COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the   COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020   {COM(2010) 389 final}
Date: 2010-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, accident prevention, first aid, public awareness campaign, road safety, transport accident, transport infrastructure, vehicle parts

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.7.2010 
SEC(2010) 903 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

(1)  Synthesis of the ex-post evaluation of the European Road Safety Action 

Program 2001 – 2010 

(2)  Public consultation on the policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 

Accompanying document to the 

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

Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 

{COM(2010) 389 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

In  assessing  future  possible  orientations  of  the  common  road  transport  safety  policy,  the 
Commission has taken two main elements into consideration: 

The results of the road safety action programme 2001-2010, which included a list of 

1) 
62 concrete measures, reflected in of this document 

The  outcome  of  a  wide  stakeholder  consultation  process,  aimed  at  identifying  the 
2) 
challenges for road safety in the years to come and the best way to address them, contained in 
Chapter 2 of this document. 

The present document is composed of two parts.  

Chapter 1 provides an assessment of the results of each of the 62 measures described in the 
European  road  safety  action  programme  2001-2010,  giving  information  on  the  following 
aspects for each measure:  

–  the specific topic of the measure 

–  the type of impact: direct or indirect 

–  the contribution of the measure to road safety: high, medium or low results 

–  the consistency of the measure with other measures 

–  a description of what remains to be done in the new programme. 

Chapter 2 of the document is related to the outcome of the stakeholders' consultation. This 
important step enabled the Commission to identify the problems or issues to be addressed in 
the  next  decade,  some  of  which  corresponding  to  new  or  expected  future  developments  not 
known at the time of drafting the road safety action programme 2001-2010. 

Finally, an Annex provides detailed figures, extracted from the CARE European Database on 
accidents,  which  illustrates  the  quantitative  results  obtained  by  Member  States  and  their 
comparison  with  the  target  of  reducing  by  half  the  number  of  road  fatalities  given  in  the 
action programme 2001-2010. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

1. 

SYNTHESIS  OF  THE  EX-POST  EVALUATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  ROAD  SAFETY 
ACTION PROGRAM 2001 – 2010 

1.1. 

Sixty-two measures in the field of road safety1 

The  European  Road  Safety  Action  Programme  2001-2010  (hereafter:  RSAP)  contained  62 
concrete  measures  beneficial  for  road  safety  which  needed  to  be  implemented.  This  Action 
Programme has been launched by the European Commission in 2003 through the adoption of 
the Communication "European Road Safety Action Programme. Halving the number of road 
accident victims in the European Union by 2010 (from 2001): a shared responsibility"2. The 
RSAP covered three fields of action: 

Road  users  behaviour,  dealing  with  a  combination  of  training,  campaigns,  and  law-
enforcement measures 
Passive and active safety of vehicles 
Management of road infrastructure safety  

An  ex-post  evaluation  has  been  undertaken  in  order  to  analyse  the  level  of  implementation 
and the impacts of each of the 62 measures across the EU Member States.3 Criteria applied for 
measuring  the  impacts  of  the  measures  were:  effectiveness,  efficiency,  sustainability, 
consistency and the effects from non-implementation. The expected reduction of the number 
of fatalities resulting from individual measures has been given where  possible, thus relating 
them  directly  with  the  objective  of  the  RSAP,  consisting  in  halving  the  number  of  road 
victims by 2010. The ex-post evaluation wants to provide a good understanding of the effects 
of  the  measures  covered  by  the  current  RSAP.  Taking  into  account  whether  measures  from 
the RSAP have been implemented fully, partially or not at all, and what their impacts on road 
safety have been so far, is necessary for correctly dealing with road safety issues in the future. 
Therefore, the results of this evaluation have been taken into account in the preparation of the 
Commission  Communication  "Towards  a  European  road  safety  area:  policy  orientations  on 
road safety 2011-2020". 

1.2.  Main characteristics of road fatalities in the EU 

It  is  useful  to  have  an  overview  of  the  main  risk  areas  in  road  traffic.  The  distribution  of 
fatalities in terms of type of road users, gender, age group, transport mode and type of road 
looks as follows4: 

People  involved:  80%  vehicle  occupants  (60%  drivers  and  20%  passengers);  and  20% 
pedestrians. → this suggest the importance of implementing passive safety measures; 
Gender: men represent 76%, while women only 24%; 
Age category affected: most affected group (56%) is between 25 and 64 years old (this age 
group  represents  55%  of  the  total  population);  the  group  with  the  highest  risk  consists  of 
young people between 15 and 24 years old, which represent 13% of the total population, but 
the fatality rate in this group is 21%. 

1 
2 
3 

4 

See list with the 62 measures in Annex. 
COM(2003) 311. 
The report "Ex-post Evaluation of the RSAP" has been prepared for the Commission by the consultant 
TRT (Trasporti e Territorio).  
Most of these data are from 2007; some sub-elements of these data refer to earlier years. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
Transport  mode:  passengers  cars  and  taxis  represent  49%,  whereas  pedestrians  and  cyclists 
(the  so-called  vulnerable  road  users)  represent  25%  and  powered-two-  wheelers  (hereafter: 
PTWs), namely motorcycles and mopeds, represent 19%. 
Type of road: rural roads 55%, urban roads 36%, and motorways 6%. 

It should be noted that an exhaustive quantitative ex-post evaluation is not always possible for 
each measure for different reasons. Firstly because the impact of measures could be indirect 
and therefore not computable in terms of road fatalities (e.g. for research activities); secondly, 
since  some  of  the  measures  have  effects  only  after  the  period  2001-2010  covered  by  the 
analysis  and  thirdly  because  there  could  be  significant  data  limitations  that  make  an 
evaluation impossible although the measure has direct impact on road safety.  

Measures have been evaluated not only individually, but also at aggregate level. The measures 
that share the same specific objective were grouped in order to avoid any duplication of the 
analysis and to take into account synergies and combined impacts of the different actions. 

1.3. 

Ex-post evaluation of the sixty-two measures of the RSAP 

Measures  1-62:5  the  62  measures  cover  the  three  fields  of  actions:  road  users'  behaviour, 
vehicle safety, and road infrastructure, and are grouped into the following main domains:  
Generals (measures 1-7)6; 
Users' Behaviour (measures 8-13), divided in Enforcement (measures 8, 9, 13) and Awareness 
Campaigns (measures 10, 11); 
Driving Licence and Training (measures 14-17); 
Passive Vehicle Safety (measures 18-28); 
Active Safety of Vehicles (measures 29-40); 
Infrastructure (measures 41-47); 
Professional Drivers (measures 48-56); 
Accidentology (measures 57-62). 

Different measures dealing with the same specific subject, which sometimes belongs to 
different 'main domains', are:  
measures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, dealing with Monitoring and Evaluation  
measures 4, 6 and 20 dealing with Building Stakeholders' Commitment  
measures 12, 33 and 49, dealing with Impaired Driving  
measures 18 and 35, dealing with Power-two wheels 
measures 19 and 23, dealing with Vulnerable Road Users 
measures 21, 22, 24, 25 and 55, dealing with Vehicle Occupants' Protection 
measures 26, 27 and 28, dealing with Vehicle Crash Compatibility  
measures 48, 50, 51, 52-54 and 56, dealing with Professional drivers 
measures 57 and 58, dealing with Post-crash medical care  
measures 59, 60, 61 and 62, dealing with Statistical Data. 

State of implementation of the measures 

5 

6 

Each  measure  is  referred  to  by  the  number  it  has  on  the  list  in  annex.  Relevant  information  on  each 
measure is given in the other columns of this list.  
Although these measures are of great importance with a view to improving road safety, their impact is 
indirect and of a general nature, and therefore it is not possible to give a quantification of the number of 
lives that can be saved by each of these measures.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
During  the  period  of  the  current  RSAP,  17  measures  out  of  62  will  have  been  completed, 
which is 27.5% of all the measures7. In terms of state of implementation, 23% of the measures 
are evaluated as 'high', 65% as 'medium' and the remaining 12% as 'low'. The largest number 
of completed measures can be found in the category "professional drivers", whereas none of 
the measures in the field of passive vehicle safety has been completed so far. 

It is important to underline that each measure, even if it is completed, has to be monitored. Its 
effects  and  usefulness,  also  in  combination  with  other  relevant  measures,  will  have  to  be 
assessed through an ex-post analysis8.  

It  has  to  be  noted  that  the  impact  of  the  measures  in  the  main  domain  Generals,  which  are 
divided into the domains: monitoring and evaluation, and building stakeholders' commitment, 
is indirect and of a general nature, and therefore it is not possible to give a quantification of 
the number of lives that can be saved by each of these measures. However, they are important 
instruments with a view to improving road safety. 

As a last general remark, it has to be assured that, to the extent that measures will involve the 
processing  of  personal  data,  the  provisions  of  either  Regulation  45/2001  or  Directive 
95/46/EC will apply, depending on the data controller.  

Measure 1 

Halving  the  number  of  road  deaths  by  2010  is  the  overall  objective  of  the  RSAP.  The 
number of road fatalities in 2001 was about 54.000, and the target was to reach the number of 
27.000 fatalities in 2010. The actual number of road fatalities in 2009 is about 35.500, which 
is  a  reduction  of  35%  since  2001;  the  expectation  is  that  in  2010,  the  reduction  in  fatalities 
will reach – 41%. This means that the target of a reduction of 50% will not be achieved and 
that there may be about 8.500 more fatalities in 2010 than the target number. However, the 
RSAP did have a positive impact on road safety and resulted in a decrease of road fatalities. 
The  following  factors  also  have  to  be  taken  into  account  in  this  context.  In  the  first  place, 
mobility has considerably grown in the period covered by the action plan. Secondly, the scope 
of the RSAP has become much wider with the accession of new Member States (EU12) later 
on, and these Member States had – and still have – in general worse road safety results than 
the existing Member States (EU15): whereas the average reduction in road fatalities in 2008 
was  -36.8%  in  the  EU15,  it  was  -  4.2%  in  the  EU12.  Fortunately,  the  performance  of  the 
EU12 is rapidly improving: average reduction expected in 2009 is: - 40.8% for EU15 and -
6.8%  for  EU12.  Thirdly,  the  reduction  in  road  deaths  (↓  28%)  has  been  higher  than  the 
reduction  in  road  accidents  and  injuries  (↓  14.6%  and  ↓  17.6%),  which  shows  that  the 
consequences of accidents have in general become less serious.  

The  total  social  cost  due  to  road  crashes  is  estimated  to  be  around  140.8  billion  Euro  over 
2008  (59.4  billion  Euro  for  road  fatalities  and  81.4  billion  Euro  for  road  injuries  and 
accidents)9. 

7 
8 

9 

The completed measures are: n° 3, 7, 9, 14, 15, 30, 31, 41, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58 and 62. 
Relevant combinations of measures are for instance measures 14 and 15, 30 and 31; 41 and 42; 48, 49 
and 50; 53 and 54).  
The  social  cost  has  been  calculated  accordantly  to  the  HEATCO  study  (2006)  based  on  the  value  of 
statistical life. Weighting at population share the HEATCO values of casualties for the different EU27 
countries, the value for statistical life equals to 1.525.112 Euro in 2008. With regard to a serious injury 
the value is 204.465 Euro.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
The evaluation of the impacts of the RSAP does not explicitly take into account autonomous 
national initiatives. Considering the overall reduction of deaths recorded in the period 2001-
2008, the contribution of the RSAP is about 30% of the difference between the situation at the 
beginning of the period concerned and the actual number of road fatalities at the end of the 
period.  The  remaining  about  70%  of  lives  saved  has  to  be  attributed  to  other  impacts,  for 
example,  technical  developments  and  actions  undertaken  by  Member  States  during  this 
period. With regard to the performance by the Member States, most old Member States are in 
general almost in line with the RSAP target, whereas the new Member States are in a more 
critical  situation  which  requires  special  attention  in  the  coming  years.  Estimations  show  a 
converging  process  in  performances  between  the  new  Member  States,  and  after  their 
accession  to  the  European  Union  and  the  subsequent  application  of  the  RSAP  measures  by 
them, road safety has been improving at a faster pace in these Member States. Over the year 
2009,  several  new  Member  States  have  achieved  large  reductions  in  fatalities.  For  instance, 
the Baltic countries have approximately halved the number of fatalities. Looking at trends of 
fatalities, injuries, accidents, vehicles and density of traffic per km, it appears that despite a 
growth in mobility, the impact of road accidents on human lives has been decreasing over the 
last  years.  However,  the  reduction  in  the  numbers  of  accidents  and  injuries  is  less  than  the 
reduction  in  fatalities  and  there  is  a  strong  and  steady  correlation  between  these  two. 
Therefore,  more  attention  will  have  to  be  paid  to  this  issue  in  future.  In  the  first  place,  a 
common and generally accepted definition of 'serious injury', which does currently not exist, 
will have to be applied by all the Member States as a matter of priority.  
Specific topic: Monitoring and evaluation  
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Measure 2  
Evaluate the progress made, compared with the target, by means of appropriate 
performance indicators at Community and national levels.  
The research and the analysis carried out in the framework of the SafetyNet project have been 
the basis not only for the development of the European Road Safety Observatory, aimed at the 
gathering  of  data  and  knowledge  to  inform  future  safety  policies  and  enabling  to  monitor 
progress, identify best practices and ensure evaluation, but also for the establishment of a set 
of  European  indicators.  Without  indicators,  policy  development,  implementation  and 
assessment is not possible. 
Specific topic: monitoring and evaluation 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: high results. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the evaluation exercise needs to be 
continued. Member States should be encouraged to improve their data collection. 

Measure 3 

Provide a report in 2005 on monitoring of the target, action carried out and modifications 
needed as a result of enlargement and, where appropriate, propose new measures. 
Two EC official documents have been published on 22 February 2006: 
- a mid-term review, as announced in the RSAP 2001-2010 (Communication COM(2006)74 
final); 
- a document supporting the Communication, which includes relevant statistics, an overview 
of the legislation, projects and studies implemented and the commitments taken in the 
framework of the European road safety Charter. 
Specific topic: monitoring and evaluation. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

Type of impact: indirect 
Description of the impact: support action for policy assessment and development.  
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the new ERSAP should contain an 
analogous mid-term evaluation. 

Measure 4  

Invite all parties concerned to sign a European Road Safety Charter 
This measure is a good example of the application of the principle of 'shared responsibility'. 
So far, there are 1796 Charter signatories' commitments for carrying out concrete actions to 
contribute to improving road safety. 
Specific topic: Building stakeholders' commitment 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the Commission should continue to support 
the European Road Safety Charter to enable future progress to be made, encouraging the self-
evaluation of the single commitments undertaken by the part of the private actors according to 
harmonised criteria. Moreover the signatories of the Charter should be organised in permanent 
forums as to, e.g., exchange good practices. 
Measure 5  
Propose  the  introduction  of  harmonised  road  safety  criteria  in  public  service  contracts.  
The  purpose  of  this  measure  is  to  incorporate  road  safety  requirements  and  in  particular 
harmonised  road  safety  criteria  in  the  public  procurement  process.  This  would  apply,  for 
instance,  to  the  purchase  of  vehicles  by  public  authorities  or  to  the  provision  of  transport 
services.  Examples  of  such  scheme  could  be:  making  the  purchase  of  EuroNCAP  5-star 
vehicles mandatory; purchasing collective transport means with specific active safety devices 
(for example school buses provided with eCall, alcoholocks, etc.). 

This  concept  is  applied  by  Annex  II  of  the  Directive  2008/96/EC  on  Road  Infrastructure 
Safety Management, which defines the criteria to be met by Member States when carrying out 
a road safety impact assessment (article 3.2) or a road safety audit (article 4.2). This directive 
enters  into  force  by  December  2010.  By  19  December  2011,  Member  States  have  to  adopt 
guidelines  for  applying  the  safety  procedures  set  out  in  the  Directive.  The  Directive  is 
applicable  to  projects  of  the  trans-European  road  network  and  projects  carried  out  by  the 
European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). 
Specific topic: Monitoring and evaluation 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency with other measures: this measure is closely linked with all the actions relating 
to road infrastructure safety management. In particular, it is linked with the aim of Measure 
44 on assessing the safety impact of projects receiving Community funding. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  an  evaluation  of  the  impacts  should  be 
carried  out  once  the  Directive  on  Road  Infrastructure  Safety  Management  is  regularly 
implemented. 
Measure 6:  
Study, together with the European haulage industry, on possible additional measures which 
insurers could take to pass the cost of accident risks on more directly.  
Internalising costs involved in accidents, for instance by the application of the "bonus-malus" 
system  in  insurance,  contributes  to  motivating  professional  drivers  to  drive  carefully.  
In support of the preparation of the European Road Safety Action Programme 2011-2020, a 
seminar on the internalisation of social costs was held in Bruxelles on the 7th of September 

EN 

7 

   EN 

2009.  The  title  of  the  workshop  was  "Road  safety  economics:  internalising  external  costs; 
promoting economic incentives, building cases for investment". 
Specific topic: Building stakeholders' commitment 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency with other measures: with all other measures aiming at improving road user's  
behaviour. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  further  studies  should  be  made,  together 
with  insurance  companies,  to  understand  whether  it  is  worthwhile  to  switch  to  pay  as-you-
drive schemes, providing optimal incentives at the margin, or if the costs of introducing such 
schemes do not weigh up against averaging. A research on the best practices in the insurance 
system and their impacts on road safety could be carried out. 
Measure 7  
Set up a European Road Safety Observatorium within the Commission. 
The  European  Road  Safety  Observatory  (ERSO)  was  set  up  in  the  framework  of  the 
SafetyNet  project.  (see  Measure  2).  It  aims  to  support  the  actions  of  policy  makers, 
researchers and road safety advisors. 
Specific topic: Monitoring and evaluation 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency with other measures: relevant for the other measures, since it provides a means 
of  gathering  information  which  is  relevant  for  the  accomplishment  of  concrete  road  safety 
measures. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  further  developing  of  the  European  Road 
Safety Observatory. 
Measure 8  
Propose measures to strengthen checks and ensure the proper enforcement of the most 
important safety rules. 
After analysing the results of the FWP4 research project ESCAPE (2002) and carrying out an 
extensive legal study on the traffic rules and enforcement practices in the fields of speeding, 
drink-driving and seat belt use in the EU15 Member States and an economic study on costs 
and  benefits  of  improvements  in  enforcement,  the  European  Commission  published  the 
Recommendation  2004/345/EC  on  enforcement  in  the  field  of  road  safety,  which  invites 
Member  States  to  set  up  a  national  enforcement  plan  in  road  safety,  ensure  the  use  of 
automated speed enforcement equipment and the application of random breath testing for the 
surveillance of drink-driving and to carry out intensive enforcement actions on the non-use of 
seat  belts;  to  combine  the  enforcement  actions  with  publicity  campaigns  and  to  apply 
effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  sanctions  and/or  remedial  measures  for  speeding, 
drink-driving  and  non-use  of  seat  belts,  and  to  designate  an  enforcement  coordination  point 
for the exchange of best enforcement practices. 
The  issue  of  cross-border  enforcement  has  also  been  addressed.  Enforcement  technologies 
and  procedures  vary  among  Member  States  and  make  mutual  recognition  of  enforcement 
actions  and  cooperation  between  Members  difficult.  For  example,  sanctions  for  traffic 
offences  can  be  either  criminal  or  administrative  in  different  Member  States,  which  results 
also in considerable differences in drivers' perceptions. The Commission examined the legal 
basis for cross-border enforcement through the project VERA 2 (Cross-border enforcement of 
road  traffic  violations).  The  project  CAPTIVE  (Common  Application  of  Traffic  Violations 
Enforcement)  identified  the  steps  to  implement  a  European  approach  to  cross-border 
enforcement. The results of these projects provided the basis for the Proposal for Directive on 
cross-border  enforcement  COM(2008)  151,  adopted  on  19  March  2008.  The  document  sets 
out  proposals  aimed  at  securing  more  efficient  and  more  effective  enforcement  of  traffic 

EN 

8 

   EN 

offences  committed  in  another  Member  State  than  where  the  offenders'  car  is  registered. 
Considering  that  non-resident  drivers  are  relatively  more  involved  in  offences  than  resident 
drivers  (for  example,  non-resident  drivers  represent  around  15%  of  all  speeding  offenders, 
whereas they represent only the 5% of the road traffic), the proposal contains provisions of an 
administrative nature for putting in place an effective system of cross-border enforcement of 
the  main  road  traffic  offences:  speeding,  drink-driving,  non-use  of  seat  belts  and  failing  to 
stop at a red traffic light. According to the proposal, Member States will have two years to set 
up  the  data  exchange  system  and  start  operating  it.  No  harmonisation  of  traffic  rules  or 
penalties  is  included.  The  proposal  is  currently  being  discussed  in  the  European  Parliament 
and  the  Council.  Stakeholders  acknowledge  that  enforcement  is  a  key  factor  for  a 
considerable reduction in deaths and injuries, especially when intensively applied and widely 
published.  Therefore,  measures  on  enforcement  will  also  be  included  in  the  new  ERSAP, 
particularly with respect to cross-border enforcement of traffic offences. 
Specific topic: Enforcement 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency with other measures: an effective and efficient enforcement is crucial for the 
implementation of the legislative framework for road safety and for having a positive impact 
on road users’ behaviour. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  cross-border  enforcement  needs  to  be 
effectively implemented. Checks need to be further strengthened. 

Measure 9  
Develop best practice guidelines as regards police checks 

The FWP6 project PEPPER (Police Enforcement Policy and Programmes on European 
Roads)  was  carried  out  from  2006  –  2008.  The  objective  of  the  project  was  to  enhance  the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  police  enforcement  of  road  traffic.  The  project  looked 
critically  at  all  relevant  aspects  of  enforcement,  such  as  target  behaviours,  the  detection  of 
infringements, administrative and legal handling after infringement, decisions concerning the 
volume,  location  and  timing  of  enforcement,  effects  of  enforcement  on  road  user  behaviour 
and  accidents,  enforcement  methods  and  tools,  collection  of  enforcement  data,  and 
enforcement  in  the  social  context.  Speeding,  drink  driving  and  use  of  seat  belts  were 
especially  targeted.  In  addition,  the  need  for  improved  enforcement  data  and  better 
understanding of the impacts was recognised, and the potential of innovative technologies in 
the different links of the enforcement chain was studied. 
Specific topic: Enforcement 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  scope  of  the  measure  is  consistent  with  the 
enforcement of road traffic offences (Measure 8) in order to discipline users’ behaviour. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): encouraging the dissemination of the good 
practices provided by PEPPER project among Member States. 
Measure 10: Collect, compare and publish information on national highway codes, and on 
infringements established and penalties imposed in the various countries 

•  - The European Road Safety Observatory (ERSO) provides on its website a section with a 
brief overview of the different traffic rules applied in the Member States. For each country, 
traffic  rules  are  available  for  speed,  alcohol,  day  time  running  lights,  winter  tyres  and 
safety equipment for cars and bicycles. The information has been collected informally with 
the help of the CARE correspondents. A more extensive document on national traffic rules 
is  available  only  for  France  on  the  same  webpage.  The  Road  Traffic  Rules  comparative 

EN 

9 

   EN 

study  (RTR,  2004)  provided  background  information  on  the  legislation  and  enforcement 
actions  of  road  traffic  rules  in  the  EU15.  The  aim  was  contributing  to  harmonisation, 
providing  information  on  best  results  achieved  in  the  field  of  issuing  legislation  and 
enforcement strategies to decision makers, and informing the general public. 

-  The  European  Traffic  Police  organization  (TISPOL)  has  a  public  database  called 
CLEOPATRA (Collection of Law Enforcement Operations and Police Activities To Reduce 
Traffic Accidents) which presents detailed information from six EU Member States (Sweden, 
Finland, Germany, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom) related to traffic safety, road safety 
programmes  and  rules  as  well  as  data  related  to  alcohol  and  drugs,  speeding  and  seatbelts. 
Other Member States are invited to provide similar information. Apart from these six Member 
States,  general  information  from  an  EU  perspective  is  included  as  well.  The  information  in 
this database is police-oriented, it does not lend itself to an easy consultation by the general 
public.  This  database  is  a  part  of  the  project  PEPPER  (Police  Enforcement  Policy  and 
Programmes on European Roads, see Measure 9). 
Specific topic: Road safety awareness 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency with other measures: increasing knowledge on traffic rules among the general 
public supports the other measures to improve road safety. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  the  collected  information  should  be 
regularly  updated.  The  European  Commission  could  investigate  improving  information  on 
road  laws  in  all  Member  States,  which  could  be  promoted  by  ferry,  tunnel  and  travel 
companies, and that car hire companies, insurers, motoring groups and others. 
Measure 11  
Participate in awareness campaigns about drinking and driving, seat belts, speed and 
fatigue, if possible combined with national police activities. 
The European Commission co-financed numerous campaigns on road safety across Member 
States  between  2001  and  2010.  Concerning  drinking  and  driving,  several  campaigns  have 
been  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  the  project  EURO-BOB10  (Pan-European  Designated 
Driver  Campaign  Project),  namely  EURO-BOB  2001-2002;  2002-2003;  2003-2004;  2004-
2005; and 2005-2007. 
Campaigns addressing the issue of driving under the effects of alcohol and drugs were: 
- ENWA 2007-2010 (European night without accidents), 
- NESA 2004-2006 (Nuit européenne sans accidents), and 
- VCO 2007-2010 (Opération soirées clean). 
With regard to seat belts and restraint systems, different campaigns have been carried out in 
the framework of the project EUCHIRES (European public awareness campaign on the use of 
seat belts and child restraint systems): EUCHIRES 2005 and EUCHIRES 2007. 
The following campaigns concerned more general issues of road safety: 
- RED-CROSS 2004-2005 (The European Red Cross road safety campaign); 
- VAMOS 2006-2009 (Volunteers always). 
Moreover the Commission supported the campaigning activities carried out by two projects: 
With  the  project  EURO  RS  WEB,  a  website  centralising  data  on  awareness  campaigns  on 
road  safety  was  created.  The  aim  is  exchanging  information,  knowledge  and  experience 
concerning the campaigns carried out in the different Member States. 

