Interim evaluation of the policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020.
Date: 2015-06-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
Subjects: mortality, report, road safety, road transport, transport accident, transport policy, transport safety, transport user

Interim evaluation of the 
Policy orientations on road 
safety 2011-2020 

Written by European Commission, DG MOVE, Unit C4: Road safety 
May – 2015 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim evaluation of the  
Policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 

2014 

 EN 

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
Road safety: interim evaluation of policy framework 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
Directorate C — Innovative and sustainable mobility 
Unit C4 — Road safety 

Contact: Susanne Lindahl 

E-mail:  move-c4-secretariat@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Interim evaluation of the 
Policy orientations on road 
safety 2011-2020 

2014 

 EN 

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
Road safety: interim evaluation of policy framework 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

ISBN: 978-92-79-46834-6 
doi: 10.2832/249458 
© European Union, 2015 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Printed in Brussels 

PRINTED ON ELEMENTAL CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (ECF) 

PRINTED ON TOTALLY CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (TCF)  

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 

PRINTED ON PROCESS CHLORINE-FREE RECYCLED PAPER (PCF) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interim evaluation of the Policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 

Author: European Commission, DG MOVE, Unit C4: Road safety 

Date: May 2015 

Table of Contents 

1. 

2. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 8 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 9 

2.1.  Purpose of the evaluation .............................................................................. 9 

2.2.  Scope of the evaluation ................................................................................. 9 

3.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ......................................................................... 10 

3.1.  EU road safety policy framework before 2010 ................................................. 10 

3.2.  EU road safety policy framework after 2010 ................................................... 11 

A strategic target: halving the number road deaths ........................................ 11 

Seven focus areas and 16 proposed actions ................................................... 12 

3.3.  Road safety situation 2010-2014 .................................................................. 14 

Results per Member State ............................................................................ 14 

Road user types ......................................................................................... 15 

Road types ................................................................................................ 15 

Age groups ................................................................................................ 16 

Gender   ................................................................................................... 16 

People with disabilities ................................................................................ 16 

Serious injuries .......................................................................................... 17 

Causal factors ............................................................................................ 17 

4.  METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 20 

4.1.  Relevance .................................................................................................. 21 

4.2.  Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 21 

4.3.  Efficiency ................................................................................................... 22 

4.4.  Coherence ................................................................................................. 23 

4.5.  EU added-value .......................................................................................... 23 

4.6.  Limitations – robustness of findings .............................................................. 23 

5. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF EU ACTIONS SINCE 2010....................................................... 25 

5.1. 

Improve education and training of road users................................................. 25 

5.2. 

Increase enforcement of road rules ............................................................... 26 

5.3.  Safer road infrastructure ............................................................................. 28 

5.4.  Safer vehicles............................................................................................. 28 

5.5.  Promote the use of modern technology to increase road safety ........................ 29 

5.6. 

Improve emergency and post-injuries services ............................................... 31 

5.7.  Protect vulnerable road users ....................................................................... 32 

5.8.  Other actions ............................................................................................. 35 

6.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS........................................................... 37 

6.1.  Relevance .................................................................................................. 37 

Target relevance ......................................................................................... 38 

Target achievability ..................................................................................... 39 

6 

 
 
 
 
Relevance of actions/operational objectives ................................................... 42 

6.2.  Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 43 

The overall road safety impact ..................................................................... 43 

EU-level outputs under the Policy Orientations ............................................... 51 

What external factors have hindered or helped? ............................................. 53 

Unintended positive or negative effects ......................................................... 55 

6.3.  Efficiency ................................................................................................... 57 

Target/impact – overall savings .................................................................... 57 

Target/impact – overall EU-wide spending ..................................................... 59 

Costs for actions/operational objectives ......................................................... 60 

6.4.  Coherence ................................................................................................. 65 

Economic policy objectives ........................................................................... 65 

Environmental policy objectives .................................................................... 66 

Social policy objectives ................................................................................ 68 

6.5.  EU Added Value .......................................................................................... 68 

7.  CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 72 

8. 

LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 75 

1.  ANNEX: ROAD SAFETY LEGISLATION IN PLACE 2010 ............................................... 81 

2.  ANNEX:  ROAD  FATALITY  DEVELOPMENT  AND  THE  CHANGE  IN  GDP  (MILLION  EURO 

PER YEAR) 2010-2014 .......................................................................................... 84 

3.  ANNEX:  ROAD  FATALITY  DEVELOPMENT  AND  THE  CHANGE  IN  ANNUAL  ROAD 

FREIGHT (VEHICLE KILOMETRES) 2010-2013 .......................................................... 88 

4.  ANNEX:  ROAD  FATALITY  DEVELOPMENT  AND  TWO  CASES  OF  EXTREME 

PRECIPITATION, 2010-2013 .................................................................................. 90 

5.  ANNEX: SUMMARY OF THE TECHNICAL STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 91 

6.  ANNEX: REPORT FROM THE STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP 17 NOVEMBER 2014 .............. 95 

7.  ANNEX: NATIONAL TARGETS ON SERIOUS ROAD TRAFFIC INJURIES ....................... 103 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents the outcomes of the interim evaluation of the  Policy orientations on 
road  safety 2011-2020. The  evaluation takes stock  of EU  road safety  actions completed 
between  2011  and  March  2015  within  this  policy  framework.  It  assesses  the  progress 
made towards the target of reducing the number of road fatalities by 50% until 2020.  

The  evaluation  is  based  on  data  from  the  EU  road  accidents  database  CARE,  on  a 
technical  study  by  a  road  safety  expert,  on  information  from  external  stakeholders  and 
on  findings  from  a  wide  literature  review.  It  presents  indications  of  the  level  of  EU 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and added value in the road safety area. 

The  number  of  road  fatalities in  the  EU  is  decreasing.  Safety  is  improving  especially  for 
the  young  people  and  for  motorised  road  users.  This  evaluation  study  shows  that  EU 
actions very likely have contributed to this reduction.  

The  strategic  road  safety  target  remains  relevant  and  challenging.  However,  in  order  to 
reach the fatality target by 2020, a higher annual decrease rate is needed from this point 
onwards.  This  means  that  additional  effort  on  EU  and  national  level  need  to  be 
considered.  Actions  by  Member  States  are  more  likely  to  have  quick  enough  effect  to 
impact  on  the  road  safety  performance  before  2020.  EU  actions  within  the  framework 
have  to  be  continued,  not  least  to  prepare  the  ground  for  road  safety  progress  in  the 
longer term. 

Nevertheless,  the  fatality  target  only  covers  part  of  the  road  safety  problem.  The 
strategic target and the actions under the Policy orientations are not seen to sufficiently 
tackle the large number of serious road traffic injuries.  Monitoring of injury reduction at 
EU level is weak. The number of serious injuries is not decreasing as rapidly as the road 
deaths and for every person killed on the roads another 8-9 people are reported to have 
sustained serious injury. 

It  is  concluded  that  the  road  safety  policy  framework  is  in  essence  still  relevant  and 
complete.  It  addresses  all  major  road  user  groups  and  current  main  problems.  In  the 
time  ahead,  there  needs  to  be  a  continued  focus  both  on  motorised  road  users  (the 
majority of the road fatalities) and on the vulnerable road users (for which fatality rates 
have decreased less than average).  

The  evaluation  concludes  that  the  EU  road  safety  work  is  generally  on  the  right  track. 
Continued  efforts  are  needed  to  reach  the  strategic  target.  Several  actions  under  the 
Policy orientations remain to be completed and followed-up. However, no major changes 
of the main structure of the work seem to be called for at this point. 

8 

 
 
 
 
2.  INTRODUCTION 

2.1.  Purpose of the evaluation 

European  roads  are  much  safer  today  than  ever  before  and  the  EU  is  the  safest  region 
world-wide.  Still,  every  year  more  than  25,000  people  die  in  road  traffic  crashes  in  the 
EU  and  more  than  200,000  are  reported  to  be  seriously  injured.  Road  crashes  remain 
among the most common causes of death for those between 15 and 25 years old. 

