Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Priorities in EU road safety Progress - Report and ranking of actions
Date: 2000-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, report, road safety, safety device, statistics

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 17.03.2000
COM(2000) 125 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

PRIORITIES IN EU ROAD SAFETY
PROGRESS REPORT AND RANKING OF ACTIONS

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

PRIORITIES IN EU ROAD SAFETY
PROGRESS REPORT AND RANKING OF ACTIONS

Executive Summary

There is no room for complacency in road safety. Although the trend is towards fewer
fatalities, the decline is levelling off and over 40 000 citizens of the EU continue to meet a
premature death on our roads.

This Communication takes us beyond the Action Programme of 1997-2001, which introduced
€
a socio-economic dimension to road safety with the '
1 million principle' which for the first
time sought to give an economic cost to a fatality and the associated injuries and damage.

It takes up suggestions from the Council and the European Parliament to issue a progress
report on the Action Programme. Also, as requested by the Parliament, it gives a ranking to
future measures at the Community level, and it makes a Recommendation to decision makers
at all levels, to give more weight to the fact that the cost of preventing accidents is generally
much less than the economic cost of casualties and damage caused by them.

The Action Programme 1997-2001 can be considered a successful on-going process. Annex 3
contains a detailed and systematic listing of measures passed or under consideration. Much
has been achieved in the strategic fields of improving enforcement of traffic rules and
regulations, raising public awareness of road safety, and the gathering and dissemination of
information on safety issues.

A multi-criteria analysis followed by a cost effective assessment of the actions listed in the
Programme 1997-2001, has led to the definition of the following short and medium term
priorities in road safety in the EU:

• Continue to work with and develop the European New Car Assessment Programme,

(EuroNCAP);

• Campaigns and legislation on seat belts and child restraints;

• Recommendation to the Member States on maximum blood/alcohol levels in traffic;

• Legislation on speed limiters for light commercial vehicles;

• Develop guidelines for 'Black Spot' management (places with a concentration of accidents)
and the design of 'forgiving' roadsides (i.e. less likely to cause injury in the event of an
accident);

• Legislation on safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists.

Beyond these key priorities this Communication lists a further 5 measures for which more
research into cost effectiveness is desirable: medical standards for driving licences; standards

2

for driving tests; daytime running lights; effects of medicines on driver behaviour; post
accident care.

Three supporting measures also received a high priority: the CARE accident statistics data
base; an integrated information system; and, research into vehicle standards and telematics.

Finally, this Communication contains a Recommendation of the Commission encouraging
governments, local and regional authorities of the Member States to establishing a practice of
to increase investments in these
calculating costs and effects of road safety measures,
measures and to develop mechanisms that will enable the benefits of road safety measures to
be felt more directly by those taking the decisions and bearing the costs of
their
implementation.

3

1.

INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1. The EU road safety situation

1.2. The EU road safety programme 1997-2001

1.3. Purpose of this Communication

2.

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE ACTION PROGRAMME SINCE APRIL 1997

2.1. Scope

2.2.

Improving enforcement

2.3. Raising public awareness

2.4.

Information gathering and dissemination

3.

PRIORITIES OF THE EU ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMME

3.1. Methodology

3.2. Multi-criteria analysis

3.3. Cost effectiveness assessment

3.4. Summary of results

4.

CONCLUSION

4.1. Short/medium term EU Priorities

4.2. Recommendation of the Commission

Annex 1 : Road Accident Database

Annex 2 : The costs of accidents

Annex 3 : Achievements road safety programme 1997-2001

Annex 4 : Duration of effects of road safety measures

5

5

6

7

7

7

7

9

10

11

11

13

15

18

22

22

24

25

31

32

42

4

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. The EU road safety situation

In April 1997 the Commission issued a Communication on Road Safety in the EU1
which included a programme of measures.

In this Communication the road safety situation in the EU was addressed on the basis
of the expected development of the total number of fatalities, under the scenario of a
continuation of past trends.

This would result for the 15 Member States in a reduction of total fatalities from
45,000 in 1995, to 38,000 in 2000, to 32,000 in 2005 and 27,000 in the year 2010.

Annex 1 provides a number of statistics updated until 97/98 that inescapably lead to
the following conclusions.

– There have been large reductions in fatalities in the last decade. This is considered

by most experts to be mainly due to :

- safer cars
- increased seat belt use
- less drink/driving
- traffic calming and speed reduction measures.

However, the decreasing trend in fatalities seems to flatten out, so that it is likely
that in the year 2000 more than 38,000 fatalities will occur. (Table 1 and 2). Also
the other estimations made in 1997 for the later periods were apparently too
optimistic.

– Enormous differences still exist between Member States (Table 3) leading once
more to the conclusion that there must be a large scope for improvement simply
by applying best practice throughout the Union.

– There is no room for complacency, not even in those Member States that have
better overall statistics. Tables 4, 5 and 6 present the most vulnerable road users
indicating possibilities for improvement by more targeted policies for these
categories.

Unfortunately, as many national authorities have experienced, measures that
would reduce the enormous human misery behind these figures, such as better
enforced blood alcohol limits, better speed management and more responsible
advertisements still have to be defended against misplaced accusations of
“limiting personal freedom”.

Improving the trend towards a stronger reduction of fatalities is a responsibility of
authorities at all levels, including the EU where the right frameworks should be set.

1

COM(97)131 final, 9.4.1997

5

1.2. The EU road safety programme 1997-2001

As indicated, the second road safety programme entitled “Promoting Road Safety in
the EU” set out a programme for the period 1997-2001 and identified more than 60
fields of action classified into 3 broad categories:

1)

The gathering and dissemination of information on:

-

-

-

-

-

-

the development of EU road safety campaigns;

target fields;

target groups;

effective measures (including the potential benefits of measures that
could be carried out and an assessment of the effectiveness of measures
that had already been taken);

the implementation and enforcement of legislation;

the rapid transfer of information and best practice throughout
Community.

the

2)

Initiating and supporting measures to avoid accidents with an emphasis on
human factors and its interface with the traffic environment.

These measures include legislation, pilot projects and campaigns in order to
improve the awareness, skills or physical condition of the road user, and
extended control procedures and technical measures aiming at the creation of a
more fail-safe environment.

3)

Initiating and supporting measures to reduce the consequences of accidents
when they occur.

In this field, protection of the road user by seatbelts, helmets and vehicles with
a higher crashworthiness is envisaged, as well as proposals for the development
of EU standards and guidelines for more “forgiving” infrastructure when
accidents occur.

In the programme, the introduction of the socio-economic dimension of road safety is
seen as a key element of the strategy to accelerate improvements by using
increasingly scarce public resources as effectively as possible. This strategy is based
on the principle that the high costs of accidents (which were roughly estimated at
1
million per recorded fatality) should be fully taken into account in the safety policies
of Member States (Annex 2). This measure reflects only the direct economic costs
and the value of lost output of reported road accidents and their consequent
casualties. It does not include an estimate for non-reported accidents or for the value
of human life, which can be very significant. Indeed, some Member States include a
valuation of human life in their national estimates, but others do not on the grounds
that valuing life is not possible. Therefore, although the
1 million rule under-
estimates the real costs of road accidents it provides an acceptable uniform minimum
valuation.

€

€

6

When other Institutions debated the Commission Communication the need for
selecting and/or ranking the proposed measures according to different criteria,
including their cost effectiveness and/or casualty reduction value, was raised. The
Council and Parliament have also invited the Commission to report regularly on the
progress of the programme.