10 

The person who does not drink alcohol when he has to drive and who drives the rest of the party home 
safely 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
them 

to  apply 

In  2006, 

to  encouraging 

The FWP6  research project CAST (Campaigns and Awareness-Raising Strategies  in Traffic 
Safety) aimed to fulfil the need for tools among campaign practitioners. This project studied 
the direct impact of mass media campaigns on road safety. 
Specific topic: Road safety awareness 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency with other measures: this measure is consistent with the actions aimed at 
influencing road users’ behaviour. There is a strong link especially with the actions in the 
field of enforcement (Measure 8), since the combination of enforcement and campaigns 
increase the effect on the changing of road users’ behaviour. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  encouraging  Member  States  and  other 
stakeholders (e.g. regional authorities) to continue implementing awareness campaigns, using 
the manuals provided by the CAST (RTD-FP6) project. 
Measure 12  
Encourage the application of the recommendation on the blood alcohol limit; continue 
work on the effects of drugs and medicines; establish appropriate classification and 
labelling of medicines which affect driving ability. 
The  maximum  permitted  blood  alcohol  content  for  drivers  is  defined  by  Commission 
Recommendation  2001/116/CE. 
the  European  Commission  adopted  a 
Communication  (2006)  625),  setting  out  the  EU  strategy  to  support  Member  States  in 
reducing  alcohol  related  harm,  with  a  view 
this 
recommendation.  The  Communication  addresses  the  adverse  health  effects  of  harmful  and 
hazardous alcohol consumption in Europe, which is estimated to cause the deaths of 195.000 
people a year in the EU. The identified priorities are: to protect young people and children; 
reduce injuries and deaths from alcohol-related road accidents; prevent harm among adults 
and reduce the negative impact on the economy; raise awareness of the impact on health of 
harmful alcohol consumption; and help gather reliable statistics. In June 2007, the “Alcohol 
and  Health  Forum”  has  been  put  in  place  to  support,  provide  input  and  monitor  the 
implementation of the strategy outlined in the Communication, focusing on topics such as 
research, information and data collection, and education. Concerning drugs and medicines, the 
importance of promoting and widening research on the influence of psychoactive substances 
on driving ability is stated in the Council Resolution of 27 November 2003 on combating the 
impact  of  psychoactive  substances  use  on  road  accidents,  so  that  prevention  and  law 
enforcement measures can be based on sound scientific evidence.  
The  Commission  is  considering  the  advisability  of  the  introduction  of  appropriate  and 
harmonised pictograms on medical packaging, based on the European classification of drugs, 
according to their effects on driving ability. To this end, impaired driving has been addressed, 
with different approaches and specific aims, by several projects. 
The project IMMORTAL (Impaired motorists, methods of roadside testing and assessment for 
licensing)  aimed  at  researching  the  accident  risk  associated  with  different  forms  of  driver 
impairment and studying the effects of medicines and drugs on driving performance. 
The project ROSITA 2 (Evaluation of roadside oral fluid drug tests for the detection of drivers 
under the influence of drugs), conducted an international study to assess the performance of 
on-site drug tests to detect illegal drug use among drivers. The project DRUID (Driving under 
influence,  drugs,  alcohol  and  medicines)  aims  at  analysing  the  effect  of  psychoactive 
substance and at establishing guidelines and measures to combat impaired driving, in order to 
provide  a  solid  base  for  harmonised  regulations  on  driving  under  the  influence  of  alcohol, 
drugs  and  medicine.  The  project  is  also  expected  to  establish  an  appropriate  classification 
system of medicines affecting driving ability, creating a framework for medicines according 
to  a  labelling  system.  Several  large  scale  studies  will  be  conducted  on  the  road  in  different 
member countries, involving police and hospitals: several thousands of drivers will be tested 

EN 

11 

   EN 

for  psychoactive  substances.  The  project  involves  37  partners  from  20  States  (18  EC 
Members,  Norway  and  Switzerland),  bringing  together  academics,  researchers,  medical 
institutions and governmental bodies. Action for the labelling of medicines is also in progress 
within the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), which is responsible for the evaluation and 
supervision  of  medicines  for  human  and  veterinary  use  in  Europe.  The  importance  of 
providing  adequate  information  on  the  benefits  and  risks  of  medicines  was  already 
emphasised in the EMEA Road Map 2005. To this end, the Agency carried out a survey 
involving patients’ and consumers’ organisations, healthcare professionals’ organisations and 
representatives of the Agency itself. The survey addressed the communication on benefits and 
risks  of  medicines  in  the  light  of  the  need  for  transparent  information,  focusing  on  the 
summary of product characteristics, labelling, the package leaflet, public assessment 
report  and  product  safety  announcements.  According  to  the  main  findings  of  the  survey 
(EMEA,  2009),  alongside  more  comprehensive  scientific  data,  there  should  be  a  clear 
description  and  a  concise  easy-to-read  summaries  of  benefits  and  risks  of  medicines.  It  is 
broadly agreed that complete and transparent information must be ensured about any 
potential  harm  which  could  result  from  the  intake  of  the  medicine,  including  any  negative 
impact on the patients’ quality of life (e.g. interference with daily activities, such as driving). 
The EMEA believes that improved package design and labelling should be put in place and 
intends to further explore how best to communicate on safety issues. The final aim would be 
submitting a proposal for a regulatory project on product characteristics, the labelling and the 
package leaflet for better communicating of benefits and risks of medicines. 
Duration of the project IMMORTAL: from 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2005. 
Duration of the project ROSITA 2: from 1 December 2002 to 1 January 2005. 
Duration of the project DRUID: from October 2006 to September 2010. 
Duration of the EMEA survey: from March to April 2008. 
Specific topic: Impaired driving 
Type of impact: Direct: application of blood alcohol limits. Indirect: research on effects of 
drug and medicines supporting policy-making. 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency with other measures: the result of the research on drivers' impairment should 
be followed-up by enforcement measures and awareness initiatives. 
Outcomes 
Communication  (2006)  625  has  identified  areas  where  the  EU  can  support  the  actions  of 
Member States to reduce alcohol related harm, such as financing projects through the Public 
Health and Research Programmes, exchanging good practice on issues such as curbing under-
age drinking, exploring cooperation on information campaigns or tackling drink-driving and 
other  Community  initiatives.  The  Communication  also  maps  out  actions  which  Member 
States  are  taking,  with  a  view  to  promoting  good  practice,  proposes  an  Alcohol  and  Health 
Forum of interested parties and sets out areas where industry can make a contribution, notably 
in the area of responsible advertising and marketing. The members of the European Alcohol 
and  Health  Forum  have  made  a  series  of  commitments  aimed  at  reducing  alcohol-related 
harm. So far, 108 commitments have been taken. The vast majority of commitments relates to 
information and education programmes (46% of commitments); then there are the actions on 
responsible commercial communication and sales (22% of commitments). 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  disseminating  the  results  of  relevant 
projects  and  evaluate  the  feasibility  of  a  European  legislation  introducing  (i)  a  maximum 
blood alcohol content; (ii) harmonised methods for checking illegal drugs; and (iii) follow-up 
to  be  given,  including  an  appropriate  classification  and  labelling  of  medicines  which  affect 
driving ability. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

Measure 13  
Harmonising, over time, the penalties for the main infringements of the rules for 
international hauliers.  
In order to facilitate the free movement of goods and services and to ensure a high level of 
safety  for  national  and  international  transport  operations,  uniform  rules  for  international 
transport  at  the  European  level  are  desirable.  Council  Directive  94/55/EC  of  21  November 
1994 was realised to lay down uniform safety rules for transporting dangerous goods by road 
within  the  European  Community.  This  directive  was  amended  first  by  the  Directive 
2000/61/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  of  10 
October  2000,  and  then  by  Commission  Directives  2003/28/EC  of  7  April  2003  and 
2006/89/EC  of  3  November  2006.  The  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  March  2006  concerned  the  harmonisation  of  certain 
social legislation relating to road transport, amended Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 
and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealed Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85.  
Specific topic: Enforcement. 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: low results 
Consistency with other measures: the measure is consistent with the objective of enforcing 
safety rules (Measure 8). 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): examine the possibilities for establishing a 
proper  regulatory  framework  for  the  process  of  harmonisation  of  penalties  for  international 
hauliers. 
Measure 14 
Amend Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences in order to introduce in particular 
minimum standards for car driving examiners and a staged driving licensing system for 
motorcyclists, trucks- and bus drivers to reduce accident risks among inexperienced drivers. 
The  new  rules  introduced  by  Directive  2006/126/EC  aim  at  reinforcing  safety  on  European 
roads, at reducing the possibilities of fraud, and at guaranteeing a true freedom of movement 
for EU drivers through further harmonisation of licences categories. This Directive defines the 
indicative  minimum  age  for  each  type  of  vehicle  (article  4),  a  staging  system  for  drivers 
between vehicles categories and the equivalences  that  Member  States  may  grant  for  driving 
on their territory (article 7). With regard to mopeds, today no licence is needed in most of the 
Member  States.  However,  accident  figures  show  a  highly  increased  risk  of  accident 
involvement  of  young  road  users.  The  Directive  introduces  a  new  harmonised  licence 
category AM and a mandatory theory driving test. The age limit for category AM should be 
16 years, but Member States may authorise access from the age of 14 with effect on national 
territory only. Light motorcycles are limited today to 125 cc and 11 kW. No power to weight 
ratio  is  imposed.  This  could  lead  to  ever  lighter  vehicles,  thus  achieving  steadily  increasing 
acceleration  and  top  speed  possibilities.  The  Directive  introduces  a  power/weight  ratio  not 
exceeding  0.1  kW/kg.  All  Member  States  will  have  to  introduce  this  category  of  licences 
which  existed  in  some  Member  States  only.  The  current  category  A  will  be  split  into  two 
distinct categories: A2 (motorcycles of a power not exceeding 35 kW, a power/weight ratio 
not exceeding 0.2 kW/kg and not derived from a vehicle of more than double its power) and 
“A” (other motorcycles). For category A, the Directive increases the progressive access from 
the age of 21, raising from two to three years the experience which the applicant must have 
acquired on a motorcycle A2. The driver will also have to pass a specific practical test limited 
to  driving  in  traffic,  with  a  special  focus  on  driving  outside  urban  areas  and  on  high-speed 
road  infrastructure.  For  direct  access,  the  minimum  age  limit  is  raised  from  the  present  21 
years to 24 years. Concerning trailers with B licence, the Directive introduces a clear weight 
limit  rather  than  a  tractor  vehicle/trailer  ratio.  The  Directive  also  amends  trucks  and  buses 
categories to:  

EN 

13 

   EN 

- refer to the number of passengers and not the number of seats (to avoid that a vehicle such as 
a bus with mainly standing passengers may be driven by a category B or D1 licence holder, 
instead of a category D licence holder); 
-  bring  the  technical  requirements  for  smaller  trucks  and  buses  in  line  with  that  of  the 
market’s vehicles. 
All Member States will need to introduce the categories C1 and D1 for motor vehicles with a 
maximum authorised mass not exceeding 6,000 kg and for motor vehicles with a capacity to 
transport not more than  16  passengers, allowing for a better distinction between the biggest 
trucks  and  buses  mostly  used  for  commercial  transport  (fitted  with  air  break/suspension 
systems and thus more like smaller lorries) and the smaller ones used for different purposes 
(generally built on an extended chassis for B vehicles). Categories C1 and D1 are equivalent: 
they only differ in purposes (transport of goods or transport of passengers) but not in the skills 
and  knowledge  needed  for  driving  them.  Finally,  the  Directive  sets  out  the  minimum 
standards which driving examiners have to meet, (article 10 and annex IV), and the minimum 
requirements  for  driving  test  (annex  II).  Standards  on  the  training  and  education  of  driving 
examiners  currently  vary  widely  throughout  the  Union.  In  some  Member  States  examiners 
have  almost  no  specific  education  or  do  not  even  hold  the  driving  licence  for  the  category 
they are examining. According to the new legislation, driving examiners should: 
- have a valid licence for the category they are examining; 
- have obtained an initial qualification; 
- be obliged to participate in periodic training; 
- follow a progressive access in the testing of different vehicles categories. 
Specific topic: Driving education and training. 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency with other measures: this measure is consistent with other measures to increase 
the safety of novice drivers. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  a  verification  of  the  implementation  at 
national level and its impact should be carried out after 2013. 
Measure 15 
Continue  work  on  reviewing,  in  the  light  of  scientific  progress,  minimum  standards  for 
physical and mental fitness to drive and study the impact of medical examinations on road 
safety. 
Objective:  improving  road  safety  by  assuring  minimum  physical  and  mental  standards  to 
drive.  The  European  Commission  produced  Directive  2009/112/EC  of  25  August  2009, 
amending  Council  Directive  91/439/EEC  on  driving  licences,  in  order  to  harmonise  the 
minimum requirements for fitness to drive at Community level (notably in Annex III of the 
Directive).  The  resulting  legislation  has  been  prepared  by  several  working  groups  dealing 
with the issues concerned, in particular: minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for 
driving  power-driven  vehicles;  a  possible  revision  of  the  standards  on  vision  for  driving; 
diabetes  and  driving,  epilepsy  and  driving;  development  of  an  instrument  to  measure  glare 
sensitivity for driving licence application and the establishment of the relation between glare 
sensitivity  and  the  degree  of  visual  impairment  in  a  driving  situation.  Several  reports  and 
projects have been produced for these purposes, for instance the report “New standards for the 
visual  functions  of  drivers”,  comprising  the  advice  of  the  Eyesight  Working  Group  to  the 
European  Driving  Licence  Committee  for  a  possible  revision  of  the  standards  on  vision  for 
driving, and the project MEDRIL which had as objective to assess the medical examination 
for driving licence holders in four EU Member States in order to consider the different models 
used in Europe. 
Duration of the project GLARE: from 1 January 2003 to 21 December 2004. 
Duration of the project MEDRIL: from 1 March 2004 to 1 March 2006. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

The  study  regarding  diabetes  and  driving  has  been  carried  out  in  2006,  and  the  studies 
regarding epilepsy and visual functions in 2005. 
Specific topic: Driving education and training. 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: low results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  measure  is  consistent  with  the  general  objective  of 
increasing road safety through a proper revision of the physical and mental requirements for 
driving and their monitoring over time. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive 2009/112/EC at national level and continuing the study of the impact on road safety 
of medical examinations for driving licence holders. 
Measure 16 
Work towards establishing a scientific approach to learning how to drive and to road safety 
training, from school age. 
Objective: increasing the effectiveness of education for children and teenagers and therefore 
improving the safety of young drivers. 
Description:  Numerous  studies  have  shown  that  a  good  percentage  of  accidents  may  be 
attributed to insufficient or inappropriate training (TRAIN ALL website). 
This  issue  has  been  addressed  by  several  projects:  the  project  ROSE-25  (Inventory  and 
Compiling  of  an  European  Good  Practice  guide  on  road  safety  education  targeted  at  young 
people), investigated the situation of road safety education in the EU25. The project TRAIN-
ALL (Integrated System for driver Training and Assessment using Interactive education tools 
and  New  training  curricula  for  ALL  modes  of  road  transport)  aims  to  develop  a  computer-
based training system that integrates multimedia soft ware, virtual driving simulator and on-
board  vehicle  sensors  into  a  single  modular  platform.  The  developed  tools  are  being  tested 
and optimised in 11 pilot projects, aiming at products, guidelines, standards, certification and 
accreditation at pan-European level.The project ROSACE (Road Safety in cities: change road 
safety education in Europe) aims at creating a new educative approach based on the concept 
of  “street  safety  education”,  providing  the  guidelines  and  material  for  specific  health-
promoting actions in and outside schools. So far, the educational approach of ROSACE has 
been  applied  in  six  pilot  projects  launched  in  the  schools  of  six  European  cities:  Athens, 
Madrid, Rome, Tarragona, Vilnius and Warsaw. The main project partners are experts in child 
participation  and  road  safety  education.  Local  communities  as  well  are  invited  to  produce 
their own material to make ROSACE a reality in each of the participating cities. Finally, the 
project HERMES (High Impact approach for Enhancing Road safety through More Effective 
communication  Skills  for  driving  instructors)  has  the  objective  of  creating  an  easy-to-use 
training  package  on  teacher-trainee  communication  in  classrooms,  in  cars  and  on  dedicated 
tracks. A multi-national team of experienced driving teachers, psychologists, educational and 
coaching experts has been created for this purpose. The project focuses on the importance for 
driver training programs of developing self-evaluation skills, addressing how factors such as 
journey contexts and motivations  can impact  on driving.  Drawing on existing  experience of 
coaching  and  other  active  learning  methods  in  driver  training  and  on  expert  advice  on 
coaching,  HERMES  is  expected  to  produce  a  training  package  for  driving  teachers.  The 
complete package will be tested and evaluated in a pilot project. The project CLOSE TO aims 
at  establishing  innovative  methods  for  driving  school  education.  In  particular,  it  studies  the 
applications of the “peer education method”, in which “equals relate to equals”, and the ways 
of integrating it into driving education programmes. The objective is confronting young 
novice  drivers  with  young  drivers  who  have  caused  traffic  accidents:  selected  young  traffic 
accident  offenders  will  be  trained  so  as  to  be  able  to  effectively  confront  beginning  drivers 
with their personal experience as Ambassadors for Traffic Safety.  
Duration of the project ROSE 25: from 29 December 2003 to 29 March 2005. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

Duration of the project TRAIN-ALL: from 1 November 2006 to 31 December 2009. 
Duration of the project ROSACE: from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2009. 
Duration of the project HERMES: from 1 March 2007 to 28 February 2010. 
Duration of the project CLOSE TO: from January 2008 to December 2010. 
Specific topic: Driving education and training. 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency with other measures: the measure is closely linked with the initiatives related 
to drivers' behaviour and driving licence, in particular with those addressed to young drivers. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  action  on  driving  education  needs  to  be 
continued and the results need to be widely applied. 
Measure 17 
Continue specific work on young drivers and rehabilitation methods to reduce re-offending 
Objective: improving the safety of young drivers. 
Description:  Road  accidents  are  the  main  cause  of  violent  mortality  among  young  people. 
Young people between 15 and 24 years are especially vulnerable and account for about 21% 
of the total number of road fatalities in the EU. In order to reduce the accident risk of young 
drivers, the Commission acted at different levels. At the legislative level,  the  EC issued the 
Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences in December 2006, which, among others, defines 
the indicative minimum age for each type of vehicle and a staging system for drivers between 
vehicles categories aiming at reinforcing safety on European roads (see Measure 14 for more 
details).  At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  promoted  several  initiatives  in  the  domains  of 
training,  education  and  campaigns.  It  funded  the  project  YOUTH  ON  THE  ROAD,  backed 
three European Youth Fora for Road Safety. The project YOUTH ON THE ROAD aimed at 
promoting  the  participation  of  young  people  (up  to  the  age  of  24)  in  road  safety  actions  by 
creating a platform to promote different initiatives at the local level in 100 European cities. A 
youth and road safety network involving cultural, social and educational communities directly 
related to children and young adults was built and a internet website was created to involve 
young people's associations, parents' associations, cultural or health prevention associations, 
at local, regional, national and European level. The first European Road Safety Day was held 
on 27 April 2007 and presented the theme "Young Drivers". During this event, the European 
Commission  took  the  commitment  to  host  a  follow-up  meeting  dealing  with  the  topic  of 
young people's safety on the roads. More than 400 participants from more than 30 countries 
attended the Conference to discuss safety issues with regard to young people, focusing on the 
themes of alcohol and drugs in traffic, and training and education. The European Youth Fora 
for Road Safety were held in Brussels in July 2007, July 2008 and July 2009. With the 2008 
Forum, a network was set up to work together in order to reduce the number of young people 
killed every year on European roads. Also, six youth associations were given the opportunity 
to  sign  the  European  Road  Safety  Charter  (see  measure  4).  The  second  European  Youth 
Forum for Road Safety, held the 9th and 10th of July 2009, brought together young Europeans 
from  29  countries,  specialists,  institutions  and  public  and  private  organisations.  Three 
workshops discussed the issues of two-wheels, youth behaviour and sustainable mobility, and 
prepared  several  proposals  that  will  to  be  sent  to  institutional  representatives.  In  order  to 
promote  these  recommendations,  a  representative  from  the  Forum  participated  to  the  Road 
Safety  Conference  in  October  2009  in  Goteborg,  and  presented  them  in  front  of  the  EU 
Transportation  Ministers.  The  third  European  Youth  Forum  has  been  held  the  first  of  July 
2010.  Finally,  it  is  worth  remembering  the  project  CLOSE  TO  (see  Measure  16),  which 
involves young drivers who caused an accident in an educational process where young people 
are  confronted  with  coetaneous.  Teaching  to  others  ones  own  mistakes,  is  likely  to  help 
offenders to learn and improve. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

Duration of the project YOUTH ON THE ROAD: from 22 December 2003 to 22 December 
2005. The European Youth Forum for Road Safety is going to take place every year. 
Specific topic: Driving education and training. 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  measure  is  consistent  with  the  actions  addressed  to 
young drivers, in particular measures 14 and 16.  
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): a specific focus on young drivers needs to 
be maintained. 
Measure 18 
Encourage the general use of crash helmets by all two-wheel motor vehicle users 
Objective: increase the safety of the two-wheel motor vehicle drivers. 
Description:  The main purpose of helmets is to make riding a motorbike safer  by reducing 
the peak and the duration of acceleration of the head by absorbing the energy of a collision. 
A legislation project mandating the use of crash helmets was abandoned. Since specific norms 
already existed in all Member States, there was no need of intervention at the European level, 
also according to the subsidiarity principle. At present, the implementation of this measure is 
carried  out  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Road  Safety  Charter,  with  the  voluntary 
agreements undertaken by the signatories. The Motorcycle Industry Association (ACEM) has 
recently  signed  a  new  commitment  to  the  European  Road  Safety  Charter:  the  “ACEM 
Promotion and Advertising Guidelines” (ACEM, 2006). The general aim of the commitment 
is to ensure that all promotion and advertisements show the powered two-wheelers used in a 
safe  and  responsible  manner,  in  order  to  positively  influence  the  attitude  of  the  user.  In 
particular,  the  manufacturers’  advertisement  will  feature  a  logo  or  message  recommending 
that  users  wear  approved  helmets,  to  encourage  a  responsible  behaviour.  A  review  of  the 
available studies on helmets concludes that helmets are effective at preventing or reducing the 
severity of head injury to motorcyclists who crash by between 69% (MAIDS, 2009) and 72% 
(TRL,  2007).  Moreover,  according  to  a  study  carried  out  in  Greece  (Petridou,  Skalkidou, 
Ioannou,  Trichopoulos,  1998),  the  fatality  rate  of  riders  with  helmet  is  44%  lower  than  for 
riders without a helmet. The helmet wearing rate for drivers is in most countries well above 
90%.  Only  Greece,  Italy  and  Cyprus,  among  the  countries  with  available  data,  present 
wearing rate for drivers far from the average. More disappointing is the wearing rate for PTW 
passengers. 
Specific topic: power-two wheel. 
Type of impact: direct 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency with other measures: the action foreseen by this measure is tightly linked with 
the  actions  carried  out  in  the  domain  of  road  safety  education  (Measures  16  and  17).  The 
scope is strongly consistent with Measure 35 (motorcycles’ active safety). 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): support for the general use of crash helmets 
needs to be continued in the framework of the European Road Safety Charter and through ad 
hoc campaigns. The initiatives should target in particular those regions presenting the lowest 
wearing rates and should take into account the characteristics of the targeted population. 
Measure 19 
Study the effectiveness of crash helmet use by cyclists in different age groups, as well as the 
impact on bicycle use and the measures to be taken, where appropriate, at EU level 
Objective: improving cyclist safety. 
Description:  From  a  number  of  studies,  contradictory  evidence  emerged  about  the 
effectiveness  of  cycle  helmets.  Most  of  the  evidence  in  favour  of  helmet  effectiveness  has 
come  from  “case  control  studies”,  where  a  group  of cyclists with head injuries is compared 
with  one  or  more  groups  without.  This  approach  is,  however,  less  reliable  than  randomized 

EN 

17 

   EN 

controlled studies or cohort studies, but the latter have not been used in helmet research for 
practical  reasons,  since  injuries  to  cyclists  are  rare,  overall.  Sometimes  helmets  have  been 
found  to  protect  from  injuries  to  the  face,  sometimes  to  offer  no  protection  against  facial 
injuries. Some studies found that casualty trends from countries where helmet use has become 
significant show no reductions in serious or fatal injuries attributable to helmets. In England, 
an analysis of road traffic injuries found no association between differing patterns of helmet 
wearing rates and casualty rates for adults or children (Hewson, 2005). A study based in the 
Lothians in Scotland (Scottish Executive Social Research, 2005) found that although 39% of 
injured cyclists wore helmets, a much lower proportion (18% in 2001) of Scottish cyclists said 
they always wore a helmet, suggesting that helmet wearing is associated with a higher risk 
of  injury.  A  prominent  helmet  test  expert  (Walker,  2005)  has  stated  that  most  helmets  are 
physically incapable of sustaining impacts of the type associated with serious crashes; helmets 
provide  protection  only  in  low  impact  crashes  under  favourable  circumstances.  Helmeted 
cyclists have been shown to be more likely to hit their heads if they crash and may be more 
likely to crash in the first place. Thus, helmet use might adversely affect crash involvement or 
outcome.  Risk  compensation  by  cyclists  who  wear  helmets  has  been  confirmed  in  research 
(TRL, 1996). In conclusion, cycle helmets are likely to prevent minor wounds to the head, but 
not  serious,  life  threatening  injuries.  Moreover,  helmet  promotion  has  also  been  shown  to 
decrease cycle use (TRL, 1997): in all countries where helmet laws have been introduced and 
enforced, there has been a substantial reduction in cycling. Instead, it seems that the greatest 
influence  on  cycling  safety  is  the  number  of  people  who  cycle  (Jacobsen,  2003;  Robinson, 
2005;  Turner,  Roozenburg,  Francis,  2006):  cycling  gets  safer  the  more  people  do  it. 
Conversely, any reduction in cycle use, due to helmets or any other factor, results in 
reduced safety for cyclists as a whole, including those who decide to wear helmets. 
Considering  the  numerous  studies  for  and  against  helmets,  it  seems  that  the  evidence  is  too 
ambiguous  to  take  a  stand  one  way  or  another.  It  also  needs  to  be  considered  that,  where 
helmet  use  is  voluntary,  the  levels  of  helmet  wearing  by  cyclists  are  much  higher  (TRL, 
2005). 
Specific topic: Vulnerable road users 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: no results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  in  order  to  finalise  this  measure,  statistics  on  cyclists 
accidents need to be improved (in the framework of Measure 59). 
Contribution to road safety: no results. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  a  comprehensive  review  of  the  evidence 
would need to be undertaken on a wider base, improving data collection about cyclists' road 
accidents. The research should be extended to assess other measures to improve cyclist safety 
(for  example,  construction  of  bike  lanes,  improving  bikers’  visibility,  etc.).  Cyclist 
associations  need  to  be  involved  in  the  policy  processes  regarding  cycling  policies  and 
infrastructure management. 
Measure 20 
The  Commission  will  continue  to  support  EuroNCAP  to  enable  further  progress  to  be 
made,  to  raise  awareness  among  and  inform  consumers  and  to  strengthen  the 
representation of the Member States 
Objective: encourage and improve the safety of cars. 
is  an 
Description:  The  European  New  Car  Assessment  Programme  (EuroNCAP) 
international  association  which  tests  vehicles  in  order  to  provide  with  an  accurate  and 
independent assessment  of the  safety performance  of  some  of  the  most  popular  cars  sold  in 
Europe. Its main objectives are: 
- encouraging significant safety improvements to new car design; 
- reactively and proactively encourage the development of new technologies; 

EN 

18 

   EN 

- support the safety departments within car manufacturers; 
- reducing the number of crash fatalities and accidents on European roads; 
- carrying out independent and accurate crash-testing; 
- stimulating discussion on safety issues. 
Since 2009, EuroNCAP releases an overall rating for each tested vehicle, with assessments in 
adult  occupant  protection,  child  protection,  pedestrian  protection  and  safety  assist.  It  also 
releases information on electronic stability control fitment and results of seats put through rear 
impact (whiplash) testing. The programme involves legislators, industry, research, consumer 
organisations  and  insurers.  The  European  Commission  is  an  observing  member  of 
EuroNCAP’s  board  and  provides  political  support.  Moreover,  DG  Research  funded  several 
scientific  projects  for  enhancing  vehicle  testing  methods  and  improving  their  reliability:  the 
projects ADVANCE, CHILD, HUMOS2, SIBER, ISI-PADAS, THOMO and THORAX. 
Established  in  December  1996,  the  programme  is  now  backed  by  seven  European 
Governments  (France,  Germany,  Sweden,  United  Kingdom,  Luxembourg,  The  Netherlands 
and  the  Catalonian  part  of  Spain),  the  European  Commission  and  motoring  and  consumer 
organisations.  In  February  2009  a  new  rating  scheme  was  launched.  The  new  overall  rating 
reflects the protection offered to adult and child occupants as well as pedestrians and, for the 
first  time,  considers  the  safety  potential  of  advanced  driver  assistance  technologies  such  as 
electronic stability control. Up to September 2009, 245 car models have been tested. 
Specific topic: building stakeholder commitment 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  activity  of  EuroNCAP  is  consistent  with  all  the 
measures aiming at increasing passive vehicle safety. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): EuroNCAP - now a sustainable activity - is 
no longer supported by the Commission. Beyond the standard information on passive safety, 
the Euro-NCAP scheme should be encouraged to address more and more additional features. 
Measure21 
Develop  a  harmonised  specification  for  the  installation  of  audible  or  visual  seat  belt 
reminder systems and promote their universal use by voluntary agreement 
Objective: increase the safety of car occupants. 
Description:  UNECE  made  a  first  step  in  regulating  and  harmonising  the  specifications 
regarding seat belt reminders (UNECE, 2009), but only with regard to the driver’s position. 
Within  the  EU,  the  installation  of  safety  belt  reminder  systems  is  being  implemented  and 
encouraged by voluntary agreements, notably through the project CARS 21, the commitments 
taken in the framework of the European Road Safety Charter and the incentive given by the 
EuroNCAP’s  assessment  of  cars  safety  performance.  The  research  project  CARS  21  (A 
Competitive  Automotive  Regulatory  System  for  the  21st  century)  aimed  at  making 
recommendations for the short, medium, and long term public policy and regulatory 
framework  for  the  European  automotive  industry  to  enhance  global  competitiveness  and 
employment while sustaining safety and environmental performance. One of the key aims of 
the  project  was  to  provide  regulatory  stability  and  planning  certainty  for  the  industry.  It 
examined  the  major  policy  areas  which  impact  the  competitiveness  of  the  European 
automotive industry, assessing the possible contribution  of the European vehicle industry to 
the road safety objectives. The Final Report of the project (CARS 21, 2005) affirms that the 
best  means  of  improving  road  safety  would  be  to  adopt  a  holistic,  integrated  approach 
involving vehicle technology, infrastructure and the driver. Concerning seat belt reminders, it 
encourages the adoption of this vehicle technology measure in all new vehicles. 
Duration of the project CARS 21: from 13 January to 12 December 2005. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

In  June  2008,  the  EU  Commission  launched  the  CARS  21  mid-term  review  process 
(CARS21, 2008) to evaluate the progress made, assess the state of play, and consider whether 
any changes are necessary to the existing regulatory framework in the light of the experience. 
In May 2009, the UNECE Regulation 16 adopted uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled 
vehicles, providing uniform provisions concerning the approval of seat belt reminders. 
Specific topic: Vehicle occupants protection 
Type of impact: direct 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency with other measures: 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  scope  of  this  measure  is  consistent  with  the  actions 
carried out in the framework of Euro NCAP (Measure 20) and of the European Safety Charter 
(Measure 4). 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  UNECE  recently  made  a  first  step  in 
defining the approval of a seat belt reminder system, but only for the driver. From a European 
perspective,  a  higher  level  standard  could  be  justified.  The  seat  belt  reminder  provisions  of 
this  regulation  could  be  used  as  a  basis  for  a  European  regulation  that  includes  the  front 
passenger seat and, in a second phase, the rear seating positions. 
Measure22 
Introduce universal anchorage systems for child restraint devices 
Objective: increase the safety of children in the car. 
Description:  The  legislative  framework  for  a  definition  of  the  anchorage  systems  for  adult 
passengers is set by the following three Directives: 
- Directive 2005/39/EC relates to motor vehicles with regard to the seats, their anchorages and 
head restraints. It bans the use of side-facing seats in passenger vehicles. 
- Directive 2005/40/EC relates to seat belts and restraint systems. 
- Directive 2005/41/EC relates to anchorages for safety belts. 
However, there is no legislation relating specifically to universal anchorage systems for child 
restraint devices. Many child restraint users fail to attach the child restraint securely to the car 
and this compromises the protection afforded to the children. This is why there is the need for 
a  definition  of  universal  systems  for  the  anchorage  of  children.  The  Euro  NCAP  has 
encouraged improved designs and the fitment of ISOFIX mounts and child restraints, which 
provide a much more secure method of attaching the child restraint to the car, since 
additional provision is made to prevent rotation of the child restraint. As a consequence, Euro 
NCAP  has  seen  improved  designs,  where  the  child  is  less  likely  to  strike  the  car’s  interior, 
whilst  at  the  same  time  experiencing  reduced  forces  from  the  restraint  system.  The 
improvement of child restraint devices is also supported by voluntary agreements promoted 
through  the  European  Road  Safety  Charter.  The  general  installation  of  universal  anchorage 
systems  for  child  restraint  devices  is  to  be  made  compulsory  by  a  Directive,  but  at  present 
there is not any proposal in this respect. 
Specific topic: vehicle occupant protection 
Type of impact: direct. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency with other measures: the scope of this measure is tightly linked with the 
implementation of Measure 55. 
Measure 23 
Improve cars to reduce the severity of accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists 
Objective: increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. 
Description:  The  EC  Directive  2003/102/EC  introduced  pedestrian  protection  requirements 
for the construction of motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number and severity of injuries 
to  pedestrians  and  other  vulnerable  road  users.  It  sets  the  procedure  for  type-approval  of 
vehicles in two stages, with the injury limits for stage 2 more stringent than those of stage 1. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