Road  safety  work  is  complex,  with  many  factors  playing  a  role  in  determining  final 
outcomes. The occurrence and the severity of crashes depend on  the behaviour  of  road 
users, vehicles and safety equipment, road infrastructure and the emergency response in 
the case of a crash. 

Road safety is also a shared competence1 with the majority of the every-day work done 
by  Member  States  on  national  and local level.  The  EU  contributes  where  there  is  added 
value  of  cooperation  and  EU-level  harmonisation.  The  EU  work  is  guided  by  the 
framework document Policy orientations on road safety 2011-20202, from now on called 
the Policy orientations. Also NGOs, companies/industry and citizens influence road safety, 
and  external  factors  such  as  economic  development  or  weather  conditions  may  also 
make a difference. 

In  spite  of  this  challenging  context,  it  is  important  to  regularly  evaluate,  to  the  extent 
possible, the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of EU road safety policy. This interim 
evaluation  of  the  Policy  orientations  takes  stock  of  progress  to  date.  It  provides  an 
analysis of the current  road safety situation to clarify whether the policy framework still 
covers  the  main  problems.  A  general  assessment  is  made  of  indicators  of  relevance, 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  Commission  road  safety 
policy framework. 

The report will provide transparency about the Commission’s work in this policy area. It 
will  also  provide  information  that  may  be  used  in  decisions  on  upcoming  initiatives,  for 
example guiding the preparations for the next strategy period. 

The  evaluation is  carried  out  by  the  Commission  road  safety  unit,  with  the  support  of  a 
technical study by an external expert and in consultation with a wide range of road safety 
partners. 

2.2.  Scope of the evaluation 

This interim evaluation of the Policy orientations takes stock of the progress so far on the 
16 actions mentioned in the policy framework document (see Table 1), mapping outputs 
and implementation and to the extent possible also indicators of results. 

A  wider  but  less  detailed  discussion  is  also  included  on  the  overall  road  safety 
developments  linked  to  the  strategic  target  of  the  Policy  orientations:  reducing  the 
number of road deaths in the EU by half until 2020.  

The  change  in  the  number  of  road  deaths  during  the  period  2010-2014  is  not  primarily 
explained  by  the  actions  within  the  Policy  orientations,  not  least  because  of  the  long 
implementation and lead times of most EU actions. Instead, the decrease of road deaths 

1 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 91c 
2 Commission Communication, Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-

2020, COM(2010)389 final, Brussels, 20 July 2010 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
and the reduced number of serious road traffic injuries is more likely the result of actions 
at  Member  State  and  local  level  combined  with  EU  actions  during  the  last  decade  that 
have an effect only now. The analysis on the strategic target for 2020 will therefore also 
include some discussion on previous EU efforts and possible external contributing factors. 

There is no in-depth evaluation of individual legislative acts under the Policy orientations. 
Such  evaluations  are  carried  out  separately.  This  interim  evaluation  will  focus  on  a 
holistic approach, addressing the complete set of actions at a more general level. 

The evaluation also does not cover in detail any Commission road safety actions beyond 
the  16  actions  proposed  in  the  Policy  orientations.  It  does  not  make  any  prognosis  on 
possible effects from the actions under the Policy orientations that are not yet completed. 

3.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

Road  safety  can  be  approached  in  two  main  ways:  attempting  to  prevent  serious  traffic 
crashes  from  happening  ("active  safety")  and  attempting  to  reduce  the  severity  of  the 
crashes that cannot be prevented ("passive safety").  

The occurrence of road traffic crashes depends on the behaviour of the road users (e.g. 
intentional  risk-taking  or  unintentional  mistakes),  the  conditions  of  the  roads  (inherent 
such as safety design, maintenance and permitted speeds or external such as temporary 
weather situations) and the condition and equipment of vehicles. 

The severity of the crash outcome depends on the safety and crash protection quality of 
roads,  the  vehicles  and  road  users  involved,  the  safety  equipment  and  the  extent  of  its 
use and on the time and quality of the emergency response. 

Since  there  are  many  causal  factors  involved,  many  different  types  of  actions  are 
required in order to address the problem effectively. The responsibility for taking action is 
shared. Some of these actions are best done on local or national level whereas others are 
more efficiently dealt with in cooperation across the borders. 

3.1.  EU road safety policy framework before 2010               

In 2001, the Commission first announced its intention to set an ambitious goal to reduce 
the number of people killed  by half between 2001 and 2010. The 2001 Transport White 
Paper  presented  the  Commission  ambition  to  "marshal  efforts  around  the  target  of 
halving the number of road deaths over that period".3  

The  strategic  target  was  intended  as  a  tool  for  benchmarking  and  comparison  between 
Member  States  and  for  mobilising  partners  to  join  the  challenge  and  to  step  up  road 
safety  efforts  at  all  levels.  The  strategic  target  was  adopted  to  confirm  the  EU 
commitment  to  an  important  policy  area.  For  all  these  reasons,  setting  strategic  road 
safety targets is also considered an international best practice.4  

The target was not legally binding on Member States nor committing the Member States 
to  any  action.  The  Commission  acknowledged  that  the  reaching  of  the  target  would 
primarily depend on the actions on national level and Member States were encouraged to 
voluntarily take on the challenge.  

3 Commission White Paper: European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, COM(2001) 370 final, Brussels 

12 September 2001 

4 International Organisation for Standardisation, Road traffic safety (RTS) management systems — 

Requirements with guidance for use, ISO 39001:2012(E); World Health Organisation, Global status report 
on road safety 2013, p.27 

10 

 
 
                                                 
The European Parliament5 and the Council6  endorsed the target proposal in 2003.  

The  strategic  target  for  2001-2010  was  then  confirmed  in  the  European  Road  Safety 
Action  Programme  published  in  2003.7  This  document  presented  the  Commission's 
intention  to  monitor  and  report  on  the  progress  towards  the  target  and  it  described  in 
further  detail  the  performance  indicators  to  be  used  for  monitoring  results.  The  EU 
actions  in  support  of  the  road  safety  target  for  2001-2010  included  soft  measures  such 
as  information  campaigns  and  data  analysis  and  legislative  action  on  for  example 
updated  rules  for  driving  licencing,  infrastructure  safety  management,  and  training  and 
qualification of professional drivers. 

Annex  1  summarises  the  EU  road  safety  legislation  in  place  at  the  baseline  year  2010. 
Out of these 19 main road safety Directives and Regulations, seven only apply, partly or 
in  full,  after  2010.  These  acts  (Directives  on  driving  licences,  tunnel  safety,  roadside 
inspections  of  commercial  vehicles  and  ITS  deployment  and  Regulations  on  vehicle 
approval  and  type  approval  for  the  safety  of  motor  vehicles)  are  expected  to  produce 
impact  during  the  current  evaluation  period.  Among  these,  aspects  of  the  Directive  on 
tunnel  safety  and  the  Regulation  on  type  approval  for  the  general  safety  of  motor 
vehicles  are  still  not  fully  applied  at  the  time  of  this  evaluation  and  are  expected  to 
continue to add road safety benefits during the second half of the strategy period. 

During the period 2001-2010, road fatalities decreased by 43%. This was not entirely in 
line  with  the  target  but  still  a  substantial  improvement.  The  progress  was  especially 
impressive considering the accession of twelve new Member States during that period. 

3.2.  EU road safety policy framework after 2010 

The contributions by the Commission during the current decade are guided by the Policy 
orientations  on  road  safety  2011-2020.  There  are  two  main  components  of  this 
framework: 1) a strategic, aspirational target for the total EU road safety result, with the 
total  number  of  road  fatalities  as  performance  indicator,  and  2)  a  list  of  16  proposed 
Commission  actions  divided  under  seven  focus  areas  or  operational  objectives  (see  list 
below). 

