-year averages to capture trends from small annual data sets, i.e. the year
2020 is represented by the average for 2018-20. The cities participating in the benchmarking are locatedin Europe (18), the Americas (11), Oceania (2) and Africa (1). They work together in the International
Transport Forum’s Safer City Streets network.

What we found
Most cities have continued to reduce the number of road deaths since 2010, despite considerable
differences between them.
The year 2020 stands out in the past decade’s road safety data because of the Covid-19 pandemic. As
many cities experienced restrictions on movements, traffic volumes fell, and mobility patterns changed.
The number of road deaths decreased by 4% on average across the 32 cities in 2020. The average annual
reduction for the period 2010-19 had been 3.5%. Overall, the reductions in the number of road deaths in2020 are not as high as one could expect from the restrictions on movement.
Out of 32 cities, 31 missed the initial road safety target stipulated in the UN Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG) of cutting road deaths by 50% over the decade 2010-20. Warsaw was the only city to achieve
the road safety target. Barcelona and Edmonton reduced the number of road deaths by more than 45%.
Despite considerable efforts and the exceptional decline due to the pandemic, most cities only achieved
reductions between 20% and 40% over those ten years. Notably, both Helsinki and Oslo recorded zero
fatalities among pedestrians or cyclists in 2019, thus demonstrating that “Vision Zero”, the objective of
eliminating all traffic deaths, has a basis in reality.
Sharing experiences and learning from other cities can accelerate progress towards meeting the revised
SDG target of 50% fewer road deaths by 2030. Systematic and targeted use of urban road safety andmobility data will help cities to set the right policy priorities and take decisions that will save lives.

What we recommend
Ensure consistent collection of reliable urban road safety data
Up-do date, reliable data is essential to monitor a city’s road safety performance and develop effective
policies that will save lives. Data on road crash fatalities, serious injuries and exposure to crash risk are
critical. Cities do well to allocate sufficient resources to collecting and managing road safety data. Cities

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

should also enable road safety experts in the city administration to exchange knowledge and best practices
with their peers on a national and international level.
Create urban traffic observatories that collect both general mobility data and road safety data
City governments should collect mobility data in order to understand what factors drive trends in crashdata. The behavioural changes triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic underline the case for collecting urban
mobility data systematically. Data on driver behaviour and enforcement of traffic rules are required as well
as data on traffic volumes. A dedicated, fully funded and staffed road safety observatory is most likely todeliver robust empirical evidence for effective decision-making.
Set ambitious reduction targets for the number of traffic crash casualties in cities
Cities should adopt clear targets to rapidly reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries on
their streets. Drawing attention to other cities’ road safety performance, and benchmarking one against
others, can secure public support and political buy-in for ambitious casualty reduction targets.
Focus on protecting vulnerable road users on urban streets
Cities should do more to protect pedestrians, cyclists and motorcycle riders on their streets. They are
most at risk in urban traffic and constitute the vast majority of crash fatalities. Cities should manage
streets so that they provide safe conditions for walking and cycling. Adopting a Safe System approach
when setting speed limits is particularly recommended. This includes 30 km/h speed limits wheremotor vehicles mix with vulnerable road users. Automated enforcement and safe street designprinciples will maximise compliance with speed limits. Re-allocating road space in dense urban areas
can make city centres safer by shifting mobility from car and motorcycle trips to walking, cycling andlow-speed micromobility.
Measure crash risks for vulnerable road users with appropriate indicators
Analysts should control for travel volume when assessing the traffic risk for any road user group. This isparticularly important for cycling and other forms of micromobility, given their rapid expansion in many
cities. Analysts should monitor the number and length of trips made by each mode with household travel
surveys or GPS tracking. Where funding for monitoring is a problem, local governments should explore
partnerships with national authorities and public health bodies. Survey methods that are simplified andstandardised can also reduce costs.
Adopt an integrated urban mobility plan based on Safe System principles
Cities should consider developing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan that covers all forms of mobility. Sucha plan should prioritise public transport and non-motorised mobility. Regarding road safety, this planshould be based on Safe System principles. From it, a detailed action plan with quantitative targets for the
reduction of crash casualties and other safety performance indicators should be developed, implemented
and systematically monitored.

8

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

CITIES PARTICIPATING IN THIS REPORT

Cities participating in this report
The International Transport Forum (ITF) collected road safety data from 32 cities in 22 countries (Figure 1).1
A full list of the participating cities in this report is provided in Table A1 in the Annex. Three cities involvedin comparing performance in previous years were unable to contribute, while one city (São Paulo) is new
to the network.
Figure 1. Cities contributing to the ITF Safer City Streets database in 2022

Note: Circle area is proportional to the resident population. The circle area for London represents Inner London.
Data for Greater London is also available and used in this report.

The cities show significant differences in land area, population size and density. These differences must be
considered in the analysis of road safety data:land area varies from 84 km2 (Lisbon) to 8 800 km2 (Melbourne)population varies from 435 000 (Zürich) to 12 million (São Paulo)

population density varies from 347 (Auckland) to nearly 21 000 (Paris City) inhabitants per km2.