1.3. Purpose of this Communication

Firstly, this Communication takes up the suggestions of the Council and of the
European Parliament, expressed both during the debate on this matter and on later
occasions, to issue a progress report on the action programme presented in 1997.

Secondly, as also requested by the European Parliament in its Resolution, this paper
presents a ranking of the proposed measures. This ranking has been carried out on
the basis of fatality reduction potential and the cost effectiveness of the actions, but
also takes into account a number of other criteria that are more difficult to quantify
such as European added value, political feasibility and social acceptance.

Thirdly, as announced in the action programme of 1997,
this Communication
includes a recommendation for decision making at all levels in the field of road
safety, which should give more emphasis to the high economic costs of road
accidents in comparison to the costs of
the remedial measures. Moreover
mechanisms should be developed to bring the benefits of road safety measures closer
to the decision-makers.

2.

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE ACTION PROGRAMME SINCE APRIL 1997

2.1. Scope

At the time of the publication of the action programme several actions were already
on-going or about to start. It should be pointed out that the programme has worked as
a catalyst for specific measures notably by bringing in the economic argument. Also
the influence of the programme on other “non Union” actions should not be
underestimated.

Annex 3 contains a detailed and systematic listing of measures from the action
programme which have been passed or are under consideration as well as some
additional measures which although not featuring in the programme, have had an
important influence on road safety.

The following paragraphs give a summary description of only the most important
activities at EU level since April 1997 in the strategic fields of
improving
enforcement, raising public awareness and information gathering and dissemination.

2.2.

Improving enforcement

Since April 1997 the following actions of the programme in the field of legislation
and enforcement have been taken

7

Legislative actions

Regulation on the second generation of
Council on 24.9.1998 (Reg. 2135/98/EC)

tachographs. Formal adoption by the

After completion of the technical provisions, this Regulation will introduce, from
2002, digital recording equipment for the registration of driving and rest times. This
equipment will facilitate roadside checks and systematic controls at operator’s
premises.

Proposal for a Directive on the random roadside inspection for commercial vehicles
that circulate on the roads of the European Community (Commission proposal
COM(98)117 final of 11.3.1998)

This proposal, when adopted, will establish a regime of roadside checks of
commercial vehicles, whether or not they are registered in the EU, regarding their
safety and environmental performance.

Proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of examinations for safety advisors
for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterways (Commission
proposal COM(98)174 final of 19.3.1998)

This proposal will complement
(Directive 96/35/EC) by harmonising examination requirements.

the current

legislation on road safety advisers

Proposal for a Directive relating to the front underrun protection of heavy motor
vehicles (COM(99)32 final of 10.2.1999)

This proposal defines technical standards for the type approval of this equipment
with the aim of reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries in collisions
between lorries and smaller vehicles.

Driving disqualification

On 18 June 1998, the 15 Member States signed a Convention which will give Union-
wide effect
to driving disqualifications. It covers disqualifications imposed for
specific driving offences such as hit-and-run driving, driving under the influence of
alcohol, or driving a vehicle faster than the permitted speed. It is based on the
the state where the offence was committed notifies the driving
principle that
disqualification without delay to the central authorities of the state where the driver
resides and that the latter acts upon this notification.

8

Alcohol

Legislation as regards maximum blood alcohol level of drivers

Since April 1997 another 4 Member States (Denmark, Spain, Austria and Germany)
have adopted their legislation in order to lower the maximum permitted blood
alcohol concentration (BAC) from 0.8 mg/ml to 0.5 mg/ml. This means that, at
present, only 4 Member States (Ireland, Italy Luxembourg, and the UK) still
maintain a legal limit greater than 0.5 mg/ml. The Commission considers that the
differences in limits in the EU undermine the credibility of the lower limits which
themselves are based on recent research. Alcohol remains one of the major causes of
accidents a fact emphasised once more by the European Parliament during its debate
on the road safety programme 1997-2001. The Transport Committee of the new
European Parliament has not confirmed the old Commission’s proposal (COM
(88)707 and 640 final), to introduce a maximum BAC limit of 0.5 mg/ml, and has
reflect
asked the Commission to make a new proposal which will better
developments in this field during the past decade. However,
the Commission
recognises the principle of subsidiarity in this field and the fact that the majority of
the Member States have already moved to 0,5 mg/ml or less. Therefore, instead of a
new legislative proposal, the Commission intends to submit a recommendation to
Member States emphasising in this context the need for more effective enforcement
and international co-operation in prosecuting drink driver offenders as well as the
adoption of 0,5 or even lower limits for certain categories.

Drugs and medicines

In view of the increasing concerns regarding accidents involving the use of
medicines and illicit drugs, and in order to review the situation on such a complex
issue, the High Level Group on Road Safety decided, at the end of 1997, to reactivate
the Working Group on Alcohol, Drugs and Medicines and Driving. The Group was
asked to identify best practices and formulate recommendations on measures that
should be considered at the EU level. The results of this Working Group are expected
to be available mid 2000.

A research project (ROSITA) has been launched in the 4th framework programme on
the development of a usable roadside test for drugs. The results of a study into the
information provided to users of medicines in several Member States highlights the
fact that there is still a lack of information concerning their effects on driving.

2.3. Raising Public Awareness

EuroNCAP

In the Communication of 1997 the Commission announced its intention to support
the setting up of a New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP) in order to create a
market for safety by making available adequate consumer information about the
passive (secondary) safety of cars.

The EuroNCAP consortium now involves the European Commission,
the UK,
German, French, Swedish and Dutch Departments of Transport, the FIA/AIT and
their touring clubs, and consumer organisations. Other Member States are preparing
to participate soon.

9

EuroNCAP involves crash testing cars in frontal and side impacts plus an assessment
of new car fronts as regards the risk to pedestrians and cyclists. The results of test
programmes of seven different classes of car have been published so far.

The Commission’s funding of EuroNCAP has enabled a more comprehensive test
programme involving a larger selection of cars in each class than would otherwise
have been the case. The EuroNCAP programme has had a significant influence on
both the design of new cars and the installation of safety equipment in current car
models to the benefit of car occupants. Most manufacturers are in direct
communication with the programme’s co-ordinators in order to time product
launches so as to ensure that the latest (and safest) model of car is crash tested.

The programme has raised consumer awareness of safety considerably and this was
reflected in the sales of some of the cars that had outstanding test performances.

The Ten Seconds Campaign

The European Commission was a major financial contributor to several publicity
campaigns one of which was the “Ten seconds that can save your life” campaign
which ran from April to October 1998. This Europe-wide campaign focussed on 4
simple actions – taking less than 10 seconds to perform – which could save
someone’s life in an accident. The actions were: put on a seat belt; correctly adjust
the seat and head restraint; stow loose luggage in the boot; fix children in a safety
seat/harness.

Anti Drink Drive videos

The Commission funded the production of a number of videos, based on a Danish
concept, which illustrated to young people the negative effects of alcohol on their
ability to drive. These videos have been extensively shown in youth clubs etc.

MTV videos

The Commission has worked with the pop/rock music TV station MTV to produce
three short videos aimed at young people on the themes of seat belt wearing and
driving while under the influence on drink or drugs. The videos were screened on
MTV's 4 European networks during the spring and summer of 1999.

2.4.

Information gathering and dissemination

CARE database

On the basis of Council Decision 93/704/EC a database has been created of all
accident statistics, involving at least personal injury, as recorded by national police
forces. This database has proven to be a reliable tool for analysing accidents with
fatalities but as regards injuries there is still a problem with underreporting, which is
influenced at a national level by different reporting practices, definitions of injury,
and different legal requirements on the reporting of accidents involving injury. A
progress report was submitted to the Council and the European Parliament in June
1997. The Council in its Resolution of 18 June 1997 included a paragraph inviting
the Commission to continue the development of this European accident database.