A strategic target: halving the number road deaths 
The  EU  2020  road  safety  objective  is  primarily  an  aspirational  and  strategic  target.  The 
aim is to halve the number of road deaths over time, with 2010 as the baseline year. The 
target  is  not  binding  on  EU  Member  States  and  it  is  not  in  conflict  with  separate  target 
setting  by  Member  States  on  national  level.  The  intention  to  strive  towards  this  target 
was  announced  by  the  Commission  in  the  Policy  orientations  in  2010  and  confirmed  in 
the Transport White Paper8 the following year. 

The  target  set  in  2010  was  not  based  on  an  empirical  study  of  what  would  be  realistic 
considering trends, contributing factors and intervention sets. Instead, an ambitious and 
easily communicated target level was set. The EU target was endorsed by the European 
Parliament9 and by the Council10. 

5 European Parliament, Resolution on the Commission White Paper ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to 

decide’, P5_TA(2003)0054, Strasbourg 12 February 2003; 

6 Council conclusions from Transport Council 9686/03, Luxembourg 5 June 2003 
7 Commission Communication, European Road Safety Action Programme. Halving the number of road accident 
victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility, COM(2003) 311 final, Brussels 2 June 
2003 

8 Commission White Paper, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and 

resource efficient transport system, COM(2011)144 final, Brussels, 28 March 2011 

9 European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on European road safety 2011-2020 (2010/2235(INI)) 
10 Council conclusions on road safety, 3052th Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council meeting, 

Brussels, 2–3 December 2010 

11 

 
 
                                                 
This  target  can  only  be  reached  by  a  combination  of  actions  on  local,  national  and  EU 
level.  The  16  action  proposals  of  the  Policy  orientations  provide  only  one  piece  to  the 
total puzzle and, as explained above, several of these are more likely to have an impact 
only in the next decade.  

Seven focus areas and 16 proposed actions 
The seven focus areas presented in the Policy orientations are: 

  Education and training of road users 
  Enforcement of road traffic rules 
  Safer road infrastructure 
  Safer vehicles 
  Better use of modern safety technologies 
  Serious injuries and emergency services 
  Safety of vulnerable road users. 

To  complement  the  work  done  on  the  national  level,  the  Commission  also  set  out  a 
number  of  proposed  actions  under  each  of  the  focus  areas  (see  Table  1).  The  link 
between  the  operational  objectives,  the  proposed  actions  and  the  problems  they  are 
meant to address is illustrated in Figure 1. 

Table 1: Focus areas and 16 actions in EU policy framework 2011-2020 

Focus areas 
Education and training of drivers 
Enforcement of traffic rules 

Safer road infrastructure 

Safer vehicles 

Modern technologies 

EU action 
1. Education/ training strategy 
2. Cross-border information exchange for 
enforcement 
3. Enforcement strategy 
4. Enforcement implementation plans 
5. EU funds conditional on infrastructure 
safety directive principles 
6. Infrastructure safety principles on inter-
urban roads 
7. Encourage active/ passive safety for 
motorcycles 
8. Strengthening of roadworthiness test 
rules 
9. Assess safety benefits of cooperative 
systems 
10. Evaluate benefits of Advanced Driving 
Assistance Systems (ADAS) 
11. Accelerate eCall deployment 

Injuries and emergency response  12. Propose strategy on road injuries 
Vulnerable road users 

13. Technical standards for protection of 
vulnerable road users 
14. Vehicle inspections also for motorcycles 
15. Encourage safe cyclist/pedestrian 
infrastructure 
16. Contribute to better information to road 
users 

The actions are intended to be completed by 2020. Several Commission DGs are involved 
in the execution of the tasks.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1: Intervention logic 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.  Road safety situation 2010-2014 

In  2010,  the  total  number  of  road  deaths  was  31,50011  for  the  27  Member  States  and 
Croatia12. The average road fatality rate in the EU was 63 deaths per 
million inhabitants. 

The  total  number  of  road  deaths  in  2013  was  26,000.  This 
corresponds  to  an  average  EU  road  fatality  rate  of  51  deaths  per 
million inhabitants.  

Still a high 
number of road 
deaths. 

The  preliminary  reported  number  of  road  deaths  for  2014  is  25,70013,  still  equal  to  51 
deaths  per  million inhabitants.  In  total,  the  number  of  road  deaths  in  the  EU  decreased 
by 18.4% between 2010 and 2014. 

Results per Member State 
In  2010,  four  countries  had  a  road  fatality  rate  of  more  than  100  dead  per  million 
inhabitants:  Greece,  Bulgaria,  Latvia  and  Poland.  The  best  performing  Member  States 
were  Sweden,  UK  and  the  Netherlands  with  a  road  fatality  rate  of  28-32  deaths  per 
million inhabitants. 

In  2014,  four  countries  had  a  road  fatality  rate  of  more  than  90  deaths  per  million 
inhabitants:  Lithuania,  Bulgaria,  Romania  and  Latvia.  The  best  performing  Member 
States  were  still  Sweden,  UK,  the  Netherlands  and  Malta  with  less  than  30  deaths  per 
million inhabitants. 

Figure 2: Fatality rates per Member States, 2014 (preliminary) 

106 

90 90 91 

84 

72 73 

63 64 65 65 

59 59 

51 52 52 52 53 54 

41 42 43 

36 

33 

26 28 28 29 

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

T
M

L
N

K
U

E
S

K
D

S
E

I
F

E
D

E
I

I

T S
A

Y
C

T
I

R
H

K
S

T
P

E
E

U
H

E
B

Z
C

U
L

L
E

R
F

L
P

T
L

G
B

O
R

V
L

Although the road safety levels in the Member  States vary substantially, the differences 
between Member States seem to decrease over time. In 2010, the average of the three 
highest fatality rates was 3.7 times higher than the average of the three lowest rates. In 
2014 the average of the highest three fatality rates was down to 3.4 times the average 
of the three lowest.  

The  biggest  change  over  time  is  seen  at  the  higher  end  of  the  fatality  rate  scale.  While 
the top three performers only decreased their average from 30 to 28  deaths per million 
inhabitants  in  these  four  years,  the  average  of  the  highest  three  fatality  rates  dropped 

11 The source for all road safety data in this report is the CARE database, if not stated otherwise 
12 The data from Croatia is included in this chapter although Croatia was not an EU Member State in 2010, for 

the sake of easy comparison between the baseline year and 2014. 

13 As reported in March 2015; the figures for 2014 are preliminary and rounded. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
from 111 to 95 deaths per million inhabitants. It should be noted however that the slow-
down in the road death reduction among the top performers comes at a time when they 
have already achieved historically low road fatality rates – the lowest rates world-wide. 

Road user types 
In  2010,  48%  of  those  who  died  were  car  occupants, 
although a car was involved in 75% of all fatal crashes. 20% 
of  the  road  victims  were  pedestrians,  15%  motorcyclists  and 
7%  cyclists.  The  motorcyclists  were  over-represented 
compared  to  the  number  of  registered  vehicles:  there  were 
11  motorcyclist  deaths  per  100,000  registered  motorcycles 
compared  to  5  car  occupant  deaths  per  100,000  registered 
cars14.  This  reflects  the  fact  that  the  motorcycle  rider  is  less 
protected in the event of a crash. 

More than half of 
fatalities are car 
occupants and 
motorcyclists but 
pedestrian and cyclist 
deaths decreased less 
than average. 

Only 2% of those who were killed on EU roads were occupants of a heavy goods vehicle 
and 3% were drivers or passengers in a goods vehicle of less than 3.5 tonnes. The heavy 
goods vehicles made up 11% of the registered vehicle fleet15 but were involved in 15% of 
the  fatal  crashes.  In  9%  of  the  fatalities  a  goods  vehicle  below  3.5  tonnes  (a  van)  was 
involved.  The  heavy  goods  vehicles  are  however  very  safe  for 
their  drivers  and  they  are  involved  in  fewer  than  average  fatal 
crashes per kilometre driven. 