Since many vehicle manufacturers were of the opinion that compliance with the stage 2 limits 
was not feasible, a review clause was concluded in 2007, proposing a number of relaxations to 
the stage 2 limits. To offset these relaxations and to ensure that the reductions in pedestrian 
fatalities and injuries were still achieved, the European Commission proposed mandating the 
fitment  of  Brake  Assist  systems  (systems  designed  to  sense  an  emergency  braking  situation 
and  assist  the  driver  in  achieving  the  maximum  achievable  deceleration  in  the  prevailing 
conditions),  which  have  been  shown  to  have  significant  benefits  in  terms  of  pedestrian 
protection.  The  EC  Directive  2005/66/EC  laid  down  technical  requirements  for  the  type-
approval  of  motor  vehicles  as  regards  frontal  protection  systems.  The  Directives 
2003/102/EEC  on  pedestrian  protection  and  2005/66/EC  on  frontal  protection  systems  were 
replaced by the new EC Regulation 78/2009 on pedestrian protection, adopted on  
14 January 2009. In the new Regulation: 
- The scope is extended to cover vehicles exceeding 2.500 kg. 
- Requirements for the mandatory fitment of brake assist systems are introduced. 
- The limits for stage 2 tests are reduced. 
Uniform technical requirements for wheeled vehicles are also prescribed, for certain vehicle 
categories,  by  the  UNECE  Regulation  13,  which,  among  others,  defines  the  key  concepts 
relating to the braking systems. At present, it is being revised to include a norm about assisted 
emergency braking systems. Besides the legislative actions, two research projects have been 
funded by the Commission in this domain within the framework of the IST programme: 
- The project SAVE-U (Sensors and system architecture for vulnerable road users protection), 
which  developed  an  innovative  sensor  platform  for  an  optimised  vulnerable  road  user 
detection  implementing  driver  warning  and  vehicle  control  strategies  to  avoid,  or  at  least 
minimise, the impact of a crash. 
- The project WATCH-OVER, whose goal was the design and development of a cooperative 
system  for  the  prevention  of  accidents  involving  vulnerable  road  users  in  urban  and  extra-
urban  areas  based  on  short  range  communication  and  vision  sensors.  Finally,  pedestrian 
protection has received additional weight within the new Euro NCAP rating scheme 
(see  Measure  20),  which  provides  a  strong  incentive  for  the  voluntary  implementation  of 
vehicle safety measures. The new overall rating, which includes pedestrian protection, forces 
car-makers to improve pedestrian protection if they want to receive 4 or 5 star ratings in the 
future. Duration of the SAVE-U project: from 1 March 2002 to 30 September 2005. 
Duration of the WATCH-OVER project: from January 2006 to December 2008. 
Regarding the  application of the  Regulation 78/2009,  the timetable for varies in function of 
the  vehicles  type  from  24  November  2009  to  24  August  2019.  By  24  February  2014,  the 
Commission  shall  review  the  feasibility  and  application  of  these  enhanced  passive  safety 
requirements and the functioning of this Regulation with regard to the use and effectiveness 
of brake assist and other active safety technologies. 
Specific topic: vulnerable road users 
Type of impact: direct 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  scope  of  this  measure  is  consistent  with  the  actions 
carried out in the framework of Euro NCAP (Measure 20) and with the research in the domain 
of the eSafety initiative. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the research on new technologies and on a 
more effective car design to reduce the severity of accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists 
needs to be deepened. 
Measure 24 
Study the causes of and ways of preventing whiplash injuries 
Objective: reducing the severity of car accidents. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

Description: Neck injuries resulting from car crashes, or whiplash associated disorders, are a 
serious  traffic  safety  issue  with  huge  costs  for  the  individual  as  well  as  for  society.  It  is 
recognised that important progress in neck injury mitigation could be achieved by improving 
the  use,  design  and  efficiency  of  seats  and  head  restraints  in  vehicles.  To  this  aim,  the 
European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee (EEVC) carried out several studies concerning 
whiplash  injuries  in  order  to  support  the  development  and  enhancement  of  European  safety 
standards and legislation. A dedicated working group (WG20) was formed with the aim of 
developing  test  procedures  for  rear-end  collisions,  with  a  prime  focus  on  neck  injury 
reduction. The specific activities to be carried out by WG20 are: 
1) developing a static test of head restraint geometry; 
2) developing a dynamic test of head restraint geometry; 
3) developing a dynamic injury prediction test procedure; 
4) contribute to the Global Technical Regulation Informal Working Group on head restraints. 
Moreover, there  are  studies  funded  in the framework of other research projects, such as the 
project Whiplash I & II and the project ADSEAT (adaptive seat to reduce neck injuries for 
female  and  male  occupants).  The  Whiplash  I  project  (reduction  of  neck  injuries  and  their 
societal  costs  in  rear  end  collisions)  developed  a  test  and  design  method  for  whiplash 
protection. However, this method considers the loading phase of rear-end collisions only. The 
project  was  followed  by  Whiplash  II  (Development  of  new  design  and  test  methods  for 
whiplash protection in vehicle collisions), aiming at minimising the incidence and risk of neck 
injuries in frontal and oblique impacts as well as in the rebound phase of a rear-end collision, 
and  at  integrating  this  with  the  recently  developed  methods  for  the  loading  phase  of  rear-
impact collisions. The objective was reducing the risk and costs of low-severity neck injuries 
in car collisions by at least 40% by means of the introduction of safer vehicle designs. 
The  study  Multi-disciplinary  Design  Optimization  of  Adaptive  Vehicle  Safety  Systems  for 
Whiplash  Associated  Disorders  (MDO-WAD),  funded  under 
the  Sixth  Framework 
Programme,  proposed  to  develop  a  design  methodology  incorporating  the  contribution  of 
vehicle design factors (such as vehicle structural characteristics, seat geometry and material, 
etc.)  to  all  four  phases  (retraction,  extension,  rebound  and  protraction)  of  whiplash,  and  to 
optimise  vehicle  safety,  minimizing  injury  potential.  Also,  the  adaptability  of  the  safety 
system  to  occupant  size  and  gender  is  one  of  the  major  project  undertakings.  The  project 
ADSEAT,  funded  under  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme,  aims  at  evaluating  adaptive 
anti-whiplash  systems  in  particular  for  females.  In  fact  it  emerged  that  this  part  of  the 
population is at higher risk than males for these injuries (the difference in risk is between 40-
100%),  but  when  assessing  the  vehicle  safety  the  only  available  occupant  model  for  these 
impact scenarios is an average male. Its objective is to establish the properties for a model of 
an average female and to implement those in a computational model for low severity testing, 
in addition to the male model that already exists. Finally, since January 2009, rear impact tests 
and whiplash rating have been introduced in the new EuroNCAP rating system in the Adult 
Protection score. 
Up to now, the EEVC working group has been working on the first assignment. 
Duration of the project Whiplash II: from 1 March 2001 to 31 August 2004. 
Duration of the project MDO-WAD: from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2009. 
Duration of the project ADSEAT: from 1 October 2009 to 31 March 2013. 
Specific topic: vehicle occupants' protection 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  results  of  the  research  on  whiplash  injuries  will 
enable  further  progress  in  vehicle  design  and  in  the  testing  activity  of  Euro  NCAP  (see 
Measure 20). 

EN 

22 

   EN 

What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): EuroNCAP has introduced an evaluation of 
the efficiency of whiplash protection systems. The automotive industry should translate into 
action the outcomes of research, once finalised. 
Measure 25 
Support the development of smart restraint systems. 
Objective: improving safety of car occupants. 
Description:  Traditional  safety  belts  and  air  bags  are  set  up  to  provide  protection  by 
deploying in a fixed manner. Advanced restraint systems, on the contrary, consider variables 
such  as  occupant  weight,  seating  position,  safety-belt  usage  and  vehicle  deceleration  to 
control belt forces and deploy the air bag optimally. For example, many new air-bag systems 
are designed to not deploy into unoccupied seating positions or when an occupant is out of the 
normal seating position and to fill at different speeds and to different volumes. The PRISM 
project  (Proposed  Reduction  of  car  crash  Injuries  through  improved  SMart  restraint 
development technologies) was designed to facilitate the efficient and effective development 
of  smart  restraint  systems  for  Europe.  The  project,  funded  under  the  Fifth  Framework 
Programme and involving industrial and academic partners from five European countries, was 
set up to assess the potential benefits of smart systems in real world situations and to develop 
guidelines for the future testing of such systems. The testing and evaluation of smart restraint 
systems is not taken into account by the Euro NCAP rating system yet. 
Duration of the project PRISM: from 12 January 2002 to 3 September 2005. 
Specific topic: vehicle occupants' protection. 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency with other measures: the results of the research on smart restraint systems will 
enable further progress in vehicle design. The aim is consistent with the general objective of 
increasing the car occupants’ safety. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  research  should  be  deepened  and  the 
application of the results should be supported in collaboration with the automotive industry. 
The  testing  of  smart  restraint  systems,  once  installed  in  the  majority  of  vehicles,  could  be 
included in the EuroNCAP rating system 
Measure 26 
Adapt to technical progress the front, side and rear-end impact directives for lorries to limit 
vehicle under-run, and introduce energy absorption criteria. 
Objective: reducing the severity of truck accidents. Due to the size and mass of heavy good 
vehicles, the problem of compatibility with occupants of other vehicles and vulnerable road 
users is a main issue. EU requirements have been introduced in the past mandating front, rear 
and  side  under-run  protection  for  trucks  with  a  gross  weight  over  3.5  tonnes  (Directives 
2000/40, 70/221 and 89/297 respectively). The intention of amending those Directives in the 
light  of  the  reached  technical  progress  and  to  introduce  the  concept  of  energy  absorption 
criteria  has seen a stop  because of the  success of voluntary industry implementations in the 
framework  of  Euro  NCAP.  Of  particular  interest  is  the  development  of  the  “soft  nose” 
concept for heavy goods vehicles that is being studied by the Commission. The “soft nose” is 
a safety measure designed to absorb the energy of the impact in case of trucks collisions. 
Suggestions  for  improving  rear  and  side  under-run  safety  were  also  developed  in  the 
framework  of  the  project  VC  Compat  (see  Measure  27  for  details),  which  studied  test 
procedures  regarding  car-to-truck  impact  to  assess  and  control  truck  frontal  structures  for 
frontal  impact  compatibility  with  cars.  The  project  APROSYS  (Advanced  Protection 
Systems) contributed also to the development of protection systems for front and side impacts 
involving heavy trucks. 
Duration of the project APROSYS: from 1 January 2004 to 1 December 2009. 
Specific topic: vehicle crash compatibility 

EN 

23 

   EN 

Type of impact: direct 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  aim  is  consistent  with  the  general  objective  of 
reducing the severity of the consequences of accidents involving trucks. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the existing legislative framework for front, 
side and rear-end protection should be adapted in light of the results achieved by the research. 
Measure 27 
Make vehicles more compatible 
Objective: improving car occupant safety. 
Description:  Traffic  related  accidents  are  still  a  major  issue:  in  2007,  more  than  42.000 
people  died  on  the  roads  and  over  1.2  million  of  accidents  caused  personal  injuries  (CARE 
data).  Of  those  fatalities,  about  80%  are  car  occupants  fatalities,  with  small  deviations  per 
country11, and 50-60% of those (i.e. 15.000 people) die in car-to-car or car-to-truck collisions. 
Therefore,  there  remains  much  potential  benefit  for  improving  vehicle  crash  compatibility 
(described by the self protection level and the structural interaction) and car occupant safety. 
Two  research  projects  funded  by  the  Commission  have  specifically  addressed  the  issue  of 
vehicle  compatibility.  The  project  VC-COMPAT  (Improvement  of  Vehicle  Crash 
Compatibility  through  the  Development  of  Crash  Test  procedures),  funded  under  the  Fifth 
Framework  Programme,  aimed  at  developing  crash  test  procedures  regarding  car-to-car  and 
car-to-truck impact, in order to lead to an improvement in vehicle crash compatibility. 
It accomplished the following specific tasks: 
- drawing up a suite of draft test procedures and associated performance criteria; 
- building a framework for a crash compatibility rating system; 
- improving the understanding for vehicle crash compatibility with general recommendations 
for the design of compatible cars; 
- identifying the benefits and costs of improved compatibility for both cars and trucks. 
Taking into account the VC-COMPAT project activities, the project FIMCAR deepened the 
research, testing different approaches for the assessment of compatibility. Both are composed 
of  an  off-set  and  a  full  overlap  test  procedure.  In  addition  another  approach  (tests  with  a 
moving  deformable  barrier)  is  getting  more  and  more  in  the  focus  of  present  research 
programmes. Within this project different off-set, full overlap and MDB test procedures are 
analysed in order to propose a compatibility assessment approach which will be accepted and 
shared  by  the  involved  industry  and  research  organisations.  The  development  work  will  be 
accompanied  by  harmonisation  activities  to  include  research  results  from  outside  the 
consortium and to early disseminate the project outcomes. Beside the research carried out in 
the  projects  mentioned  above,  an  important  incentive  for  implementing  technical  measures 
aimed at vehicles compatibility comes from EuroNCAP, which tests each vehicle simulating 
car-to-car  frontal  and  side  impacts.  A  test  to  assess  car-to-truck  impacts  has  not  been 
developed in the framework of Euro NCAP yet. Calculated on EU27 CARE data, excluding 
BG, LT, RO, SI, SK (not available). 
Duration of the project VC-COMPAT: from 1 March 2003 to 1 March 2006. 
Duration of the project FIMCAR: from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2012. 
Specific topic: vehicle crash compatibility 
Type of impact: direct 
Contribution to road safety: high results - Concerning car to car impact, it is estimated (VC-
COMPAT, 2007) that improved frontal compatibility could save between 721 and 1.332 lives 

11 

Calculated on EU27 CARE data, excluding BG, LT, RO, SI, SK (not available). 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
and could reduce seriously injured casualties between 5.128 and 15.383 per year in the 
EU1512. 
Consistency with other measures: the scope of this measure is consistent with the action 
carried out by EuroNCAP.  
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): de measure should be continued. 
Measure 28 
Examine the impact on road safety of the proliferation of 4x4s, sports utility vehicles and 
multi-purpose vehicles 
Objective: support policy-making. 
Description:  The  number  of  4x4s,  multi-purpose  vehicles  (MPV)  and  sport  utility  vehicles 
(SUV) is growing. For example, in western Europe (EU15 and EFTA countries) the share of 
4x4 in new car registrations has been significantly growing since the end of the Nineties, from 
about 3% of all the cars registered in 1997 to about 10% in 2007 (ACEA statistics13). Between 
2008  and  2009  this  share  showed  a  reduction  to  8%  reasonably  attributable  to  economic 
slowdown, but it can be expected to increase again once consumers’ confidence recovers. The 
issue is that the safety and environmental performance of these vehicles are not in line with 
modern European passenger cars. According to a recent study conducted in the US (Insurance 
Institute for highway safety, 2007), cars almost always have lower death rates than pickups or 
SUVs. A first contribution to the analysis of the impact on road safety of 4x4s, sports utility 
vehicles  and  multi-purpose  vehicles  was  developed  in  the  framework  of  the  project 
ROLLOVER (Improvement of rollover safety for passenger vehicles), funded under the Fifth 
Framework  Programme.  The  project  aimed  to  develop  effective  rollover  systems  in  a  cost 
efficient  manner  in  order  to  provide  increased  occupant  safety.  It  covered  various  types  of 
rollover accidents, including injury mechanisms and protection methods, targeting passenger 
cars,  SUV,  MPV  and  Minivans.  The  main  results  have  been  an  electronically  rollover 
database and the categorization on rollover scenarios, best practice instruction for numerical 
and experimental test methods and a physical demonstrator on rollover occupant safety. Later 
on,  the  Commission  funded  a  research  project  specifically  addressed  to  the  aim  of  this 
measure. The project IMPROVER (Impact Assessment of Road Safety Measures for Vehicles 
and Road Equipment), and in particular the Subproject 1, examined the impact on road safety 
(and  the  environmental  issues)  due  to  the  increasing  use  of  sports  utility  and  multi-purpose 
vehicles.  
Duration of the project ROLLOVER: from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2005. 
Duration of the project IMPROVER: from 23 November 2004 to 23 May 2006. 
Specific topic: vehicle crash compatibility 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: low results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  scope  of  this  measure  is  strictly  linked  with  the 
enhancement  of  vehicle  compatibility  (see  Measure  27).  The  research  implementation  is 
closely connected with the studies carried out in the framework of Measure 56 (examine the 
impact of the growing use of small commercial vehicles and company vehicles). 
Outcomes 
The  research  carried  out  within  the  project  IMPROVER  (IMPROVER,  2006)  showed  that 
there  is  a  higher  safety  risk  with  SUVs  in  collisions  with  other  road  users  as  compared  to 
collisions between other passenger cars and other road users. Instead, there are no distinctive 
trends  observable  for  the  MPV  car  category.  The  source  of  this  higher  safety  risk  in  road 
accidents is the misalignment of crashworthy structures, significant mass differences between 

12 
13 

Analysis based on UK and German accident data only.  
ACEA does not provide specific data for SUVs and MPVs categories. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

                                                 
the  SUV  and  the  other  vehicles,  and  incompatible  structural  stiffness.  Besides  the  safety 
aspects,  there  is  concern  that  SUVs  and  MPVs  might  have  a  poorer  environmental 
performance than other cars. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the increase of SUVs and MPVs in the EU 
countries  should  be  further  monitored  and  investigated.  To  this  end,  a  clear  distinction 
between passenger cars and SUVs in sales numbers would be helpful. 
Measure 29 
Examine the wide-scale use of daytime running lights on all vehicles 
Objective: assessing the use of daytime running lights on vehicles in Member States. 
Description: In 2006 there were fourteen European countries with mandatory use of daytime 
running lights (DRL). Some Member States recommend the use of DRL and are waiting for 
harmonised  European  legislation.  The  consultation  paper  “Saving  Lives  with  Daytime 
Running Lights” (EC, Directorate General for Energy and Transport, 2006) sought views on 
the mandatory use and the installation of automatic dedicated DRL on all motor vehicles (also 
trucks  and  busses,  mobile  machinery,  small  four-wheeled  vehicles,  tractors,  etc.)  in 
circulation on EU roads. The report “Road Safety Performance Indicators: Theory” (Hakkert 
et al, 2007) provided details about the theory behind the development of safety performance 
indicators  (SPIs)  in  seven  predefined  road  safety  domains,  including  daytime  running  lights 
(DRL).  The  report  “Safety  Performance  Indicators  for  Daytime  Running  Lights:  Theory 
Update” (Hollo P., Gitelman V., 2008) presented an update to the basic SPIs theory report, in 
part concerning the development of the DRL SPIs. This report summed up the general theory 
behind the development of the DRL SPIs, including a more detailed insight into the reported 
effects  of  DRL  on  vulnerable  road  users  (pedestrians,  two-wheelers).  It  is  noteworthy  to 
mention the European Commission Directive 2008/89 which amended, for the purposes of its 
adaptation  to  technical  progress,  the  Council  Directive  76/756/EEC  concerning  the 
installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers. At the 
basis for Directive 2008/89 there were the results of the project DRL, funded by DG TREN 
and carried out from 1 January 2003 to 1 January 2004. 
State of implementation 
The EC consultation paper was carried out in 2006, the report “Safety Performance Indicators 
for  Daytime  Running  Lights:  Theory  Update”  in  2008.  Directive  2008/8914  has  been 
emanated on the 24 September 2008 with effect from 7 February 2011. 
Specific topic: Active safety of vehicles 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency with other measures: this measure is connected with Measure 30 and 31 aimed 
at improving the visibility of the vehicles. 
Outcomes 
The conclusions of the EC consultation paper can be summarised as follows: 
- Research indicates that DRL could help saving between 1.200 and 2.000 lives per year on 
EU roads. From an environmental and technical as well as from a road safety point of view, 
there is a strong case for moving forward with a technical requirement to equip all vehicles 
with automatic dedicated daytime running lights. 
-  In  order  to  deploy  the  positive  effects  of  DRL  as  quickly  and  thoroughly  as  possible, 
consideration  should  also  be  given  to  a  user  requirement  to  use  dipped-beam  headlights  or 
retrofitted dedicated DRL even without an automatic switch and light sensors. 
- In order to provide for necessary flexibility, a legislative initiative on DRL could foresee a 
fixed  date  for  the  transposition  of  the  technical  requirement  to  install  automatic  dedicated 

14 

OJ L 257, 25.9.2008, p. 14–15. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

                                                 
DRL on new vehicles and an appropriate period of time to transpose the user requirement for 
existing vehicles. The conclusions of the report “Safety Performance Indicators for Daytime 
Running Lights: Theory Update” are: 
- Based on the literature review and recent experiences of several European countries, it can 
be  stated  that  DRL  can  contribute  to  the  improvement  of  road  safety.  There  is  no  scientific 
evidence for the frequently mentioned negative effects for vulnerable road users (pedestrians, 
cyclists or motorcyclists). 
- The widespread introduction of DRL could be optimal if the behavioural measures for older 
vehicles are coincided with the installation of an advanced DRL unit on new cars. This would 
result  in  a  combination  of  accident  casualty  reduction  and  reduced  vehicle  emission, 
especially when LED lamps are used. However, vehicle requirements can only be introduced 
at the EU level. 
- The DRL SPIs are defined as the percentage of vehicles using daytime running lights, where 
the  value  is  estimated  for  different  road  categories  and  for  different  vehicle  types.  The 
background  information  on  the  DRL  legislation  is  essential  for  a  correct  interpretation  and 
comparison  of  the  results.  For  example,  comparing  the  countries’  DRL  usage  rates  it  is 
reasonable to take into account whether the countries have a law/ regulation on obligatory use 
of DRL and if they do, when and where. 
- Besides, in countries where automatic DRL was introduced a long time ago (e.g. Sweden, 
Norway) current DRL usage rate is close to 100%, thus the DRL usage rate as a behavioural 
safety performance indicator does not have practical implications any more. In general, once 
the  option  of  automatic  DRL  is  introduced  Europe-wide,  the  DRL  indicators  will  lose  their 
importance as an indicator of safety performance. Directive 2008/89 introduces the obligation 
for fitting dedicated daytime running lights on motor vehicles in order to increase road safety 
by improving the conspicuity of these vehicles. As the Directive 2008/89 addresses only the 
new vehicles, the impact of this measure depends on the renewal of the EU vehicle fleet. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): possible solutions regarding the conspicuity 
of older vehicles could be investigated.  
Measure 30 
Improve the visibility of heavy duty vehicles 
Objective: increasing safety performances of HGVs. 
Description: Crash investigations show that nearly 5% of severe truck accidents can be traced 
back  to  poor  conspicuity  of  the  truck  or  its  trailer  at  night.  These  accidents  can  be 
characterised by the fact that car drivers often fail to recognise trucks or truck combinations 
driving ahead of them. In most cases trucks are in slow motion, are entering the road or are 
turning  off  the  road.  Different  studies  showed  that  trucks  can  be  rendered  much  more 
conspicuous by marking their sides and rear using retro reflective marking tape. Conspicuity 
marking  tape  is  a  high  performance  retro  reflective  tape  which  reflects  most  of  the  light 
falling  onto  it  back  towards  the  light  source.  The  study  “Conspicuity  of  Heavy  Goods 
Vehicles”  recommends  equipping  the  side  and  rear  of  vehicles  heavier  than  3.5  tons  with  a 
contour  marking  covering  at  least  80%  of  each  side  and  with  a  line  marking  when  contour 
marking is impossible. The study also recommends equipping all new vehicles with contour 
markings and, for the existing vehicle fleet, a transition period for retrofitting of at least 
six years. According to the study, this would save 165 lives,  857  serious  injuries and 1.836 
light injuries per year in the EU-15, which would represent a saving of 390 millions euro. 
In order to increase road safety by improving the conspicuity of large trucks and their trailers, 
the  European  Commission  emanated  the  Directive  2007/3515  which  amended,  for  the 

15 

OJ L 157, 19.6.2007, p. 14–16. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, Council Directive 76/756/EEC concerning the 
installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers. 
The results of project CONSPICUITY, funded by DG TREN and regarding the conspicuity of 
heavy  good  vehicles,  have  been  the  basis  for  the  Directive  2007/35.  It  is  worth  to  mention 
also the project CLARESCO, funded by DG RTD, aimed at improving traffic safety and truck 
and car drivers’ comfort during night time driving. 
Directive 2007/35 was emanated on the 18 June 2007 with effect from 10 July 2011. 
Duration of the project CLARESCO: from 1 June 2002 to 31 May 2005. 
Duration of the project CONSPICUITY: from 1 December 2003 to 1 December 2004. 
Specific topic: accident prevention 
Type of impact: direct 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency with other measures: the measure is consistent with Measure 29 as it aims to 
improving the visibility of vehicles, in particular of heavy duty vehicles. 
Outcomes 
The Directive 2007/35 introduced the obligation for fitting retro reflective marking on large 
trucks  and  their  trailers  vehicles.  Project  CLARESCO  provided  for  safety,  ergonomics  and 
comfort recommendations concerning new lighting technologies for truck and car. 
In 2004, the European Commission has commissioned a study (TÜV Rheinland, Conspicuity 
of  Heavy  Goods  Vehicles)  which  indicates  a  positive  benefit-cost  ratio  (between  2  and  4) 
when  the  tape  is  applied  to  new  goods  vehicles  with  a  gross  vehicle  weight  exceeding  3.5 
tons. The highest benefit-cost ratio was achieved for vehicles exceeding 12 tons. This is due 
to  the  fact  that  larger  goods  vehicles  are  above-average  involved  in  accidents  compared  to 
their share in the vehicle stock. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  monitoring  the  implementation  of 
Commission Directive 2007/35 at national level. 
Measure 31 
Eliminate blind spots towards the rear for drivers of heavy duty vehicles 
Objective: increasing safety performances of HGVs. 
Description: A number of accidents are caused by drivers of heavy goods vehicles who are 
not aware that other road users are very close to or beside their vehicle. These accidents are 
often related to a change of direction at crossings, junctions or roundabouts when drivers fail 
to detect other road users in the blind spots which exist in the area immediately around their 
vehicles.  It  is  estimated  that  every  year  about  400  people  in  Europe  are  killed  in  such 
circumstances, most of them being vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists and 
pedestrians.  Directive  2003/97/EC16  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  10 
November 2003 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type 
approval  of  devices  for  indirect  vision  and  of  vehicles  equipped  with  these  devices,  whilst 
having  great  potential  for  reducing  the  number  of  casualties,  affects  only  newly  registered 
vehicles.  In  particular  according  to  this  Directive  since  2006  new  vehicle  types  and 
respectively  since  2007  new  vehicles  can  only  be  granted  approval  by  the  Member  States’ 
authorities if they are equipped with a set of mirrors and other systems of indirect fulfilling 
certain  requirements  in  order  to  reduce  their  blind  spots.  For  purposes  of  adaptation  to 
technical  progress,  Directive  2003/97/EC  was  amended  by  Commission  Directive 
2005/27/EC of 29 March 2005. Directive 2007/38/EC17 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council regards vehicles which were already in circulation and are therefore not subject to the 
obligations set out in Directive 2003/97/EC. The project MIRRORS constituted the basis for 

16 
17 

OJ L 25, 29.1.2004, p. 1–45. 
OJ L 184, 14.7.2007, p. 25–28. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
Directive  2007/38/EC.  In  fact  the  objective  of  the  study  was  to  assess  the  consequences  of 
extending the legislation regarding blind spot mirrors not only to new vehicles, but also to the 
existing ones. 
State of implementation 
Directive 2007/38/EC was emanated on 11 July 2007 with effect from 6 August 2007 and not 
later than 31 March 2009. 
Duration of project MIRRORS: from 1 December 2003 to 1 June 2004. 
Specific topic: accident prevention 
Type of impact: direct. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  is  consistent  with  all  the  active  safety 
actions  aimed  at  making  easier  the  driving  task  and  helping  drivers  to  face  dangerous  road 
situations. 
Outcomes 
In  the  framework  of  project  MIRRORS  a  cost-benefit  analysis  of  blind  spot  mirrors  was 
carried out. The main recommendation of the analysis was to introduce a legislation for the 
retrofitting of mirrors for both new and existing heavy good vehicles as soon as possible in 
order to obtain the maximum benefit. Directives 2003/97/EC and 2007/38/EC introduced the 
obligation  for  the  retrofitting  of  mirrors  to  heavy  good  vehicles  registered  in  the  European 
Community.  In  the  EC  consultation  paper  “Fitting  blind-spot  mirrors  on  existing  trucks”  of 
2006 it was estimated that if a legal retrofitting obligation had entered into force by 2008 for 
the relevant heavy goods vehicle population in operation since 1998, an extra 1.300 lives on 
European roads would have been saved until 2020. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): monitoring of the correct implementation of 
Directives  2003/97/EC  and  2007/38/EC.  Ensuring  that  the  roadworthiness  tests  check  the 
correct  positioning  of  mirrors.  Investigating  the  possible  difficulties  of  drivers  to  use  the 
mirrors. 
Measure 32 
Assess measures to reduce tyre-related accidents 
Objective: increasing safety performances of vehicles. 
Description: During last year EC proposals regarding issues related to tyres were carried out. 
In  particular  the  EC  proposal  COM  (2008)316  concerns  type-approval  requirements  for  the 
general  safety  of  motor  vehicles.  The  general  objective  of  such  a  proposal  is  to  lay  down 
harmonised  rules  on  the  construction  of  motor  vehicles  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the 
functioning of the internal market while at the same time providing a high level of safety and 
environmental protection. The proposal aims at enhancing the safety of vehicles by requiring 
the  mandatory  fitting  of  some  advanced  safety  features.  In  addition,  the  EC  proposed  a 
legislative measure on consumer information concerning the labelling of tyres with respect to 
fuel efficiency and other essential parameters. This has resulted in Regulation (EC) 1222/2009 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  labelling  of  tyres  with  respect  to  fuel 
efficiency and other essential parameters18. Such a labelling scheme for tyres at EU level aims 
to respond to the suboptimal market transformation towards fuel efficient tyres arising from 
lack of information. It would allow consumers to make an informed choice, give incentives to 
tyre  manufacturers  to  upgrade  their  products  and  contribute  to  awareness-raising.  It  is  also 
noteworthy to mention the project APOLLO whose goal was to create an intelligent tyre for 
improving road traffic safety. The objectives were met by integrating innovative sensors into 
tyres for monitoring  tyre condition,  road condition and tyre-road condition, developing new 
solutions  for  wireless  communication  between  tyre  and  vehicle  and  a  battery-less  power 