10

The first phase of transformation rules to create more common variables from
disparate national data has recently been incorporated into the Care system, which
will significantly increase the possibilities for producing comparable road accident
statistics. Within the Commission existing CARE data has already been used to
support policy development. For example:

– The age profile of fatalities and casualties in injury accidents of specific road user

groups to support the discussion on maximum BAC limits.

– The distribution of fatalities, in and outside urban areas, by light condition, and
calendar month, to support assessment of the effect of changing Summer Time
upon road accidents.

– The involvement of heavy goods vehicles and other vehicles in tunnels (for the
three Member States which record this information) to support an assessment of
the current safety record of tunnels.

– The involvement of heavy goods vehicles and buses in fatal accidents, to support
an assessment of the contribution of large vehicles in accidents in relation to
maximum BAC limits.

– The incidence of fatal accidents involving fatigue, on the basis of data from 7

Member States who record this information.

– The distribution of heavy goods vehicles in fatal accidents, by day of week, to

support the assessment of the possible road safety effects of week-end bans.

– The involvement of ‘defective tyres’ in fatal and non-fatal accidents to respond to
enquiries from the tyre industry about the significance of tyre failure in road
accidents.

Day-Time Running Lights (DRL)

There are many different views on this issue, and therefore research was
commissioned from the Dutch road safety institute SWOV. Their report found a
strong case for DRL on the basis of a positive cost benefit analysis.

Because of the complexity of this issue it was agreed with the Member States to form
an expert group to examine the issue of DRL in more detail. This group met within
the High Level Group – Road Safety. Although there were some disagreements on
details the High Level Group concluded that the time had come to actively promote
DRL.

3.

PRIORITIES OF THE EU ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMME

3.1. Methodology

In its road safety programme 1997-2001 the Commission identified a number of
actions to be undertaken to improve road safety. This action programme was
discussed by the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee and
received comments from governmental and non-governmental experts. In this

11

process the identified actions were generally supported although a general desire for
more concrete definitions and prioritisation was expressed.

In the process of prioritisation, cost effectiveness analysis is considered by leading
experts to be one of the key elements contributing to a “mature” approach to road
safety, as a method of rational decision-making based on the best available evidence.
A cost effectiveness analysis is an analysis in which the aim is to find the cheapest
way of realising a certain policy objective. Cost effectiveness calculations can be
placed in a wider social context by comparing the cost of the measure per saved
€
fatality with the benefits represented by one saved fatality (the “
1 million Test”).
Such a comparison turns the cost effectiveness analysis into a tool closer to cost
benefit analysis which should help policy makers to set priorities in order to
maximise efficiency in the use of public finances.

As well as the cost-effectiveness of a measure, an important factor in the selection of
actions should be the estimated potential number of casualties that will be saved.

However, in the action programme of 1997 there are several measures that concern
gathering and dissemination of information, or research. These are not specific road
safety measures but are activities which generate information to both monitor and
guide policy. They can only be ranked, rather subjectively, on the basis of their
perceived benefit to road safety policymakers but are difficult to assess using cost
effectiveness and/or casualty reduction potential as criteria.

Furthermore,
there are also a number of qualitative criteria such as social
acceptability, the political context, and the effects on other policies that cannot be
integrated into an economic analysis, but which nonetheless play an important role in
prioritising actions. These criteria can only be applied in a more subjective
assessment.

A full cost effectiveness assessment is a complicated process because in many cases
sufficient data is not available, requiring further study to be carried out. Therefore,
taking into account the above mentioned subjective criteria, it was decided to be
more pragmatic by carrying out the first ranking of the priorities in the EU road
safety programme in two stages:

• A qualitative prioritisation of the measures. In order to reduce its subjective
aspects this strategic approach was carried out by means of a systematic multi-
criteria analysis involving the opinions of road safety policy makers in the
Member States.

• This was followed by an estimation of the quantitative aspects of the actions that
had received a high ranking in the first stage. In a number of specific cases this
required a calculation of their casualty reduction potential and their cost
effectiveness.

12

3.2. Multi-criteria analysis

In order to arrive at a strategic prioritisation of
the action programme the
Representatives of the Member States in the High Level Group on road safety
together with a number of leading experts in Europe were asked to give for each
proposed action in the programme a score from 1 to 5 for eight different criteria.

The following criteria were selected on the basis of similar exercises in other policy
fields (e.g. environment) where a strategic prioritisation was made before an
economic analysis could be carried out:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

European added value: to what extent would implementing the measure at the
EU level be consistent with the idea that the EU should establish policies only
if this can be done more effectively than at the national or sub national level?

Institutional commitment: to what extent does the measure build upon past and
present resource commitments by relevant organisations at the European level
(e.g. Member State governments,
industry associations, pilot programme
developers)?

Social acceptance: to what extent is the measure viewed as legitimate by the
majority of citizens in Member States?

Political feasibility: to what extent can the measure easily be decided upon by
political decision makers (at the EU, national, regional and local levels), given
the possible pressures imposed on their decision making by a variety of
organised lobby-groups?

institutional

implementation:

Ease of
to what extent can the measure’s
implementation be effectively performed by the public agencies responsible for
implementation given their present strategies and resources (e.g. resources for
monitoring and enforcement)?

Ease of target group implementation: to what extent can the target groups (e.g.
car drivers, car manufacturers, schools, agencies responsible for granting
drivers’ licences, etc.) effectively implement the measures, given their present
strategies and present resource constraints.

Lack of negative external effects on third parties (e.g. some types of
monitoring could be viewed as having an impact on privacy)

from the implementation of other
Independence of a measure’s impact
in the case whereby implementing this
complementary measures (except
measure is a pre-condition to successfully implement other measures, thus this
measure must be implemented prior to other measures, to make the latter
effective).

13

The responses and comments received made clear that this exercise was complicated
and it led to a more explicit definition of some of the listed actions in the programme
as regards:

– The level at which the action should be initiated (EU, national, local)

– The kind of action that

is envisaged (legal, study, exchange of information,

campaigns)

The calculation of the ranking of the actions on the basis of the replies received was
carried out with different weighing factors for the above criteria in order to test the
sensitivity of the model. It appeared that the outcome was not influenced in a major
way by these variations.

In order to distinguish priorities for action at the Community level from actions that
were deemed to be more useful at national or local level it was decided to make two
separate calculations. In a first calculation the criterion “European Added Value” is
given a weighting of 50% of the total while all other criteria are equally weighted in
the remaining 50%. In a second calculation the European Added Value criterion is
not taken into account.

The results of this exercise are presented in clusters of related actions in the
following table.

Top priority at Community level (50% weight for “European added value” in the
assessment)

– Crashworthiness of vehicles2 (e.g. EuroNCAP; “friendly” design of motor
vehicles; safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists and front underrun
protection)

– Use of seat belts and child restraints; Use of motorcycle/cycle crash helmets

– EU road safety monitoring system; CARE database; CARE plus; Info system
on national implementation of measures; Info system on research: Integrated
info system

2

Those actions having been given the highest priority within the clusters and which have been the
subject of a further cost effectiveness analyses are shown in bold.