A heavy goods 
vehicle is involved 
in 15% of all fatal 
crashes. 

In  201316,  45%  of  those  who  died  were  car  occupants  (car 
occupant  deaths  decreased  by  22%  over  the  period),  22%  were 
pedestrians  (pedestrian  deaths  decreased  by  only  11%  over  the  period),  15% 
motorcyclists  (motorcyclist  deaths  decreased  by  17%  over  the  period)  and  8%  cyclists 
(cyclist  deaths  decreased  by  only  3%  over  the  period).  The  goods  vehicles  occupants' 
share  of  road  deaths  remained  the  same,  with  the  total  number  of  fatalities  decreasing 
by approximately 9%.  

Table 2: Road user groups: development 2010-2013  

Road user group 

Car occupants 
Motorcyclists 
Pedestrians 
Cyclists 
Goods vehicles >3.5 tonnes 
Other 

Fatality decrease 2010-
2013  
-21% 
-17% 
-11% 
-3% 
-9% 
-21% 

Share of all road deaths 

45% 
15% 
22% 
8% 
2% 
8% 

The  share  of  fatal  accidents  in  a  crash  involving  a  car  (75%)  or  a  heavy  goods  vehicle 
(15%) remained the same over the time period. 

Road types 
38%  of  all  fatalities  occurred  in  urban  areas  and  55%  on  inter-
urban  roads  in  2010.  The  motorways  were  the  safest  roads  with 
only  7%  of  all  road  deaths;  the  motorways  are  designed  to  better 
accommodate  high  speeds  and  large  flows  of  traffic  than  other 
roads.  These  shares  of  road  fatalities  per  road  type  remain  the 
same in 2013. 

Most deaths still 
are in urban 
areas and on 
inter-urban 
roads. 

14 Number of registered vehicles from European Commission EU transport in figures, Statistical pocketbook 

2014: Stock of registered vehicles (cars, motorcycles, buses, goods vehicles) 

15 European Commission EU transport in figures, Statistical pocketbook 2014: Stock of registered vehicles (cars, 

motorcycles, buses, goods vehicles) 
16 The latest available detailed statistics. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
Age groups 
In  2010,  children  under  the  age  of  15  accounted  for  less  than  3%  of  all  the  road 
fatalities. In 2013,  children  under the age of 15 made up 15.6% of the total population 
but  only  2%  of  all  road  fatalities.  The  road  fatality  rate  for  children  younger  than  15 
years decreased from 11 to 8 deaths per million children from 2010 to 2013. 

The  young  aged  15-24,  made  up  almost  20%  of  all  road  fatalities  in  2010.  Among  car 
driver  fatalities,  the  age  aspect  was  particularly  striking,  with  22%  of  all  fatally  injured 
car drivers being young/novice drivers, 18-24 years old. In 2013, those between 15 and 
24 years made up 11.5% of the total population and 17% of all road fatalities (20% of all 
car driver fatalities). The fatality rate for the age group 15-24 fell from 102 to 76 deaths 
per million from 2010 to 2013.  

This means that the age group with the highest risk is still the young 
group,  but  that  young  people  also  had  the  best  improvement  rate 
over this time period. 

Young are still 
over-
represented; the 
share of elderly 
increases. 

In 2010, 22% of all killed in traffic were 65 years or older. In 2013, 
the share of elderly among road fatalities had increased to 25% although they only make 
up  18%  of  the  total  population.  This  gives  a  road  fatality  rate  of  71  deaths  per  million 
elderly  compared  to  77  deaths  per  million  in  2010.  The  risk  difference  between  the 
elderly and the young is therefore now substantially reduced. 

Table 3: Age groups: share of all road deaths and share of total population 

Age group 

<15 
15-24 
25-49 
50-64 
>65 

Share of 
fatalities 
<3% 
17% 
36% 
19% 
25% 

Share of 
population 
16% 
11% 
35% 
20% 
18% 

Change in number of 
fatalities 2010-2013 
-25% 
-28% 
-22% 
-13% 
-5% 

Gender 
Looking  at  the  gender  aspect,  in  2010  76%  of  those  killed  on  the  roads  were  male. 
Among  car  driver  fatalities,  the  male  over-representation  is  even  stronger  with  82%  of 
the victims being male. These differences in mortality rates for men 
and women remain the same in 2014.  

The European Transport Safety Council analysed data from Sweden, 
the Netherlands and the UK that showed that the large differences in 
male  and  female  mortality  rates  remain  even  after  taking  into 
consideration  the  fact  that  men  use  the  roads  more  than  women17, 
indicating that the differences are linked to gender-related behaviour patterns. 

Men are still 
over-
represented as 
road fatality 
victims. 

People with disabilities 
A group of potentially vulnerable road users are people with different kinds of disabilities. 
Road  infrastructure  can  be  designed  to  remove  obstacles  and  dangers  to  all  citizens 
including  people  with  e.g.  reduced  mobility,  eyesight  or  hearing.  There  is  currently 
insufficient  data  available  to  assess  the  road  traffic  risk  exposure  for  people  with 
disabilities but this area might require additional analysis in the coming years. 

17 European Transport Safety Council, Risk on the Roads – A Male Problem?, PIN Flash 25, 15 June 2013 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
Serious injuries 
The  reported  number  of  serious  injuries  in  2010  was  slightly 
above  250,00018.  This  means  that  for  every  reported  fatality, 
there were almost 8 seriously injured in road traffic. 

Most  fatal  accidents  occur  outside  urban  areas  but  for  serious 
injuries  the  figures  are  reversed.  More  than  half  of  all  serious 
injuries occur inside built-up areas.  

Serious injuries 
decrease less than 
the fatalities and 
there are 8-9 
reported serious 
injuries for every 
road death. 

45%  of  all  seriously  injured  persons  are  vulnerable  road  users 
(pedestrians,  cyclists,  powered  two-wheeler  drivers).  Within  urban  areas  the  vulnerable 
road users are almost 67% of those who are seriously injured.  

The  young  and  the  elderly  are  over-represented  among  the  seriously  injured  in  road 
crashes and especially the elderly pedestrians. 

Table 4: Injuries and fatalities, development 2010-2014 

2010 

2014 (preliminary)  % change 2010-

Serious injuries 
Fatalities 

251,300 
31,500 

219,700 
25,700 

2014 
-13% 
-18% 

The  estimated  number  of  serious  injuries  in  2014  was  just  under  220,000  –  that  is  8-9 
seriously  injured  for  every  road  traffic  fatality.  The  number  of  reported  serious  injuries 
decreased  by  only  13%  from  2010  to  2014.  A  reduction  of  serious  injuries  is  not  in 
contradiction  to  a  reduction  of  fatalities;  all  avoided  fatalities  do  not  instead  result  in 
serious injuries. 

Causal factors 
There are many road safety factors causally related to the number and risk of death and 
serious injury. Among the most common crash cause factors are speed, drink/drug-
driving, and failure to wear a seatbelt. Technical failure in vehicles will also be dealt with 
in this section since this was a main problem targeted by the Policy orientations in 2010. 

Information on these factors is not regularly collected in any comparable way across the 
EU but some estimates are made and discussed in the following paragraphs. 

  Speeding 

Excess speed (above speed limits or a speed not adapted to the current road conditions) 
is  estimated  to  be  a  primary  contributing  factor  in  about  one  third  of  all  fatal  road 
crashes in the EU.19  

The  progress  regarding  speeding  is  mixed.  On  motorways,  improvement  was  reported 
from  the  countries  monitoring  speed  levels.  The  European  Transport  Safety  Council 
estimates  that  10-50%  of  all  drivers  exceed  the  speed  limit  on  motorways  in  the 
reporting countries20. In 2008 the figure was 10-70%21. 