18 

OJ L 342/46. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

                                                 
supply,  constructing  an  “intelligent”  system  by  integrating  all  electronic  components.  Other 
projects to be mentioned are the project TYROSAFE (TYre and Road  surface Optimisation 
for  Skid  resistance  And  Further  Effects)  and  the  project  ITARI  (Integrated  Tyre  and  Road 
Interaction), regarding the implementation of new road surfaces. 
The proposed EC measures are scheduled to take effect by year 2012. 
Duration of the project APOLLO: from 1 March 2002 to 31 May 2005. 
Duration of the project ITARI: from 1 February 2004 to 31 January 2007. 
Duration of the project TYROSAFE: from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010. 
Specific topic: accident prevention 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: no results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  This  measure  is  consistent  with  the  general  aim  of 
increasing road safety through the improvement of the driving conditions of the vehicles. 
Outcomes 
The minimum requirements governing rolling resistance, wet grip and external rolling noise 
provided  in  the  EC  Regulation  1222/2009,  in  force  as  of  November  2012,  would  guarantee 
standard  levels  of  tyre  quality,  while  further  improvements  above  these  levels  would  be 
driven by the labelling scheme present in the other mentioned EC proposal. 
The main outcome of the project APOLLO is a novel, innovative and verified prototype of an 
intelligent  tyre  system  consisting  of  a  tyre,  an  integrated  sensor  system,  a  wireless 
communication interface and a battery-free power supply. 
Contribution to road safety: no results. 
Description of the impact: if directives based on the described proposal were carried out and 
“intelligent” tyres were used, the impact on road safety could become relevant. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the measure could be continued, monitoring 
the way in which the information is provided to car users. 
Measure 33 
Examine driver impairment detection devices, e.g. alcohol ignition interlocks (‘alcolocks’) 
and driver fatigue detectors 
Objective: increasing road safety by avoiding impaired people to drive. 
Description:  The  Project  ALCOLOCK  -  Alcolock  implementation  in  the  European  Union 
had the aim to assess the practical, psychological, social and behavioural impact of alcolocks 
(alcohol activated vehicle immobilizer) by interviewing the drivers about their experience. 
The  ALCOLOCK  project  started  in  2004  and  ended  in  2006.  Nowadays  the  technology  for 
driver impairment detection devices is to be considered not sufficiently mature. 
Outcomes: Regarding the project ALCOLOCK, the European trials showed that it is feasible 
to  implement  alcolocks  in  different  commercial  and  non-commercial  contexts,  but  that  a 
careful preparation of the inclusion process and the follow-up procedures is necessary. Due to 
the  limited  number  of  participants  and  contexts  in  which  the  devices  were  presently  tested, 
these results and conclusions obviously need further confirmation in future research. The most 
important conclusions regarding the impact of the alcolock on the various dimensions studied 
are that: 
-  Alcolocks  appear  to  be  relatively  practicable  in  both  commercial  and  non-commercial 
contexts. Within the study very few technical problems were encountered in any of the three 
commercial  trials,  whereas  technical  malfunctions  of  the  devices  occurred  relatively 
frequently  in  the  non-commercial  trials.  The  most  important  conclusion  regarding  the 
practical impact of the devices is that the majority of the drivers found it easy or very easy to 
use  the  alcolock  and  experienced  little  or  no  hindrance  from  the  device.  In  this  respect,  it 
needs  to  be  underscored,  however,  that  the  programme  requirements  were  less  strict  in  the 
non-commercial  trials.  It  still  needs  to  be  tested  whether  the  use  of  alcolocks  with  optimal 

EN 

30 

   EN 

circumvention  prevention  features  would  still  be  experienced  as  equally  usable  by 
professional drivers. 
- The general acceptance of alcolocks was good or very good in both commercial and non-
commercial  trials  and  remained  high  throughout  the  entire  twelve  months  of  the  trial.  The 
impact  of  the  alcolocks  on  psychological  aspects  such  as  drinking  habits  or  drink-driving 
attitudes was very difficult to assess with the present methodology. From the non-commercial 
trials there were indications that the alcolock programme had a positive impact on the drivers 
intentions,  but  no  clear  indications  that  the  alcolock  had  a  decisive  impact  on  the  driver’s 
actual behaviour. 
- Regarding the behavioural impact of the alcolock, the most striking difference between the 
commercial  and  non-commercial  trials  was  the  incidence  of  positive  breath  tests.  In  the 
commercial trials relatively few positive tests were recorded and almost all these tests seem to 
be  due  to  deliberate  tests  of  the  device.  All  together  the  differences  in  the  occurrence  of 
positive tests seem mainly due to the procedures used to assure the follow-up of the results. 
-  Regarding  the  social  or  sociological  impact  of  the  alcolocks,  the  truck  drivers’  clientele 
appeared  in  general  rather  indifferent  towards  the  alcolock,  whereas  bus  passengers  had  a 
generally positive attitude towards the devices. This confirmed the hypothesis that alcolocks 
may be marketed as an element of quality improvement. Contrary to the commercial trials, the 
privacy infringing aspect of the alcolock is perceived as a crucial disadvantage of the alcolock 
by offenders and alcohol dependent participants. 
-  An  additional  review  of  the  literature  revealed  the  most  important  factors  influencing 
acceptance, implementation, participation and compliance. These factors should also be taken 
into  account  when  implementing  large-scale  alcolock  programmes  in  Europe.  From  the 
similarities and differences between commercial and non-commercial contexts for alcolock 
implementation,  it  became  clear  that  the  impact  of  the  alcolocks  depends  on  the  specific 
circumstances  in  which  the  alcolock  is  used.  With  respect  to  these  circumstances,  the 
commercial  or  non-commercial  character  is  only  one  element.  The  specific  programme 
conditions that  are defined for the  alcolock users, the specific procedures  used to follow-up 
the test-results and the possible circumventions, the specific consequences of all the possible 
events and the specific social or commercial environment and society in which the alcolock is 
used, are equally important factors determining the impact of the alcolock. All these factors 
will  have  to  be  taken  into  account  in  future  commercial  and  non-commercial  alcolock 
applications in Europe. 
Effectiveness: low. 
According to FIA, systems currently developed can easily be circumvented. 
Specific topic: impaired driving 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: no results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  is  consistent  with  the  other  measures 
addressing the issue of impaired driving (Measures 12 and 49). 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the measure should be continued. Alcolocks 
could be used for very specific targets, as in commercial transport or for young novice drivers. 
Measure 34 
Examine national trials of intelligent speed adaptation devices and assess their 
acceptability to the public 
Objective: researching to increase active vehicle safety. 
Description: In-vehicle speed information and warning system can contribute to improved 
road safety by: 
-  increasing  drivers'  awareness  of  speed  limits  and  speed  recommendations,  both  static  and 
variable  (according  to  dynamic  environmental  conditions  such  as  weather,  traffic,  road 
conditions, etc.); 

EN 

31 

   EN 

-  reducing  the  number  of  vehicles  with  non-adapted  speed  and  consequently  reduce  the 
number  of  speed-related  accidents,  especially  in  speed-sensitive  locations  with  vulnerable 
users, as urban areas; 
- providing system solutions to support the implementation of intelligent speed limits that will 
contribute  to  maximising  traffic  flows  on  existing  infrastructure  by  dynamically  adapting 
speed limits. In order to investigate the first priority issues to be addressed at the European 
level  in  the  domain  of  intelligent  speed  adaptation  devices,  the  European  Commission 
launched the project SpeedAlert (Harmonising the in-vehicle speed alert concept definition). 
The specific objectives of the study on speed warning systems were: 
- establishing a common classification of speed limits in Europe relevant to system; 
- defining the system and service requirements of in-vehicle speed alert system; 
- defining functional specification; 
- harmonising definition of speed alert concepts; 
- identifying requirement for standardisation. 
The project saw the participation of key stakeholders from public and private sectors. 
With regard to the assessment of the public acceptance of intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) 
systems,  the  SARTRE  survey  (SARTRE,  2004)  illustrated  that  around  a  quarter  of  the 
European  drivers  believes  that  it  is  “very  useful”  to  have  a  device  that  restrains  you  from 
exceeding speed limits, just a bit lower than for devices preventing drink-driving and driving 
when  fatigued.  Moreover,  to  assess  the  political  acceptance  of  ISA  systems,  the  EU-funded 
PROSPER  project  (project  for  research  on  speed  adaptation  policies  on  European  roads) 
performed  a  survey  among  different  stakeholders  (politicians,  governmental  institutes, 
research  institutes,  pressure  groups  and  commercial  groups)  in  eight  EU  countries.  It  is 
reported that ISA is generally seen as an effective safety measure. Finally, it has to be noted 
that practical experiments in Sweden and the Netherlands have shown that the acceptance of 
ISA increases if concrete experience with it has been gained (ERSO). 
Duration of the project SpeedAlert: from 1 May 2004 to 1 April 2005. 
Duration of the project PROSPER: from 1 January 2003 to 1 December 2005. 
Speed alert applications are entering into deployment. 
The  measure  aims  to  study  the  possible  implementation  of  intelligent  speed  adaptation 
devices,  with  the  final  objective  of  increasing  drivers  awareness  of  speed  limits,  therefore 
reducing  the  number  of  vehicles  with  non-adapted  speed  and  consequently  the  number  of 
speed related accidents. 
Specific topic: accident prevention 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: high results; see table:  
Table A. 4: Safety benefits by application type of SpeedAlert 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
Consistency with other measures: in general, this measure is connected with the on-going 
RTD  activities  related  to  infrastructure-vehicle  Communication  (for  example,  the  projects 
FRICTION  and  TRACKSS),  intelligent  roads  (Measure  46)  and  incremental  map  updating 
(for example, the project FEEDMAP). SpeedAlert’s outcome is closely linked with the scope 
of the eSafety initiative (Measure 37), which aims to accelerate the development, deployment 
and  use  of  Intelligent  Vehicle  Safety  Systems  which  use  information  and  communication 
technologies to increase road safety and reduce the number of accidents on  Europe’s roads, 
and in particular with the Digital Maps Working Group. Also, the application of ISA systems 
is  linked  to  the  implementation  of  the  MAPS&ADAS  subproject,  within  the  PReVENT 
Integrated  Project,  which  is  developing,  testing  and  validating  appropriate  methods  with 
regard to the use of digital maps. 
Outcomes 
The SpeedAlert project produced 16 deliverables, available on the website, and a SpeedAlert 
Forum was organised after the project's completion. The main results of SpeedAlert are: 
1. Classification of speed limit categories relevant to speed alert applications: a common set 
of speed limits categories have been developed, considering both general and specific speed 
limits (the latter being fixed or variables). These categories were classified over the different 
type of roads and compared across different EU countries. The survey showed that throughout 
Europe an extensive array of speed limits are used. 
2. End-user system and service requirements for speed alert applications. 
3. Functional architecture and associated technical building blocks. 
4. List of recommendations to support successful implementation of speed alert applications. 
5. Roadmap for deployment taking into account user needs, technical feasibility and available 
solutions. 
6. General business aspects for different actors and benefits. 
7. Requirements for standardisation. 
8.  Consolidation  of  broad  consensus  through  the  Consultation  Group  and  its  dedicated 
workshops.  
Regarding public acceptability, different national trials have shown that users are in favour of 
ISA applications as they support their driving and prevent involuntary speeding and possible 
fines. However, to realize a broad market take-up, further work still needs to be done. 
According  to  PROSPER’s  survey  (PROSPER,  2004),  the  introduction  of  ISA  devices  is 
generally  preferred  to  be  implemented  among  all  driver  groups,  on  all  road  types  and  on  a 
mandatory basis. Barriers to the implementation of ISA that were identified included technical 
functioning, applicability to the whole road network and liability issues. 
Description of the impact: speed alert applications can be beneficial for road safety because 
they lead to a lower average speed and to reduced speed variance and they reduce amount of 
maximum speed violations. Moreover, drivers can get a better insight into risk perception in 
relation to speed. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): there are still remaining issues that need to 
be resolved before a general European deployment can be realised: 
- ensure the speed limit data collection, access and maintenance at a European level by means 
of appropriate cooperation between public authorities and service providers. Motorways and 
main roads are currently generally integrated in digital maps, but speed limits for the complete 
road networks still need to be procured; 
- provide a European harmonised set of variable speed limits enabling drivers to adapt their 
speed according to the prevailing traffic conditions; 
- develop and implement a harmonised infrastructure-vehicle communication that will enable 
a  large  range  of  safety  and  mobility  related  applications.  Analyse  the  Human  Machine 
Interface and evaluate how to interact with the driver and other on-board applications; 

EN 

33 

   EN 

-  promote  tax  or  insurance  incentives  to  strengthen  end-user  interest  in  speed  alert 
applications;  
-  promote,  together  with  the  automotive  industry,  the  ISA  system  application  as  standard 
option in all new cars; 
- examine the acceptability, feasibility and impacts of a mandatory fitting of intelligent speed 
adaptation systems to ensure cars do not go faster than 150 km/h, that is 15% faster than the 
highest enforceable or recommended speed limit in any EU Member State, also in the light of 
environmental objectives (European Federation for Transport and Environment, 2007). 
Measure 35 
Improved motorcycle safety through legislation or voluntary agreements with the industry 
Objective: making motorcycles safer. 
Description:  Two  meetings  of  the  Motorcycle  Working  Group  MCWG/  MVEG  on 
Motorcycles have been held, respectively on 27 February 2009 and on 29 June 2009. A public 
consultation was launched in December 2008 on the Commission’s website and ended on 28 
February  2009.  Its  purpose  was  to  gather  information  and  views  from  all  relevant 
stakeholders, including public bodies, the general public, industry and business associations, 
on  the  specific  elements  to  be  assessed  for  the  future  legislative  framework  on  two-,  three- 
and four wheel vehicles of the L category, envisaged by the Commission services. These key 
issues concerning 2-, 3- and 4-wheel vehicles of the L-category are in general linked with: 
-  Complexity  of  the  current  legislation  for  L-category  vehicles.  The  current  legislative  text 
consists  of  a  framework  directive  (Directive  2002/24/EC)  and  14  associated  implementing 
directives, all of which have been amended over time. 
- High level of emissions. It is estimated that, apart from other aspects, the contribution of L-
category  vehicles  to  hydrocarbon  emissions  will  rise  to  approximately  55%  of  total 
hydrocarbons emitted by all road transport vehicles in 2020, if no additional measures will be 
introduced.  This  is  mainly  due  to  the  significant  reduction  in  emissions  from  other  road 
transport categories like passenger cars and trucks. 
- Road safety, high number of fatalities and seriously injured riders. 
In  2006,  L-category  vehicles  accounted  for  2%  of  distance  travelled,  but  for  16%  of  road 
deaths. The fatality rate per million kilometres travelled is, on average, 18 times greater than 
for passenger cars. Furthermore, while other vehicle modes have shown significant decreases 
in  fatalities  and  serious  injuries  over  time,  the  figures  for  L-category  vehicles  have  fallen 
much less, or have remained static. The public consultation was based on one questionnaire 
structured  around  three  main  objectives  of  the  legislative  proposal:  simplification  of  the 
legislation  (better  regulation)  to  reduce  the  current  complexity,  addressing  the  high  level  of 
emissions  and  introducing  safety  measures.  With  regard  to  motorcycles  safety,  the  projects 
PISA (Powered two- wheeler Integrated Safety) and SIM (Safety in Motion), funded by DG 
RTD,  are  relevant.  The  project  PISA  concerns  the  safety  improvements  for  drivers  and 
passengers of powered two-wheelers (PTWs) motorcycles and mopeds. The project SIM deals 
with the development of an innovative concept of PTW vehicle with new safety devices. It is 
also  noteworthy  to  mention  Directive  2009/67/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  on  the  installation  of  lighting  and  light-signalling  devices  on  two  or  three-wheel 
motor vehicles, which is in force since 1.01.2010. It aims to increase motorcycles’ safety by 
improving their conspicuity. 
Duration of the project PISA: from 1 June 2006 to 31 November 2009. 
Duration of the project SIM: from 1 September 2006 to 31 August 2009. 
Specific topic: power-two wheel 
Type of impact: direct 
Contribution to road safety: low result; however, improving the safety for one of the most 
vulnerable  groups  of  road  users,  i.e.  the  motorcyclists,  is  expected  to  have  a  considerable 
impact on road safety. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

Consistency with other measures: the measure aims to improve the safety of motorcyclists 
and  it  is  consistent  with  the  passive  safety  measure  regarding  the  use  of  crash  helmets 
(Measure 18). 
Outcomes 
Directive  2009/67/EC  provides  for  technical  prescriptions  regarding  the  visibility  of  two  or 
three-wheel  motor  vehicles.  The  main  outcome  of  the  meetings  and  the  public  consultation 
was  a  exchange  of  views  regarding:  a  new  regulatory  framework  on  two  and  three-wheel 
motor  vehicles;  new  emission  measures,  and  possible  new  safety  measures  such  as  the 
mandatory fitting of the anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS), anti-tampering measures and the 
use of hydrogen vehicles. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): this measure should be continued, both 
through legislation and on a voluntary basis. 
Measure 36  
Examine the benefits of harmonising the approval of adaptations to vehicles for persons 
with reduced mobility 
Objective: increasing active vehicle safety. 
Description : The project QUAVADIS was a pan-European initiative to improve the Quality 
and Use Aspects of Vehicle Adaptations for DISabled. The overall objectives of the project 
were: 
- to stimulate knowledge exchange in the field of physically disabled drivers and their need 
for car adaptations; 
- to establish statistics on the use of codes and the disabled drivers population in Europe; 
-  to  draw  up  criteria  for  safety  and  performance  of  car-adaptations  that  are  suitable  to 
compensate  for  the  driver’s  disability  according  to  the  restrictive  conditions  (codes)  on  the 
driving  licence.  The  project  PORTARE  is  a  voluntary  cooperation  between  a  group  of 
European experts and its main objective is to ease mobility for disabled drivers. In particular 
the project aims to make the existing knowledge on assessment available by describing: 
- the consequences related to fitness to drive for different illness categories 
- the criteria for assessment in relation to these consequences 
- the criteria for on-road testing in relation to the consequences 
- methods to enable assessors to supply the relevant information to decision makers 
Furthermore, the project PORTARE aims to stimulate implementation in all EU countries by 
means of: 
- describing the knowledge and skills needed by assessors to assess the driver / applicant and 
to supply the relevant information for a decision to the authorities; 
- train-the-trainer workshops for information exchange amongst experts in the EU; 
-  establishment  of  an  EU  organisation  for  assessment  and  on-road  testing  of  drivers  / 
applicants with physical and/or cognitive limitations 
The QUAVADIS project started in January 2001 and was completed by June 2003. 
Specific topic: accident prevention 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: low results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  measure  is  consistent  with  the  general  aim  of 
improving the driving conditions of the vehicles. 
Outcomes 
The main results of QUAVADIS project were a description of the procedures for obtaining or 
renewing  a  driving  licence  for  citizens  with  a  (physical)  disability  in  the  different  Member 
States  of  the  European  Community,  and  an  extensive  Code  of  Practice  for  car  adaptations 
structured in line with the list of harmonised Community codes on the driving licence. 
Description  of  the  impact:  the  introduction  of  proper  car-adaptations  is  expected  to  make 
easier the driving task of persons with reduced mobility, thus increasing road safety. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

through 

information  and 

the  adoption  of 

improving  vehicles  safety 

What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): studies should be deepened. 
Measure 37 
Adopt a long-term plan concerning information and communication systems in the field of 
road  safety  and  establish  the  necessary  regulatory  framework  for  implementing  such 
systems 
Objective: 
communication systems. 
Description:  Advanced  information  and  communication  technologies  (ICTs)  can  be 
incorporated  into  onboard  “Intelligent  Vehicle  Systems”,  offering  new  solutions  to  today’s 
transport problems. These high-tech systems have great potential to: 
- help drivers prevent or avoid traffic accidents; 
- mitigate the consequences of accidents that do occur; 
- provide drivers with real time information about traffic on road networks, thereby avoiding 
congestion; 
- find the most efficient routes for any journey; 
- optimise engine performance, thus improving overall energy efficiency. 
In  February  2006  the  European  Commission  launched  the  “Intelligent  Car  Initiative”,  to 
remove bottlenecks in rolling out intelligent systems and to speed the development of smarter, 
safer and cleaner transport for Europe. This will be done by: 
-  building  consensus  among  all  the  key  players  involved:  citizens,  Member  States,  service 
providers and the car industry; 
- removing legal and institutional barriers; 
- stimulating consumer demand for the new onboard technologies. 
The Intelligent Car Initiative will accelerate the deployment of intelligent vehicle systems on 
European  and  international  markets,  using  a  mix  of  policy,  research  and  communications 
instruments to: 
-  ensure  interoperability  across  different  EU  countries  and  harmonise  technical  solutions 
through a comprehensive European approach; 
- support ICT-based research and development in the area of transport and facilitate the take-
up and use of research results; 
-  raise  awareness  among  consumers  and  decision-makers  of  the  potential  benefits  of  ICT-
based solutions.  
The eSafety initiative is the first pillar of the Intelligent Car Initiative. It is a joint initiative of 
the  European  Commission,  industry  and  other  stakeholders.  It  aims  to  accelerate  the 
development, deployment and use of intelligent vehicle safety systems that use information & 
communication  technologies  to  increase  road  safety  and  reduce  the  number  of  accidents  on 
Europe’s  roads.  In  the  framework  of  the  Programme  Creating  a  User-friendly  information 
information  and 
society  (IST),  several  projects  have  been  carried  out  regarding 
communication  systems.  Worth  mentioning  are  the  projects:  CIBERCARS2,  eIMPACT, 
eSAFETYSUPPORT,  ESCOPE  (that  strengthened  the  activities  of  the  eSafety  initiative), 
HIGHWAY, HUMANIST, PREVENT. In addition, the projects ASSESS and SAFETRIP are 
being  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  Road  safety  researches  FP7  –  DG  RTD.  Finally,  the 
project BE SAFETY AWARE (Bringing eSafety to the market through awareness) aimed at 
organising  information  campaigns  to  raise  awareness  among  policy-makers  and  the  general 
public  on  the  benefits  of  e-safety  systems,  in  order  to  accelerate  the  introduction  of  these 
electronic  life-saving  technologies  in  the  market,  while  the  project  EVI  (Electronic  vehicle 
identification)  investigated  the  feasibility  of  a  Europe-wide  electronic  vehicle  identification 
system.  At  the  legislative  side,  EC  proposal  COM  (2008)  887,  which  is  a  proposal  for  a 
directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  lays  down  the  framework  for  the 
deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces 

EN 

36 

   EN 

with  other  transport  modes.  The  Intelligent  Car  Initiative  was  launched  in  February  2006, 
while projects of the IST Programme have been carried out in the years 2003-2008. 
Specific topic: accident prevention 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: high results. The Intelligent Car Initiative and the information 
gathered with the projects can contribute to the improvement of road safety for a long time. 
Active  safety  systems  could  give  a  considerable  positive  contribution  to  road  safety  by 
decreasing the number of crashes. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  measure  is  linked  with  all  the  active  safety  actions 
aimed at helping drivers to avoid accidents. 
Outcomes 
The eSafety initiative and the projects carried out have to be considered as a step forward the 
adoption of information and communication systems for improving road safety. However, a 
proper  regulatory  framework  for  implementing  the  proposed  measures  has  not  yet  been 
established. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): this measure should be continued. 
Measure 38  
Identify  priority  areas  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  performance  standards 
to  optimise  the  man-machine  interface  and  the  road  safety  potential  of  telematics 
applications. Ensure compliance with the declaration of principles concerning the human-
machine interface 
Objective: developing intelligent vehicles. 
Description:  With  the  advent  of  sophisticated  technology  (mobile  and  portable)  and  the 
increase in the amount of time spent on the road, the car has become a potential home to many 
different types of systems. Such systems range from those which convey simple information 
to the driver (for example incident warnings) to those that require the driver to interact with a 
system in order to extract the required function (for example a route guidance system). The 
project HASTE (Human Machine Interface And the Safety of Traffic in Europe) had the goal 
of  developing  methodologies  and  guidelines  for  the  assessment  of  In-Vehicle  Information 
Systems  (IVIS).  There  is  an  urgent  need  to  develop  thorough  testing  and  diagnostic 
procedures  for  such  systems  in  order  to  regulate  their  inclusion  in  the  vehicle.  If  no  such 
procedures are set up, the driving task may become of secondary importance to tasks relating 
to interaction with the system. If such distraction occurs, there is evidence that traffic safety 
will  be  compromised.  Another  relevant  project  is  EUCLIDE  (Enhanced  Human-Machine 
Interface for On-Vehicle Integrated Driving Support System) which aimed to developing an 
reliable  integrated  driver  assistance  support  system.  The  EC  funded  also  other  projects  for 
enhancing vehicle safety: the projects ROADSENSE, ADASE II, VEESA, AIDE, ATESST, 
EASIS, ASSET-ROAD, INTERACTION, ITERATE. 
Duration of the HASTE project: from 1 January 2002 until 31 December 2004. 
Duration of the EUCLIDE project: from 1 March 2001 until 31 May 2004. 
The projects ASSET-ROAD, INTERACTION, ITERATE are expected to be completed in the 
years 2011-2012. The other projects mentioned were completed during the years 2001-2008. 
Specific topic: accident prevention 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  is  consistent  with  all  the  actions  aimed  at 
assisting drivers in order to prevent accidents from occurring. 
Outcomes 
In general the projects carried out provided useful results. The project HASTE contributed to 
the development of a valid, reliable and efficient tool that will aid testing authorities in their 
safety  evaluation  of  IVIS.  The  project  EUCLIDE  developed  a  driving  support  system  to 

EN 

37 

   EN 

monitor  the  area  ahead  of  the  driver  and  provide  an  effective support  especially  in  cases  of 
night and adverse weather conditions. This system integrates the functionalities of radar and 
far infrared sensors resulting into a highly reliable and efficient system. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the measure needs to be continued. 
Measure 39  
Examine,  together  with  the  Member  States,  the  need  to  include  new  onboard  electronics 
systems in roadworthiness testing 
Objective: improving and maintaining vehicle safety performance. 
Description:  Electronically  controlling  systems  are  being  fitted  in  a  growing  numbers  of 
vehicles.  Vehicle  safety  (as  well  as  environmental  performance)  is  thus  increasingly 
dependent on the correct functioning of these systems. Despite that, at present these systems 
are not part of the mandatory periodical technical inspection of vehicles. Also, there is little 
available data relating to the reliability of the electronic systems and to how they should be 
tested for correct function. The research programme CITA1 (Research Study Programme on 
Electronically Controlled Systems on Vehicles) aimed at examining the performance of some 
current systems and at developing test procedures for the periodic inspections. It included a 
review  of  post,  present  and  future  electronic  systems  on  vehicles.  The  work  of  CITA1  was 
followed  by  the  project  IDELSY  (Initiative  for  Diagnosis  of  Electronic  Systems  in  Motor 
Vehicles),  which  aimed  to  develop  test  procedures  and  to  test  them  in  order  to  ensure  their 
efficiency  and  effectiveness.  The  general  target  of  the  project  IDELSY  was  producing 
recommendations to  improve  the existing  Directive  96/96/EC  for involving the new vehicle 
technology, which is more and more electronically controlled and relevant for the road safety. 
The  study  has  been  carried  out  by  seven  technical  inspection  agencies  of  three  different 
countries.  The  results  of  the  research  project  IDELSY  provided  an  important  input  for  the 
project  AUTOFORE  (Study  on  the  future  Options  for  Roadworthiness  Enforcement  in  the 
European  Union)  which  aimed  at  analysing  future  strategies  of  road  worthiness  actions  in 
Europe. The specific purpose of AUTOFORE was making proposals and recommendations to 
improve  roadworthiness  enforcement,  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  benefits  accruing  from  the 
original design and manufacture of vehicles are retained throughout the life of those vehicles. 
In  2007,  the  European  Commission  invited  tenders  for  a  service  contract  regarding  the 
feasibility  and  impact  assessment  study  on  the  future  evolution  of  roadworthiness  tests  for 
motor vehicles, in order to evaluate a review of Directive 96/96/EC. Unfortunately, this call 
for tender failed and had no follow-up. Despite that, in May 2009, Directive 2009/40/EC on 
roadworthiness  tests  for  motor  vehicles  and  their  trailers  repealing  Directive  96/96/EC  was 
approved.  According  to  the  new  norm,  the  anti-lock  braking  systems  have  been  included 
among  the  items  to  be  compulsory  tested.  However,  Electronic  Stability  Control  systems 
(ESC)  and  airbags  were  not.  The  need  for  roadworthiness  enforcement  is  greater  than  ever 
because road safety (as well as environmental protection) is now more and more reliant on the 
correct  functioning  of  the  new  electronic  technologies,  which  are  increasingly  taking  over 
aspects  of  the  driver’s  tasks  as  a  means  of  eliminating  or  mitigating  the  effects  of  human 
error. With this increased reliance on advanced technology, the role of vehicle roadworthiness 
needs to change. 
Duration of the project CITA1: from 5 July 1999 to 4 July 2002. 
Duration of the project IDELSY: from 1 January 2004 to 1 December 2005. 
Duration of the project AUTOFORE: from 1 February 2005 to 31 January 2007. 
Specific topic: accident prevention  
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: low results 
Consistency with other measures: this measure is tightly connected with Measure 40, which 
aims  at  determining  and  encouraging  best  practices  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  periodic 
compulsory inspections. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