To compare road safety performance across cities, road fatalities are controlled for resident population,
daytime population, vehicle fleet, and road network length. Where data are available, data are also

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

9

CITIES PARTICIPATING IN THIS REPORT

controlled for trip numbers and traffic volume. For comparisons based on functional urban areas (city plus
commuting zone), see ITF (2019).
Some cities have successfully reduced fatal crashes to a low level. The effect is that small annual changes
in fatalities have a very large impact on short-term trends, which can result in misleading fluctuations inrates of fatal crashes. A number of steps can be taken to mitigate this effect, and the statistical adjustments
usually made in cities are followed in this report. Therefore, three-year averages are used when two
periods are compared. So, for example, data points for 2020 are actually average figures for the period
2018-20. Five-year averages are used to calculate risk exposure rates. And the median is used to provide
average figures for rates of reduction in casualties to mitigate for small sample effects.
For the average rates of improvement in casualty numbers reported in figures 3 and 4, using raw data or
three-year averages makes little difference because of the large overall sample size. Three-year averages
are used in Figure 3 and Table A3 in the Annex, while raw data for fatalities is presented in Annex Table A2.

10

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

PROGRESS IN REDUCING ROAD DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES

Progress in reducing road deaths andserious injuries
Twenty-six cities have data for the entire 2010-20 period. The number of fatalities recorded in these cities
decreased by a third between 2010 and 2020. Most cities achieved reductions in serious injuries over thesame period. However, significant differences in performance exist. Although many cities recorded
reduced road deaths and serious injuries, only one, Warsaw, achieved the UN target of reducing at least
50% of road traffic deaths and injuries by 2020 as set out in the First Decade of Action for Road Safety.
This chapter examines the trends of the decade 2010-20, analyses traffic safety by mode of transport andcompares city-level data with the national average. It should be noted that data are presented as threeyear or five-year averages (i.e. 2020 data refer to the average 2018-20 or 2016-20).

Road deaths fell 4% annually
The median rate in the annual reduction of road deaths between 2010 and 2020 was 4% (using raw data,
the figure is 3.3%). An overall reduction of 33.3% can be observed for the decade 2010-20 (Figure 3). Most
cities reduced road deaths between 2.3% and 5% every year. The reduction of road deaths has accelerated
when compared with data from previous years, partly because of the exceptional circumstances
experienced in 2020. The median rate in the annual reduction of road deaths for the period 2010-19 was
3.5%. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and restrictions on movement, 2020 was an exceptional year.
However, road deaths fell by 4%, which is not so different from the previous trend. This decline is less thanwhat was expected from the restrictions on mobility (see Box 1 for a discussion), even when accounting
for using a three-year average rather than raw annual data.
Box 1. Road safety and the Covid-19 pandemic
Restrictions on movement due to the Covid-19 pandemic affected traffic volumes and patterns worldwide.
At the start of the pandemic in 2020, traffic volumes considerably decreased as countries introduced
lockdowns. At the national level, overall traffic volumes decreased by 12.2% in 2020 compared to theaverage for 2017-19 in 11 countries of the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group (IRTAD).
The number of road deaths decreased by 8.6% in 2020 across the 34 IRTAD countries compared with thebaseline, revealing substantial differences between countries.
Cities enforced confinement measures resulting in decreased traffic volumes in many urban areas. Data
analysis by TomTom showed that traffic volumes decreased between 70% and 85% in many major
European cities (TomTom, 2020). Across the seven cities of the Safer City Streets network that collect dataon traffic volume, traffic was 18% lower in 2020 than the average for 2016-18, while fatalities decreased
by 16%. Injury crashes declined in many cities, but not as much as traffic. Reductions in motor vehicle
travel did not necessarily result in fewer injuries and fatalities, as examples from Greater Manchester andGreater London illustrate. One explanation of this is the reported issue of drivers taking advantage of
emptier streets, resulting in excessive speeding and increased crash risk.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

11

PROGRESS IN REDUCING ROAD DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES

Figure 2. Bogotá rapidly increased its cycle lane network in response to the Covid-19 pandemic

Source: Alejo Bernal/Shutterstock.
Source: ITF (2021) and Safer City Streets database.

Figure 3. Road traffic deaths, 2010-20

Note: for each year, the dot represents the median percentage change since 2010 across 26 cities. Vertical bars
represent the inter-quartile range: observations between the 25th and the 75th percentiles. The number of deaths is
captured by a three-year average – for instance, a 2010 value represents the 2008-2010 average.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

12

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

PROGRESS IN REDUCING ROAD DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES

Although positive and sustained, the decline in the number of road deaths was still well below the progressneeded to achieve the 50% reduction target for the decade. Warsaw was the only city to reach the roadsafety target included in UN Sustainable Development Goal 3.6 to reduce road deaths by more than 50%
between 2010 and 20202. Barcelona and Edmonton also made significant improvements, reducing thenumber of road deaths by more than 45%, almost meeting the UN target for the First Decade of Action on
Road Safety.
The significant improvements in Warsaw were the result of a combination of actions taken at the national
and local levels. Measures at the national level include priority for pedestrians at all crossings; a focus on
speed management with, for example, the introduction of a uniform speed limit of 50 km/h in built-up
areas (until 2020, the limit was 60 km/h at night); increased fines for traffic violations and new regulations
for e-scooters and personal transport devices. Measures at the city level include the redirection of heavy
vehicle traffic to ring roads and expressways and the expansion of bike lanes and bike-friendly routes. A
holistic approach that involves several public actors has helped reduce the number of fatal crashes.
Cities need to reduce the number of road deaths by around 7% per year to achieve the UN’s new roadsafety target to halve the number of road deaths between 2021 and 2030. Warsaw reduced road deathsby 7.9% per year between 2010 and 2020 and will need to maintain that rate to meet the UN target
for 20303.
Sixteen cities have data for 2021. Road fatalities decreased annually by 3.2% between 2010 and 2021. Thisis encouraging, as their trend in reducing fatalities was not reversed by the lifting of movement restrictions
during the year as Covid-19 pandemic measures eased.
Box 2. Vision Zero and the Safe System
Vision Zero is a strategy that aims to eliminate all road fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe,
healthy and equitable mobility for all. First implemented on the national level in Sweden in 1997, Vision
Zero has been adopted by cities around the world. So far, no city providing data to the ITF Safer City Streets
database has achieved Vision Zero. A number of cities have nevertheless shown that Vision Zero is atangible objective, with Helsinki and Oslo reducing the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed in traffic
to zero in 2019.
At the core of the Vision Zero strategy is the Safe System, a holistic and proactive safety approach that
reduces risks in all areas of the road safety system. The Safe System recognises that humans make mistakes
and that policies need to prevent fatal and serious injuries resulting from these mistakes. A systemapproach, together with shared responsibility between those who design, build, manage and use roads
and vehicles, is needed to achieve the goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries.
Source: Vision Zero Network (2022) and ITF (2022).