18 All references to the number of serious road traffic injuries in this report are based on the old reporting 

format; data under the new common EU definition of serious injury was not yet available at the time of this 
evaluation. 

19 OECD, Speed Management, 2006 
20 European Transport Safety Council, Ranking EU progress on car occupant safety, PIN Flash report 27, April 

2014, p.18 

21 European Transport Safety Council, Traffic Law Enforcement across the EU, Tackling the Three Main Killers on 

Europe’s Roads, February 2011, 9 reporting countries 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
On inter-urban roads, some countries decreased their average speed while it increased in 
other.  The  estimate  for  2012  was  that  10-60%  of  all  drivers  were  speeding  in  the 
reporting countries22. In 2008, the figure was 30-70% of the drivers.23 

In  urban  areas  it  was  estimated  that  30-60%  of  drivers  exceed  speed  limits  in  201224, 
compared to the more diverse results from 2008 with 10-80% 
of  drivers  reported  to  speed.25  Speeding 
is  especially 
dangerous  inside  urban  areas  with  frequent  interactions 
between  motorised  and  vulnerable  road  users.  In  this 
environment,  even  a  small  increased  speed  makes  a  big 
difference  for  the  survival  chances  of  a  pedestrian  in  a 
collision.  The  continued  high  rate  of  reported  speeding  in 
urban areas is therefore a main concern. 

The highest 
frequency of 
speeding is reported 
from urban areas and 
speeding in urban 
areas has not clearly 
decreased over time. 

Table 5: Share of drivers estimated to exceed speed limits 

Motorways 
Inter-urban roads 
Urban areas 

2008 
10-70% 
30-70% 
10-80% 

2012 
10-50% 
10-60% 
30-60% 

The latest EU-wide report on the share of non-resident drivers in speeding offences found 
a  range  from  2.5%  to  30%  in  different  Member  States.  In  many  Member  States,  non-
resident  drivers  are  over-represented  in  speeding  offences.  For  example,  in  France  the 
non-resident drivers were estimated to make up 5.5% of the traffic but up to 15% of all 
speeding offences.26 

  Drink driving 

Alcohol is estimated to be a contributing factor in approximately 
25% of all fatal crashes.27 

Drink-driving trend 
reports differ 
between Member 
States. 

The  European  Transport  Safety  Council  has  compiled  Member 
States'  reports  about  share  of  road  deaths  attributed  to  drink 
driving,  over  time.  These  country  reports  are  not  comparable  across  the  EU  since  the 
definitions vary between Member States. However, the trend over time for each Member 
State could be an indicator of developments in that country. The report found that, in the 
period 2010-2012, 8 Member States reported a decreased number of fatal traffic crashes 
attributed to drink-driving. 5 Member States reported an increased number. 15 Member 
States  did  not  collect  or  report  data  for  this  time  period.  There  is  therefore  not  enough 
data  to  draw  any  clear  conclusions  on  the  development  of  drink-driving  as  a  cause  of 
road fatalities in the EU. 

Drug-driving  is  also  a  concern  but  reported  as  less  frequent  than  the  alcohol-related 
offences for the EU as a whole, with large differences among Member States.28 

22 European Transport Safety Council, Ranking EU progress on car occupant safety, PIN Flash report 27, April 

2014, p.18 

23 European Transport Safety Council, Traffic Law Enforcement across the EU, Tackling the Three Main Killers on 

Europe’s Roads, February 2011, 8 reporting countries 

24 European Transport Safety Council, Ranking EU progress on car occupant safety, PIN Flash report 27, April 

2014, p.18 

25 European Transport Safety Council, Traffic Law Enforcement across the EU, Tackling the Three Main Killers on 

Europe’s Roads, February 2011, 8 reporting countries 

26 Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the proposal for a Directive facilitating cross-border 

enforcement in the field of road safety: Full impact assessment, SEC(2008)351/2, p.10 

27 DaCoTA, Alcohol, Deliverable 4.8a of the EC FP7 project DaCoTA, 2012, Brussels; Ecorys/COWI, Study on the 

prevention of drink-driving by the use of alcohol interlock devices, 18 February 2014, p.34 

28 Almost half as many drivers are estimated to drive under influence of illicit drugs as under influence of 

alcohol: Druid project, Final Report: Work performed, main results and recommendations, 1 August 2012, 
p.80. No reliable figures are available on the number of fatal crashes caused by drug-driving in the EU.  

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Seat belt use 

The European Transport Safety Council estimated that around 900 people per year could 
have survived road traffic crashes if they had used seat belt properly.29 

The  European  Transport  Safety  Council  compared  seat  belt 
wearing rates for 2005 and 2012 in 22 EU countries30 and found 
that  significant  improvements  have  been  made  in  most 
countries  for  seat  belt  wearing  in  the  front  seat.  The  Czech 
Republic  even  reported  an  improvement  by  impressive  26  percentage  points  over  this 
time period. Italy and Greece however reported decreased use of seat belts. For the rear 
seat,  the  wearing  rate  also  improved  but  to  a  much  lower  average.  The  rear  seat  belt 
wearing  rate  varies  from  21%  (Greece)  to  98%  (Germany)  with  several  Member  States 
reporting  a  much  lower  seat  belt  use  rate  for  rear  seats  compared  to  front  seats.  Still, 
the main conclusion for seat belt wearing is that the situation has improved over time.31 

Seat belt use is 
generally reported to 
be improving. 

  Technical failure in vehicles 

Older vehicles were reportedly involved in accidents twice as often as newer vehicles and 
studies assessed that technical defects of a vehicle were a contributing factor in at least 
6% of all accidents32. 8% of the accidents involving motorcycles are reportedly linked to 
technical  defects.33  There  is  no  reliable  data  showing  any  change  over  time  for  these 
rates. 

Problem summary 2013-2014 

Over-all problem: 
- High number of fatal and serious road traffic crashes  

The largest share of the problem: 
- Car occupants and motorcyclists (together 60% of all fatalities; cars involved in 75% of 
all fatal crashes;  
- Pedestrians (22% of all fatalities) 
- Heavy goods vehicles (involved in 15% of all fatal crashes) 
- Inter-urban roads (55% of fatalities); urban areas (38% of fatalities) 
- Men (76% of all fatalities) 
- The serious road traffic injuries (estimated 8-9 times as many as the fatalities) 

The highest risk per number of vehicles/people: 
- Motorcyclists, 11 deaths per 100,000 registered motorcycles 
- Young (15-24 years) 76 deaths per million young people 
- Elderly (>65 years), 71 deaths per million elderly people 

The weakest improvement since 2010: 
- Pedestrian and cyclist fatalities (decreased by 11% and 3% respectively) 
- Elderly fatalities (decreased by 6%) 
- Serious injuries (decreased by 13%) 
- Speeding, especially in urban areas 

29 European Transport Safety Council, Ranking Progress on EU Car Occupant Safety PIN Flash Report 27, 2014, 

Brussels 

30 All EU Member States do not collect data on seat belt wearing rates regularly or at all. There is no EU 

obligation to report such data. 

31 European Transport Safety Council, Ranking EU progress on car occupant safety, PIN Flash report 27, April 

2014 

32 Commission Staff Working Document: Impact assessment on the Roadworthiness package, SWD(2012)206 

final 2, Brussels, 13 July 2012, p.10 

33 Commission Staff Working Document: Impact assessment on the Roadworthiness package, SWD(2012)206 

final 2, Brussels, 13 July 2012, p 8 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.  METHODOLOGY 

The  evaluation  exercise  is  primarily  based  on  qualitative  analysis,  supported  where 
possible and appropriate by quantitative data on identified indicators.  