Outcomes 
According  to  the  CITA1  Report  (CITA1,  2001),  even  if  electronic  components  tend  to  fail 
less  frequently  than  mechanical  components  in  the  same  system,  the  failure  rate  of  certain 
systems  is  important  enough  to  include  them  into  the  annual  inspection  regime.  The  study 
concludes that vehicle electronic systems should be tested as part of the periodic inspection. 
In  fact,  it  is  important  that  all  safety  critical  systems  are  tested  regularly.  The  final  report 
(CITA1, 2002) presents a cost benefit analysis to assess the value of inspecting electronically 
controlled  systems  for  roadworthiness.  Also  the  outputs  of  IDELSY’s  research  provided 
support to improve the existing regulations for including the new generation of motor vehicles 
technologies: road safety is strongly influenced by modern vehicle systems, therefore the safe 
function of those systems should be part of the European PTI procedure. The key result of the 
AUTOFORE  study  is  a  set  of  proposals  for  the  future  direction  of  roadworthiness 
enforcement in the European Union. 
Description of  the impact: the  growing sophistication of onboard electronic systems could 
lead  to  increasing  problems  with  the  reliability  of  these  devices.  According  to  available 
statistics (CITA1, 2001), it is quite rare that a failure of the electronic systems cause as injury 
accident.  However,  it  is  clear  that  they  have  the  potential  to  do  so  and  when  it  happens, 
consequences  can  be  very  severe.  This  is  why  there  is  a  need  for  identifying  systems  that 
would potentially benefit from inclusion in periodic inspections. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): given that the need to include new onboard 
electronic systems in roadworthiness testing has now reached a broad consensus, the coming 
ERSAP  2011-2020  should  address  the  evaluation  of  possible  modification  of  the  existing 
legislative  framework.  In  particular,  the  new  Directive  2009/40/EC  could  be  amended  to 
include  the  compulsory  testing  of  safety  relevant  electronic  systems  that  are  already  widely 
fitted, such as airbags and ESC.  
Measure 40  
Determine  and  encourage  best  practices  so  as  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  periodic 
compulsory inspections at the lowest cost. 
Objective: improving and maintaining vehicle safety performance. 
Description Making the periodic compulsory inspections more efficient is a theme addressed 
by several EC funded projects. Within the framework of the project CITA1 (see Measure 39), 
a specific working group, the Working Group VII, was set up to study specifically the testing 
of electronically controlled systems, and to examine available reliability data and failure rates 
of  electronically  controlled  systems.  Possible  test  procedures  have  been  proposed.  The 
research  carried  out  within  the  project  IDELSY  (see  Measure  39)  examined  the  possible 
options  for  testing  procedures  for  electronic  systems  in  the  periodic  vehicle  inspections,  in 
order  to  increase  the  reliability  and  safety  of  such  systems  and  therefore  the  safety  of 
European road transports systems as a whole. The general target of this project was to verify 
the  technical  feasibility  for  the  use  of  generic  scan  tools  within  the  periodic  technical 
inspection for passenger  vehicles and in future for  commercial vehicles. Finally, the project 
AUTOFORE  (see  also  Measure  39)  produced  several  proposals  and  recommendations  to 
improve  roadworthiness  enforcement  after  reviewing  the  strategies  and  the  potential  for 
improvement of the current roadworthiness enforcement measures. The introduction of higher 
roadworthiness standards was proposed. The legislative framework for roadworthiness testing 
has been recently amended with the Directive 2009/40/EC (published in the Official Journal 
on the 6 June 2009), which replaces the current roadworthiness Directive 96/96/EC. The new 
Directive  includes  periodic  inspection  requirements  for  CO2  emissions,  including  testing 
frequency. 
Specific topic: accident prevention 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

Consistency with other measures: this measure is tightly connected with Measure 39, which 
aims  at  examining  the  opportunity  of  including  the  new  vehicle  electronic  system  in  the 
roadworthiness testing. 
Outcomes 
The project CITA1 (CITA1, 2001) provided the basis for the development of test procedures 
for  the  electronically  controlled  systems.  This  enables  research  efforts  to  be  prioritised  for 
those systems which appear to  be less reliable and provides a benchmark  for  measuring  the 
effectiveness  of  periodic  test  procedures  and  inspections.  The  project  IDELSY  examined 
different  possible  test  procedures,  with  the  aim  of  improving  and  optimising  them.  It  also 
carried out field trials to corroborate the results of the research. Scan tools and test procedures 
to  be  used  in  the  course  of  periodic  vehicle  inspections  have  been  developed  and  the 
functionality  and  safety  of  electronic  control  units  have  been  verified.  The  options  for 
improving roadworthiness enforcement identified and analysed by AUTOFORE are: 
1. Improve roadworthiness Directives. 
2. Improve type approval requirements and legislative process. 
3. Develop the infrastructure required to inspect electronically controlled systems. 
4. Promote improved compliance. 
5. Develop supporting roadworthiness inspection databases and related items. 
6. Improve linkages between forms of roadworthiness enforcement. 
7. Support research and development. 
The objective, according to the research group, would be to implement them by 2020. One of 
the recommendations resulting from the AUTOFORE research is increasing the frequency of 
inspection for older light goods vehicles and for small passengers vehicles (up to eight seats, 
excluding  the  driver).  The  economic  benefit  of  increased  frequency  of  inspection  of  older 
light  vehicles  would  be  over  2  billion  Euro  if  vehicles  of  8  years  and  over  are  inspected 
annually, with a benefit-to-cost ratio larger than 2 (AUTOFORE, 2007). 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  amendments  to  the  current  legislative 
framework should be studied and evaluated in order to: 
- increase the frequency of inspection for older vehicles of categories 5 and 6, as defined in 
the Directive 2009/40/EC (Annex I); 
- include two-wheeled motor vehicles (international categories L1 and L3) in the scope of the 
legislation; 
-  introduce  test  procedures  for  new  electronic  components  with  a  view  to  improve  the 
roadworthiness of vehicles. 
A regulatory impact statement should be carried out in these regards. Moreover, new thematic 
studies should be initiated to deepen past studies and to further research, in particular: 
- the magnitude of the contribution of vehicle defects to accidents and to trial new inspection 
systems suitable for inspecting the functionality of electronically based technologies; 
- methods of improving compliance, effectiveness and efficiency of vehicle inspection. 
Finally, further work should be undertaken to develop proposals for increasing harmonisation 
of European roadworthiness standards. 
Measure 41  
Submit  a  proposal  for  a  framework  directive  on  road  infrastructure  safety  with  a  view  to 
introducing a system for the harmonised management of black spots and road safety audits 
for roads on the trans-European network 
Objective:  improving  the  safety  of  road  infrastructures  within  the  trans-European  road 
network.  

EN 

40 

   EN 

Description:  On  19  November  2008  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the 
European Union emanated Directive 2008/96/EC19 in order to establish procedures to ensure a 
consistently  high  level  of  road  safety  throughout  the  trans-European  road  network.  The 
Directive requires the establishment and implementation of procedures relating to 
road  safety  impact  assessments,  road  safety  audits,  the  management  of  road  network  safety 
and  safety  inspections  by  the  Member  States.  It  shall  apply  to  roads  which  are  part  of  the 
trans-European road network, whether they are at the design stage,  under construction  or in 
operation. The Directive will enter into force 19 December 2010. 
Specific topic: infrastructure 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  measure  is  consistent  with  the  general  scope  of 
increasing  road  safety  through  a  proper  management  of  the  infrastructures.  Therefore  this 
measure  is  closely  linked  with  all  the  actions  relating  to  road  infrastructure  safety 
management (see Measure 5 and 44). 
Outcomes 
Directive 2008/96/EC requires the establishment and implementation of procedures relating to 
road  safety  impact  assessments,  road  safety  audits,  the  management  of  road  network  safety 
and  safety  inspections  by  the  Member  States.  It  shall  apply  to  roads  which  are  part  of  the 
trans-European road network, whether they are at the design stage,  under construction  or in 
operation. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): monitoring the implementation in Member 
States of Directive 2008/96/EC. A possible application of this measure to other road networks 
should be evaluated (rural and urban roads). 
Measure 42  
Draw  up  technical  guidelines  concerning  infrastructure,  notably  for  low  cost  measures, 
audit  methods,  urban  safety  management,  speed  moderation  techniques  and  forgiving 
roadsides 
Objective: improving road safety through the management of road infrastructures. 
Description: Road infrastructure related safety measures offer a large potential that could be 
exploited for a significant reduction of road accidents and their consequences. 
Considering  that  most  casualties  occur  on  single  carriageway  rural  roads,  the  project 
RIPCORD-ISEREST  was  focused  on  road  infrastructure  measures  for  this  type  of  roads. 
Researchers and practitioners in the Member States of the European Union have made great 
efforts to improve traffic safety. Many of these approaches have already led to a significant 
reduction  in  fatalities.  The  objective  of  this  project  was  to  collect  and  to  evaluate  these 
approaches in order to make them accessible throughout Europe and to develop tools, which 
could  be  used  to  improve  traffic  safety.  With  these  tools  RIPCORD-ISEREST  intended  to 
give  scientific  support  to  practitioners  concerned  with  road  design  and  traffic  safety  in 
Europe. The project SUPREME, commissioned by DG TREN of the European Commission, 
had  the  goal  to  collect,  analyse,  summarise  and  publish  best  practices  in  road  safety  in  the 
Member States of the European Union, as well as in Switzerland and Norway. In particular a 
document was produced containing a collection of best practices at national scale and aiming 
to present the project’s results to national/regional policy and decision makers across Europe, 
thereby  encouraging  the  adoption  of  successful  road  safety  strategies  and  measures.  The 
project  ROSEBUD  is  a  thematic  network  funded  by  the  European  Commission  to  support 
users at all levels of government (European Union, national, regional, local) with road safety 

19 

OJ 319, 29.11.2008, p. 59. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

                                                 
related efficiency assessment solutions for the widest possible range of measures. ROSEBUD 
will bring together e.g. users, researchers, decision makers, policy makers and other relevant 
stakeholders  dealing  with  efficiency assessment of road safety measures. It was designed to 
facilitate networking of organisations, co-ordination of activities, exchange and dissemination 
of knowledge. Other projects to be mentioned are NR2C (New Road Construction Concept), 
EURO-AUDITS  (European  Road  Safety  Auditor  Training  Syllabus),  EURORAP  I  and  II 
(European  Roads  Assessment  Programme),  IASP  (Identification  of  Hazard  Location  and 
Ranking of Measures to Improve Safety), RISER (Roadside Infrastructure for Safer European 
Roads),  RANKERS  (Ranking  for  European  Road  Safety),  EURAMP  (European  Ramp 
Metering  Project),  FORMAT  (Fully  optimised  road  maintenance),  SAMARIS  (Sustainable 
and  advanced  materials  for  road  infrastructures),  SENSOR  (Secondary  road  network  traffic 
management strategies) and SILVIA (Sustainable road surfaces for traffic noise control). 
Duration of the SUPREME project: from 1 December 2005 to 1 June 2007. 
Duration of the ROSEBUD project: from 1 October 2002 until 1 September 2005. 
Duration of the RIPCORD-ISEREST project: from 1 January 2005 until 31 December 2007 
The other mentioned projects were completed between years 2002 and 2008. 
Specific topic: infrastructure 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  is  linked  with  Measure  45,  aimed  at 
improving the equipment of the road infrastructures. 
Outcomes 
The main outcomes of RIPCORD-ISEREST can be summarised as follows: 
-  The  development  of  best  practice  tools  and  guidelines  for  road  infrastructure  safety 
measures  concerning  accident  prediction  models,  road  safety  inspections,  and  black-spot 
management; 
- The development of tools for cost efficiency assessment of different safety measures; 
- The development, with regard to secondary roads, of specific software tools and a handbook 
for local road authorities. 
The final report of SUPREME project consists of 14 parts, among which handbooks of best 
practices in road safety for measures at the country and European level and a thematic report 
regarding road infrastructures. Regarding ROSEBUD, the results of this structured approach 
towards  improving  the  process  of  decision  making  about  road  safety  measures  are 
documented  in  five  scientific  reports.  Conclusions  and  recommendations  are  summarised  in 
three publications, which are considered the main output of ROSEBUD: 
- A handbook of evaluated road safety measures 
- A framework of best practices for conducting efficiency assessment studies 
- A “demonstration course” to make decision makers familiar with the proposed efficiency 
assessment 
tools.  The  other  considered  projects  provided  useful 
recommendations too. 
Description  of  the  impact:  the  introduction  of  technical  guidelines  for  road  infrastructures 
could allow a safer circulation of the vehicles resulting in both less crashes and less dangerous 
consequences for road users in the event of an accident. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  the  guidelines  have  been  developed,  but 
their implementation has yet to come. Action needs to be taken at national level. 
Measure 43  
Draw up good practice guidelines for level-crossing safety 
Objective: improving road safety through the management of road infrastructures. 
Description:  Every  year,  more  than  330  people  are  killed  in  more  than  1200  accidents  at 
road-rail level crossings in the European Union. Together with tunnels and specific road black 
spots,  level  crossings  have  been  identified  as  being  a  particular  weak  point  in  road 

indications  and 

EN 

42 

   EN 

infrastructure,  seriously  affecting  road  safety.  The  High  Level  Group  on  Road  Safety  from 
European Commission DG Energy and Transport decided in 1999 to set up a working group 
on  safety  at  rail-road  level  crossings.  Apart  from  informing  the  Commission  on  the  current 
state of practice as well as state of the art, the group was also meant to produce advice and 
foster the exchange of information between Member States in its domain of work. The group 
finalised a first report in March 2000. It contained a typology of level crossings, which is an 
important  prerequisite  for  risk  analysis  and  development  of  a  remedial  programme,  traffic 
rules  and  signing  and  signalling  (optical  and  acoustical).  A  second  report  of  the  group  was 
finalised in December 2003. This report was addressed to the European, the national and the 
regional  legislators  and  executives  in  ministries,  road  institutes,  road  authorities  and 
academia.  In  addition,  the  project  SELCAT  (Safer  European  Level  Crossing  Appraisal  and 
Technology),  a  coordination  action  under  the  European  Commission’s  6th  Framework 
Programme involving partners from European countries as well as from Asia and Africa, was 
launched on 1 September 2006. Its main objective was to collect and disseminate knowledge 
related to level crossing risk appraisal, technology and methodology. 
Duration of the SELCAT project: from September 2006 to September 2008. 
Specific topic: infrastructure 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  is  consistent  with  the  general  scope  of 
improving the safety of road infrastructures. 
Outcomes 
In  the  2nd  Report  of  the  Working  Group  on  Level  Crossings  a  set  of  conclusions  and 
recommendations  regarding  the  level-crossing  safety  was  drawn.  The  report  could  serve  as 
input  for  strategic  road  safety  planning,  the  implementation  of  measures,  the  adoption  of 
guidelines and their implementation. At the same time, the level of detail of this report is not 
sufficient  to  function  as  a  guideline  for  direct  use  by  practitioners.  The  project  SELCAT 
provided  useful  recommendations  about  the  appraisal,  technologies  and  methodologies 
regarding level crossing as well as campaigns for road vehicle drivers. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): studies should be continued, improving the 
monitoring of such accidents and finding solutions in collaboration with the rail operators and 
a possible revision of road signs (UN-ECE). 
Measure 44  
Assess the safety impact of projects receiving Community funding and concerning an entire 
area 
Objective: taking into consideration the safety impact of the European projects. 
Description:  The  setting  up  of  appropriate  assessment  procedures  is  an  essential  tool  for 
improving the safety of road infrastructure. The safety impact assessments aims at illustrating, 
at  a  strategic  level,  the  implications  on  road  safety  of  different  planning  alternatives  of  a 
project, playing an important role when those are being selected. Directive 2008/96/EC20 on 
Road  Infrastructure  Safety  Management  requires  the  establishment  and  implementation  of 
procedures relating to road safety impact assessments, road safety audits, the management of 
road  network  safety  and  safety  inspections  by  the  Member  States.  The  specific  objective  of 
this  Directive  is  to  ensure  a  consistently  high  level  of  road  safety  throughout  the  trans-
European  road  network.  Member  States  may  also  apply  the  provisions  of  this  Directive  to 
national  road  transport  infrastructure  constructed  using  Community  funding  in  whole  or  in 
part, but not included in the trans-European road network. However, this is not a requirement, 
but  only  a  possibility.  Annex  II  of  the  Directive  2008/96/EC  on  Road  Infrastructure  Safety 

20 

OJ 319, 29.11.2008, p. 59. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

                                                 
Management defines the criteria to be met by Member States when carrying out a road safety 
impact  assessment  (article  3.2).  Road  tunnels  are  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  Directive 
and are covered by Directive 2004/54/EC (see Measure 47.) 
This objective has seen only a partial realisation. Action has been taken only with respect to 
the infrastructure safety management of the trans-European road network. Directive 2008/96 
will  be  also  applied  to  the  implementation  of  the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  and  the 
FEDER  (European  regional  development  fund)  projects,  while  the  application  of  safety 
impact  assessment  to  other  Community  funded  projects  remains  optional.  Member  States 
shall bring into force the legislation necessary to comply with this Directive by 19 December 
2010.  By  19  December  2011,  Member  States  should  adopt  the  guidelines  for  applying  the 
safety procedures set out in the Directive. 
Specific topic: infrastructure 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 
Consistency with other measures: this measure is closely linked with all the actions relating 
to road infrastructure safety management. In particular, it is linked with the aim of Measure 5 
relating to harmonised road safety criteria in public service contracts. 
Description  of  the  impact:  road  infrastructure  safety  management  contributes  to  take  into 
account  the  impact  on  road  safety  in  project  definition,  planning  and  implementation, 
allowing an increase in safety awareness by decision-makers and in safety performance of the 
infrastructure. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  beyond  the  mandatory  implementation  of 
the  procedure  to  the  TEN-network  (Directive  2008/96),  the  requirement  of  appropriate 
assessment procedures should be extended to all the projects funded by the European Union. 
OJ 319/59 of the 29 11 2008 
Measure 45  
Adapt  to  technical  progress  the  Community  standards  applicable  to  road  equipment  and 
ensure a high level of protection, notably by making road sides less hazardous in the event 
of an accident 
Objective: increasing road safety by improving the equipment of road infrastructures. 
Description: In November 2008 the project Smart RRS started with the objective of reducing 
the  number  of  injuries  and  deaths  caused  by  road  traffic  accidents  to  vulnerable  road  users 
such  as  motorcyclists,  cyclists  and  passengers  through  the  development  of  a  smart  road 
restraint system. The project started 3 November 2008 and is expected to be completed by 31 
October 2011. 
Specific topic: infrastructure 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  is  linked  with  all  the  actions  aiming  at 
making the circulation of vehicles on road infrastructures safer. In particular, it is consistent 
with Measure 42 regarding the development of technical guidelines for improving the safety 
of road infrastructures.  
Outcomes 
The  project  Smart  RRS  will  develop  a  new  smart road  restraint  system  that  will  reduce  the 
number  of  deaths  and  injuries  caused  in  road  traffic  accidents  by  integrating  primary  and 
tertiary sensor systems in a new RRS system, providing greater protection to all road users, 
alerting motorists and emergency services of danger so as to prevent accidents happening, and 
alerting them of accidents as they happen to maximise response time to the exact location of 
the incident. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): this measure should be continued, since it 
has a high potential in increasing road safety. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

Measure 46  
Carry out research and demonstration projects on ‘intelligent roads’ 
Objective: increasing road safety through the development of “intelligent roads”. 
Description: By using new approaches in order to add intelligence to road infrastructures, it 
could  be  possible  to  reduce  the  number  of  road  accidents  as  well  as  the  infrastructures 
maintenance  costs  (which  are  constantly  increasing  in  Europe)  and  optimise  the  capacity  of 
existing infrastructures. During the years projects on “intelligent roads” have been carried out: 
some of these have been completed, while some are still in progress. In particular it’s worth to 
mention the following projects: 
- INTRO (Intelligent Roads); 
- CVIS (Co-operative vehicle-infrastructure systems); 
- SAFESPOT (Cooperative systems for road safety “Smart Vehicles on Smart Roads”); 
- INTERSAFE 2 (Cooperative Intersection Safety); 
- IN SAFETY (Infrastructure and safety); 
- MISS (Monitor Integrated Safety Systems); 
- REACT (Realising Enhanced Safety and Efficiency in European Road Transport); 
-  COM2REACT  (Cooperative  communication  system  to  realise  enhanced  safety  and 
efficiency in European road transport); 
- COMeSafety (Communications for eSafety); 
- COOPERS (Co-operative Systems for Intelligent Road Safety); 
- COVER (Semantic driven cooperative vehicle infrastructure systems for advanced eSafety 
applications); 
- TRACKSS (Technologies for Road Advanced Cooperative Knowledge Sharing Sensors). 
Duration of the INTRO project: from 1 March 2005 until 29 February 2008. 
Duration of the CVIS project: from 1 March 2006 until 31 January 2010. 
Duration of the SAFESPOT project: from 1 February 2006 until 31 January 2010. 
Duration of the INTERSAFE 2 project: from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2010. 
Duration of the IN SAFETY project: from 1 January 2005 until 31 December 2007. 
Duration of the MISS project: from 1 January 2005 until 31 December 2006. 
Duration of the REACT project: from 1 January 2005 until 31 December 2006. 
Duration of the COM2REACT project: from 1 January 2006 until 31 December 2007. 
Duration of the COMeSafety project: from 1 January 2006 until 31 December 2009. 
Duration of the COOPERS project: from 1 February 2006 until 31 January 2010. 
Duration of the COVER project: from 1 March 2006 until 28 February 2008. 
Duration of the TRACKSS project: from 1 January 2006 until 31 December 2008. 
Specific topic: infrastructure 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Timing of the effects: long term. 
Contribution  to  road  safety:  high  results.  The  positive  results  could  be  even  more 
considerable if the synergies with the active safety domain are exploited. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  The  development  of  “intelligent  roads”  are  closely 
connected with active safety actions such as the ones considered in Measures 37 and 38. 
Outcomes:  The  number  and  contents  of  the  mentioned  projects  provide  large  and  various 
indications, measures and approaches for the development of intelligent roads infrastructures. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): studies should be deepened. 
Measure 47  
Achieve a high level of safety in tunnels, notably through standards and user information 
Objective: improving road infrastructures safety. 
Description: The European Council has on several occasions, and notably at its meeting on 
14 and 15 December 2001 in Laeken, underlined the urgency of taking measures to improve 
tunnel safety. On 30 November 2001, the Transport Ministers of Austria, France, Germany, 

EN 

45 

   EN 

Italy and Switzerland met in Zurich and adopted a Common Declaration recommending the 
alignment of national legislations on the most recent harmonised requirements for improving 
safety  in  long  tunnels.  On  29  April  2004  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the 
European Union emanated Directive 2004/54/EC21 with the aim to ensuring a minimum level 
of safety for road users in tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network by the prevention of 
critical events that may endanger human life, the environment and tunnel installations, as well 
as  by  the  provision  of  protection  in  case  of  accidents.  Transposition  by  Member  States  was 
due  by  30  April  2006.  The  directive  applies  to  all  tunnels  in  the  Trans-European  Road 
Network with lengths of over 500 m, whether they are in operation, under construction or at 
the design stage. In addition, projects  regarding tunnels safety  have been  carried  out.  In  the 
framework  of  the  project  EUROTAP  (European  Tunnels  Assessment  Programme)  tunnels 
located  on  the  Trans-European  Road  Network  have  been  assessed  for  their  level  of  road 
safety.  It  is  worth  mentioning  other  projects  such  as  the  project  UPTUN  (cost-effective, 
sustainable and innovative upgrading methods for fire safety in existing tunnels), the project 
Safe  Tunnel  (innovative  systems  and  frameworks  for  enhancing  of  traffic  safety  in  road 
tunnels), the project Safe-T (Safety in Tunnels Thematic Network) and the project SIRTAKI 
(Safety Improvement in Road & rail Tunnels using Advanced ICT and Knowledge Intensive 
DSS). The project EUROTAP started on 1 January 2005. The other projects mentioned were 
carried out in the years from 2001 to 2006. 
Specific topic: infrastructure 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: high results. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  increasing  the  safety  in  tunnels  is  consistent  with  the 
general aim of improving the road infrastructures safety management. 
Outcomes 
Directive 2004/54/EC provided for a set of safety measure as well as procedures for the 
management  of  tunnels.  Regarding  project  EUROTAP,  the  results  of  the  tunnels  that  have 
been  tested  are  published  every  year  in  media  all  across  Europe.  Tunnels  users  are  able  to 
access via the internet safety relevant information about individual tunnels in seven different 
languages.  A  European  Tunnel  Audit  Report  was  produced,  covering  nine  years  of  tunnel 
tests, and highlighting what has been achieved and  what still  needs to be done. Information 
leaflets were targeted at motorists giving information on how to behave correctly in tunnels. 
Numerous  European  road  tunnels  have  been  refurbished  and  modernised  following  the 
requirements of Directive 2004/54/EC. 
Description  of  the  impact:  a  better  management  of  tunnels  and  a  proper  road  users 
information in order to improve their behaviour contribute to reduce the accidents, therefore 
increasing road safety. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): monitoring the implementation of Directive 
2004/54.  Stimulating  the  exchange  of  best  practices  among  Member  States  and  tunnel 
operators, in particular with respect to the newly created "safety officer" activity. A possible 
application of such actions not only to the Trans-European Road Network, but also to other 
roads should be considered. 
Measure 48  
Adoption and incorporation in national legislation of a European Parliament and Council 
directive on the training of commercial drivers 
Objective: improving road safety through the training of commercial drivers. 
Description: The EU has encouraged its members to provide better training for professional 
drivers. Many professional drivers in the EU are working without the benefit of training or the 

21 

OJ L 204, 4.8.2007, p. 30. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

                                                 
opportunity to regularly refresh their skills. In 2003 EU introduced Directive 2003/59/EC22 of 
15 July 2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the initial qualification and 
periodic  training  of  drivers  of  certain  road  vehicles  for  the  carriage  of  goods  or  passengers, 
amending  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3820/85  and  Council  Directive  91/439/EEC  and 
repealing  Council  Directive  76/914/EEC,  with  effect  from  10  September  2008.  The  overall 
aim  of  the  directive  is  to  promote  the  professional  competence  of  the  drivers,  with  positive 
implications  in  terms  of:  increased  road  safety;  reduced  emissions  and  fuel  consumption; 
enhanced profile of the industry; and harmonised training of drivers which may ease worker 
mobility in the EU market. Moreover, the directive also lowered the minimum age for driving 
a truck to 18 years in order to ease the problem of shortage of drivers in Europe. 
Specific topic: professional drivers 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  is  consistent  with  the  general  scope  of 
improving the behaviour of the professional drivers. 
Outcomes 
Directive  2003/59/EC  made  compulsory  for  European  member  states  to  have  a  Driver 
Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC) across the EU for all professional bus and truck 
drivers.  The  introduction  of  Driver  CPC  required  more  rigorous  testing  and  continuous 
training  for  professional  bus  drivers  from  10  September  2008  and  truck  drivers  from  10 
September 2009. According to the provisions of the Directive, two types of CPCs have been 
foreseen:  
- the CPC certifying initial qualification, which is issued to drivers that apply for the first time 
for  a  CPC.  It  is  required  that  drivers  need  to  successfully  pass  an  official  practical  and 
theoretical test organised under the supervision of the Member State of their residence. Each 
Member State can also decide to render mandatory a previous training; 
-  the  CPC  certifying  periodic  training,  which  is  issued  to  drivers  already  holding  a  CPC 
certifying  initial  qualification  or  are  exempted  from  the  requirement  to  obtain  it,  after 
completion of a periodic training on road safety and rationalised fuel consumption. The first 
of the periodic trainings must be completed within five years (in some cases, Member States 
were  allowed  to  shorten  this  period  to  three  years  or  extend  it  to  seven)  after  the  CPC 
certifying initial qualification has been issued (or five years after 10 September 2009 for the 
drivers exempted from the obligation to certify initial qualification). A periodic training must 
then  be  completed  every  five  years.  As  an  exception  to  the  general  rule,  young  drivers  can 
work for a maximum period of three years without holding a CPC, under the condition that 
they are involved in a national vocational training lasting at least six months. 
Description of the impact: improving driving skills of the professional drivers could increase 
not only their safety, but also the safety of all road users. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): monitoring the implementation at national 
level of Directive 2003/59/EC; stimulating the exchange of best practices. 
Measure 49  
Tighter  legislation  (and  enforcement)  of  driving  and  rest  periods  for  commercial  road 
haulage 
Objective:  increasing  road  safety  by  improving  drivers’  working  conditions  for  the 
commercial road haulage. 
Description: On 15 July 1997 the European Commission adopted a White Paper on sectors 
and  activities  excluded  from  the  working  time  directive  [COM(97)  334  final],  in  which  it 
proposed  several  approaches  designed  to  protect  the  health  and  safety  of  workers  in  the 

22 

OJ L 226, 10.9.2003, p. 4–17. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

                                                 
 
sectors  excluded  from  the  basic  Directive.  Following  consultations  with  the  social  partners, 
the Commission concluded, in its Communication of 31 March 1998 [SEC(1998) 537 final] 
that nothing justified treating “mobile” workers and “non-mobile workers” in a different way 
and  that  therefore  the  basic  principles  of  the  working  time  directive  should  apply  to  all 
workers.  Directive  2002/15/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  the 
European  Union,  regarding  the  organisation  of  working  time  of  persons  performing  mobile 
road transport activities, was adopted 11 March 2002 and entered into force in March 2005. 
This directive was a lex specialis to the general Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC and it 
supplements  Regulation  (EC)561/2006  of  15  March  2006  laying  down  common  rules  on 
driving times and rest periods for drivers. The main objective the Directive 2002/15/EC was 
the introduction of minimum standards to protect the health and safety of road workers, avoid 
distortions  to  competition  within  the  Community  and  improve  road  safety.  On  15  October 
2008  a  proposal  of  a  directive  (COM  (2008)650)  was  adopted  in  order  to  amend  Directive 
2002/15. 
Specific topic: professional drivers 
Contribution to road safety: high results. 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  is  consistent  with  the  actions  aimed  at 
improving the working conditions of professional drivers. 
Outcomes 
Directive  2002/15/EC  provided  for  common  rules  that  ensure  minimum  social  protection 
standards  for  mobile  workers  in  the  road  transport sector and are perceived  as an important 
step  towards  improving  the  health  and  safety  protection  of  mobile  workers  in  the  sector, 
enhancing road safety and ensuring fair competition.  The  proposal for a directive amending 
Directive  2002/15/EC  has  the  objective  to  enhance  clarity,  readability  and  enforceability  of 
the current rules by providing a more precise definition of mobile workers including so called 
“false”self-employed  drivers  under  this  category  of  workers  and  therefore  subject  to  the 
directive. 
Description of the impact: mandating rest periods for professional hauliers reduce the risks 
of impaired driving due to fatigue. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): this measure should be continued. 
Measure 50  
Installation of digital tachographs in commercial vehicles 
Objective: increasing road safety by monitoring the details of the driver’s behaviour and of 
the journeys. 
Description:  Road  safety  is  improved  by  the  automatic  recording  and  regular  monitoring, 
both  by  the  undertaking  and  by  the  competent  authorities,  of  details  of  the  driver’s 
performance and behaviour and of the vehicle’s journey, such as speed and distance covered. 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road 
transport,  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2135/98  of  24  September  1998  and  Directive 
2006/22/EC23 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum 
conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 
3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities are dealing with this 
and have introduced  the digital tachograph and tightened the minimum  controls.  Regulation 
(EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the 
harmonisation  of  certain  social  legislation  relating  to  road  transport  and  amending  Council 
Regulations  (EEC)  No  3821/85  and  (EC)  No  2135/98  and  repealing  Council  Regulation 
(EEC)  No  3820/85  has  been  adopted  in  order  to  introduce  clearer  and  simpler  rules  about 