14

High priority at Community level (50% weight for “European added value” in the
assessment)

– Speed limiters for heavy vehicles (evaluation), Variable speed messages; Speed

limiters for lighter vehicles

– On-trip information RDS-traffic management channel; Emergency call systems;

Automatic incident detection and emergency management

– Alcohol; Drugs/medicines

– Medical requirements for driving licences; Testing for driving licences;

Disqualification of drivers

– Daytime running lights

Additional high priorities for action at national/local
“European added value” in the assessment)

level (no weight

for

– Improved advertising

– Post accident care

– Forgiving roadside design; Black spot management (including safety audits

of infrastructure, speed management of infrastructure)

3.3. Cost effectiveness assessment

Scope

For cost effectiveness assessments of actions in the field of road safety, monetary
valuations have to be carried out measured in casualties avoided.

Firstly the scope of a potential measure must be defined. Actions on a European level
can have a Europe-wide application, such as vehicle type approval measures.
However, it is also possible that an action will only apply to selected Member States
e.g. targeted campaigns. At the local level the assessment of specific infrastructure
improvements can even be calculated per separate measure (e.g. per km of road or
per roundabout).

15

Casualty reduction potential

Once the scope of a measure is defined then the basis for the calculation of its
effectiveness can be its casualty reduction potential. The casualty reduction potential
of most actions in road safety on a European scale has to be based on statistical
analysis, assuming that a number of casualties would not have occurred if a certain
contributing factor (e.g. alcohol, lack of seat belt wearing, poor infrastructure) had
not been present. The examination of trends in road accident data before and after the
introduction of a road safety measure is the usual starting point for analysis.

As agreed under 3.1. the casualty reduction potential of a measure is itself also a
criterion for prioritisation and also serves as basis for the calculation of the
effectiveness of a measure. However, for reasons of underreporting of injuries in
statistics the potential of measures in the following will be expressed in the number
of fatalities that can be avoided. For the purpose of this global assessment it is
assumed that there is a rather constant relation between fatalities, serious injuries,
light injuries and damage.

Effectiveness

The assessment of effectiveness in terms of saved fatalities is in some cases
extremely difficult, especially when the actions aim at producing a attitudinal change
in road users which may or may not lead to behavioural change.

infrastructure improvements will,

In order to calculate the effect of a measure, a quantitative and a qualitative
correction factor should be applied to its fatality reduction potential. The fatality
reduction potential of a measure would be the result of such a measure if there was
100% coverage of the target group (quantitative) and 100% compliance of those that
are covered (qualitative). This means that the effectiveness of a measure can be
calculated as the product of its fatality reduction potential and the two factors that
indicate the degree of coverage and compliance of the measure. For the different
kind of measures these two factors should be estimated as precisely as possible, and
it is clear that they will differ considerably. For instance, a European wide range of
potential
for budgetary reasons, have a low
percentage of coverage/implementation but the compliance will be near to 100% as
road users will normally not have the option of avoiding using these improvements.
The degree of coverage of vehicle improvements depends on the number of vehicles
affected by a measure (type approval legislation may make something compulsory
only for certain new vehicles) and the compliance will be very high. On the contrary,
legislative behavioural measures can have 100% implementation if such a measure
affects all road users, but relatively low compliance when this measure is not
accepted by the public or not sufficiently enforced. In this context, for the calculation
of cost effectiveness of enforcement or campaigns, the quantitative factor coverage
should be seen as the proportion of people reached, whilst the compliance stands for
the proportion of these people that actually changed their behaviour as a result of
such an action.

16

Costs

The calculation of costs is in many cases complex, because some costs are not easily
estimated, especially when a particular action generates or
reduces external
environmental or congestion costs, and also because there could be influences on
other policies that generate costs or benefits. An additional complication in a cost
effectiveness analysis when applied on an EU scale is the variation in costs of
complementary measures from one country to another as a result of varying
purchasing power parity. Only global estimations on the basis of averages and
applying conversion factors are possible. Finally, the costs attributed to actions
should include all costs made by public or private bodies as the benefits are also
calculated on the basis of the full social effects of avoided casualties and material
damage.

Time reference

to make the cost-effectiveness ratios of different

In order
safety measures
comparable, it is necessary to relate both the number of prevented accidents, damage
and casualties, and the costs of implementing the measure to a certain time frame.
This need arises because the relationship between costs and the duration of effects
varies considerably between safety measures. The duration of the effects of various
measures as estimated in the PROMISING project is reflected in Annex 4.

In order to compare costs of safety measures, the easiest method is to convert them to
annual costs as the benefits (e.g. lives saved) are normally also calculated on a yearly
basis. Simply dividing the investment costs by the number of years that a safety
measure has effect is the easiest method. However, in order to take into account
normal interest rates on investments it is, especially for measures that have effects
over many years, more correct to convert investment costs to constant annual costs,
which, if paid throughout the period it applies to, have the original investment cost as
its present value.

As an example, if a measure has its effect over a period of 15 years and the interest
rate is 5% then the annual cost are the investment costs divided by 10.4 (and not by
15).

In Annex 4 a complete table with conversion coefficients is listed.

Presentation of results

The way the cost effectiveness of a road safety measure is presented can vary
depending on the stakeholder to which this assessment is addressed.

A consumer that buys a safety device or spends extra money for a safer car probably
is most interested in the percentage risk reduction he or she pays for. In contrast,
local authorities that invest in road improvement schemes or in a targeted campaign
wants to see how many fatalities and associated injuries and damage are avoided as a
result of this investment.

17

For the purpose of policy decisions at the national or EU-level such as prioritisation,
the cost effectiveness of a measure can be expressed as the cost per saved fatality as
an “inverted” cost effectiveness ratio which makes comparison with the
1 million
threshold easier.

€

This leads to the following basic formula:

Cost effectiveness = --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fatality reduction potential x Coverage x Compliance

Costs of the measure

Using this methodology the cost effectiveness assessment of specific actions that
were given a high priority in the multi-criteria analysis of paragraph 3.2 was carried
out. Although this communication principally deals with prioritisation of actions at
EU level, for the measures that received a high ranking to be carried out on national
or local level a global cost effectiveness estimation was also made. These measures,
when cost effective, should be the subject of Community activity in the field of
exchange of best practice, and development of guidelines.

3.4. Summary of results

– Crashworthiness test (EuroNCAP)

• Type of action: consumer information at EU-level (continuation)

• Scope: car occupants and (to a lesser extent) vulnerable road users

• Main assumptions:

– Brings forward the benefits of new legislation by 5 years and raises

level of protection for car occupants.

– Costs of testing and publication paid by EU Commission, automobile
clubs, consumer organisations and several Member States; costs of
vehicle improvements ultimately borne by the consumer (these costs
are not included as they are not based on legislation but on market
forces).

• Fatality reduction potential: 2000 yearly

• Cost per avoided fatality:

€

2000 – 4000

18

– Safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists

• Type of action: type approval legislation (exclusive EU competence)

• Scope: all new vehicles

• Main assumptions:

– Estimation of number of pedestrians/cyclists that would have survived
an accident in case of a friendlier vehicle front (controversial results in
different analysis)

– Cost

for manufacturers

to change
design/production (these figures have to be included as they will be
based on compulsory legislation and are highly controversial).

(and ultimately consumers)

• Fatality reduction potential: 650 - 2200 yearly

• Cost per avoided fatality:

€

140 000 – 3 million

– Use or seat belts and child restraints

• Type of action: EU wide campaign such as the ‘10 seconds that can save
your life’ campaign combined with updating EU-legislation; Updating of
legislation; Introduction of audible seat belt devices.