The  evaluation  is  based  on  several  sources  of  information.  A  desk  review  of  literature, 
research  and  fact  reports  has  been  made34.  Previous  EU  evaluations  and  impact 
assessments  of  individual  legislative  acts  have  been  gone  through  and  a  compilation  of 
road  crash  data  from  the  CARE  database  has  been  made.  National  road  safety  action 
plans  and  road  safety  strategies  submitted  to  the  Commission  have  been  analysed.  A 
supporting technical study and a consultation of a wide range of road safety stakeholders 
also  provided  inputs.  The  evaluation  has  been  completed  internally  within  the  European 
Commission. 

The  technical  study  was  performed  during  three  months  by  an  external  road  safety 
expert, Ms Jeanne Breen35. The study assessed what has been achieved so far by the EU, 
whether  this  could  be  considered  sufficient  to  meet  the  2020  target  and  in  what  areas 
improvements  can  be  made.  The  study  made  a  qualitative  analysis  of  results, 
interventions  and  institutional  management,  with  some  quantitative  data  analysis  to 
support conclusions in relevant cases. 

The consultation took place in the form of a  half-day workshop  on 17 November 201436 
with  around  50  participants  including  interest  groups,  researchers,  industry  umbrella 
organisations,  victims’  organisations  and  Member  State  representatives.  It  was 
complemented  by  a  public  invitation  on  the  Commission  road  safety  website  for 
stakeholders  to  provide  written  comments.  Specific  questions  related  to  the  evaluation 
initiative were also discussed in the High Level Group on Road Safety37 during its meeting 
in November 2014 in Rome. 

An evaluation steering group with representatives of seven DGs and four units within DG 
MOVE  have  monitored  the  work,  developed  the  evaluation  questions  and  reviewed  the 
draft reports. 

Table 6: Evaluation questions 

Evaluation questions 
Relevance 

Is  the  strategic  target  of  50%  reduction  of  road  deaths  still  relevant  and 
realistic with regard to the size and characteristics of road safety problems in 
the EU today? 
Are  the  seven  strategic  objectives  of  the  Policy  orientations  on  road  safety 
still  relevant  in  relation  to  the  current  main  road  safety  problems  and 
challenges? 

Effectiveness 

To what extent are the main EU initiatives for road safety still appropriate in 
order  to  address  the  main  road  safety  problems  and  challenges?  Are  there 
any  additional  actions  that  could  address  the  current  problems  and 
challenges of road safety? 
To  what  extent  have  the  EU  initiatives  contributed  to  the  decrease  in  the 
number  of  road  fatalities  (in  total  and  for  different  road  user  groups,  e.g. 
pedestrians,  car  drivers,  motorcyclists,  young  road  users,  elderly, 
professional drivers) during the period under analysis? 
What  external  factors  have  hindered  or  helped  the  achievement  of 
objectives? 

34 See section 8: List of references 
35 Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020, 

12 February 2015, the report is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/study_final_report_february_2015_final.pdf; 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/study_annexes_february_2015_final.pdf  

36 See meeting report and list of participants from the workshop in Annex 6 
37 High Level Group on Road Safety, as established following a request in the Council Resolution on a 

Community programme of action on road safety, 21 June 1991 

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
Evaluation questions 

What unintended positive and negative effects, if any, have been produced? 

Efficiency 

Were the (expected) effects obtained at a reasonable cost? 
Could  the  same  results  have  been  achieved  at  a  lower  cost  by  other 
initiatives? 

Coherence 

EU added-value 

Do  the  EU  road  safety  policy  objectives  contradict  or  complement  other  EU 
policy objectives (e.g. environmental, social or economic)? 
To what extent could the results brought about by the EU actions have been 
achieved by Member States at national and/or regional level? Would it have 
been possible to achieve the same results without the EU intervention? 

The  following  indicators  and  sources  have  been  used  to  find  answers  to  the  ten 
evaluation questions.  

4.1.  Relevance 

 

Is the strategic target of 50% reduction of road deaths still relevant and realistic 
with regard to the size and characteristics of road safety problems in the EU 
today? 

For  the  relevance,  the  first  indicator  is  the  number  of  total  road  deaths  and  their 
decrease  since  2010.  This  reveals  whether  the  target  still  corresponds  to  a  substantial 
road  safety  problem.  The  second  aspect  of  relevance  is  whether  there  are  other 
substantial  road  safety  problems  not  addressed  by  the  target,  comparing  especially  the 
number  of  road  deaths  with  other  road  traffic  crash  outcomes.  The  results  from  a 
literature  review  on  target  setting  generally  and  the  inputs  from  the  consulted 
stakeholders and the technical support study are also presented. 

For the achievability of the target, the trend so far and the trend during last decades are 
looked  at.  The  different  developments  in  different  countries  and  some  possible 
influencing  factors  are  discussed.  The  assessment  of  the  technical  support  study  is 
quoted. 

  Are the seven strategic objectives of the Policy orientations on road safety still 
relevant in relation to the current main road safety problems and challenges? 

  To what extent are the main EU initiatives for road safety still appropriate in order 

to address the main road safety problems and challenges? Are there any 
additional actions that could address the current problems and challenges of road 
safety? 

The main problems of road safety generally (number of fatal and serious crashes and the 
severity  of  crash  outcomes  for  all  victim  groups)  and  the  new  or  changed  problems 
identified in the comparison of the 2014 with the 2010 situation are matched against the 
target issues identified for the EU actions and operational objectives. 

The  matching  reveals  whether  all  of  the  identified  road  safety  problems  in  2014  are 
covered  by  an  action/objective  and  whether  any  of  the  actions/objectives  no  longer 
corresponds to a relevant problem. 

4.2.  Effectiveness 

  To what extent have the EU initiatives contributed to the decrease in the 
number of road fatalities (in total and for different road user groups, e.g. 
pedestrians, car drivers, motorcyclists, young road users, elderly, professional 
drivers) during the period under analysis? 

To  find  out  whether  EU  actions  have  been  effective  or  not,  a  number  of  possible 
indicators are discussed. The difference between EU Member States and other countries 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
and the trend in countries becoming EU Member States is looked into. The development 
over time in the EU before and after the adoption of a common EU target is  considered. 
The  different  developments  for  the  set  of  road  safety  performance  indicators  (change 
over  time  for  road  types,  road  user  types,  age  groups,  gender  and  causal  factors)  are 
discussed  together  with  comments  on  which  positive  or  negative  developments  can 
potentially be linked to EU actions targeting this particular road crash aspect. 

  What external factors have hindered or helped the achievement of objectives? 

Three  possible  external  factors  are  discussed:  the  financial  crisis,  the  ageing  population 
and the climate change. These were identified by the technical study.38 

The theoretical links between these three factors and road safety are discussed with the 
help  of  literature  review  findings.  The  change  over  time  2010-2014  for  the  external 
factors  is  then  compared  to  the  road  safety  general  development  and  also  on  national 
level with 20 sample cases: the five Member States with the lowest fatality rate, the five 
Member  States  with  the  highest  fatality  rate,  the  five  Member  States  with  the  highest 
road  fatality  decrease  2010-2014  and  the  five  Member  States  with  the  lowest  road 
fatality decrease 2010-2014. 

  What unintended positive and negative effects, if any, have been produced? 

Some likely unintended positive or negative effects identified in the literature review are 
discussed. Inputs and information from stakeholders on perceived effects other than road 
safety  results  are  summarised  and  discussed;  conclusions  from  the  technical  study  are 
taken into account. 

4.3.  Efficiency 

  Were the (expected) effects obtained at a reasonable cost? 

To  determine  the  costs  for  the  overall  target  and  general  road  safety  improvement,  a 
rough  estimate  is  made  on  the  EU  road  safety  spending  (based  on  allocated  budget  for 
the  Commission  road  safety  activities)  and  on  Member  States  road  safety  spending 
(based on reports by other research projects).  