23 

OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 35–44. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

                                                 
driving times, breaks and rest periods for professional drivers operating both in national and 
international  transport.  Indeed,  this  Regulation  has  tried  to  bring  effective  solutions  to  the 
problems that have been experienced in interpreting, applying, enforcing and monitoring the 
provisions  included  in  the  Regulation  (EEC)  3820/85.  Moreover,  there  are  regulations 
regarding the adaptation to technical progress of recording equipment in road transport, such 
as the Commission Regulation (EC)1360/2002 of 13 June 2002, Commission Regulation (EC) 
432/2004 of 5 March 2004 and Commission Regulation (EC) 68/2009 of 23 January 2009. 
Specific topic: professional drivers 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  measure  is  consistent  with  the  general  aim  of 
improving the working and safety conditions for the drivers of commercial vehicles. 
Concerns  about  the  application  of  the  legislation:  digital  tachographs  are  used  to  control 
drivers’  hours,  and  for  secondary  purposes  such  as  for  instance  accident  investigation. 
Concerns on their effectiveness are mainly tied to the threat of manipulation and misuse, thus 
hampering  the  quality  and  level  of  enforcement  and  consequently  the  potential  benefits  for 
road  safety.  A  full  deployment  of  the  digital  tachograph  may  provide  transport  companies 
with  a  tool  for  an  easier  and  improved  management  of  transport  operations,  and  enforcers 
with a more efficient instrument for controlling the compliance of the Regulation. This may 
result  in  an  increase  in  road  safety,  since  the  digital  tachograph  makes  possible  a  more 
efficient  enforcement  of  European  rules  on  rest  and  driving  times,  by:  (i)  improving  road 
security and working conditions of drivers, and (ii) guarantee a fairer competition. However, 
continuous  training  and  adequate  equipment  (onboard  and  for  checks)  are  also  key.  In  the 
long  term,  the  deployment  of  the  tachograph  may  pose  concerns  related  to  the  technical 
development and maintenance of such tool. In addition, concerns may rise on the capability of 
national enforcement authorities to implement sound controls. 
Description  of  the  impact:  monitoring  the  behaviour  of  the  professional  drivers  constitute 
for them an incentive to perform correctly, therefore it increases road safety. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): this measure has been completed. 
Measure 51  
Best practice guidelines concerning company policies 
Objective: improving road safety involving road transport companies. 
Description:  The  project  TRANSPORT  COMPANIES  (Application  of  road  safety  related 
Community  legislation  in  transport  companies),  funded  by  DG  TREN,  aimed  at  the 
assessment of how road transport companies can be better involved for the improvement of 
road  safety.  The  safety  situation  in  the  road  haulage  companies  has  been  investigated  by  a 
combination  of  questionnaires  and  expert  interviews.  Potential  measures  to  improve  safety 
performance,  especially  outside  Europe,  have  also  been  investigated  to  determine  best 
practice. The duration of the project was from 1 December 2003 until 1 February 2005. Final 
Report, October 2004. 
Specific topic: professional drivers 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution to road safety: low results. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  measure  is  consistent  with  the  general  aim  of 
increasing the safety in the road professional transport, in particular with Measures 52 and 53. 
Outcomes 
The final report of the project provided a set of conclusions and recommendations as well as 
an action package, in which the most “promising” actions have been listed. In particular, such 
actions have been grouped under four headings: vehicle technology and its usage, the driver, 
safety culture and compliance. However, the research in this domain, despite the results of the 
TRANSPORT COMPANIES project, has not yet received any follow-up. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

The exchange of best practices at European level supports improvements and enhancements 
in  the  actions  taken  in  the  field  of  company  policies  at  national  or  local  level.  Involving 
transport  companies  for  a  safer  road  professional  transport  could  increase  the  safety  of  all 
road users. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the measure should be continued. 
Measure 52  
Best practice guidelines concerning the securing of loads and the carriage  of exceptional 
loads 
Objective: improving road safety through a better management of loads carriage. 
Description: As a practical step towards more road safety and transport efficiency throughout 
the European Union, the European Commission Directorate-General for Energy and Transport 
has  asked  experts  from  Member  States  and  industry  to  develop  guidelines  reflecting  best 
practice  on  cargo  securing  and  abnormal  transports.  An  expert  group  prepared  a  report 
regarding  best  practice  guidelines  for  abnormal  road  transports.  The  document,  which  was 
finished in 2006, was presented to the Road Safety High Level Group, which gave a positive 
opinion concerning its contents and scope. These best practice guidelines can be a reference 
for all parties directly or indirectly concerned by abnormal road transports, but are primarily 
addressed to the relevant authorities in the Member States. The document was developed with 
and  received  the  agreement  of  Member  States’  government  experts  and  other  parties 
concerned. The best practice guidelines are intended to pave the way towards simplification 
and, if possible harmonisation of the rules and procedures to obtain abnormal road transport 
permits  as  well  as  define  the  conditions  under  which  procedures  could  be  simplified.  In 
addition,  best  practice  guidelines  on  cargo  securing  for  road  transport  have  been  prepared. 
Rules on cargo securing exist in several Member States, but they often differ in content and 
scope, making it very difficult for international transporters to know what the minimum cargo 
securing  requirements  are  for  a  given  cross-border  transport  operation.  The  purpose  of  the 
guidelines  is  to  provide  basic  practical  advice  and  instructions  to  all  persons  involved  in 
loading/unloading  and  securing  a  cargo  on  vehicles,  including  carriers  and  shippers.  They 
should also be useful for enforcement bodies and courts, and they could serve as a basis for 
Member States when taking the necessary steps for putting into practice the training of drivers 
in accordance with Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of 
drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers. The guidelines aim to 
provide a guide for adequate cargo securing for all situations that may occur in normal traffic 
conditions. The guidelines should also serve as a common basis for both practical application 
and  enforcement  of  cargo  securing.  The  project  GOODROUTE  (Dangerous  GOODs 
Transportation ROUTing, Monitoring and Enforcement) started in 2006 with the objective to 
develop a proper system for the routing of dangerous goods vehicles in order to minimise the 
risks related to the movements of this kind of vehicles. 
The  project  GOODROUTE  started  on  1  January  2006  and  was  completed  on  31  December 
2009. 
Specific topic: professional drivers 
Type of impact: indirect 
Contribution  to  road  safety:  medium  results.  It  has  been  estimated  that  up  to  25%  of 
accidents involving trucks can be attributable to inadequate cargo securing. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  is  consistent  with  all  the  actions  aimed  at 
improving road transport safety, and in particular with Measures 51 and 53. 
Outcomes 
With respect to abnormal roads transports, the document: 
-  exposes  the  conditions  and  concepts  which  could  greatly  simplify  the  procedures  and 
improve the conditions under which important segments of the European economy, especially 

EN 

50 

   EN 

the building and production sectors, have to operate, leading to more timely and predictable 
abnormal road transports; 
-  proposes  a  single  vehicle  registration  document  adapted  to  abnormal  road  transports 
requirements, which takes into account current practice in certain Member States; 
- presents the principles under which European abnormal road transports corridors could be 
developed in order to facilitate cross-border abnormal road transport operations; 
-  with  regard  to  marking  and  signalling,  proposes  a  relatively  simple  system  achieving 
optimal effectiveness, according to the expert group; 
-  provides  indications  about  escorts  and  self-propelled  machinery,  a  particular  group  of 
abnormal road transport where it is the vehicle itself that does not comply with the European 
legislation on maximum authorised weights and dimensions for road vehicles. 
The  report  on  cargo  securing  provides  best  practice  guidelines  and  recommendations 
regarding: 
- vehicle body structure and equipment suitable for blocking on vehicles; 
- restraining methods; 
- calculating the number of lashings; 
- inspection during drive / multidrop operations; 
- standardised or semi-standardised cargo (geometrical forms); 
- requirements for some specific loads. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  action  should  be  taken  to  encourage  the 
adoption of the developed best practices guidelines. 
Measure 53  
Adapting  to  technical  progress  the  Community  legislation  concerning  the  carriage  of 
hazardous goods 
Objective: making European roads safer. 
Description:  Directive  2008/68/EC24  establishes  a  common  regime  for  all  aspects  of  the 
inland transport of dangerous goods, by road, rail and inland waterways within Member States 
or  between  several  Member  States,  including  the  activities  of  loading  and  unloading,  the 
transfer to another  mode  of  transport and the stops necessitated by the circumstances of the 
transport.  It  repeals  and  replaces  Directives  94/55/EC,  96/49/EC  and  96/35/EC  with  the 
objective  of  minimising  the  risks  in  transporting  dangerous  goods  and  ensuring  that  these 
goods  are  packaged  and  carried  in  a  way  that  prevents  leakage  and  protects  the  population, 
environment and economy. The Directive refers to the texts of the international agreements on 
transport  of  dangerous  goods  ADR  (the  European  Agreement  concerning  the  International 
Carriage  of  Dangerous  Goods  by  Road  of  the  30  September  1957),  RID  (the  Regulations 
concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail of 3 June 1999) and AND 
(the  European  Agreement  concerning  the  International  Carriage  of  Dangerous  Goods  by 
Inland  Waterways  of  26  May  2000).  These  agreements  have  drawn  up  a  list  of  dangerous 
goods, defining the requirements for their transport. Directive 2008/68/EC extends their rules 
to national transport in order to harmonise across the Community the conditions under which 
dangerous  goods  are  transported  and  to  ensure  the  proper  functioning  of  the  common 
transport market. 
The  Commission  Decision  2009/240/EC  of  4  March  2009  transfers  certain  derogations 
previously  granted  under  the  ADR  and  RID  Framework  Directives  to  the  new  Inland 
Transport  of  Dangerous  Goods  Directive  2008/68/EC,  which  entered  into  force  20  October 
2008.  Member  States  must  comply  with  it  by  30  June  2009.  Concerning  controls, 
Commission  Directive  2004/112/EC  adapted  the  procedures  for  checks  on  the  transport  of 
dangerous goods by road of Directive 2001/26/EC. Member States have a transitional period 

24 

OJ L 260, 30.9.2008, p. 13–59. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

                                                 
of up to two years (until 30 June 2011) for the application of the Directive to the transport of 
dangerous  goods  by  inland  waterway,  so  as  to  allow  sufficient  time  for  the  adaptation  of 
national provisions, the establishment of legal frameworks and the training of personnel. 
Specific topic: professional drivers 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution  to  road  safety:  medium  results.  The  rules  concerning  transport  of  hazardous 
goods are expected to secure a higher level of road safety in the long run. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  scope  of  this  measure  is  consistent  with  the  aim  of 
increasing road transport safety, and in particular with Measures 51 and 52. 
Outcomes 
Defining  clear,  harmonised  and  effective  rules  for  the  transport  of  hazardous  goods 
contributes  to  minimising  the  risk  associated  with  the  transport  of  dangerous  goods,  at  the 
same time improving working and safety conditions in road professional transport. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): monitoring the implementation at national 
level. 
Measure 54  
Making the wearing of seatbelts mandatory in coaches and heavy goods vehicles 
Objective: reduction of injuries for bus and coach passengers in case of accident. 
Description: Directive 2003/20/EC25, amending Directive 91/671/EEC on the approximation 
of the laws of the Member States relating to compulsory use of safety belts in vehicles of less 
than  3,5  tonnes,  requires  all  bus  and  coach  passengers  to  use  seat  belts  (or  child  restraints, 
where  appropriate  and  available)  where  they  are  installed.  It  amends  the  earlier  Directive 
91/671/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to compulsory use of 
seat belts. In particular, it introduces the requirement that all occupants aged three and over of 
M2  (buses  and  coaches  having  a  maximum  gross  weight  not  exceeding  5,000  kg)  and  M3 
vehicles  (buses  and  coaches  over  5,000  kg)  in  use  shall  wear  the  safety  systems  provided 
while they are seated. 
Specific topic: vehicle occupants' protection 
Type of impact: direct. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 
Consistency with other measures: this measure is consistent with the aim of increasing the 
safety of vehicle occupants; in particular, it is linked with Measures 21, 25 and 55. 
Outcomes 
There  are  no  separate  figures  for  vehicles  fitted  and  not-fitted  with  seat  belts  and  available 
statistics  do  not  identify  if  passengers  were,  or  were  not,  wearing  available  seat  belts  at  the 
time  of  accident.  Therefore,  a  scientific  quantification  of  the  impact  on  road  safety  is  not 
feasible. The efficiency is rated as medium, and not as high, since the mandatory use of seat 
belts  is  applied  only  for  vehicles  provided  with  those,  while  the  installation  itself  is  not 
mandatory. 
Description  of  the  impact:  wearing  seatbelts  reduce  the  risk  of  personal  damage  and  the 
potential severity of injury in case of accident. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): monitoring the implementation at national 
level while supporting the installation of seat belts in all coaches and HGVs. 
Measure 55  
Introducing protection rules for vehicles regularly used for the carriage of children 
Objective: improving child safety in road transport. 
Description: Road traffic accidents are the main cause of mortality for children up to 15 years 
old.  Crashes  involving  school  buses  and  crashes  involving  children  travelling  to  school 

25 

OJL 115, 9.5.2003, p. 63.  

EN 

52 

   EN 

                                                 
require  a  focused  effort  to  be  drastically  reduced.  To  address  this  problem  and  improve 
children  road  safety,  the  EC  has  carried  out  several  actions.  In  terms  of  legislation,  the  EU 
Directive 2003/20/EC covering seat belt wearing requires children up to the age of 12 years or 
less than 150cm tall (where there is an exemption, 135cm) travelling in cars, vans and goods 
vehicles  to  use  an  appropriate  child  restraint.  According  to  this  Directive,  child  restraints 
systems  for  child  occupants  of  power-driven  vehicles  sold  in  the  EU  must  conform  to  the 
UNECE  Regulation  44.  This  regulation  needs  to  be  updated  in  order  to  take  into  account 
restraint  systems  for  children  up  to  150  cm.  To  this  aim,  several  EC  projects  have  been 
working on the development and improvement of child protection systems. Moreover, several 
research projects in the domain of child safety have been funded. The CHILD project carried 
out  the  investigation  of  injury  mechanisms  and  tolerances  specifically  regarding  children  in 
order  to  contribute  to  revised  or  improved  standards  and  more  efficient  design  of  child 
restraint systems. The main objective of the project was to increase the level of knowledge of 
the  injury  mechanisms  experienced  by  children  of  different  ages  in  road  accidents.  In 
addition,  CHILD  complimented  the  activities  of  Euro  NCAP  with  regard  to  child  occupant 
protection  assessment,  establishing  protection  reference  values  for  body  regions  such  as  the 
neck. The project School Transport (Road Safety in school transport) studied the key issues 
relating  to  school  transport  and  made  recommendations  in  the  light  of  the  existing  and 
upcoming legislation in this domain. The final objective was evaluating the need for further 
legislation  or  action  at  Community  or  Member  State  level.  The  NPACS  project  (New 
programme  for  the  assessment  of  child  seats)  aimed  at  providing  independent  published 
guidance to consumers on the relative protection afforded by child restraint systems. Through 
reliable  methods  of  dynamic  testing  in  collaboration  with  EU  research  and  testing 
organisations, it developed an harmonised testing procedure with the objective of establishing 
an  EuroNCAP  type  body.  Compared  to  Euro  NCAP,  which  rates  the  combination  of  a 
particular car model and a child restraint system, NPACS tests separately the child restraint 
system  safety  performance  across  most  vehicle  models.  The  EPOCH  project  (Enabling 
protection  for  older  children),  funded  under  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme,  aims  to 
extend  the  NPACS  testing  and  rating  protocols  to  include  child  restraints  for  older  children 
(developing a prototype 10/12 year old dummy). The final objective is to make proposals for 
the  assessment  of  child  restraints  in  the  UNECE  Regulation  44.  Finally,  the  project 
SAFEWAY2SCHOOL  (Integrated  system  for  the  safe  transportation  of  children  to  school) 
aims to design, develop, integrate and evaluate technologies for providing a holistic and safe 
transportation service for children, encompassing tools, services and training for all key actors 
in the relevant transportation chain. These include optimal route planning for school buses to 
maximize safety, on-board safety applications (i.e. for speed control and seat belts), intelligent 
bus stops, effective warning and information systems for bus drivers, children, parents and the 
surrounding  traffic,  as  well  as  training  schemes  for  all  actors.  The  project's  innovative 
systems, services and training schemes will be tested in Sweden, Austria, Italy and Poland to 
evaluate their usability, efficiency, user acceptance and market viability. 
Duration of the CHILD project: from 1 September 2002 to 31 August 2005. 
Duration of the School Transport project: from 1 December 2003 to 1 October 2004. 
Duration of the NPACS project: from 1 January 2004 to 1 January 2006. 
Duration of the EPOCH project: from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011. 
Duration of the SAFEWAY2SCHOOL project: from 1 September 2009 to 31 August 2012. 
Specific topic: vehicle occupants protection 
Type of impact: direct. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results 
Consistency with other measures: this measure is tightly linked with the implementation of 
Measure 22 (introduction of universal anchorage systems for child restraint devices). 

EN 

53 

   EN 

Description  of  the  impact:  introducing  protection  rules  for  the  carriage  of  children  is  a 
measure  which  not  only  directly  improve  child  safety  in  vehicles  by  providing  a  more  and 
more appropriate restraint systems, but also helps increasing the attention level of the driver. 
In fact, according to a research carried out in the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany 
(EPOCH, 2009), for 30% of the parents children distracting them in the back of the car is the 
cause of a (near) accident. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the results of the thematic researches will 
need to be integrated and applied. Relative statistics need to be improved. 
Measure 56 
Examining the impact on road safety of the growing use of small commercial vehicles and 
company vehicles. 
Objective: supporting policy making. 
Description:  The  increasing  participation  of  light  goods  vehicles  (LGVs)  in  road  traffic, 
especially considering the raise of courier and express services, is of growing concern for road 
safety; in fact, both the number of LGVs and their participation in accidents increased. The 
project  IMPROVER  (Impact  Assessment  of  Road  Safety  Measures  for  Vehicles  and  Road 
Equipment),  and  in  particular  the  Subproject  2,  examined  the  impact  of  the  measures 
improving the road safety of light vans (vehicles for the carriage of goods with a weight of 
more than 1 and less than 3.5 t). The research carried out by the project estimated that each 
year (considering as reference period from 1995 to 2005) more than 4.000 people die in the 
EU25  in  accidents  with  light  goods  vehicles  and  more  than  20.000  are  severely  injured. 
Moreover,  between  1995  and  2005,  the  number  of  LGVaccidents  with  fatally  injured  road 
users  increased  on  all  road  types:  by  6%  on  urban  roads,  8%  on  rural  roads  and  32%  on 
motorways (IMPROVER, 2006). 
Duration of the project IMPROVER: from 23 November 2004 to 23 May 2006. 
Specific topic: professional drivers 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Timing of the effects: long term. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 
Consistency  with  other  measures: the  research  development  is  closely  connected  with  the 
studies  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  the  Measure  28  (examine  the  impact  of  the 
proliferation of 4x4s, SUVs and MPVs). 
Outcomes 
The IMPROVER Subproject 2: 
- analysed the scope of the problem in the EU25; 
- identified and defined road safety measures for LGV; 
- carried out cost-benefit-analyses for each measure; 
-  proposed  recommendations  on  the  implementation  of  road  safety  measures  dedicated  to 
LGV. 
Description  of  the  impact:  understanding  the  effects  on  road  safety  of  the  proliferation  of 
small  commercial  vehicles  is  crucial  to  define  the  intervention  strategy  that  needs  to  be 
adopted in order to increase road safety. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the research is completed. Action needs to 
be  taken  in  the  framework  of  the  measures  addressing  the  safety  of  professional  drivers 
(namely, Measures 48, 49 and 51). 
Measure 57  
Examine best practice with regard to post-accident medical care. 
Objective:  improving  post-accident  care  by  providing  information  on  outstanding  safety 
measures. 
Description:  The  post-accident  medical  care  consists  of  first  aid  measures,  emergency  call, 
response  of  emergency  systems,  safeguarding  of  accident  sites,  transportation  and  medical 

EN 

54 

   EN 

treatment  for  the  victims,  further  medical  treatment  and  psychological  support.  The  project 
SUPREME (Summary and publication of best Practices in Road safety in the EU Member 
States) had the goal to collect, analyse, summarise and publish best practices in road safety in 
the European Union as well as in Switzerland and Norway. The analysis was carried out along 
nine categories of measures, one of them being post accident care. 
Duration of the project SUPREME: from 1 December 2005 to 1 June 2007. 
Specific topic: post crash medical care  
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  shares  the  scope  of  Measure  58,  which  is 
improving post-accident care. 
Outcomes 
A specific Thematic Report on the best practices related to post accident care was published. 
It describes the best available practices, featuring basic characteristics such as target groups, 
quantitative  and  qualitative  goals,  key  issues,  duration  of  implementation  and  effects, 
coverage,  costs,  actors  involved,  implementation  procedures  as  well  as  key  success  factors 
and potential implementation barriers in other countries. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): the thematic research is completed. Action 
needs to be taken to integrate the results of the study in the European systems of post-accident 
medical care. 
Measure 58  
Draw  up  specifications  for  satellite-positioning  accident-warning  systems  and  carry  out 
demonstration projects involving the whole chain of emergency service provision. 
Objective: promoting the use of ICTs to improve post-accident care and achieve safer roads. 
Description: The European Commission supported several projects with the aim of reducing 
the  consequences  of  road  traffic  accidents  by  deploying  a  system  to  immediately  alert  the 
emergency  services.  Such  a  system  was  first  conceived  and  developed  under  the  project 
AIDER, funded under the fifth Framework Programme. The aim of the AIDER project was to 
develop  a  kind  of  automotive  “black  box”,  similar  to  the  devices  in  airplanes,  which 
continually assesses the car's environment and, in case of an accident, alerts a call centre with 
essential  details  about  the  nature  of  the  crash.  The  emergency  services  would  be  contacted 
immediately  and,  knowing  the  details  of  the  accident,  they  would  arrive  both  more  quickly 
and prepared for specific injuries. The eCall programme received the task of optimising the 
in-car  automatic  emergency  call  system  developed  within  the  framework  of  the  projects 
AIDER, E-MERGE and GST-Rescue and to make the technology work across borders. ECall 
is a system that automatically dials 112, Europe's single emergency number, when a car has a 
serious  accident  and  sends  its  location  to  the  nearest  emergency  service  –  even  when 
passengers do not know or cannot say where they are. The Commission has further supported 
work on eCall through industry cooperation via the eSafety initiative, which seeks to improve 
road safety by fitting "intelligent" safety systems based on advanced electronic technologies 
into road vehicles (see Measure 37). 
Duration of the project AIDER: from 1 September 2001 to 31 August 2004. 
Duration of the project E-MERGE: from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2004. 
Duration of the project GST-Rescue: from 1 March 2004 to 31 March 2007. 
The eCall technology is ready and common pan-EU standards have been agreed by the phone 
and car industry and by the emergency services. Since 2004, 79 representatives of the industry 
and  18  national  Authorities  have  signed  the  EU's  Memorandum  of  Understanding  to 
implement  the  system  across  Europe.  15  EU  countries  (Austria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic, 
Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, the 
Netherlands and Sweden) as well as 3 EEA countries (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) have 
agreed  common  arrangements  for  implementing  eCall.  Another  6  (Belgium,  Bulgaria, 

EN 

55 

   EN 

Hungary, Luxembourg, Romania and Poland) support the programme and are willing to sign 
the agreement. Instead, Denmark, France, Ireland, Latvia, Malta and the UK are still not ready 
to commit, mainly for cost concerns, and have not signed the Memorandum. In April 2006, 
the European Parliament voted by a large majority to adopt the eCall safety system for all new 
cars from 2009. By the end of 2010, eCall should become a standard option in all new type-
approved  vehicles.  But  to  fully  deploy  it,  Europe's  car  and  telecoms  industries  and  national 
administrations  must  ensure  that  their  emergency  services  (i.e.  call  centres)  are  equipped  to 
handle the system. 
Specific topic: post crash medical care 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: high results 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  this  measure  shares  the  scope  of  Measure  57,  which  is 
improving post-accident care. 
Outcomes  The  Memorandum  of  Understanding  for  Realisation  of  Interoperable  In-Vehicle 
eCall was adopted on the 28 May 2004. 
Description of the impact: the eCall system will help to reduce the number of fatalities and 
the  severity  of  the  injuries  by  enabling  a  more  immediate  intervention  of  the  emergency 
services.  The  system  will  also  support  the  development  of  the  technologies  to  manage  road 
traffic congestion and to install services like satellite navigation in cars. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): several Member States have still not signed 
the  eCall  Memorandum  of  Understanding.  The  Telecoms  Commissioner,  Vivian  Reding, 
invited  them  to  take  action  and  commit  to  the  introduction  of  a  system  that  can  save  lives. 
Otherwise, the Commission will need to propose legislation next year (EU Commission Press 
Release, 9 September 2009). 
Measure 59  
Develop  the  CARE  database  and  widen  access  to  it,  in  the  interest  of  achieving  greater 
transparency and encouraging its use; expand CARE to include hazard exposure variables 
and the causes of accidents 
Objective:  build  a  statistical  and  scientific  basis  contributing  to  the  improvement  of  road 
safety. 
Description:  Several  research  projects  have  been  carried  out  in  order  to  expand  the  CARE 
database,  developed  in  the  framework  of  the  SafetyNet  project  (see  Measure  2),  to  increase 
the number of variables and to improve their quality. 
The  PENDANT  project  (Pan-European  Coordinated  Accident  and  Injury  Database)  was 
established to develop a new in-depth crash-injury database. It focuses on accident causation 
data,  a  linked  police-hospital  injury  database  and  on  accident  investigation  tools  to  support 
development  of  databases,  harmonisation  of  collision  severity  assessment  methods, 
impairment  scales  and  injury  severity  scaling  methods  for  casualty  reduction.  In  2006  a 
second  phase  of  the  project  was  launched.  The  project  PROLOGUE  (Promoting  real  life 
Observations  for  Gaining  Understanding  of  road  behaviour  in  Europe)  aims  at  developing 
techniques for naturalistic observations, where road user behaviour is observed unobtrusively 
in a natural setting for a longer period of time. The main objective is to prove the feasibility 
and usefulness of a large-scale European naturalistic observation study. The project TRACE 
(Traffic Accident Causation in Europe) had the objective of providing with an overview of the 
road  accident  causation  issues  in  Europe  based  on  the  analysis  of  all  current  available 
databases  which  include  accident,  injury,  insurance,  medical  and  exposure  data  (including 
driver  behaviour  in  normal  driving  conditions).  The  idea  was  to  identify  and  quantify  the 
nature  of  risk  factors,  in  order  to  estimate  the  safety  benefits  of  a  selection  of  technology-
based safety functions. With regard to motorcycles, the Motorcycle Accidents In Depth Study 
(MAIDS)  resulted  in  the  most  comprehensive  in-depth  database  currently  available  for 
powered two wheelers accidents in Europe. The investigation was conducted during 3 years 