• Scope: all citizens of EU

• Main assumptions: compliance by target group (with a variation from 2 to
10%) depends on the intensity of the campaign (active, passive, indirect)

• Fatality reduction potential: 8000 yearly at full compliance

• Fatality reduction potential of campaigns + updated legislation : 800

• Cost per avoided fatality: »

€

50.000

NB :

no research exists on the effects of information campaigns on road
safety.

19

– Speed limiters for lighter vehicles

• Type of action: type approval and (possible) in-use legislation

• Scope: all new vehicles 3,5 – 12 tonnes and also limited retrofitting

• Main assumptions: extrapolation of detailed Dutch study

• Fatality reduction potential: 50 - 200 yearly

• Cost per avoided fatality:

€

0 –100.000

NB :

the additional environmental benefits largely compensate costs for user
and society.

– Alcohol (legislation and enforcement actions)

• Type of action:

– at local national level: enforcement of legislation

– at EU-level : Recommendation concerning BAC limits, exchange of

info on best enforcement strategies, campaigns

• Scope: all road users but particular attention to (young) male car drivers

• Main assumptions:

– Based on available evidence it is assumed that a 10% overall reduction
of alcohol related accidents can be obtained by a package of measures
based upon lower, more uniform limits. Great variations between
Member States.

– Costs of increased enforcement and campaigns will vary considerably

depending on current practice and tradition in Member States.

• Fatality reduction potential of the actions: 1000 (about 10000 victims

yearly are caused by alcohol)

• Cost per avoided fatality :

€

100 000 - 1 000 000

20

– Day-time running lights

• Type of action: different options:

– automatic switch;

– in use regulation

– compulsory type approval

• Scope: all motor vehicles

• Main assumptions:

– extra fuel consumption

0,5 – 1,5%

– neutral effect for two wheel vehicles (still under discussion)

– extrapolation of accident developments in countries where the policy is

implemented

• Fatality reduction potential: 900 - 2000 yearly

• Cost per avoided fatality:

€

500 000 – 2 000 000

NB :

extra research is needed to arrive at more accurate estimations.

– “Forgiving” road side design

• Type of action: guidelines on EU-level and infrastructure investments at

local level

• Scope: wide range of measures such as: eliminating unnecessary obstacles,

moving obstacles away from roadside, better adopted guard rails

• Main assumptions: unforgiving road side is a contributing factor in many

solo accidents caused by inappropriate speed, alcohol or fatigue

• Fatality reduction potential: 1000 - 2000 yearly for a large package of

measures

• Fatality reduction potential for individual projects in most cases < 1

• Cost per avoided fatality:

€

100 000 – 300 000 (national/local level)

21

– “Black spot” management

(includes safety audit,

infrastructure speed

management, urban safety management)

• Type of action: guidelines on EU-level and infrastructure investments at

local level.

• Scope: wide range of measures varying from retro reflecting road studs,
warning panels, safety barriers to improvement in road markings and signs

• Main assumptions: extrapolation of UK and Spanish applications

• Fatality reduction potential: high for target groups (overall potential in EU:

2000 – 4000 yearly)

• Cost per avoided fatality:

€

50 000 – 200 000 (national/local level)

Certain measures such as research programmes or supporting actions such as CARE
were not the subject of Cost Effectiveness assessments because of their indirect
benefits on road safety whilst others (e.g. driver training programmes, post accident
care) could not be assessed at this stage because of a lack of comparable and reliable
data.

4.

CONCLUSION

4.1. Short/medium term EU Priorities

The summary of results presented in 3.4 above sets out for each of the eight priority
road safety measures, identified by road safety experts in the multi-criteria analysis,
an assessment of the main components of their cost effectiveness. It was decided to
narrow this list down to six short to medium term EU priorities taking into account
the following criteria

• the scores of experts in the multi-criteria analysis,

• the estimated fatality reduction effect of each measure,

• and the estimated cost effectiveness of each measure.

The following table provides a relative ranking for each of these criteria for each of
the selected priority road safety measures. In terms of the multi-criteria analysis the
six measures have been ranked according to whether they were considered to be top
priority (1) or medium priority (2). But in terms of fatality reduction and cost
effectiveness each measure has been ranked in order from (1) to (6).

It is clear on this basis that the EuroNCAP programme which has done so much to
reduce the severity of injury in accidents in recent years is still regarded as the most
significant road safety action to improve road safety in the future, but all other
priority measures provide the impetus required to significantly improve road safety
in the EU in the short to medium term.

22

1) EuroNCAP

continuation with the
publication of ratings

2) Seat belts and child

campaigns and legislation

restraints

3) Alcohol

Recommendation, campaigns
and information on
enforcement

4) Speed limiters for light

legislation

vehicles

5) Black spot management
and forgiving roadside
design

developing guidelines

6) Safer car fronts for

pedestrians and cyclists

Type approval and (possible)
in use legislation

* MC : Multi Criteria analysis
* FRP : Fatality Reduction potential
* CE : Cost effectiveness

MC* FR* CE*

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

2

6

5

4

1

3

5

2

4

6

The next 5 measures are also priorities but more research is needed to assess their
cost-effectiveness (the prioritisation is based only on a multi-criteria analysis):

1) Medical standards for driving licences

2) Testing for driving licences

3) Daytime running lights

4) Effect of medicines on driver behaviour

5) Post accident care

The following 3 priorities are supporting measures that have received a high priority
ranking in the multi-criteria analysis but for which a fatality reduction potential is
difficult to define:

1) CARE database

2)

Integrated information system

3) Research into vehicle standards and telematics

23

4.2. Recommendation of the Commission

The use of cost effectiveness, or in a later stage cost-benefit, calculations to support
road safety should be encouraged at all levels. The tentative calculations made for
the purpose of this report demonstrate in many cases that investment in road safety is
a first class investment in welfare and well being. The paradox is that a calculation
on a higher level (EU, Member State) is on the one hand easier because costs and
benefits can be allocated to the same stakeholder (the EU/society) but on the other
hand is highly complicated because of the global estimations of the effects. Research
is needed in order to facilitate application of cost-effectiveness on all levels.

Finally, it should be emphasised that the distance between the decision-maker that
has to pay the costs and the one that profits from the increased safety is probably one
of the main reason for the slow progress in road safety.

In cases where the consumer himself benefits (e.g. airbags), there is less need to
legislate but only to inform him of the safety benefits, whilst for more altruistic
measures (no bull bars), legislation seems to be inevitable.

It seems appropriate in these circumstances to think about the development of
alternative incentives such as tax discount, lower insurance schemes, that could
accelerate the investments in safety at all levels.

Given the above, the Commission issues the following Recommendation :

Recommendation of the Commission

The Commission,

Having regard to the number of casualties, injuries and damage caused by road
accidents,

Having regard the persistent underestimation of the economic consequences of these
accidents when general political priorities are set,

Encourages Member States, regional and local authorities to establish a practice of
calculating the costs and effects of road safety measures and where appropriate
comparing these with the costs of avoided accidents,

Invites Member States, regional and local authorities

– to increase investment

in road safety projects, as these investments are

economically highly justified,

– to develop mechanisms that will enable the benefits of road safety measures to be
felt more directly by those taking the decisions and bearing the costs of their
implementation.