Serious injuries fell 2.9% annually
Most cities reduced serious injuries between 2010 and 2020. The median annual reduction of serious
injuries was 2.9%, resulting in a reduction of 25% over the decade. At the same time, the number of serious
injuries increased in five out of 22 cities for which data is available. The data suggest there may have beenan acceleration in reductions in serious injuries (Figure 4). However, 2020 was an exceptional year becauseof movement restrictions in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Exacerbated under-reporting of injuries
was also likely as people tried to avoid going to the hospital.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

13

PROGRESS IN REDUCING ROAD DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES

Figure 4. Serious injuries, 2010-20

Note: for each year, the dot represents the median percentage change since 2010 across 22 cities. Vertical bars
represent the inter-quartile range: observations between the 25th and the 75th percentiles.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

Box 3. Injury data and Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale
The Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) is a globally accepted injury severity scale. It ranges from 1(minor injuries) to 6 (non-treatable injuries) and reflects the threat to life associated with the most severe
injury across all body regions. Following a recommendation by the ITF (2011), a level of injury of MAIS3+
became the accepted cut-off for a serious injury, with anything below falling into the category of minor
injury. The European Commission adopted this definition and published in 2016 for the first time a figure
for the number of people seriously injured on Europe’s roads: 135 000 serious injuries in 2014 (European
Commission, 2016).
Several methods exist to collect robust, comparable injury data; many are documented in ITF (2011), FERSI(2016) and SafetyCube (2016). They are classified into three groups by the European Transport Safety
Council (Adminaite et al., 2018):
1. continue to use police data but apply a correction coefficient based on samples
2. report the number of injured based on data from hospitals
3. create a link between police and hospital data.
Source: Santacreu (2018).

14

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

PROGRESS IN REDUCING ROAD DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES

Cities have adopted different definitions of serious injuries. Therefore, difficulties with collecting andcomparing injury data between cities have to be considered.
The ITF Safer City Streets database monitors two indicators for the number of serious injuries:
1. the number of people hospitalised for 24 hours or more, excluding those who die within 30 days
2. the number of people whose injuries are assessed at level 3 or more on the Maximum AbbreviatedInjury Scale (MAIS), which is optimal for international comparisons but is used in fewer cities.

Traffic safety by transport mode
Road traffic deaths vary across transport modes and user groups. The reduction in the number of deaths
and serious injuries is slower among vulnerable road users and slowest among powered two-wheelers.
Since 2010, the number of pedestrian fatalities has fallen in 22 out of 25 cities. Across all cities, pedestrian
fatalities typically fell by 3.7% per year, adding up to 31.5% over ten years, using median values (Figure 5).
Since 2010, the number of cycling fatalities has fallen in only 13 out of 25 cities. Considering median values
across 25 cities, the reduction in cycling fatalities stands at 1.8% per year, adding up to 16.7% over ten
years. This relatively small improvement can be partly explained by the increase in people cycling during
the last decade. In comparison, the number of car and truck occupant fatalities fell nearly three times
faster, by 5.2% per year, or 41.3% over the decade (Figure 5).
Serious injury trends diverge even more across transport modes. The number of serious cycling injuries
increased in 14 cities and fell in only five. Considering median values across 19 cities, the number of serious
cycling injuries increased by 1.9% per year or 21% over the ten-year period. In comparison, the number ofseriously injured fell across all other user groups. Among car and truck occupants, they fell by 3.9% peryear or 32.6% over the decade (Figure 6).
Figure 5. Road traffic deaths by mode, 2020

Note: for each mode, the chart represents the median percentage change across 25 cities. Vertical bars represent
the interquartile range, which is the range of values observed in half of the cities. The number of deaths is captured
by a three-year average – i.e., a 2010 value represents the 2008-10 average.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

15

PROGRESS IN REDUCING ROAD DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES

Figure 6. Serious injures by mode, 2020

Note: for each mode, the chart represents the median percentage change across 19 cities. Vertical bars represent
the interquartile range, which is the range of values observed in half of the cities. The number of seriously injured
is captured by a three-year average – i.e., a 2010 value represents the 2008-10 average.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

Cycling safety
As shown above, the reduction of road traffic deaths among cyclists is the slowest out of all transportmodes and cycling injuries increased by 21% between 2010 and 2020.
Figure 7. Cycling trips and risk per trip, 2020

Note: the chart represents the percentage change from the 2008-10 average to the 2018-20 average. Killed andseriously injured are expressed per billion trips.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

16

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

PROGRESS IN REDUCING ROAD DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIESAt the same time, Figure 7 shows that cycling has become more popular in many cities. The number ofcycling trips increased by more than 50% in London, Auckland and Bogotá and more than doubled in New
York City and Vancouver.
In all cities, the number of trips increased more than the number of cyclist deaths and injuries (Figure 7).
This shows that cycling became safer over the ten-year period. Cycling additionally delivers public healthbenefits associated with increased physical activity and improved air quality.