EN 

56 

   EN 

on 921 accidents from 5 countries using a common research methodology. Then, in order to 
identify  the  main  causes  of  accidents  involving  trucks,  the  European  Commission  and  the 
International  Road  Transport  Union  (IRU)  launched  a  scientific  study  on  European  Truck 
Accident  Causation  (ETAC).  The  experts  team  has  investigated  altogether  624  accidents 
involving trucks. The project SAU (Urban accident analysis system) focused on urban zones, 
developing  a  guide  of  “best  practices”  for  the  data  collection,  analysis  and  monitoring  of 
traffic accidents. The project SARAC II (Quality Criteria for the Safety Assessment of Cars 
based  on  Real-World  Crashes)  aimed  at  developing  advanced  method  of  safety  ratings, 
improving  classification  of  injury  severity,  impact  severity  and  vehicle  damage.  Finally, 
DaCoTa  (Road  safety  data  collection,  transfer  and  analysis)  is  a  project  funded  under  the 
Seventh  Framework  Programme  aimed  at  further  improving  the  European  Road  Safety 
Observatory  (ERSO)  by  enhancing,  structuring  and  applying  the  data  and  knowledge  it 
contains. It represents the follow-up of the projects SafetyNet and SUNflower and involves 17 
partners from 13 countries. It covers subjects such as accident data, measure evaluation and 
policy  benchmarking  with  the  aim  of  developing  innovative  mechanisms  for  exploiting 
existing  data  sources,  to  facilitate  the  analysis  and  to  explore  potential  road  safety 
improvements. It started in May 2009. 
Duration of the SafetyNet project: from 1 December 2004 to 1 December 2008. 
Duration of the MAIDS project: from 1 December 2001 to 1 December 2002. 
Duration of the PENDANT project: - from 1 January 2003 to 1 December 2005; 
- from 16 January 2006 to 15 July 2016. 
Duration of the ETAC project: from 1 May 2004 to 30 September 2006. 
Duration of the SARAC II project: from 1 March 2003 to 1 April 2006. 
Duration of the SAU project: from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2007. 
Duration of the TRACE project: from 1 January 2006 to 30 June 2008. 
Duration of the DaCoTa project: from 1 May 2009 to 31 October 2011. 
Duration of the PROLOGUE project: from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2011. 
Specific topic: statistical data 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: high results. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  data  collection  is  functional  to  all  other  measures 
concerning  research  and  thematic  analyses.  Moreover,  this  measure  has  a  strong  link  with 
Measure 60 (linking hospital data and accident statistics). 
Outcomes 
The  CARE  database  has  been  enhanced  to  include,  from  15  Member  States,  a  total  of  27 
Member  States  as  well  as  Norway,  Switzerland  and  Iceland.  A  range  of  standard  statistical 
outputs  from  CARE  (reports  and  factsheets)  has  been  developed.  New  fatal  and  in-depth 
accident  causation  databases  have  been  established,  in  particular  concerning  motorcycles 
(MAIDS) and trucks (ETAC). The MAIDS study resulted in a report that has recently been 
updated  (MAIDS,  2009)  with  a  new  presentation  of  the  data,  including  a  split  between 
mopeds  (L1)  and  motorcycle  (L3),  and  a  multivariate  analysis  on  fatal  accidents  describing 
the  results  achieved  by  the  project.  The  ETAC  study  enabled  the  creation  of  a  database  to 
record all accident causes with around 3,000 parameters per accident. The results have been 
made  available  to  the  research  community  and  other  relevant  parties  with  the  final  report 
(ETAC,  2006).  The  PENDANT  research  resulted  in  the  definition  of  methods  to  assess 
collision severity and in the review of the traffic injury output scales; it also produced crash 
modelling  methods  for  estimating  casualty  and  injury  reductions.  Over  1,100  crashes  have 
been  investigated  and  the  data  were  organised  in  a  new  database.  DaCoTA  is  expected  to 
become  one  of  ERSO  major  deliverers  of  knowledge  and  data  in  the  coming  years.  Within 
DaCoTA, the harmonising data methods will be further applied, resulting in more and more 
standardised data products on a European level. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

Description of the impact: data collection and analysis provide a fundamental support to the 
definition of policy priorities and to the assessment of road safety initiatives and actions. The 
outcomes  of  the  research  will  lead  to  a  better  understanding  of  road  safety  and  will  help  to 
realise a safer road transport system.. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  reported  statistics  need  to  be  constantly 
improved. Moreover, they could be more detailed in order to facilitate a deeper background 
analysis.  Member  States  should  be  supported  and  encouraged  to  provide  a  complete  set  of 
data in line with the European criteria and requirements. 
Measure 60  
Assess and improve systems for linking hospital data and national road accident statistics 
Objective:  build  a  statistical  and  scientific  basis  contributing  to  the  improvement  of  road 
safety.  
Description: The goal of collecting data by medical institutions is twofold, namely estimating 
the real number of non-fatal casualties and obtaining more information about injury severity 
and long term impact of traffic crashes. The objective was firstly addressed in the framework 
of the PENDANT project (see Measure 59), which, among others, aimed at analysing both in-
depth database and hospital-based data systems, in order to develop a new hospital-based data 
system  linked  with  police  data.  Besides,  the  project  SUPREME  aimed  at  collecting  and 
publishing best practices in road safety in nine different categories of measures (see Measure 
57),  carried  out  a  specific  study  on  the  methods  of  collecting  data  within  the  category 
“statistics  and  in  depth  analysis”.  The  project  refers  to  the  results  identified  by  the  project 
SafetyNet.  This  project  (see  Measure  2)  had  the  goal  of  developing  the  framework  for  the 
European  Road  Safety  Observatory  (ERSO),  which  assembles  a  coordinated  set  of  data 
resources to support policy development. In particular, Work package 5 on statistics and in-
depth  analysis  reported  on  the  practices  for  the  collection  of  crash  data  and  for  linking 
medical  files  with  crash  data.  The  projects  SUPREME  and  SafetyNet  identified  the  best 
practice  in  data  collection  and  produced  several  recommendations  regarding  systems  for 
linking hospital data and national road accident statistics. In particular, countries should: 
- try to monitor the level of reporting in official crash statistics by setting up reporting systems 
at hospitals; 
-  encourage  electronic  linkages  between  sources  of  injury  data  or,  even  better,  promote  a 
system for electronically merging injury records kept by hospitals and police reported injury 
crashes; 
- check the completeness of fatality records by comparing as many sources of data as possible 
(namely, crash registration by the police, court files with unnatural deaths, death causes file 
from the municipal records about population, car insurance and hospitals). 
Duration of the SafetyNet project: from 1 December 2004 to 1 December 2008. 
Duration of the PENDANT project: from 1 January 2003 to 1 December 2005; 
- from 16 January 2006 to 15 July 2016. 
Duration of the SUPREME project: from 1 December 2005 to 1 June 2007. 
Specific topic: statistical data 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 
Consistency  with  other  measures:  data  collection  is  functional  to  all  other  measures 
concerning  research  and  thematic  analyses.  Moreover,  this  measure  has  a  strong  link  with 
Measure 59 (developing CARE database). 
Outcomes 
The project PENDANT, addressing the shortfall in injury-crash data (see Measure 59), carried 
out  an  analysis  of  hospital  based  data  systems.  A  specific  Thematic  Report  on  the  best 
practices  related  to  the  linkage  hospital  data  and  national  road  accident  statistics  was 
published  within  the  framework  of  SUPREME  (SUPREME,  2007).  The  SafetyNet  project 

EN 

58 

   EN 

produced  two  deliverables  relevant  to  this  specific  measure:  the  Final  Report  of  task  1.5, 
analysing  methods  to  estimate  the  real  number  of  road  accident  casualties  and  a  research 
dealing with the further enhancement and exploitation of the CARE system. 
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): 
- studies designed to assess the level and accuracy of reporting in official road crash statistics 
should be performed regularly; 
-  studies  should  be  made  to  determine  the  extent  to  which  injuries  recorded  by  medical 
institutions can be geographically located correctly; 
- studies should be made to determine the possibility of electronically merging police records 
and hospital records of traffic injury in ways that will not violate the protection of the privacy; 
- a simple injury scale according to severity should be developed by medical professionals for 
use by the police and the health emergency services. 
Measure 61  
Develop  specifications  for  on-board  accident  recording  devices,  and  examine  the 
consequences of various alternatives for certain categories of vehicles 
Objective: supporting collision investigation and safety research. 
Description: Accident recording devices (ARDs) are instruments to record the data a couple 
of seconds prior and after a crash (therefore not involving behaviour monitoring). The aim is 
enhancing the understanding of how accidents and collisions happen, but also recognising the 
potential  benefits  for  prevention  and  road  safety.  Moreover,  their  application  can  lead  to 
improvements in different domain, namely in legal trials, in the application of victims’ rights 
and  in  fighting  vehicle  thefts,  insurance  frauds  and  other  crimes.  The  data  collected  can  be 
used not only for improving accident investigation and speeding-up of court procedures, but 
also  for  enhanced  research  in  in-depth  databases  of  real-life  information,  which  allow  for 
better evaluation of road safety measures in all fields (active and passive vehicle safety, 
infrastructure, training, regulation and enforcement). In order to understand the feasibility of 
implementing  accident  data  recording  technology  in  Europe,  the  European  Commission 
launched  the  project  VERONICA  (Vehicle  Event  Recording  based  on  Intelligent  Crash 
Assessment).  This  study  examined  the  relevant  information  related  to  accident  recording 
devices: technical specifications, application on different vehicle classes, harmonisation issues 
and  medical  and  legal  aspects,  including  privacy  issues.  It  also  analysed  the  impacts  on 
accident  prevention  and  traffic  safety  and  calculated  the  cost-benefit  ratio.  The  project 
produced recommendation about the suitable legal framework for on-board accident recording 
devices, in particular to improve the European accident databases with real-life collision data. 
The follow-up project, VERONICA II, further specified the technical and legal requirements 
for a possible implementation of accident data recorders in European vehicles. In particular, it 
has been studied how to capture not only hard crash data, but also data from soft collisions, 
i.e.  with  vulnerable  road  users,  who  represent  a  relevant  part  of  road  users  and  victims  in 
accidents. A special focus was given to commercial and professional used vehicles. Besides 
these research activities, the Commission co-funded the DRIVE II programme, a field test in 
the UK, Netherlands and Belgium (SAMOVAR-DRIVE project). The project focuses on low 
cost in-vehicle electronic systems for recording data related to vehicle and its communications 
to other systems and databases. A total of 341 vehicles equipped with different data recording 
technologies have been tested. The synthesis of the results shows that the accident rate was 
reduced by 28% and the accident costs by 40%. 
Duration of the VERONICA project: from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2006. 
Duration of the VERONICA II project: from 1 May 2007 to 30 April 2009. 
Specific topic: statistical data 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Timing of the effects: medium term. 
Contribution to road safety: medium results. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

Consistency  with  other  measures:  the  work  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  the  two 
VERONICA  projects  is  very  much  in  line  with  the  EC  e-safety  R&D  initiatives,  which 
provide for better accident data to enhance the research for vehicle and infrastructure safety 
and for accident mitigation. In particular, it has a strong connection with the Measures 58, 59 
and 60. 
Outcomes 
The Final Report (VERONICA, 2006) incorporates the emerging finding from of the research 
carried out within the project. In particular, it presents a list of key information to be collected 
during  a  collision.  Proposals  are  also  made  for  recording  frequencies.  A  number  of  target 
group characterised by an elevated accident or damage risk have been identified as priority for 
collision data collection: hazardous goods vehicles, coaches, buses, emergency vehicles, other 
commercial vehicles, motorcycles and young drivers. Concerning passengers cars, instead, the 
implementation  of  these  devices  is  presently  not  indicated,  but  it  can  be  considered  in  the 
future. 
Description  of  the  impact:  Accident  recording  devices  support  an  improved  collision 
investigation, the collection of real-life data for research, rescue advancements, infrastructure 
and vehicle design improvements, all acknowledged means to improve road safety. Moreover, 
besides the indirect impacts on road safety, the use of accident data recorders in fleets shows 
that a considerable preventive effect can be achieved. 
What  remains  to  be  done  (ERSAP  2011-2020):  the  results  of  the  research  need  to  be 
applied.  According  to  the  recommendation  contained  in  the  VERONICA  II  Final  Report,  a 
Directive  based  on  the  purpose  of  road  safety  would  provide  the  best  way  to  achieve  the 
implementation  of  accident  data  recorders  in  the  European  Union.  Meanwhile,  the 
acceptability of these devices to the public should be assessed. 
Measure 62  
Establish a European methodology for independent road accident investigations and set up 
a group of independent experts meeting within the Commission. 
Objective: developing a common methodology in transport accident investigations. 
Description: Accident investigations aim at identifying the circumstances and the causes of 
accidents  and  drawing  conclusions  thereof  so  that  appropriate  measures  can  be  taken  to 
prevent  them  from  happening  again.  Currently,  across  Europe  there  is  a  wide  range  of 
accident  investigation  procedures  and  protocols  in  place  applied  by  the  police,  insurance 
companies,  researchers  and  other  accident  investigators.  In  2004  the  European  Commission 
set up a group of twelve experts to assist it in defining a shared strategy in transport accident 
investigations  (ROSAT  working  group,  Road  Accident  Independent  Investigations).  The 
ROSAT  group  aimed  at  defining  a  reference  methodology  for  European  and  national 
authorities in order to allow independent, effective and competent safety investigations. It has 
issued  recommendations  on  methodology  issues  applicable  to  all  modes  of  transport  and 
recommendations  on  road  accident 
the  project  QUERY 
(Developing guidelines for a best practice qualification of accident analysts) was initiated to 
investigate how the professional profile of specialists in accident reconstruction is integrated 
into  the  different  legal  systems  of  the  EU  Member  States.  At  the  same  time,  the  SafetyNet 
project was launched. Within the project framework, the 4th Work Package brought together 
20  road  safety  researchers  with  the  aim  of  establishing  the  requirements  for  the  creation  of 
transparent and independent road accident investigations in all Member States according to a 
common  European  investigation  methodology.  The  final  objective  is  addressing  the  need  to 
have detailed, public, transparent and independent road accident data at European level. The 
research  carried  out  an  investigation  of  a  sample  of  routine  accidents  as  well  as  of  major 
accidents and resulted in a set of recommendation whose primary focus is on safety oriented 
investigation.  
Duration of the ROSAT project: from 1 July 2004 to 31 July 2006. 

investigations.  Meanwhile, 

EN 

60 

   EN 

independent 

investigations 

that  systematically  address 

Duration of the SafetyNet project: from 1 May 2004 to 31 October 2008. 
Duration of the QUERY project: from 15 July 2004 to 14 July 2006. 
Specific topic: statistical data 
Type of impact: indirect. 
Contribution to road safety: low results. 
Consistency with other measures: enhancing road accident investigation is consistent with 
the objective of expanding the scope of CARE database to include the causes of accidents (see 
Measure 59). Already, specialist teams conducted safety oriented road accident investigations 
to  gather  data  for  the  accident  causation  database  developed  in  the  framework  of  the 
SafetyNet Work Package 5. Moreover, there is a clear link with measures regarding vehicle 
safety; in fact, in order to assess the efficiency of new vehicle safety systems there is the need 
to collect a great number of real-life accident data before gathering enough evidence to issue a 
general recommendation to incorporate a certain system to all new vehicles. This evaluation 
process  could  be  significantly  enhanced  if  accident  data  from  different  countries  could  be 
combined  thanks  to  a  shared  accident  investigation  strategy.  In  this  regard  is  relevant  the 
subsidiary  action  with  the  objectives  of  the  eSAFETY  Forum  Working  Group  on  Accident 
Causation  Data,  that  has  been  working  for  improved  accident  analysis  methodologies  (see 
Measure 37), and of the CARS 21 initiative, whose aim is making recommendations for the 
public policy and regulatory framework for the European automotive industry (see Measure 
21).  There  is  also  a  clear  link  with  measures  regarding  infrastructure  safety,  since  a 
prerequisite  to  help  formulating  road  safety  policies  is  that  a  critical  number  of  cases  are 
investigated.  In  addition, 
the 
identification  of  potentially  dangerous  behaviour  and  recurrent  human  mistakes  support  the 
definition  of  possible  measures  to  deal  with  them.  Finally,  this  measure  is  complementary 
with the aim of developing specifications for on-board accident recording devices (Measure 
61). In fact, accident recorders complete the information collected by police or other staff in 
order  to  obtain  detailed  information  on  accident  circumstances  in  a  very  useful  manner  for 
traffic safety research. 
Outcomes 
One of the ROSAT working group’s most important achievement was to develop a common 
European methodology for safety investigation of accidents in the transport sector designed to 
produce a harmonised and consistent approach across the European Union. The final result is 
a 90 pages document and a list of 34 remarks, conclusions and recommendations issued both 
at  national  and  at  EU  level.  The  methodology  adopted  establishes  the  principles,  standards 
and powers  to  pursue  safety investigations in an independent, effective and competent way. 
The  QUERY  project  produced  25  Country  Status  Reports  with  an  overview  of  the  various 
legal  systems  and  the  required  professional  qualifications  of  the  experts  in  accident 
reconstruction. Through consultations with the participant countries, the professional  profile 
of  the  expert  in  accident  reconstruction  was  analysed,  and  guidelines  for  a  “Best  Practice 
Qualification” were developed. The final result was the adoption of the Proposal for European 
Guidelines  in  Accident  Reconstruction.  Finally,  the  4th  Work  Package  of  the  SafetyNet 
project  produced  21  recommendations  (SafetyNet,  2008).  According  to  the  document,  these 
recommendations  should  be  viewed  as  the  starting  point  for  future  projects  aiming  to 
implement  a  European  safety  oriented  road  accident  investigation  programme  and  working 
towards a common European accident investigation methodology. 
Description  of  the  impact:  proper  accident  investigations  methodology  can  lead  to 
significant 
technical, 
infrastructural and driver behaviour terms.  
What remains to be done (ERSAP 2011-2020): a comprehensive set of tools for a suitable 
pan-European  in-depth  accident  data  collection  and  analysis  has  been  developed  and 

improvement  of  knowledge  concerning  safety  approaches 

in 

EN 

61 

   EN 

successfully  tested.  The  concrete  Europe-wide  implementation  is  still  missing.  The 
development of a European framework on casualty investigation should be further explored.  

EN 

62 

   EN 

2. 

PUBLIC  CONSULTATION  ON  THE  POLICY  ORIENTATIONS  ONROAD  SAFETY  2011- 
2020 

The stakeholder consultation process 

Stakeholder  consultation  towards  the  development  of  the  next  EU  Road  Safety  policy 
orientations  2011-2020  was  carried  out  by  the  European  Commission  between  July  and 
December 2009. The consultation process comprised a series of six thematic workshops, an 
internet consultation and a stakeholder conference, which took place on 2 December 200926.  

The  consultation  process  produced  proposals  with  respect  to  the  key  road  safety  problems 
which  should  be  addressed  at  European  Union  (EU),  national  and  local  level  and 
recommendations  for  the  development  of  the  next  road  safety  action  programme.  These 
proposals take into account that actions need not only achieve a positive impact on road safety 
as such but also in connected fields such as public health, mobility, energy, the environment 
and the economy.  

Results of the stakeholder consultation process 

Problem analysis 

Road safety problems occur in terms of results (level of deaths, serious injuries, costs, levels 
of  drinking  and  driving,  speeding,  seat  belt  use  etc.),  in  terms  of  measures  to  be  taken  for 
achieving 
the  safety  of 
infrastructure  and  of  vehicles)  and  in  terms  of  the  quality  of  institutional  measures  such  as 
target-setting, legislation, funding, monitoring and evaluation, R&D etc.  

improving  user's  behaviour, 

improvement  (e.g. 

improving 

Current situation 

Involvement  in  a  road  traffic  crash  is  the  leading  cause  of  death  and  hospital  admission  for 
citizens of the EU under 45 years. In 2008, there were 39,000 road traffic deaths and around 
300,000 casualties with seriously injured. For every death, there are an estimated 4 permanently 
disabling  injuries  (such  as  to  the  brain  or  spinal  cord),  10  serious  injuries  and  40  minor 
injuries. The estimated socio-economic costs are around €180 billion comprising 2% of GDP. 

The  gap  between  the  best  and  worst  performing  Member  States  is  large  with  the  best 
performing 3.5-4 times (in per capita rate) better than the worst. 

The  consultation  identified  current  levels  of  road  death,  serious  injury  and  socio-economic 
cost  as  the  overarching  problems  for  road  safety  in  EU  countries.  Around  two  thirds  of  all 
fatal and serious injuries to road users occur outside urban areas, while most serious and fatal 
injuries to vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and children take place in urban areas.  

Number  of  death:  The  casualty  groups  which  determine  the  priorities  for  reductions  in  total 
deaths in EU countries are car occupants who comprised 50% of total deaths, powered two-
wheeler users (motorcyclist deaths are increasing) and pedestrians who comprised 18% and 
20%  of  deaths  respectively  in  2008.  Road  assessment  data  indicates  that  in  middle-income 

26 

Technical assistance for the consultation process was provided by the COWI Consortium in partnership 
with Jeanne Breen Consulting and the University of Loughborough, UK. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

                                                 
countries the key target for action is the national road network and in high-income countries 
the target for action is the busy regional road network. The main crash types which need to be 
addressed are pedestrian and other vulnerable road user crashes, crashes at intersections, run-
off-road crashes and head-on crashes. For the EU as a whole, around two-thirds of pedestrian 
deaths occur in built-up areas. 

Risk of death: The casualty groups which determine the priorities for reductions in numbers of 
deaths and serious injuries amongst highest risk (number of deaths per 100,000 of population) 
groups  in  EU  countries  are  young  novice  drivers,  powered  two-wheeler  users,  pedestrians 
and cyclists. The consultation highlighted the problems of an ageing society. In particular, the 
physical vulnerability of older road users contributing to severe outcomes in road crashes will 
be an issue of increasing importance in the design and operation of the road traffic system. 

•  What are the problems and how to deal with them 

Problems in dealing effectively with the problems relate to insufficient scope of road safety 
strategies,  insufficient  attention  to  the  evidence  base  and  to  addressing  the  needs  and 
vulnerabilities of all road users. Stakeholders acknowledged that fatal and serious injuries in 
road crashes are preventable and need to be addressed by measures in the field of planning, 
design,  layout  and  operation  of  the  road  infrastructure  network,  improvement  in  vehicle 
safety,  improved  post-impact  care  as  well  as  by  securing  better  user  compliance  with 
important road safety rules through education, licensing, testing, training and enforcement.  

EU,  national  and  local  policies  need  to  focus  on  the  implementation  of  evidence-based 
approaches to reduce exposure to the risk of death and serious injury; to prevent death and 
serious  injury;  to  mitigate  the  severity  of  injury  when  a  crash  occurs  and  to  reduce  the 
consequences of injury. Measures need to better address the safety of all road users and take 
account of future demographics, notably the physical vulnerability of the elderly. The need to 
address  and  reduce  excessive  and  inappropriate  speed,  insufficient  seat  belt  wearing  and 
crash helmet use, impaired driving, high novice driver - and high PTW-rider risk were cited 
throughout  the  consultation,  as  were  the  need  for  improved  safety  quality  of  vehicles  and 
road infrastructure for all users and improved emergency medical response. 

•  Institutional management issues 

The internet consultation responses highlighted the lack of political willingness to prioritize 
road safety, insufficient integration and coordination of activity and lack of high-level review 
of  safety  management  performance  as  the  key  problems  in  institutional  leadership  and 
coordination in EU countries.  

Stakeholders,  in  general,  believed  that  there  was  insufficient  harmonization  of  road  safety 
rules and standards and mechanisms for their compliance. Legislation to improve road safety 
needed to be underpinned by research and development, cost-benefit analysis and systematic 
monitoring and evaluation. Problems  of obtaining resources commensurate with the size of 
the road traffic injury problem are perennial for road safety and are identified as an important 
the  consultation.  Insufficient  promotion  and 
throughout 
obstacle  by  stakeholders 
communication on road safety were also perceived as key problems.  

Respondents to the internet consultation rated the lack of periodic, independent review of road 
safety  performance,  the  lack  of  health  sector  monitoring  to  establish  under-reporting  of 

EN 

64 

   EN 

injuries  and  the  lack  of  harmonised  definition  of  serious  injury  as  the  main  problems  in 
monitoring and evaluation.  

A key problem for road safety highlighted in the consultation is the need to continue to apply 
research-based measures at EU, national and local levels, to achieve interim results and to 
identify  future  solutions.  Improving  performance  of  all  EU  countries  relied  upon  more 
effective  knowledge  transfer.  Strengthened  institutional  management  capacity  to  address  the 
problems  mentioned  above  was  highlighted  as  the  major  necessary  step  in  making  a 
difference to the road safety situation in the next decade in Europe.  

Recommendations for action at EU, national and local levels 

The consultation outlined the need for the EU and Member States to address levels of death 
and serious injury throughout the road network – both in built-up and non built-up areas; to 
reduce  levels  of  socio-economic  cost;  to  adopt  and  promote  a  long-term  vision  to  eradicate 
death and serious injury and to set challenging but achievable quantitative interim targets. 

A long-term shared vision and interim targets 

At EU level: 

Adopt a long-term shared vision across the road safety partnership for the future safety of the road traffic system 
(Safe System) for the ERSAP, the European Road Safety Charter and the European Road Safety Observatory in 
line with internationally recommended good practice. 

Identify  and  adopt  a  shared  interim  target  to  reduce  the  number  of  deaths  by  a  challenging  but  achievable 
percentage within the period 2011 – 2020 as the focus for road safety action. Set up small sub-group of experts 
and officials to consider existing proposals and related analysis on specific targeted levels of deaths. Identify and 
adopt a separate shared interim target to reduce the number of serious injuries in EU countries based on Member 
States definitions of serious injury. Consider the adoption of quantitative targets to reduce the risk of death for 
key  vulnerable  and  unprotected  road  user  groups  e.g.  for  children.  Ensure  visions,  targets  and  strategies  are 
adopted as a condition of new EU membership. 

At national and local levels: 

Adopt  a  long-term  vision  (Safe  System),  interim  outcome  targets  and  also  target  intermediate  outcomes  (e.g. 
levels  of  seat  belt  use,  reductions  in  mean  speeds)  and  institutional  outputs(e.g.  numbers  of  breath  tests,  %  of 
vehicle fleet with 4*+ ) in new national and local road safety strategies 

Leadership role and capacity 

Road safety takes place in a complex multi-sectoral context and requires careful governmental 
leadership.  Effective  lead  agencies  can  take  many  forms  and,  in  good  practice,  carry  out  a 
range  of  specific  functions.  In  the  internet  consultation,  stakeholder  meetings  and  in 
additional  written  contributions,  several  organisations  highlighted  the  need  for  the 
establishment of a European Road Safety Agency.  

At EU, national and local levels 

Review  governmental  lead  agency  arrangements,  capacity  and  support  for  developing,  agreeing  and 
implementing new road safety visions, targets, and strategies. 

Consider the establishment of a European Road Safety Agency at EU level. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
Integration of policies and coordination arrangements to achieve road safety results 

The scope for improvement in coordination of road safety between different sectors with road 
safety responsibilities as well as between EU, national, regional and local levels was a general 
observation in the public consultation. The health sector need to take up road safety as a core 
responsibility  and  the  ‘win-wins’  of  speed  management  for  the  transport,  health  and 
environment  sectors  were  emphasised  in  particular.  The  value  of  engaging  employers  to 
introduce work-related road safety policies was also highlighted, as was the value of engaging 
cities in effective EU-funded municipal road safety initiatives. The need to support effective 
activity by the non-governmental sector was highlighted as well. 

At EU and national levels: 

Review  coordination  arrangements  across  government  and  in  view  of  international  best  practice  for  the 
establishment  and  implementation  of  the  action  programme  to  achieve  results.  Transport,  health,  justice  and 
police,  work,  environment,  industry,  finance  and  municipalities  form  the  key  partnerships  which  can  help  to 
deliver results.  

Engage Parliament, business and civil society in the consultative process preceding decision making. 

Legislation and harmonisation to achieve road safety results 

Most  stakeholders  believed  that  EU  and  national  legislation  to  set  minimum  standards  of 
safety  but  offering  a  high  level  of  protection  for  the  road  network,  vehicles  and  users 
continues to be necessary and appropriate. Harmonisation to produce road safety results needs 
to be underpinned by research and development, systematic monitoring and evaluation, cost-
benefit assessment and large-scale demonstration projects in the case of new technologies. 

At EU and national levels: 

Recognise that a legislative framework for road safety at EU and national levels continues to be essential. 
Expand harmonisation on road safety where EU action can add road safety value to cover standards/ type 
approval , technical inspection, audit in the fields of infrastructure and vehicles as well as improved user 
standards (e.g. harmonised maximum blood alcohol limits and speed limits); cross border enforcement; public 
procurement policy etc . 
Carry out cost-benefit analyses of proposed legislative measures to ensure that the Commission’s requirement of 
achieving a positive impact on road safety and public health while also improving mobility, energy, the 
environment and the economy is met.  

Funding and resource allocation to achieve road safety results 

Funding problems were identified as a key obstacle to achieving results by stakeholders in the 
internet  consultation  and  thematic  workshops.  The  EU  was  urged  to  establish  an  EU  Road 
Safety  Fund;  to  provide  further  support  for  the  EU  twinning  programme  to  enable  best 
practice  and  with  emphasis  on  road  safety  management  capacity  development;  to  apply 
specific safety criteria in transport and TEN-T projects and to continue to fund research and 
development and demonstration projects.  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
At EU and national levels: 

Review resource levels needed for the implementation of new programmes. 

Establish an EU Road Safety Fund for the Road Safety Action Programme. 

Provide financial incentives and premium discounts for the take-up of demonstrably effective road safety 
equipment and promote clear incentives for safe driving.  

Fund twinning and demonstration projects to develop good practice road safety management capacity and to 
support effective RSAP measures in EU and neighbouring countries with lower levels of safety performance. 

Specify safety criteria in structural funds, public procurement, transport and TEN-T projects.  

Support road safety research as well as demonstration projects. 

Support EU umbrella NGOs and the extension of networks of NGOs active in road safety. 

Establish any benefits for road safety of the internalisation of road crash costs and set out an EU route map for 
the internalisation of external road crash costs. 

Promote cost-benefit analysis in resource allocation, use of ‘willingness to pay’ and update values. 

Promotion of shared responsibility to achieve results 

The consultation results emphasised that road safety requires promotion at a high level both 
inside and outside government aided by a shared vision and targets for the future safety of the 
traffic system. In-house safe travel policies, public procurement of safety equipment and best 
practice communication policies were also highlighted. 

At EU, national and local levels: 

Promote a shared EU road safety vision and EU and national targets at the highest levels of government, 
business and civil society in communications policies, through the European Road Safety Charter and European 
Road Safety Observatory as well as in action programmes. 

Show organisational leadership at EU, national and local levels in public and private sectors by introducing in-
house safe travel policies. 

Amend EU legislation to include the promotion of clean, safe and energy-efficient road transport vehicles in 
public procurements. 

Promote best practice in road safety communication policies and proven measures which reduce deaths and 
serious injuries in the context of the European Road Safety Charter, the European Road Safety Observatory and 
in national and local frameworks. 

Monitoring and evaluation of results 

The  need  for  EU  and  national  actions  to  improve  monitoring  and  evaluation  came  out  very 
strongly from the consultation and a wide range of actions were recommended.  

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At EU level: 

Monitor the effects of road safety targets, strategies, individual measures, including European Road Safety 
Charter - inspired measures and establish a high-level review team to report on progress and to make further 
recommendations based on evaluation. 

Develop, promote and establish a single EU-reporting system for crash injury, exposure and other data. Adopt a 
standard EU definition for ‘severe’ and ‘minor’ injury and apply it across databases. 

Ensure computerized health sector monitoring of death and serious injury in road crashes in every Member State 
and conduct studies to ascertain levels of under-reporting in the CARE system data. 