24

ANNEX 1

European Commission

Transport Directorate General
Unit for safety, technology and environment

•

CARE

25

Road Accident Statistics

Table 1 : Number of persons killed*

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1.873

1.671

1.660

1.692

1.449

1.356

1.364

1.300

606

577

559

546

582

514

489

489

11.300 10.631

9.949

9.814

9.457

8.758

8.549

7.792

2.112

2.158

2.159

2.253

2.411

2.058

2.199

2.226

8.836

7.818

6.376

5.614

5.750

5.481

5.605

5.747

10.483

9.900

9.867

9.019

8.891

8.541

8.444

8.918

445

415

431

404

437

453

472

462

8.104

8.051

7.178

7.089

7.012

6.676

6.712

6.590

83

69

78

65

70

71

60

57

1.281

1.253

1.235

1.298

1.334

1.180

1.163

1.066

1.551

1.403

1.283

1.338

1.210

1.027

1.105

963

3.218

3.084

2.700

2.504

2.711

2.730

2.521

2.425

632

745

601

759

484

632

480

589

441

572

404

537

438

541

397

540

4.753

4.379

3.957

3.807

3.765

3.740

3.743

3.581

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

EUR 15

56.022 52.769 48.549 46.512 46.092 43.526 43.404 42.553

1991: INDEX 100

100

94

87

83

82

78

77

76

Trends on
previous year

-

-5,8% -8,0% -4,2% -0,9% -5,6% -0,3% -2,0%

*

1.

Persons killed are all persons killed within 30 days from the day of the accident. For Member
States not using this definition, corrective factors were applied - (Gr: 1,18 up to 1995 - F: 1,09
up to 1993 and 1,057 after 1994 - I: 1,078 - P: 1,3)

2.

Figures in Italic are based on estimated trends

Sources : CARE - National sources

26

Road Accident Statistics

Table 2 : Trends in the number of persons killed *

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A
P

FIN

S

UK

EUR 15

*

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100
100

100

100

100

100

89

95

94

102

88

94

93

99

83

98

90
96

95

102

92

94

89

92

88

102

72

94

97

89

94

96

83
84

77

85

83

87

90

90

87

107

64

86

91

87

78

77

96

84

114

65

85

98

87

84

101

104

86
78

76

79

80

83

78
84

70

77

79

82

72

85

78

97

62

81

102

82

86

92

66
85

64

72

79

78

73

81

76

104

63

81

106

83

72

91

71
78

69

73

79

77

69

81

69

105

65

85

104

81

69

83

62
75

63

72

75

76

1.

2.

Persons killed are all persons killed within 30 days from the day of the accident. For Member
States not using this definition, corrective factors were applied - (Gr: 1,18 up to 1995 - F: 1,09
up to 1993 and 1,057 after 1994 - I: 1,078 - P: 1,3)
Figures in Italic are based on estimated trends

Diagram 1

105

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

EUR 15

EUROPE (15)

1991

100

1992

94

1993

87

1994

83

1995

82

1996

78

1997

77

1998

76

27

Road Accident Statistics

Table 3 : Number of persons killed* per million inhabitants

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

188

118

142

207

227

184

126

143

216

85

200

326

126

87

82

167

112

132

210

201

173

117

142

177

83

178

313

120

88

76

165

108

123

209

163

172

121

126

197

81

161

274

96

73

68

168

105

121

216

143

156

113

124

162

85

167

253

95

67

65

143

112

116

231

147

153

122

122

172

86

151

273

86

65

64

134

98

107

197

140

147

125

116

172

76

128

275

79

61

64

134

93

104

210

143

144

129

117

143

75

137

254

85

61

64

EUR 15

153

144

132

126

124

117

116

Sources : CARE - National sources

*

1.

2.

Persons killed are all persons killed within 30 days from the day of the accident. For Member
States not using this definition, corrective factors were applied - (Gr: 1,18 up to 1995 - F: 1,09
up to 1993 and 1,057 after 1994 - I: 1,078 - P: 1,3)
Figures in Italic are based on estimated trends

28

Road Accident Statistics

Diagram 2 : Number of persons killed* per million inhabitants

300

270

240

210

180

150

120

90

60

30

0

S

61

UK

NL

FIN

DK

D

EUR
15

I

IRL

B

A

E

L

F

GR

P

64

75

85

93

104

116

117

129

134

137

143

143

144

210

254

*

Person killed are all persons killed within 30 days from the day of the accident. For Member States
not using this definition, corrective factors were applied - (Gr: 1,18 up to 1995 - F: 1,09 up to 1993
and 1,057 after 1994 - I: 1,078 - P: 1,3)

Sources : CARE - National sources

29

Road Accident Statistics

Table 4 : Children (age less than 10) fatalities*

B DK D

GR* E

F

IRL I

L NL A P FIN S UK EUR 15

1996 26 15 216 37

102

243 12

91 2

22 29 78 17

11 109 1.010

Table 5 : Pedestrians fatalities

B DK D

GR* E

F

IRL I

L NL A P FIN S UK EUR 15

1996 154 68 1.178 481 960 1.043 114 987 9 103 157 624 70

74 1.039 7.061

Table 6 : Cyclists fatalities

B DK D GR* E

F

IRL I

L NL A P FIN S UK EUR 15

1996 120 88 594 34

102 317 21

414 1

233 73 75 46

49 208 2.375

Sources : CARE - National sources

*

Persons killed are all persons killed within 30 days from the day of the accident. For Member States
not using this definition corrective factors were applied - (Gr: 1,18 up to 1995 - F: 1,09 up to 1993 and
1,057 after 1994 - I: 1,078 - P: 1,3)

2.

GR: Data available for 1995

30

The costs of accidents

ANNEX 2

The introduction by the Commission of the “1 million ECU test” in the road safety
programme 1997-2001 has generated a lot of discussion and therefore it should be
emphasised once more that it is calculated as the reported economic costs of all types of road
accidents (fatalities, injuries, damage only) divided by the total number of fatalities. At the
time of the publication of the report in 1997, this total of hard costs was estimated to be
roughly 45 billion ECU whilst the number of fatalities in the EU in 1995 was approximately
45,000.

The latest, more precise, estimations of socio-economic costs of road accidents in the EU,
including value of human life and unreported accidents on the basis of the statistics of 1995,
were made by the ETSC and are reflected in table 1. Applying the same calculation as before
would lead to dividing the total reported “economic” costs of 52 billion
(the grey area) by
45,000 resulting in an adjusted value of

1,15 million in 1999.

€

€

Table 1: Socio-economic costs of road accidents in the EU (billion

€

)

Economic costs

Value of human life

Total socio-
economic costs

Fatalities

Serious injuries

- reported

- non-reported

Slight injuries

- reported

- non reported

Damage-only accidents

- reported

- non-reported

Total reported

Total unreported

TOTAL

21

16

3

12

52

7

4

37

48

100

29

23

50

39

10

17

52

104

10

62

58

162

this figure is also a clear underestimation of

the real costs because of

However,
underreporting of non-fatal accidents.
€

1 million should only be seen as an indicative value that cannot be contested as too high and
1 million Test” is maintained for the purpose of promoting EU road safety.

€
therefore the “

31

Achievements road safety programme 1997-2001

ANNEX 3

Subject

Key provisions

Status/timing

Recommendation on the
application of the
test

€
1 million

The explanatory memo-
randum will contain an
evaluation of the costs and
benefits of applying this test
throughout the Community

The subject of this
Communication

Field I: Information gathering and dissemination

A.

Integrated EU info
system

EU road safety monitoring
(system)

CARE database

CARE plus

Exposure data

In depth data

Ad hoc surveys

Quick indicator

Regular up to date publication
of the overall EU accident
figures compared to predicted
trend

Community accident data-base
on the basis of disaggregated
data collected by Member
States

On-going

Evaluation of first three years
(in COM (97) 238 final of
26/5/97) Evaluation on-going.