Road traffic deaths in cities compared to the national average
Sixteen out of 26 cities have outperformed national progress in reducing fatalities. This is most remarkablein Edmonton, New York City, Buenos Aires and Fortaleza (Figure 8). These cities were successful insignificantly reducing road fatalities thanks to the implementation of robust and data-driven road safety
policies, many of which have been documented in previous reports from the Safer City Streets initiative(ITF, 2021; ITF, 2020a). The reduction of road traffic deaths in cities compared to an increasing national
average is particularly striking in New York City and Bogotá.
Figure 8. Change in road traffic deaths by city and country, 2010-20

Note: the number of deaths is captured by a three-year average in both cities and countries. The chart, therefore,
represents the percentage change from the 2008-10 average to the 2018-20 average.
Source: ITF IRTAD database, ITF Safer City Streets database.

Road fatalities in New York City decreased by 18.9% from 2010 to 2020 compared to an increase of 7.4%
in the entire country in the same time period. New York City adopted a Vision Zero strategy in 2014 that

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

17

PROGRESS IN REDUCING ROAD DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES

combines improved street design, expanded enforcement and penalisation of violations like speeding aswell as better education and public campaigns. Similarly, Bogotá recorded a decrease in road deaths by
12.3%, while numbers in the entire country increased by 10.3% between 2010 and 2020. An ambitious
Vision Zero approach based on a Safe System and high-quality data was the basis for significant progress.
The provision of public transport and speed management based on a data-driven Vision Zero approachcontributed to the positive trend of reduced road fatalities in Bogotá. The public consultation andcommunications strategies employed by the city to develop support for reduced speeds on commuting
corridors, coupled with automated enforcement systems, have been particularly successful.

18

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Benchmarking urban road safety
The ITF published the first global benchmark of urban road safety in 2018 (Santacreau, 2018). The report
revealed significant differences in road safety performance between the cities of the Safer City Streets
network. A second monitoring report was published in 2020 and re-examined the differences between
cities with data from 2016-18 (ITF, 2020b). The present report uses new data up to 2020 to continue
monitoring the progress in cities’ road safety performance.
Like in previous reports, the trends have been smoothed using three-year or five-year averages. This
mitigates the potential for reporting misleading developments from the large fluctuations that can result
from year-on-year changes in relatively small absolute numbers. This also mitigates the impact of theCovid-19 pandemic on results. Nevertheless, for exposure data, it was difficult to estimate the effect of
Covid-19 restrictions, in particular for daytime population and traffic volume.

Road deaths in cities
Mortality is a frequently used indicator to benchmark road safety performance. It is defined as the ratio ofroad traffic deaths over the number of inhabitants. However, as the number of inhabitants does not always
account for the true level of transport activity, cities are encouraged to estimate their daytime population.
As in previous Safer City Streets benchmarking reports, daytime population is therefore used for a moreaccurate estimation of risk exposure and for a more robust benchmarking result.
The number of fatalities recorded ranges from 0.5 to 7.5 per 100 000 daytime population (Figure 9). The
results reflect a wide range of situations, with a median of 1.5 fatalities per 100 000 population per year
and the highest value as five times this amount. These new figures with data up to 2020 confirm the large
performance gaps between cities and suggest that progress can be made in most cities by learning fromeach other.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

19

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Figure 9. Road traffic deaths per 100 000 daytime population, average 2018-20

Note: daytime population is the sum of the resident population and the net influx of commuters.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

Road deaths by mode
Pedestrians, cyclists and riders of powered two-wheelers represent over 50% of road traffic deaths inalmost all cities (26 out of 29) that provide data on transport modes (Figure 10).
Vulnerable road users (VRUs) represent particularly high numbers of road fatalities in cities with highpopulation density because a much larger share of the population walks and cycles in these cities. Figure 10
should not be interpreted as a risk analysis. The high share of cyclists among fatalities in some cities(e.g. Copenhagen, Oslo and Zurich) is due to a large proportion of cycling trips rather than an unsafe
cycling environment.
In the six cities with over 10 000 inhabitants per square kilometre, 81% of road fatalities are VRUs. The
data confirm that policymakers should prioritise the protection of vulnerable road users, as they constitutethe great majority of fatalities on urban roads. Cities with particularly large shares of VRUs, such as Bogotá,
Fortaleza and London, have reported success with an intervention that combines speed management andallocation of protected space for walking and cycling (ITF, 2021). Cities with a high proportion of pedestrian
fatalities, such as Accra, Montreal and Vancouver, should intensify their efforts to investigate these highnumbers and set policy priorities accordingly.

20

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Figure 10. Modal share of road fatalities by city, average 2016-20
Percentage

Note: low population density (n=12) is less than 5 000 inhabitants per square kilometre, medium (n=11) is lessthan 10 000, and high (n=6) is 10 000 and above. Where cities are grouped, the chart represents the unweighted
average across cities in the group.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

21

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Pedestrian safety

Large variations in the safety of walking can be observed across cities. Figure 11 presents two indicatorsthat capture the likelihood of dying in a crash while controlling for the number of trips or kilometres
walked. London and Copenhagen are the safest cities to walk in out of the seven cities that provided data.
Figures 11, 13 and 15 include confidence intervals, which reflect the statistical uncertainty that comesfrom the observation of a relatively small number of events. The higher the number of deaths in a city, themore accurate the walking risk estimate.
Figure 11. Pedestrian fatality risk across cities, average 2016-20

Note: vertical bars represent 80% confidence intervals based on the observed number of deaths.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

22

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Box 4. Safer walking in Fortaleza
A growing number of cities are making improvements to pedestrian safety. The “Lively Sidewalk” programin Fortaleza aims to make walking more attractive and increase pedestrian mobility. Before
implementation, many pedestrians were forced to walk on the road between motor vehicles. Low-costand fast-implementation materials – paint, benches, bollards and planters – made it possible to reduce
the number of pedestrians walking in the road by 92%. The program was also successful at reducing speeds
above 30 km/h and 40 km/h by 65% and 84% respectively, decreasing the risk and severity of crashes.
Figure 12. Rapid sidewalk extension in Fortaleza

Source: Paulo Winz/GDCI.
Source: ITF (2021).