Road safety work is also carried out by voluntary organisations, on local level and as part 
of projects where the money allocated is not marked or reported as road safety funding. 
Costs are also taken on by industry and transport enterprises, in research and innovation 
and  by  other  entities  such  as  schools  or  insurance  companies.  These  costs  cannot  be 
assessed  in  a  sufficiently  reliable  way  for  this  evaluation,  but  can  be  assumed  to  be 
smaller than the road safety spending by Member States. 

To  determine  the  economic  savings  yielded  by  improved  road  safety,  the  most  recent 
cost  of  life  estimate  for  the  EU  Member  States  is  used  to  calculate  the  costs  of  all  road 
deaths  in  the  years  2011-2014  and  all  reported  serious  injuries  over  the  same  time 
period. 

To determine the costs for specific actions, expenditure primarily on EU level is identified. 
Also  assessments  on  potential  costs  for  implementation  are  mentioned,  based  on 
information from impact assessments and evaluations in the relevant cases. Information 
from Member States on actual implementation costs could not be accessed. 

The economic savings as a result of the specific actions cannot yet be determined since 
they are not expected to have had a substantial impact on reduction of road deaths yet; 
this should instead be assessed in future evaluations. 

38 Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020, 

12 February 2015, p.21 

22 

 
 
                                                 
  Could the same results have been achieved at a lower cost by other initiatives? 

An  assessment  of  possible  alternative  ways  is  made,  discussing  options  such  as  "soft 
measures" instead of legislation. 

4.4.  Coherence 

  Do the EU road safety policy objectives contradict or complement other EU policy 

objectives (e.g. environmental, social or economic)? 

The  links  between  the  main  road  safety  objective  (reduced  number  of  fatal  road  traffic 
crashes)  and  other  relevant  objectives  are  analysed  with  the  help  of  a  literature  review 
on correlations and possible indirect effects between economic, environmental, social and 
road safety outcomes. 

4.5.  EU added-value 

  To what extent could the results brought about by the EU actions have been 

achieved by Member States at national and/or regional level? Would it have been 
possible to achieve the same results without the EU intervention? 

In  this  section,  the  possibility  of  achieving  similar  results  without  EU  intervention  is 
discussed. An assessment is made of the likelihood of creating the same EU-wide benefits 
without EU-level action. 

4.6.  Limitations – robustness of findings 

This evaluation aims to take stock of progress made and to make assessments on some 
of the outcomes and results in the road safety area. Because the link between outputs 
and outcomes is quite complex, these assessments are done on the basis of a set of 
indicators and should be seen as pointing out a direction rather than as providing exact 
measurements.  

The limitations of the sources and the reliability of outcomes are discussed below. 

 

Complex links between outputs and outcomes 

The lead-times for EU actions are generally long and the interim evaluation comes too 
soon to expect to find measurable effects and impacts yet from the EU actions since 
2010. This evaluation will therefore focus mostly on taking stock of the work completed 
so far. In addition, there will be some complementing general discussions on possible 
explanations to the developments 2010-2014. 

Some actions have no direct and measurable impacts. For example driver training and 
road user information campaigns might have an effect on attitudes long after the action 
was completed and their impact will be difficult to isolate from other contributing factors.  

The actions targeted at one road user group can yield effects for other road user groups, 
making the linking of actions to effect difficult. For example, speed enforcement is 
usually directed towards car drivers; yet the effect can also be to save lives of pedestrian 
and cyclists. Most road safety actions benefit all target groups rather than specifically 
aiming at a single group. 

The EU performance indicators set for the strategy are also very limited. Although 
indicators might be found to support or discard the hypothesis that EU actions contribute 
to the reduced number of road deaths, it is not possible to define to which extent 
improvement might be attributed to EU actions.  

23 

 
 
 
 

Complexity of causal factors 

The complexity of causal factors in road safety creates a major challenge. For most road 
traffic crashes there are several contributing factors explaining the occurrence and the 
severity of the crash. 

In-depth investigations to pinpoint crash causes are very costly and only performed in 
few cases by some Member States. For obvious reasons there is also no information on 
what was the reason a road crash did not take place.  

In addition, several complex external factors are in play. The extent of their impact on 
the road safety outcomes is discussed in Chapter 6.2.2. below.  

  Lack of data and quality of data 

Another challenge is the lack of data. Many of the safety problems addressed by the 
Policy orientations are not measured and reported on, notably the contributing factors 
causing road traffic crashes. Comparable and reliable statistics on the numbers of 
vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians on the roads/streets, on the distances travelled by 
different road user groups or on dangerous behaviours by road users are not available.  

There is a known problem of under-reporting and knowledge gaps especially regarding 
the serious injury crashes and regarding the road safety of the most vulnerable road 
users, pedestrians and cyclists.  

There is little information on Member States' implementation beyond the transposition of 
legal acts. There is no complete information on the costs of road safety actions in 
Member States.  

 

Level of generalisation 

Each serious road traffic crash has so many individual components that generalisations 
will not provide a complete picture. Yet, the data set used is too big to deliver anything 
more detailed than a general and broad analysis at this time. The generalisations in this 
study are made with this caveat in mind. 

 

Time constraints 

This report has been produced in a substantially shorter time frame and with smaller 
human resources than originally planned for. The original evaluation mandate included a 
nine months' external study by a full evaluation team. The contract was however 
cancelled because no complying offers were received. Instead, a smaller scope in-house 
evaluation with a limited level of ambition and executed in only four months became 
necessary in order to keep the deadlines. 

  Preparing for future ex-post evaluation 

Several of these limitations will remain the same for later ex-post evaluation of the policy 
framework. The complexity of several intertwined causal factors and the difficulty of 
measuring the extent of impact from various parallel actions will remain a challenge also 
in future evaluations. 

The ex-post evaluation will however have a larger data set to analyse, covering more 
years and therefore more likely to show significant trends and indicators of change. 

To further reduce the limitations faced by this interim evaluation, future assessments 
could be planned with more generous time span to allow for more in-depth analysis and 
to enable a more thorough data gathering from Member States, notably regarding 
assessed costs. 

24 

 
 
5.  IMPLEMENTATION OF EU ACTIONS SINCE 2010 

This  chapter  summarises  the  state  of  play  of  the  actions  presented  in  the  Policy 
orientations  in  the  period  2010-2014.  The  Policy  orientations  identifies  16  concrete 
actions.  The  main  milestones  have  been  completed  in  three  of  these  cases39,  although 
continued  monitoring  and  follow-up  of  implementation  will  still  be  required.  The  other 
actions are considered to be ongoing or under preparation; some actions are of a nature 
to be on-going throughout the decade. 

The  completed  actions  concern  legislation:  the  adoption  of  Directive  2015/413/EU 
facilitating  cross-border  exchange  of  information  on  road-safety-related  traffic  offences 
and  the  adoption  of  the  package  containing  Directives  2014/45/EU  on  periodic 
roadworthiness  tests,  2014/46/EU  on  registration  documents  and  2014/47/EU  on 
technical roadside inspections.  

The  transposition  date  for  the  new  cross-border  enforcement  directive  is  6  May  201540 
but  most  Member  States  should  already  have  transposed  the  provisions  following  the 
earlier legislation from 2011. The transposition date for the roadworthiness package is 20 
May 2017.  

There is no transposition requirement for Member States for any of the other completed 
actions under the Policy orientations. 

5.1. 

Improve education and training of road users 

Under the heading "Improved education and training of road users, the Policy 
orientations sets out one action: an education and training strategy in cooperation with 
Member States.  

  What has been done 

The  work  on  education  and  training  of  road  users  is  on-going.  The  focus  is  on  the legal 
framework  for  European  driving  licences  and  on  the  initial  qualifications  and  period 
training of professional drivers.  