Homogenisation of accident
data within the CARE database

On-going

Integration of traffic data to
complement accident data for
better analysis

Paper prepared by ETSC

Spring 1998. Work on-going

Specific data collection on
accident scenes for more
detailed information and better
analysis

On-going

STAIRS, final report
produced,

Accident causation, (EACS)
report produced by ACEA.
MAIDS report produced by
ACEM

Surveys aiming at better
quantitative and qualitative
assessments of specific
measures

Recent trends in provisional
data on fatalities (restricted
publication)

Delayed

On-going

32

Communication strategies

Road safety indicators at EU
level

EU information system with
guidelines on signing

Integrated EU information
system

B. Additional activities in
the field of information

Sartre survey II

European seminar held in
Luxembourg 26-27 Nov. 1997

Delayed

Delayed

Extended feasibility study,
September 1999

Sartre II project completed
January 1999 and extended to
the Central European countries

Exchange of experiences in
most effective communication
strategies

Measuring instruments that can
be used to assess the results of
separate road safety actions
(e.g. the success of
enforcement)

Documentary file on best
practice in enforcement policy
for road signs and signals and
infrastructure design

The key issue for real
efficiency of road safety efforts
is accessibility of information
at all levels. An independent
EU information system built
around the CARE database
should be the basis for this.

Large survey collecting car
drivers attributes and reported
behaviour in 13 EU countries
(all Member States except DK
and L). Analysis of the results
followed by in-depth analysis
of selected topics.

International police co-
operation

Setting up a network between
traffic police forces and
enforcement authorities e.g. in
the field of driving licences and
tachographs

Three co-ordination meetings
held and co-operation
measures on alcohol
enforcement actions
undertaken (TISPOL)

ESCAPE project: Enhanced
Safety coming from
Appropriate Police
Enforcement. Results mid
2000

33

Independent accident
investigation

Cost benefit analysis of road
traffic safety measures

Field II: Accident avoidance

Starting discussion on
desirability of independent
accident investigation bodies in
road traffic (analogous to air
traffic accident investigation)

Not yet a priority for the road
sector. Concentrating on the
maritime and aviation sectors

A systematic forecast and
review of the costs and benefits
of various road traffic safety
measures

PROMISING report (4FP)
published mid 1999 ongoing
action in 5th framework
programme is foreseen

Subject

Key provisions

Status/timing

A. Direct influence on user

1 Driving licence (skills and
behaviour)

Application of Dir.91/439/EEC
Art. 12.3

Creating a network between
Member States for international
management of licences

Delayed

Art 10

Decision on equivalencies of
categories

February 2000

– Microchips on driving

licences

Report on possible contents of
future micro-chips on driving
licences

Feasibility study, November
1999

– Testing for driving

licences

– Annex III (medical
requirements)

Evaluation of existing
differences in application of
Annex II by Member States

Adaptation to medical and
technical progress by
Committee

Proposals in 2000

Studies into eyesight standards
on-going

– Art. 11 of Dir.91/439/EEC Harmonisation of optional sub-

Proposal by end 99

categories

Adoption for February 2000

Study into post licensing
measures for novice drivers,
November 1999

Convention adopted end 1998

– Licensing of novice

drivers

– Disqualification

Improved methods/policies for
the safety of novice drivers
(follow up WP2 of High Level
Group)

Mutual recognition of
disqualification by a Member
State different from the
Member State of normal
residence

34

– Periodicity of medical
checks for professional
and elderly drivers

Harmonisation needed in light
of mutual recognition and for
road safety reasons

Study results July 1999.
Proposal for end 99, adoption
February 2000

2. Physical condition

– Alcohol

Harmonised maximum
allowed BAC level at 0.5‰ for
road users

Promote the use of analysis of
expired air as a measurement of
intoxication

COM (88)707 final (still on
the table of the Council) will
be replaced by a
Recommendation to the
Member States

Reactivation of expert Group.
Report November 1999

Re-integration of drivers who
had been banned because of
alcohol abuse

Reactivation of expert Group
Report November 1999

– Drugs/medicines

Develop methodologies for
roadside checks

ROSITA and CERTIFIED
Studies launched

Warning labels on medicines

– Fatigue

Effective control of drivers’
hours for professional drivers

– Automatic systems to
monitor drivers’
condition

In-built systems in cars that can
assess the physical condition of
the driver (fatigue, alcohol or
drug influence) and the driver’s
compliance with traffic rules
and which can initiate warning
systems or devices that prevent
driving

Reactivation of High Level
Group

Regulation on the second
generation of tachographs
2135/98/EC adopted
24.9.1998 complementary
technical specifications
delayed until March 2000.
Updating of Directive 88/599
is foreseen

Research on-going

1st and 2nd call in 5FP

35

3. Awareness

Making the public more aware
of risks

Addressing high risk groups
with EU wide information
campaigns

Increasing the attractiveness of
travel by safer means

Promotion of a shift from car
driving to the use of public
transport and/or cycling and
walking that would have
significant results for road
safety

1997 International Conference
Traffic Safety on Two
Continents, Lisbon, 22
September

1997 the Young European
(Car) Driver campaign.

1997 various YES conferences
to inform opinion leaders
among young people

1998 the 10 Seconds
campaign.

1998 International festival of
Road Safety Films, Lille, 1-3
April

1999 the European Young
(motorbike) Rider campaign

Throughout summer 1999.
Three road safety video clips
screened on MTV.

Communication 'Developing
the Citizen’s Network'
published 10/7/1998. COM
(1998) 431 final.

'Benchmarking' to allow local
authorities to compare their
transport systems. Pilot project
1998-1999, full scale initiative
2000. Creation of web site
www.eltis.org

Change advertising
philosophies

Adoption of a code of conduct
in advertising stimulating
advertising that promotes road
safety

Study into the feasibility of a
prize for advertising which
promotes road safety. Final
report published mid 1999.

Accident recorders in motor
vehicles

Trial project in Austria and
Germany targeted at young
drivers

Accident recorders register
essential crash data and
facilitate enormously post-
accident analysis (which have
become more difficult with the
advent of ABS systems). The
presence of recorders leads to a
considerable reduction of
accidents as drivers are more
careful.

36

Allocation of the real cost of
insurance in proportion to the
risk

In the Green Paper on Fair and
Efficient Pricing, it was
recognised that :

Green Paper 1996

White Paper 1998

Report on 'options for
charging users directly for
transport infrastructure
operation costs', September
1999.

Work on going

Detailed model under
development

- insurance premiums does not
cover the whole cost of
accidents and their
consequences

- individual premiums are not
in proportion to the potential
risk of road users

Development of : -a car safety
declaration model; a car safety
information model for
consumers; and, a model for
basing car tax on socio-
economic costs for traffic
accidents and toxic emissions

Traffic Safety Model (4th
framework programme)

B.