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

23

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Cycling safety

Figure 13 identifies Vancouver and Copenhagen as the safest cities for riding a bike. The large differences
between cities can be interpreted as room for progress. Several cities with significantly higher risks for
cycling can learn from the better-performing cities that have implemented successful safety measures.
The cities with a high crash risk for cycling include Bogotá, New York, Auckland and Buenos Aires.
Figure 13. Cycling fatality risk across cities, average 2016-20

Note: vertical bars represent 80% confidence intervals based on the observed number of deaths.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

24

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Box 5. Safer cycling in London
Several cities use light protection of cycling lanes to increase cycling safety. This consists of the use ofphysical objects such as low profile separators, planters or flexible posts intermittently placed alongside acycle lane marking to give additional protection from motorised traffic.
The first project in the United Kingdom using light protection to protect cyclists from traffic wasimplemented in the Camden district of northwest London. As part of a wider policy to improve conditions
for cycling, the project aimed to test the concept of light protection as a quick and low-cost measure.
Figure 14. Flexible posts to separate cyclists from motorists

Source: Saruntorn Chotchitima/Shutterstock.

A before-and-after study revealed a 50% reduction in both the number of crashes involving cyclists andthe severity of resulting injuries. This reduction was achieved while the total number of people cycling inboth directions increased by 70%.
Source: ITF (2021).

Powered two-wheeler safety

The safety of riding motorcycles and scooters varies significantly across cities. Greater Manchester is arelatively safer city to drive a powered two-wheeler when compared to other cities that provided data. In
comparison with risk levels observed for walking and cycling, the risk of riding a motorcycle or a moped isvery high. This underlines the importance of providing good public transport, cycling and walking
alternatives for equitable mobility.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

25

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Figure 15. Powered two-wheeler fatality risk across cities, average 2016-20

Note: vertical bars represent 80% confidence intervals based on the observed number of deaths.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

26

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Road deaths by gender and age
Men are over-represented in road traffic deaths. In the vast majority of cities (21 out of 25), they are atleast twice as likely to be killed in traffic in comparison to women (Figure 16).
Figure 16 shows for each city the ratio of male to female fatality rates. A ratio of 1 indicates an equal risk
for men and women. This ratio varies significantly across cities, from values close to 1 in Edmonton,
Montreal and Zurich to values of almost 6 as observed in Fortaleza.
Part of the gender gap may be explained by different travel patterns between men and women. In many
cities, men travel more than women. Additionally, women often travel during off-peak times and travel
shorter distances. Men also tend to have riskier behaviour and cycle and use motorcycles more often.
Figure 16. Ratio between male and female fatalities, average 2016-20

Note: the ratio controls for the male and female resident populations but does not control for differences in mobility
patterns. The high figure in Bristol results from an overall small number of road fatalities.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

A gender perspective on road safety could be a policy priority for some cities to reduce their overallmortality figures. Cities with the highest overall mortality are those where male and female mortality differ
the most (Figure 17). These cities include Fortaleza, Bogotá, Belgrade, Accra, Rome and Buenos Aires.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

27

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Monitoring the causality risk of different age groups can be key to developing policies that reduce roadmortality. Age has a significant impact on mortality, and it is therefore recommended to control for thisfactor. Figure 18 demonstrates that the most significant gender differences are observed in populations
aged 25-64 and 80+. This is mainly due to different travel patterns during working age (women use more
public transport and are more risk-averse) and in old age (older women leave the house less often). The
figure shows that mortality rates increase with age. The figures indicate that senior citizens are increasingly
at risk in cities. A possible explanation for this trend is the growing share of seniors in the population.
Figure 17. Fatalities per 100 000 population by gender and city, average 2016-20

Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

28

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Figure 18. Fatalities per 100 000 population by gender and age, average 2016-20

Note: median values across 21 cities.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

29

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Box 6. Road safety and gender in Mexico City
Mexico City is not included in the accompanying figures because of a break in series in their data resulting
from a change in methodology. However, the city has undertaken a detailed analysis of mobility patterns
revealing that men and women travel for different purposes and at different times of the day. Women in
Mexico City travel mainly in off-peak hours for care-related trips. Regarding the mode of transport, women
drive and cycle less but walk considerably more than men. This analysis resulted in Mexico City focusingon pedestrian mobility to improve gender equity in the development of road safety policies.
Figure 19. Improved street lighting under Mexico City’s Walk Free Walk Safe programme

Source: SEMOVI/CDMX.

The city’s “Walk Free, Walk Safe” programme aims at improving street lighting and pedestrian crossings.
The program has treated 117 crosswalks and 222 km of sidewalks, reducing fatalities by 32% at treatedlocations. Other initiatives addressed a redesign of streets adapted to women’s safety needs by replacing
pedestrian bridges with pedestrian crossings. Education programs were also introduced, such as
establishing bike schools for women.
Source: Rivera Flores (2021).