Stimulate detailed in-depth investigations based on established protocols.  

Promote and support independent review of road safety management across the EU and elsewhere. 

Establish regular public opinion surveys on road safety. 

At national and local levels: 

Establish/improve the quality of crash injury databases and data sharing arrangements between police, roads- 
and health authorities and establish levels of under-reporting. 

Carry out annual surveys and analyses to collect key exposure data and safety performance data and establish 
national databases on intermediate outcome data (.e.g. speed, seat belt use in normal traffic) and institutional 
output data (e.g. numbers of breath tests, speed checks etc.) in line with best practice for national strategies on 
speed management, increasing seat belt use, reducing drinking and driving and improving roads and vehicle fleet 
quality. 

Submit national road safety performance to independent peer review in line with ITF/OECD recommendations. 

Research, development and knowledge transfer 

Many  respondents  and  written  contributions  highlighted  stakeholder  support  for  continuing 
research and knowledge transfer which is seen as key to past successes in reducing casualties, 
a pre-requisite for further improvement and a means by which Europe can continue to be the 
global  leader  in  road  safety.  The  value  of  the  European  Road  Safety  Observatory,  the 
Framework  Research  Programme  and  road  safety  twinning  activities  were  highlighted 
regularly.  The  need  to  build  and  transfer  knowledge  on  Safe  System  approaches  was 
mentioned several times at the Stakeholder Conference and in the thematic workshops. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At EU level:  

Establish the European Road Safety Observatory as a permanent EU-funded structure as a source of 
information and knowledge for all with appropriate human and financial resources and preserving and 
strengthening the original aims of ERSO as an established and valuable source of knowledge and data for safety 
decision-making. 

Establish authoritative EU best practice guidelines agreed by Member States to be applied across the road 
safety management systems. 

Promote the development of more‘best practice’ resources/ tools for implementation e.g. road safety 
management capacity review and target-setting tools. 

Support capacity building demonstration projects in countries with poor safety results. 

At national and local levels: 

Establish capacity in-house and with external partners of road safety research and establish a national research 
strategy. 

Build and transfer knowledge based on Safe System approaches. 

Develop and promote best practice guidelines particularly in enforcement & engineering. 

Embark on ‘peer to peer’ twinning activity and professional training at decision-making and practitioner levels 
for knowledge transfer on effective and innovative activity. 

Towards a safe system 

Stakeholders  acknowledged  that  serious  and  fatal  injury  in  road  crashes  is  preventable  and 
that existing knowledge identifies the opportunity towards safer road networks, safer vehicle 
fleets,  safer  emergency  medical  systems  as  well  as  safer  drivers,  passengers,  riders,  cyclists 
and pedestrians. 

Planning, design and operation of road infrastructure  

Consultation results indicate that road safety engineering and network management should be 
actively  promoted  and  supported  at  EU,  national  and  local  levels.  Safety  engineering 
measures  represent  a  sound  investment  and  a  higher  benefit/cost  ratio,  in  general,  than  for 
other road engineering measures. Action is needed to improve road safety on non-urban, non-
motorway roads as they account for around 60% of deaths, nearly 50% of cyclist deaths and 
around  30%  pedestrians.  Urban  safety  management  and  lowering  urban  speeds  are  also 
essential  measures  bearing  in  mind  the  lower  human  tolerance  thresholds  of  pedestrians, 
children, older users and two wheeler users.  

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At EU level: 

Apply the Infrastructure Safety Directive providing for safety impact assessment, safety audit, safety inspection 
and network safety management on TEN-T roads to all roads. 

Develop authoritative EU guidance/best practice guidelines covering a range of safety engineering issues and 
establish a process of obtaining agreement on EU level guidelines, e.g. land use planning, urban safety 
management; speed management, self-explaining, crash–protective roads and innovative approaches which 
contribute to the Safe System approach. 

Expand the Cross Border Green Corridor concept to Cross Border Green and Safe Corridor to include road 
safety criteria. 

Set minimum standards based on 4 star EuroRAP levels for the TEN-T network. 

Establish road safety engineering criteria for inclusion in EU project investment. 

Play a role in the harmonisation of technical standards (skid resistance, barriers, markings, proven new 
technologies etc) to ensure minimum standards. 

Promote, standardise and provide for deployment of ISA (Intelligent Speed Adaptation) and other demonstrably 
effective technologies. 

Promote consumer information (EuroRAP/iRAP) on the risk of specific roads particularly in countries of the last 
EU enlargement and in neighbouring countries.  

Promote better crash injury and survey data on road network risks. 

Fund demonstration projects and research evaluation for innovative safety engineering, promising new 
technologies as well as co-operative efforts between vehicle and infrastructure providers to achieve safe travel on 
the network. 

At national, regional and local levels: 

When revising road functional classifications and hierarchies, ensure that an appropriate match between 
function, speed limit, design and layout is achieved which takes better account of non-motorised as well as 
motorised use. 

Adopt Safe System approaches to road safety engineering and periodically review national standards, guidelines 
and processes against international good practice. 
Implement 30km/h zones in residential areas to improve vulnerable road user safety. 
Support and join EuroRAP/iRAP and conduct EuroRAP/iRAP risk mapping and protection scores to help assess 
the safety quality of roads. 

Apply safety impact assessment, audit, inspection and network safety management procedures to new road and 
improvement projects. 

Vehicle safety 

The consultation process demonstrated that the potential substantial opportunities for further 
casualty  reduction  resulting  from  improved  vehicle  safety  and  new  technologies  are  well-
appreciated.  The  vehicle  safety  workshop  concluded  that  linking  preventative,  active  and 
passive safety, cooperative systems for motor vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users are 
necessary.  The  need  to  provide  vehicles  with  facilities  to  simplify  the  driving  task  and  to 
ensure  their  design  and  equipment  to  protect  the  vulnerable  human  being  as  effectively  as 
possible, both inside and outside the vehicle, were seen as key casualty reduction issues. The 
consultation  process  noted  the  importance  of  EU  action  on  vehicle  safety  in  particular,  and 
recommended a range of actions to promote the use of vehicle safety rating and fast-tracking 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of  provision  of  proven  safety  equipment  through  safety  ratings  and  public  procurement; 
further harmonisation of vehicle standards and a range of research and development needs.  

At EU level: 

Amend current EU legislation to include the promotion of clean, safe and energy-efficient road transport vehicles 
in public procurement. 

Promote effective technologies such as ISA, alcolocks, seat belt reminders in procurement policies to encourage 
consumer uptake.  

Promote consumer information on the comparative safety of vehicles to encourage rapid changes to vehicle 
design before 2020. 

Provide a route map for the implementation of Intelligent Speed Adaptation and Event Data Recorder systems 

Extend current legislation on seat belt reminders to include fitment in rear seats as well as front seats. 

Remove the exemption for use of seat belts by taxi drivers. 

Develop and propose standardized test methods for car to car compatibility; truck to car compatibility and 
improved methods for front, side and rear impacts. 

Legislate for whole vehicle type approval for powered two wheelers such as effective anti-tampering devices, the 
fitment of front number plates to aid speed enforcement and mandatory ABS for all two wheeled motor vehicles. 

Increase focus on the needs of vulnerable road users in new vehicle safety technologies including pedestrian 
detection and collision avoidance devices, motorcycle design and equipment. 

Legislate for the construction and use of vans and small lorries (< 3.5 ton) as for heavy good vehicles.  

Require the fitment of alcolocks in heavy goods vehicles and public transport vehicles and promote their use.  

Study the road safety value of a system of continuous compliance to be installed and/or a system for providing 
technical information for every vehicle 

Study the road safety value of legislating for a PTW roadworthiness test.  

Implement an EC task force to focus Commission work on new vehicle safety technologies in order to identify the 
systems with expected most effective casualty reduction. 

Develop safety assessment procedures for intelligent systems, human machine interface (HMI) evaluations, 
identification of systems with greatest casualty potential. 

Develop and implement a systematic programme of evaluation of EU legislation and vehicle technologies 
including cost-benefit analyses. 

Carry out research into the safety aspects of electric vehicles. 

At national and local levels: 

Engage fully in international legislative development work.  

Carry out national research and monitoring of vehicle safety measures. 

Support and join the European New Car Assessment Programme. 

Encourage financial incentives for the use of protective equipment. 

Encourage national car industry to fast- track key safety measures recommended by EuroNCAP through in-house 
travel policies and public procurement. 

Road users - licensing, testing, training, information and enforcement 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The main road user strategy recommended in the consultation was to aim for users who are 
adequately  educated  and  informed  about  key  safety  behaviours  and  their  fitness  to  use  the 
roads; restricted against action which may lead to death and serious injury through a variety of 
means (including self-enforcing vehicle and road engineering measures) and deterred through 
police  and  automatic  enforcement.  A  range  of  recommendations  were  made  during  the 
consultation  in  relation  to  further  EU  harmonisation  of  licensing,  testing  and  training.  The 
most important of these recommendations for casualty reduction are graduated licensing for 
novice  drivers  and  riders 
important 
countermeasures  relating  to  enforcement  were  assessed  to  be  combined  publicity  and  high 
visibility  police  enforcement  of  important  safety  rules,  deterrence  of  drinking  and 
driving/riding,  enforcement  of  speed  limits,  seat  belt  and  crash  helmet  use  and  cross-border 
enforcement. The important role of the vehicle and the EU in helping to achieve compliance 
through seat belt reminders, ISA, alcolocks etc. was acknowledged. 

to  high  risk.  The  most 

to  reduce  exposure 

At EU level:  

Harmonise further licensing, testing and training for all motor vehicle drivers and improve the safety quality of 
the whole package based on evidence and best practice. 

Harmonise  graduated  licensing  for  novice  drivers  and  riders  to  include  accompanied  driving;  probationary 
periods (not driving alone at night time, zero blood alcohol content, and stricter demerit point system). 

Harmonise cross-border enforcement  

Review age of access to riding/driving different motor vehicles based on international best safety practice.  

Harmonise further qualifications of motor vehicle driving examiners and vehicle inspectors. 

Develop authoritative best practice guidelines/protocols in support of key areas of enforcement. 

At national level and local levels:  

Carry out social marketing campaigns and combined enforcement and publicity to encourage compliance with 
key safety rules. 

Introduce owner liability for automated enforcement offences. 

Introduce rehabilitation programs for offenders 

Post-impact care 

While the Internet consultation process did not expressly seek opinions concerning problems 
and priorities in this field, research shows that the quality of the emergency medical system 
can  have  an  important  bearing  on  the  survivability  after  crashes  and  the  prevention  of 
disability.  For  major  injuries,  clinical  experts  define  the  post-impact  care  needed  in  EU 
countries  as  the  chain  of  help  starting  with  action  taken  by  the  victims  themselves  or  more 
commonly by lay bystanders at the scene of the crash, emergency rescue, access to the pre-
hospital  medical  care  system,  and  trauma  care  and  helping  road  crash  victims  who  have 
suffered  debilitating  injury  re-integrate  into  work  and  family  life.  The  importance  of  post-
crash care was highlighted both in the thematic workshops and written contributions.  

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
At EU, national and local levels: 

Acknowledge that the quality of the emergency medical system is key to achieving a safe traffic system. 

Review the potential contribution of improved emergency medical response to targets and strategies. 

Measure  emergency  medical  response  times  between  the  crash  scene  and  arrival  at  a  medical  centre  against 
international best practice. 

Promote first responder schemes and in-service training for professional and commercial drivers. 

Promote eCall. 

* 

* 

* 

EN 

73 

   EN 

ANNEX 

List of the sixty-two measures in the European Road Safety Action Program 2001 – 2010 

N°  MEASURE 

MAIN DOMAIN 

SPECIFIC 
TOPIC 

STATE OF 
IMPLEMENTATION

1 

2 

3 

Reduce  the  number  of  road 
deaths by 50 % by 2010. 

GENERALS 

monitoring  & 
evaluation 

 medium 

Evaluate  the  progress  made, 
compared with the target, by 

of 

Means 
performance 
Community 
levels. 

appropriate 
at 
national 

indicators 
and 

GENERALS 

monitoring  & 
evaluation 

medium 

Provide  a  report  in  2005  on 
monitoring of the target, action 
carried  out  and  modifications 
of 
needed 
as 
where 
enlargement 
appropriate, 
new 
measures. 

a 
and, 
propose 

result 

GENERALS 

monitoring  & 
evaluation 

complete 

Invite  all  parties  concerned  to 
sign a European Road Safety 

4 

GENERALS 

Charter. 

building 
stakeholder 
commitment  

medium 

GENERALS 

monitoring  & 
evaluation 

low 

GENERALS 

building 
stakeholder 
commitment 

medium 

5 

6 

the 

Propose 
introduction  of 
harmonised road safety criteria 
in public service contracts. 

together  with 

Study, 
the 
industry, 
European  haulage 
additional  measures  which 
insurers could take to pass the 
cost  of  accident  risks  on  more 
directly. 

Set  up  a  European  Road 
Safety Observatory within the 

7 

GENERALS 

monitoring  & 
evaluation 

complete 

Commission. 

measures 

Propose 
to 
strengthen  checks  and  ensure 
the  proper  enforcement  of  the 
most important safety rules. 

USERS' 
BEHAVIOUR 

Develop 
practice 
best 
guidelines  as  regards  police 
checks. 

USERS' 
BEHAVIOUR 

8 

9 

enforcement 

medium 

enforcement 

complete 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 USERS' 
BEHAVIOUR 

safety 

road 
awareness 

high 

USERS' 
BEHAVIOUR 

safety 

road 
awareness 

high 

USERS' 
BEHAVIOUR 

impaired 
driving 

low 

USERS' 
BEHAVIOUR 

enforcement 

low 

DRIVING LICENCE 

driving 
education  & 
training 

complete 

DRIVING LICENCE 

driving 
education  & 
training 

complete 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Collect,  compare  and  publish 
on 
national 
information 
highway 
on 
codes, 
infringements  established  and 
penalties 
the 
imposed 
various countries. 

and 

in 

Participate 
awareness 
in 
campaigns  about  drinking  and 
driving,  seat  belts,  speed  and 
fatigue,  if  possible  combined 
with national police activities. 

Encourage  the  application  of 
the  recommendation  on 
the 
blood  alcohol  limit;  continue 
work  on  the  effects  of  drugs 
establish 
and  medicines; 
appropriate  classification  and 
labelling  of  medicines  which 
affect driving ability. 

for 

time, 

the 
Harmonise,  over 
penalties 
the  main 
infringements  of  the  rules  of 
the 
international 
for 
hauliers. 

road 

Amend  Directive  91/439/EEC 
on  driving  licences  in  order  to 
particular 
introduce 
in 
minimum  standards 
for  car 
driving  examiners  and  a 
staged driving licensing system 
for  motorcyclists,  trucks  and 
bus  drivers  to  reduce  accident 
risks  among 
inexperienced 
drivers. 

standards 

Continue work on reviewing, in 
the  light  of  scientific  progress, 
minimum 
for 
physical  and  mental  fitness  to 
drive  and  study  the  impact  of 
medical  examinations  on  road 
safety. 

16 

Work  towards  establishing  a 
scientific  approach  to  learning 
how to drive and to road safety 
training, from school age. 

DRIVING LICENCE 

driving 
education  & 
training 

high 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17 

Continue  specific  work  on 
and 
young 
rehabilitation  methods 
to 
reduce re-offending. 

drivers 

18 

Encourage  the  general  use  of 
crash helmets by all two-wheel 
motor vehicle users. 

DRIVING LICENCE 

driving 
education  & 
training 

medium 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

power-two 
wheel 

medium 

19 

20 

Study 
the  effectiveness  of 
crash helmet use by cyclists in 
different age groups, as well as 
the  impact  on  bicycle  use  and 
the  measures 
taken, 
where appropriate, at EU level. 

to  be 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

vulnerable 
road users 

suspended 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

building 
stakeholder 
commitment 

high 

The  Commission  will  continue 
to 
to 
support  EuroNCAP 
enable  further  progress  to  be 
raise  awareness 
made, 
among  and  inform  consumers 
and 
the 
representation  of  the  Member 
States. 

strengthen 

to 

to 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

vehicle 
occupants 
protection 

medium 

21 

a 

Develop 
harmonised 
specification for the installation 
of  audible  or  visual  seat  belt 
reminder systems and promote 
their universal use by voluntary 
agreement. 

22 

Introduce  universal  anchorage 
systems 
restraint 
for  child 
devices. 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

vehicle 
occupants 
protection  

low 

23 

Improve  cars  to  reduce  the 
severity  of  accidents  involving 
pedestrians and cyclists. 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

vulnerable 
road users 

medium 

Study  the  causes  of  and  ways 
of preventing whiplash injuries. 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

24 

Support  the  development  of 
smart restraint systems. 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

25 

vehicle 
occupants 
protection 

vehicle 
occupants 
protection 

medium 

medium 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26 

Adapt to technical progress the 
front, side and rear-end impact 
directives  for  lorries  to  limit 
vehicle 
and 
introduce  energy  absorption 
criteria. 

under-run, 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

vehicle  crash 
compatibility 

low 

Make 
compatible. 

vehicles 

27 

more 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

vehicle  crash 
compatibility 

low 

28 

Examine  the  impact  on  road 
safety of the proliferation of 4 x 

4s,  sports  utility  vehicles  and 
multi-purpose vehicles. 

29 

Examine the wide-scale use of 
daytime  running  lights  on  all 
vehicles. 

PASSIVE  VEHICLE 
SAFETY 

vehicle  crash 
compatibility 

high 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

accident 
prevention 

high 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Improve  the  visibility  of  heavy 
duty vehicles. 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

accident 
prevention 

complete 

Eliminate  blind  spots  towards 
the  rear  for  drivers  of  heavy 
duty vehicles. 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

accident 
prevention 

complete 

Assess  measures  to  reduce 
tyre-related accidents. 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

accident 
prevention 

medium 

Examine  driver 
impairment 
detection  devices,  e.g.  alcohol 
ignition  interlocks  (‘alcolocks’) 
and driver fatigue detectors. 

Examine  national 
trials  of 
intelligent  speed  adaptation 
their 
devices  and  assess 
acceptability to the public. 

 ACTIVE  SAFETY 
OF VEHICLES 

impaired 
driving 

low 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

accident 
prevention 

high 

35 

Improved  motorcycle  safety 
through legislation or voluntary 
agreements with the industry. 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

power-two 
wheel 

medium 

36 

37 

the 

benefits 

Examine 
of 
harmonising  the  approval  of 
adaptations 
for 
persons with reduced mobility. 

to  vehicles 

long-term 
plan 
Adopt 
a 
concerning 
information  and 
communication  systems  in  the 
road  safety  and 
field  of 
necessary 
establish 
for 
regulatory 

the 
framework 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

accident 
prevention 

low 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

accident 
prevention 

medium 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
implementing such systems. 

Identify  priority  areas  for  the 
development 
and 
implementation of performance 
standards to optimise the man-
machine interface and the road 
telematic 
safety  potential  of 
Ensure 
applications. 
the 
compliance 
principles 
of 
declaration 
concerning 
human-
the 
machine interface. 

with 

together  with 

Examine, 
the 
Member  States,  the  need  to 
onboard 
include 
new 
in 
systems 
electronics 
roadworthiness testing. 

Determine and encourage best 
practices  so  as  to  improve  the 
efficiency 
periodic 
of 
compulsory  inspections  at  the 
lowest cost. 

Submit  a  proposal 
for  a 
framework  directive  on  road 
infrastructure  safety  with  a 
view  to  introducing  a  system 
for 
harmonised 
management  of  black  spots 
and  road  safety  audits 
for 
roads  on  the  trans-European 
network. 

the 

Draw  up  technical  guidelines 
concerning 
infrastructure, 
notably for low cost measures, 
audit  methods,  urban  safety 
management, 
speed 
moderation 
techniques  and 
forgiving roadsides. 

up 

Draw 
guidelines 
safety. 

good 

practice 
level-crossing 

for 

Assess  the  safety  impact  of 
projects  receiving  Community 
funding  and  concerning  an 
entire area. 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

accident 
prevention 

medium 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

accident 
prevention 

medium 

ACTIVE 
OF VEHICLES 

SAFETY 

accident 
prevention 

medium 

INFRASTRUCTURE

 infrastructure

complete 

INFRASTRUCTURE

medium 

infrastructure 

INFRASTRUCTURE  infrastructure low 

INFRASTRUCTURE

 infrastructure

low 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45 

46 

47 

48 

Adapt to technical progress the 
standards 
Community 
applicable  to  road  equipment 
and  ensure  a  high  level  of 
protection,  notably  by  making 
road  sides  less  hazardous  in 
the event of an accident. 

INFRASTRUCTURE

low 

infrastructure 

out 

Carry 
demonstration 
‘intelligent roads’. 

research 

projects 

INFRASTRUCTURE

medium 

and 
on 

infrastructure 

tunnels,  notably 

Achieve  a  high  level  of  safety 
through 
in 
user 
standards 
information. 

and 

Adoption  and  incorporation  in 
a 
national 
legislation 
and 
European  Parliament 
Council 
the 
on 
directive 
training of commercial drivers. 

of 

INFRASTRUCTURE

 infrastructure

high 

PROFESSIONAL 
DRIVERS 

professional 
drivers 

complete 

49 

legislation 

Tighter 
(and 
enforcement)  of  driving  and 
for  commercial 
rest  periods 
road haulage. 

PROFESSIONAL 
DRIVERS 

impaired 
driving 

medium 

Installation 
tachographs 
vehicles. 

of 

digital 
in  commercial 

PROFESSIONAL 
DRIVERS 

professional 
drivers 

complete 

Best 
concerning company policies. 

practice 

guidelines 

practice 

Best 
concerning 
loads  and 
exceptional loads. 

guidelines 
the  securing  of 
the  carriage  of 

PROFESSIONAL 
DRIVERS 

professional 
drivers  

low 

professional 
drivers 

PROFESSIONAL 
DRIVERS 

complete 

50 

51 

52 

53 

Adapting  to  technical  progress 
legislation 
the  Community 
the  carriage  of 
concerning 
hazardous goods. 

PROFESSIONAL 
DRIVERS 

54 

the  wearing 
mandatory 

of 
Making 
seatbelts 
in 
coaches  and  heavy  goods 
vehicles. 

PROFESSIONAL 
DRIVERS 

professional 
drivers 

professional 
drivers 

complete 

complete 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introducing  protection  rules  for 
vehicles regularly used for 

PROFESSIONAL 
DRIVERS 

55 

vehicle 
occupants 
protection 

medium 

PROFESSIONAL 
DRIVERS 

professional 
drivers 

complete 

ACCIDENTOLOGY 

complete 

post 
crash 
medical care 

ACCIDENTOLOGY 

complete 

crash 
post 
medical care 

ACCIDENTOLOGY 

statistical 
data 

medium 

ACCIDENTOLOGY 

statistical 
data 

medium 

ACCIDENTOLOGY 

statistical 
data 

medium 

ACCIDENTOLOGY 

statistical 
data 

complete 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

the carriage of children 

Examining  the  impact  on  road 
safety  of  the  growing  use  of 
small  commercial  vehicles  and 
company vehicles. 

Examine  best  practice  with 
regard 
post-accident 
to 
medical care. 

for 
Draw  up  specifications 
satellite-positioning  accident-
warning systems and carry out 
demonstration 
projects 
involving  the  whole  chain  of 
emergency service provision. 

Develop  the  CARE  database 
and  widen  access  to  it,  in  the 
interest  of  achieving  greater 
transparency  and  encouraging 
its  use;  expand  CARE 
to 
include 
exposure 
hazard 
variables  and  the  causes  of 
accidents. 

Assess  and  improve  systems 
for  linking  hospital  data  and 
national 
accident 
road 
statistics. 

Develop  specifications  for  on-
recording 
board 
accident 
the 
devices,  and  examine 
various 
consequences 
certain 
alternatives 
categories of vehicles. 

of 
for 

Establish 
European 
a 
methodology  for  independent 
road  accident 
investigations 
and  set  up  a  group  of 
independent  experts  meeting 
within the Commission. 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Statistical annex 

EN 

81 

   EN 

Road fatalities by country  

Fatalities by 
population

Evolution of fatalities 
2001 - 2009

2001

2009

2009 - 2001

Belgique/België

България (Bulgaria)

Česká republika

Danmark

Deutschland

Eesti

Éire/Ireland

Ελλάδα (Elláda)

España

France

Italia

Κύπρος (Kypros)/Kibris

Latvija

Lietuva

Luxembourg

Magyarország

Malta

Nederland

Österreich

Polska

Portugal

România

Slovenija

Slovensko

Suomi/Finland

Sverige

United Kingdom

EU

EN 

-36%

-11%

-32%

-30%

-40%

-50%

-42%

-23%

-53%

-48%

-43%

-28%

-54%

-48%

-33%

-34%

31%

-35%

-34%

-17%

-50%

14%

-38%

-43%

-36%

-39%

-35%

-36%

145

128

130

81

85

146

107

172

136

138

125

140

236

202

159

121

41

62

119

145

163

112

140

114

84

66

61

113

90

118

87

55

51

75

54

130

58

67

68

89

112

110

97

82

51

39

76

120

79

130

84

64

53

39

38

69

82 

   EN 

 
 
Evolution of fatalities 1990 - 2010

80000

74900 75400

70700

2010 object ive

EU fatalit ies

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

65400

63900 63200

59400 60300

59000

57700

56400

54000 53300

54000

49900

50400

47300

45400

46200

42800

43100 42500

39600

36700

38900

34500

34000

31500

29200

27000

1990

1991 1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 2002 2003 2004

2005 2006

2007 2008 2009

2010

Source: - CARE (EU road accidents database)
              - National data   

 % evolution of road fatalities 2001 - 2009

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

LV

ES

EE

PT

FR

LT

SK

IT

IE

DE

SE

SI

EU

BE

FI

NL

UK

AT

HU

LU

CZ

DK

CY

EL

PL

BG

RO

MT

Sour c e :  C A R E  ( E U  r oa d a c c i de nt s  da t a ba s e )

2009-2001

EU

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 Road Accidents by area (*)

EU road accidents

total

urban area
m otorw ay
rural

EU road fatalities

total

Severity
(killed by 100 accidents)

urban area
m otorw ay
rural

total
inside
m otorw ay
rural

2008
1.233.923

850.098
58.229
324.738

2008
38.874

14.999
2.219
21.650

2008
3
2
4
7

Road fatalities by transport mode

pedestrian
car
m otorcycle
m oped
bus
bicycle
agricultural veh.
heavy goods veh.
lorry
other

Road fatalities by age

<15
15-17
18-24
25-49
50-64
>=65

Road fatalities by driver age

2008
8.147
18.947
5.247
1.476
128
2.521
208
830
847
615

2008
1.077
1.315
6.758
15.103
6.647
7.732

%

69%
5%
26%

%

39%
6%
56%

%
21%
49%
13%
4%
0%
6%
1%
2%
2%
2%

%
3%
3%
17%
39%
17%
20%

2001
1.463.107

986.602
75.535
400.794

2001
54.298

19.793
3.557
30.815

2001
4
2
5
8

2001
10.491
28.978
5.440
2.306
322
3.510
306
1.121
1.152
658

2001
2.034

1.983
10.039

21.555

7.989
9.692

% 2008 - 2001

-16%

-14%
-23%
-19%

67%
5%
27%

% 2008 - 2001

-28%

-24%
-38%
-30%

37%
7%
57%

2008 - 2001

-15%
-12%
-19%
-13%

% 2008 - 2001

19%
53%
10%
4%
1%
6%
1%
2%
2%
1%

-22%
-35%
-4%
-36%
-60%
-28%
-32%
-26%
-26%
-7%
-7%

% 2008 - 2001

4%
4%
18%
40%
15%
18%

-47%
-34%
-33%
-30%
-17%
-20%

car

motorcycle

18-24
25-49
50-64
>=65

15-17
18-24
25-49
50-64
>=65

2008

%

2001

% 2008 - 2001

2.843
5.602
2.048
1.901

2008

147
963
3.153
520
140

23%
45%
16%
15%

4.448
9.198

2.779

2.333

23%
48%
15%
12%

-36%
-39%
-26%
-19%

%

2001

% 2008 - 2001

3%

19%
63%
10%
3%

170

1.136

3.168

311
87

3%

21%
58%
6%
2%

-14%

-15%
0%
67%
60%

(*) Detailled information ( last year available 2008)

EN 

84 

   EN 

  % Road a ccidents and fatalities by area

2008 -  % EU accide nts

2008 - % EU f atalit ie s

 ur ban

ar ea

m otorw ay

rur al

  urb an

are a

m otorw ay

r ural

% Road  fata lities by transport mode

 2 008 -  % EU fat alitie s  by tr anspor t m ode

p ed est ria n

o t h er

 two  whe els

ca r

mo ped s

b icycle

mo t orcycle

% Road  fata lities by age

 2008 - % EU f atalitie s  by a ge

65 +

50-6 4

0 - 2 4

25-49

18-24

15-17

0  -  14

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
% evolutio n o f roa d accidents and fa talities by area

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

EU accide nts evolu tio n 2001 - 2008

EU fatalities  evolution 2001 - 2008

- 40%

- 30%

- 20%

- 10%

0%

S ou r ce :  C A R E  ( E U  r oa d  a c c ide n t s   da t a ba s e )

u r b a n

mo t o r w a y

r u r a l

S our c e :  C A R E  ( E U   r o a d  a c c ide n t s   da t a ba s e )

u r b a n

m o t o r w ay

r u r a l

% evolutio n o f fa ta lities by tra nsport mo de

EU fa ta litie s e vo lution 2 001  - 20 08

-6 0%

-5 0%

-4 0%

-3 0%

-2 0%

-1 0%

0%

pe d e s t r ia n

c a r m o t o r c y c le m o p e d

bu s

c y c le

a gr i c u lt u r a l
v e h .

h e a v y
go o d  v e h .

lo r r y

So u r c e :  C A R E  ( E U   r o a d  a c c i d e n t s  d a t a b a s e )

% Ro a d  fa ta lities by a g e

EU fatalities  e volution 2001 - 2008

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

<15

15-17

18-24

25-49

50-64

>=65

So u r c e :  C A R E  ( E U   r o a d  a c c i d e n t s  d a t a b a s e )

EN 

86 

   EN