Environment of user

Speed limiters for heavy
vehicles

Compulsory installing and use
of speed limiters

Evaluation of impact of
Directives 92/6 and 92/24
Report delayed in order to take
into account the latest
experiences of member states

Speed limiters for other
categories of vehicles

Extension to all vehicles above
3.5 tonnes

This issue is covered in this
Communication

Variable speed limiters for all
vehicles

On-trip information (Radio
Data Systems, Traffic Message
Channel (RDS-TMC))

Installation of information
systems; EU-wide installation
needed

MASTER Managing Speeds
on European Roads.
Completed

Being widely implemented

Weather-Related Traffic
Management

Installation of local monitoring
and driver information systems

Being implemented in D and
F. Exchange of information,
pilot projects

Variable speed messages on
motorways and on car
instrument panels

Information to the driver in
order to adapt speed to
circumstances

Exchange of information, pilot
project TROPIC completed
Spring 1999

Intelligent accelerator pedal

A device that generates more
resistance in the accelerator
pedal if a decrease of speed is
needed

In pilot phase. Possibility for
introduction in series through
legislation. Should be
assessed. National trails on-
going

37

Adaptive cruise control

Automatic adaptation of speed
as a function of the distance
from the next vehicle

Vision enhancement

Equipment of vehicles with
UV-headlamps, infra-red
detectors or radar systems

Obstacle detection systems

Driving aid systems that warn
driver of obstacles (e.g.
vulnerable road users)

In test phase for buses.
Implementation of this
available technology for other
vehicles should be considered
1999 onwards

Prototypes being tested

Actions to be decided on the
basis of further assessment
which will examine the effects
of UV headlamps on safety

GADGET project: Guarding
Automobile Drivers through
Guidance Education and
Technology. Final results
presented mid 1999

Improved visibility of
vulnerable road users

Implementation of a code of
practice for the use of luminous
or reflecting clothes in traffic

Means and knowledge
available. Development of
standards to be examined.

Daytime running lights

Headlights during daytime to
increase visibility for

. motorbikes

. other vehicles

Report carried out into fatality
reduction by SWOV, and
review of existing research,
spring 1999. Report produced
on fuel consumption effects,
November 1999. The majority
of the High Level Group
agreed that DRL should be
actively promoted.

Therefore need to consider
implementation

Roadworthiness tests for motor
vehicles

Regular inspection of motor
vehicles as regards safety
provisions such as brakes, tyres
and lights

Proposal for a Directive on
random roadside checks.
(COM (98)117 final of
11/3/1998)

Harmonisation of exami-
nations for safety advisers for
transport of dangerous goods

Appointment in the companies
of key persons to oversee all
activities related to the
transport of dangerous goods

Directive (COM (98)174 final
of 19/3/1998)

Common position
29 March 1999. Adoption
spring 2000

38

Traffic management

Defining road network
hierarchy; segregating
vulnerable road users where
needed

ARROWS project: Advanced
Research on Road Workzone
Safety Standards in Europe,
completed

INTERSAFE. Presentation of
a technical guide to road safety
for interurban roads. Madrid
March 1998

Not yet implemented

Following several major
accidents the Commission,
assisted by expert groups, will
prepare recommendations

Project started in Jan. 1997.
Final report scheduled for year
2000

Safety impact assessment

The impact on road safety
should, like the environmental
impact, be systematically
assessed at the decision stage
for infrastructure

Tunnel Safety

DUMAS (4th framework
programme)

Development and assessment
of urban safety management
strategies; validation in field
studies throughout the EU

Field III: Reduction of consequences of accidents

Subject

Key provisions

Status/timing

Use of seat belts and child
restraints

Increased restraint use to 95%
would reduce 7,000 EU deaths
annually.

1998 'Ten Seconds' campaign.
MTV videos.

Commission report COM(96)
244 indicates that the
implementation of Directive
91/671/EEC in wearing seat
belts is completed. Increasing
the use should be subject to
enforcement/education

Directives 96/36, 37 and
38/EEC requires the
mandatory fitting of seat belts
to all seats of new minibuses
and coaches built after
October 1999. An updating of
Directive 91/671/EEC is
considered. Directive
2000/3/EC introduces the
requirement for three-point
safety belts in the central rear
seat of M1 vehicles, and for
child restraint systems (seats),
as provided for by UN-ECE
Regulation No 44 (Geneva).

39

Cycle & motorcycle crash
helmet use

Crash helmets reduce head
injuries for this group by 50%

Promotion of helmet wearing
will be a spin off effect of the
European Young Riders
Campaign

40

Crashworthiness of vehicles
Cars

Buses

ADRIA (4th framework
programme)

Compatibility (4th framework
programme)

“Friendly” design of motor
vehicles

Crashworthiness minimum
standards for new cars are
introduced for the first time at
EU level as from 1998 by type
approval Directives on side
impact and frontal impact.
However, there are still
considerable differences
between cars from the same
classes as regards crash-
worthiness.

The Communication on type
approval for buses (Com (97)
276), includes standards for
roll-over, and evacuation
procedures.

Design of an advanced,
biofedelic crash dummy for
injury assessment in frontal test
conditions

Research project aimed at
providing design
recommendations to improve
crash compatibility between
passenger cars

Cars and heavy vehicles should
be so designed that in case of
accident the damage to the
other (more vulnerable) party is
minimised

Research by EEVC in
preparation for the amendment
of Directives 96/27/EC (“side
impact”) and 96/79/EC
(“frontal impact”) in order,
inter alia, to broaden their
scope of application, amend
certain assessment criteria and
increase the collision speed.
Final report: February 2000

EuroNCAP (on going)

The Communication is under
consideration by the Council
and the Parliament.

ECBOS project in the 5th FP
will examine crash tests and
other safety issues

Project started in Feb. 1997.
Final report June. 1999

Project started in April 1997.
Final reports summer 1999.

– Development of

compatibility standards
and test procedures
(studies on going)

– Proposal for Type

approval Directive on
safer car fronts for
pedestrians and cyclists
(2000)

– Energy-absorbing front
under-run protection for
lorries - research started in
1995 should lead to
proposals for design
parameters in 2000.

41

– Closed side guards for
lorries (Proposal for
legislation amending
Directive 89/297/EC
including changing
optional towards
mandatory fitting
(delayed)

– Proposal for a Directive
for front under-run
protection for heavy
vehicles (COM(99)32)

A conference was held by the
ETSC and a study into crash
barriers and motorcyclists
launched

SAFESTAR Safety standards
for road side design and
redesign. Completed

“Forgiving” roadside design

Crash barriers legs are
extremely dangerous for
motorcyclists

“Black spots” should be
identified and corrected

Automatic Incident Detection
(AID) and Emergency
Management

Emergency call system

Installation of intelligent traffic
surveillance systems

Technology ready for
implementation
Exchange of information

Satellite Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) in combination
with Global System for Mobile
Communication (GSM)

Field trials undertaken in
Member States.
Results to be disseminated for
further application

Post-accident care

– first aid

– roadside emergency care

– trauma centres

Support of Commission to
establish :

– Best practice guidelines

– Exchange of information

Development of in-car
emergency warning systems

– Research

42

ANNEX 4

Duration of effects of road safety measures.

Category of safety measure

Typical duration of safety effects
(service life)

Land use planning; new residential areas

25-40 years

Road pricing; fuel or vehicle taxation systems

1-3 years for use of existing motor vehicles,
10-15 years through vehicle purchasing
decisions

Changing the modal split of travel

Contemporaneous effect only

Major road investment projects (new roads)

25-40 years

Minor road investment projects

15-25 years

Traffic control by means of highway signs

10-15 years

Traffic control by means of road markings

1-10 years

Upgrading road maintenance

1 year

Vehicle safety regulations (for new vehicles)

10-15 years

Driver education and training (new drivers)

1-3 years

Training of children

1-3 years

Public information campaigns

Effect only during campaign, or a short time
after

Conventional police enforcement

Effect only when operated, or a short time
after

Automated police enforcement

Effect only when operated, or a short time
after

43

Conversion from investment costs to annual costs (coefficients by which the investment
costs should be divided)

Duration

40 years

25 years

15 years

10 years

5 years

3 years

Interest rate
5%

Interest rate
4%

Interest rate
3%

17,2

14,1

10,4

7,7

4,3

2,7

19,8

15,6

11,1

8,1

4,5

2,8

23,1

17,4

11,9

8,5

4,6

2,8

44