Road user behaviour in cities
Despite the undisputed value of helmets for motorcycling safety, Table 1 reveals significant differences inhelmet-wearing rates across cities. While most cities record a rate of helmet use above 90%, other cities
record much lower rates. Frequent collection of this indicator could help authorities evaluate the successof their education and enforcement campaigns.

30

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

For cyclists, helmet-wearing rates vary between 22% (Buenos Aires) and 85% (Stockholm), according tosurveys and roadside observations in eight cities (Table 1), even if wearing a helmet is not compulsory for
adult cyclists. However, it should be noted that the city with the lowest cycling fatality rate, Copenhagen,does not record a high helmet-wearing rate. This demonstrates the importance of other elements of Safe
System policies for safe cycling behaviour.
Table 1. Protective equipment wearing rate by city
Percentage
HelmetCity

Seat belts in passenger cars

Powered twowheelers

BicycleChild
restraint

Driver

Front seatpassenger

Rear seatpassengers

Accra

..

69

23

..

21

..

Auckland

89

..

92

..

97

86

Belgrade

..

85

59

88

86

33

Bogotá

..

100

18

89

77

10

Bristol

..

..

..

99

97

93

Brussels

47

99

92

95

94

..

Buenos Aires

22

33

44

74

63

19

Copenhagen

43

89

..

96

..

85

Dublin

40

99

..

96

97

82

Fortaleza

..

95

39

87

85

97

Lisbon

36

..

..

..

..

..

Melbourne

..

..

..

97

97

97

Montreal

44

..

..

98

98

..

Sao Paulo

..

..

..

98

..

..

Stockholm

85

..

..

98

98

..

Warsaw

..

99

99

98

99

85

Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

The data reveals that the use of seat belts remains far from universal in cities: it ranges from 61% to 99%
on front seats. In particular, the use of seat belts on rear seats remains much lower. In Bogotá and Buenos
Aires, no more than 20% of rear-seat passengers wear a seat belt, whereas over 60% of drivers wear one.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

31

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Policymakers should monitor behaviours and attitudes and vehicle design to explain the low wearing rates
of protective equipment in some cities. Other behavioural factors, particularly attitudes towards speeding,should also be monitored.
Survey methods and definitions vary across countries. The data in Table 1 thus require carefulinterpretation.

Alternative road safety indicators
Several alternative road safety indicators are frequently used for the additional insights they provide. The
three indicators presented here share a common focus on the number of road traffic fatalities – that is,
the sum of road deaths across all modes – but differ in the choice of the denominator: the vehicle fleet,volume of traffic and length of the road network.
Controlling for the size of the vehicle fleet, the number of fatalities in Fortaleza is over twenty times higher
than in Oslo and fatalities in Accra are over ninety times higher than in Oslo (Figure 20). This supports thecase for high vehicle safety standards, such as Intelligent Speed Assistance, but also passive safety solutions
to reduce the impact of a crash on pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. It also reflects the highnumbers of pedestrians and cyclists exposed to crash risk as a result of inadequate infrastructure for saferoad use in cities with the lowest levels of car ownership.
When controlling for the volume of motor vehicle traffic, the indicator reveals that Brussels has ten times
more fatalities than Oslo (Figure 21). This indicator generally reveals higher fatality rates in areas that are
the most densely populated, likely because of a high number of vulnerable road users (VRUs) and the highlikelihood of conflict between VRUs and motor vehicles. Note, however, that the cities reporting data on
the volume of motorised traffic are all in high-income countries.
When controlling for the length of the road network, Figure 22 shows that Fortaleza has almost fifty times
more fatalities than Oslo. This indicator reflects differences in the urban fabric, with some cities having
larger blocks served by wider, busier streets. Such cities would particularly benefit from changes in street
design. Safe street design can effectively reduce road fatalities, as discussed in ITF (2021).

32

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Figure 20. Fatalities per 10 000 registered vehicles, average 2016-20

Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

33

BENCHMARKING URBAN ROAD SAFETY

Figure 21. Fatalities per billion vehicle-kilometre, average 2016-20

Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

Figure 22. Fatalities per 1 000 km of road network length, average 2016-20

Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

34

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

NOTES

Notes

1 This document reports on data collected directly from cities. The ITF does not commission independent data audits in the participating cities
to fully assess the level of accuracy of each data contribution but runs a number of quality control procedures. This involves internal consistency
checks, comparison with alternative sources, and comparison with known values in comparable regions. In addition, the ITF collects relevant
information on the data sources and survey methods in order to apply correction factors where needed. Some data gaps have been addressedby simple interpolation between years for which data exists. This mainly concerns computation of five-year averages for which the denominator(e.g. population, traffic, trips, etc.) is missing where travel survey data is not collected every year. In spite of the heterogeneous quality of thedata analysed in this document, publication of road safety and mobility figures at the city level is important, especially because circulation of theindicators among the Safer City Streets network maximises the level of scrutiny given to the data and helps correct inaccuracies.
2 The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. As part of this goal, UNtarget 3.6 initially aimed to halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents by 2020 compared to 2010. With the newresolution on road safety by the UN General Assembly in 2020, the target date has been adjusted and extended to 2030 with 2021 as baseline.
3 In September 2020, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/74/299 "Improving global road safety", proclaiming the Decade of
Action for Road Safety 2021-2030, with the target of preventing at least 50% of road traffic deaths and injuries by 2030 over the period 2021-30.
Progress made during the First Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020 has laid the foundation for the new Decade of Action.

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

35

REFERENCES

References
Adminaite, D. et al. (2018), Ranking EU Progress on Road Safety, European Transport Safety Council,
https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/PIN_AR_2018_final.pdf (accessed 26 April 2022).
FERSI (2016), Country Survey: State of the art of MAIS 3+ assessment in the FERSI Member States and
EU/EEA countries, https://afzenderonbekend.nl/fersi/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/160301-MAIS3.pdf(accessed 26 April 2022).
ITF (2022), The Safe System Approach in Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.itf-oecd.org/safesystem-approach-action-experience-based-guide-enhanced-road-safety.
ITF (2021), “Road Safety in Cities: Street Design and Traffic Management Solutions”, International
Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 99, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.itf-oecd.org/road-safetycities-street-design-management.
ITF (2020a), “Best Practice for Urban Road Safety: Case Studies”, International Transport Forum Policy
Papers, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.itf-oecd.org/best-practice-urban-road-safety.
ITF (2020b), “Monitoring Progress in Urban Road Safety”, International Transport Forum Policy Papers,
No. 79, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.itf-oecd.org/monitoring-progress-urban-road-safety.
ITF (2019), “Road Safety in European Cities: Performance Indicators and Governance Solutions”,
International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 67, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.itfoecd.org/road-safety-european-cities.
ITF (2011), Reporting on Serious Road Traffic Casualties: Combining and using different data sources toimprove understanding of non-fatal road traffic crashes, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://www.itfoecd.org/reporting-serious-road-traffic-casualties.
Rivera Flores, M. F. (2021), “Road safety and gender”, Presentation at “Road safety, inclusion, equity,
gender and sustainability: exploring links”, International Transport Forum Webinar, 24 November 2021,
https://www.itf-oecd.org/road-safety-inclusion-equity-gender-and-sustainability-exploring-links.
SafetyCube (2016), Deliverable 7.1 Practical guidelines for the registration and monitoring of serious
traffic injuries, https://www.safetycube-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/SafetyCube-D7.1Practicalguidelines-for-the-registration-and-monitoring-of-serious-traffic-injuries.pdf (accessed 26 April
2022).
Santacreu, A. (2018), “Safer City Streets Global Benchmarking for Urban Road Safety”, International
Transport Forum Working Document, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.itf-oecd.org/safer-citystreets-global-benchmarking-urban-road-safety.
TomTom (2020), “What can traffic data tell us about the impact of the coronavirus?”,https://www.tomtom.com/blog/traffic-and-travel-information/covid-19-traffic/ (accessed 14 June 2022).
Vision Zero Network (2022), “What is Vision Zero?”, https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-visionzero/ (accessed on 14 June 2022).

36

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

ANNEX A. INPUT DATA AND STATISTICS

Annex A. Input data and statistics
Table A1 includes a full list of the participating cities in this report, including the land area, population sizeand density of each city. Table A2 presents the raw data for fatalities that were collected from cities foreach year between 2010-21. Table A3 shows three-year averages for fatalities from each city from 2010 21 to mitigate potential misleading trends from small annual raw data sets.
Table A1. Land area, population and density in participating cities
Country

City

Land area (km2)

Population

Population density(inhabitants/km2)

Argentina

Buenos Aires

203

3 075 646

15 151

Australia

Melbourne

8 836

5 077 545

575

Belgium

Brussels161

1 223 497

7 599

BrazilFortaleza313

2 686 703

8 584

Brazil

Sao Paulo

1 521

11 869 660

7 803

CanadaCalgary858

1 363 144

1 589

CanadaEdmonton685

1 047 526

1 529

CanadaMontreal365

2 072 645

5 678

CanadaVancouver

115

716 827

6 233

Colombia

Bogotá

1 587

7 743 955

4 880

Denmark

Copenhagen

86632 340

7 353

FranceParis105

2 172 819

20 694

Ghana

Accra

173

2 173 407

12 563

IrelandDublin115

576 639

5 014

Italy

Milan

182

1 406 242

7 727

Italy

Rome

1 285

2 808 293

2 186

MexicoGuadalajara

2 217

5 079 762

2 291

MexicoMexico City

1 494

9 018 645

6 037

New Zealand

Auckland

4 942

1 716 900

347

NorwayOslo427

693 494

1 624

PolandWarsaw

517

1 794 166

3 470

Portugal

Lisbon84

509 614

6 067

SerbiaBelgrade

3 237

1 694 480

523

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

37

ANNEX A. INPUT DATA AND STATISTICS

Spain

Barcelona102

1 655 949

16 251

Spain

Madrid604

3 223 334

5 337

SwedenStockholm

187

977 619

5 228

Switzerland

Zürich88

434 736

4 940

United Kingdom

Bristol

111

465 900

4 197

United Kingdom

Greater London

1 572

9 002 500

5 727

United Kingdom

Greater Manchester

1 276

2 848 286

2 232

United Kingdom

Inner London

319

3 660 200

11 474

United States

New York City

792

8 336 817

10 526

Note: All figures refer to 2020. For Accra, data refer to the Accra Metropolitan Area, made of 12 separate local
government districts. For Guadalajara, data include only 6 out of 9 municipalities legally recognised as Metropolitan
Area. For Melbourne, data refer to 31 Local Government Areas, equal to Melbourne Statistical Division with theaddition of Yarra Ranges Part B Statistical Local Area.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

Table A2. Road fatalities by city, 2010-21
City

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Accra

..

173

205

144

144

243

111

86

130

103

136

..

Auckland

53

51

41

48

36

53

47

64

54

40

36

59

Barcelona

48

40

39

29

40

33

37

19

24

28

17

28

Belgrade

117

136

127

116

104

101

102

95

105

93

92

..

Bogotá

528

562

571

534

606

544

585

546

514

505

377

469

Bristol

4

11

7

12

8

8

5

12

7

3

7

..

Brussels

31

25

37

24

29

28

17

24

21

20

16

..

Buenos Aires

198

167

144

166

169

165

158

151

159

111

87

104

Calgary

23

26

34

40

28

23

26

12

17

18

26

16

Copenhagen

14

4

11

9

6

9

13

5

7

7

7

..

Dublin

8

6

6

10

16

7

9

10

10

8

7

8

Edmonton

27

22

27

23

23

32

22

27

19

14

12

16

Fortaleza

365

381

369

358

377

316

281

256

226

198

193

184

Greater London

126

159

134

132

127

136

116

131

112

125

96

..

Greater Manchester

54

76

49

35

54

49

54

50

50

63

67

..

Guadalajara

343

296

296

317

290

277

308

322

342

295

226

238

Inner London

51

58

53

55

59

52

56

54

42

44

33

..

Lisbon

16

18

12

10

9

12

9

15

30

14

22

..

Madrid

33

30

33

32

24

24

35

27

37

33

34

24

Melbourne

125

129

128

102

110

114

141

103

104

120

85

114

Mexico City

1 026

968

937

871

834

768

..

..

394

397

388

424

38

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

ANNEX A. INPUT DATA AND STATISTICS

Milan

58

53

61

32

42

53

50

53

49

34

28

..

Montreal

43

44

39

33

32

30

31

27

27

32

31

29

New York City

273

250

278

299

259

234

232

224

206

220

243

273

Oslo

5

7

8

7

4

5

4

3

5

1

6

..

Paris

43

50

39

29

39

47

40

31

36

34

45

..

Rome

158

167

140

130

150

161

126

128

138

131

104

..

Sao Paulo

..

..

..

1 012

1 133

898

820

754

810

779

806

..

Stockholm

14

15

9

10

8

7

5

15

8

11

4

5

Vancouver

9

13

19

16

15

14

15

14

13

14

8

18

Warsaw

57

90

56

74

65

62

54

48

44

35

44

42

Zürich

11

12

6

10

4

6

7

5

10

6

5

5

Note: data are shown as single-year data, not averages. In Mexico City, the methodology changed between 201015 and 2018-21, so data are not comparable.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

Table A3. Road fatalities by city, three-year average, 2010-21
City

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Accra

..

..

..

174

164

177

166

147

109

106

123

..

Auckland

58

58

48

47

42

46

45

55

55

53

43

45

Barcelona

44

45

42

36

36

34

37

30

27

24

23

24

Belgrade

147

136

127

126

116

107

102

99

101

98

97

..

Bogotá

531

539

554

556

570

561

578

558

548

522

465

450

Bristol

9

10

7

10

9

9

7

8

8

7

6

..

Brussels

32

29

31

29

30

27

25

23

21

22

19

..

Buenos Aires

..

..

170

159

160

167

164

158

156

140

119

101

Calgary

30

24

28

33

34

30

26

20

18

16

20

20

Copenhagen

12

8

10

8

9

8

9

9

8

6

7

..

Dublin

9

8

7

7

11

11

11

9

10

9

8

8

Edmonton

29

27

25

24

24

26

26

27

23

20

15

14

Fortaleza

340

353

372

369

368

350

325

284

254

227

206

192

Greater London

171

156

140

142

131

132

126

128

120

123

111

..

Greater Manchester

63

68

60

53

46

46

52

51

51

54

60

..

Guadalajara

..

..

312

303

301

295

292

302

324

320

288

253

Inner London

71

60

54

55

56

55

56

54

51

47

40

..

Lisbon

..

..

15

13

10

10

10

12

18

20

22

..

Madrid

39

35

32

32

30

27

28

29

33

32

35

30

Melbourne

146

133

127

120

113

109

122

119

116

109

103

106

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

39

ANNEX A. INPUT DATA AND STATISTICS

Mexico City

1 047

1 016

977

925

881

824

..

..

..

..

393

403

Milan

..

..

57

49

45

42

48

52

51

45

37

..

Montreal

38

40

42

39

35

32

31

29

28

29

30

31

New York City

275

261

267

276

279

264

242

230

221

217

223

245

Oslo

7

7

7

7

6

5

4

4

4

3

4

..

Paris

46

46

44

39

36

38

42

39

36

34

38

..

Rome

170

169

155

146

140

147

146

138

131

132

124

..

Sao Paulo

..

..

..

..

..

1 014

950

824

795

781

798

..

Stockholm

12

13

13

11

9

8

7

9

9

11

8

7

Vancouver

15

13

14

16

17

15

15

14

14

14

12

13

Warsaw

93

81

68

73

65

67

60

55

49

42

41

40

Zürich

10

11

10

9

7

7

6

6

7

7

7

5

Note: data are shown as three-year averages - for instance, a 2010 value represents the 2008-2010 average. In
Mexico City, the methodology changed between 2010-15 and 2018-21, so data are not comparable.
Source: ITF Safer City Streets database.

40

MONITORING PROGRESS IN URBAN ROAD SAFETY: 2022 UPDATE © OECD/ITF 2022

Monitoring Progress in Urban
Road Safety

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16+33 (0)1 73 31 25 00
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org
Funded by

Published: 10/2022 | Photo credit: AlexelThis report tracks the progress in reducing the number of road traffic
fatalities and serious injuries in cities between 2010 and 2020. It
presents traffic safety data collected in 32 cities participating in the
ITF Safer City Streets network and compares trends in urban andnational road safety. It provides indicators for the risk of traffic deathfor different road user groups that permits benchmarking of roadsafety outcomes.