On  19  January  2013,  Directive  2006/126/EC  on  driving  licences  entered  fully  into  force 
and the new  European  driving licence  format became mandatory  for all Member States. 
Among  the  main  novelties  of  the  Directive  are  the  minimum  requirements  for  driving 
licence  examiners  and  the  strengthening  of  progressive  access  to  the  most  powerful 
motorcycles.  This  is  expected  to  benefit  mainly  young  and  novice  drivers.  In  follow-up, 
the  Commission  has  run  transposition  checks  and  has  so  far  started  infringement 
procedures against several Member States for insufficient implementation of the rules. By 
March 2015, 18 were still ongoing. 

The Commission has adapted the annexes of the driving licence directive to scientific and 
technical progress. An important update was adopted in 2012 when obligatory testing on 
the  competence  to  drive  in  a  safe,  economically  and  environmentally  friendly  way  for 
truck and bus drivers (category C and D) was introduced.  

There  is  an  on-going  dialogue  with  Member  States  on  detailed  rules  on  e.g.  medical 
requirements for issuing of driving licences. 

The  Commission  has  published  a  website41  that  would  display  all  valid  driving  licence 
models  in  circulation  in  the  EEA  to  help  those  responsible  for  exchanging  licences  and 

39 Crossborder information exchange for enforcement, strengthened roadworthiness rules and vehicle 

inspections also for motorcycles. 

40 Except for Denmark, Ireland and the UK who may postpone the deadline until 6 May 2017  
41 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/topics/driving-licence/models/index_en.htm  

25 

 
 
                                                 
enforcing rules relating to them. This will facilitate the mutual recognition of all licences 
issued by EEA Member States. 

For  professional  drivers,  in  July  2012  the  Commission  presented  a  report  on  the 
implementation  of  Directive  2003/59  on  the  initial  qualification  and  periodic  training  of 
bus  and  lorry  drivers.42  The  report  concluded  that  there  are  several  differences  among 
Member States in the application of Directive 2003/59/EC and in particular the fact that 
several  Member  States  apply  different  exemptions  may  cause  problems  for  intra-EU 
cross-border traffic. 

An ex-post evaluation of Directive 2003/59 was conducted in 2013-2014. The evaluation 
found  that  there  are  problems  with  the  current  Directive  concerning  the  provisions  for 
mutual recognition, the content and structure of the training and the legal clarity e.g. on 
the  Directive  scope  and  the  minimum  age  for  drivers.  The  ex-post  evaluation  has 
subsequently been followed by an impact assessment study in 2014-
2015. As part of the ex-post evaluation and the impact assessment 
a  public  consultation  on  the  Directive  was  conducted  between  July 
and  October  2013  and  a  stakeholder  conference  was  held  in 
Brussels in March 2014.  

Work on an 
education and 
training strategy 
is still ongoing. 

Directive  2003/59  has  been  implemented  and  transposed  in  all  Member  States  and  all 
new drivers have undergone initial qualification. Drivers with acquired rights have started 
to  undergo  periodic  training.  All  drivers  are  expected  to  have  obtained  a  Certificate  of 
Professional Competence by 2016.43  

Three infringement procedures against Member States have been launched since 2011 on 
Directive 2003/59. Two of these cases had been solved by March 2015 and one was still 
ongoing. 

  What remains to be done 

Aspects  linked  to  a  road  user  education  and  training  strategy  for  road  safety  will  be 
continuously  developed.  This  includes  an  upcoming  study  on  specific  aspects  of  driving 
licence  legislation  such  as  medical  requirements  and  graduated  risk  exposure  schemes 
for  novice  drivers.  The  review  on  the  rules  for  training  requirements  for  professional 
drivers will be finalised.  

Investigation  of  options  for  promoting  apprenticeship  in  the  pre-licencing  process  as 
proposed in the Policy orientations remains to be completed. 

The legislation presently in place and the Member States'  application of it will be closely 
monitored throughout the strategy period. 

5.2. 

Increase enforcement of road rules 

In the area of traffic rules enforcement, the Policy orientations identifies three main 
actions: cross-border exchange of information in the field of road safety, a common road 
safety enforcement strategy including assessment of tools such as speed limiters and 
alcohol interlocks, and the promotion of national implementation plans. 

42 Commission Report on the implementation of Directive 2003/59/EC relating to the initial qualification and 

periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, COM(2012) 385 
final, 12 July 2012 

43 Panteia and Transport&Mobility Leuven, Ex-post evaluation study report: Study on the effectiveness and 

improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of professional drivers, 13 October 2014, p.62 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
  What has been done 

The  work  on  cross-border  exchange  of  information  for  the 
enforcement  of  road  traffic  rules  has  progressed  well.  Directive 
2011/82/EC  on  cross-border  exchange  of 
for 
enforcement  was  adopted  already  in  2011.  However,  following  a 
Court  of  Justice  Decision  on  6  May  2014,  the  Directive  had  to  be 
re-tabled  for  adoption  under  a  new  legal  basis  with  the  new 
Directive 2015/413 adopted on 11 March 201544.  

information 

The cross-border 
enforcement 
directive has been 
adopted and is to 
be transposed, 
monitored and 
reported on. 

The  provisions  of  Directive  2011/82/EC  remained  in  force  until  the  adoption  of  the  new 
Directive. The conformity check will be carried out on the basis of the new Directive. 

The enforcement tools referred to in the Policy orientations have been investigated. One 
evaluation  study  on  speed  limiters45  and  one  study  on  the  alcohol 
interlocks46  were  finished  in  2013.  The  conclusions  on  e.g.  the 
required common standards for easy connection of alcohol interlocks 
into  vehicles  were  submitted  as  inputs  to  the  review  of  Regulation 
661/2009  concerning  type-approval  requirements  for  the  general 
safety of motor vehicles47. 

Speed limiter 
and alcohol 
interlock studies 
have been 
completed. 

The  national  road  safety  enforcement  plans  have  been  analysed 
within  the  framework  of  the  wider  analysis  of  national  road  safety 
action plans and strategies. This initiative has been  running in close 
consultation  with  the  High-Level  Group  on  Road  Safety  between 
2012  and  2014.  A  working  paper  presenting  a  set  of  good  practice 
examples collected from national road safety strategies was finalised 
in  2014  and  is  publicly  available  on  the  Commission  road  safety 
website48. 

Best practice 
examples for 
enforcement 
planning have 
been collected. 

The  Commission  also  cooperates  closely  with  the  European  Traffic  Police  Network 
(TISPOL).  

  What remains to be done 

Further  investigation  of  developments  towards  a  European  road  safety  enforcement 
strategy is to be done. An evaluation of Directive 2011/82/EC on cross-border exchange 
of  information  for  enforcement  is  starting  in  2015.  Together  with  the  development  of 
enforcement  guidelines  the  conclusions  of  the  evaluation  can  feed  into  a  common 
approach to enforcement of road traffic rules for safety in the Union. 

Other  enforcement  tools  in  addition  to  the  speed  limiters  and  alcohol  interlocks  may 
become interesting for further study. 

There is scope for continued work on national road safety planning including enforcement 
implementation  plans;  the  working  paper  on  good  practice  examples  will  be  regularly 
reviewed and developed by the High Level Group on Road Safety. 

44 Directive (EU) 2015/413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 facilitating cross-

border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, OJ L 68, 13.3.2015, p. 9–25 

45 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Ex-post evaluation of Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed 
limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community, as amended by Directive 
2002/85/EC, 9 August 2013, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/vehicles/speed_limitation_evaluation_en.pdf 

46 Ecorys/COWI, Study on the prevention of drink-driving by the use of alcohol interlock devices, 18 February 

2014, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/behavior/study_alcohol_interlock.pdf 

47 Regulation 661/2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their 

trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor, 13 July 2009 

48 High Level Group on Road Safety, Road safety planning: Good practice examples from national road safety 

strategies in the EU, Non-paper as food for thought and discussions, 13 October 2014, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/national-road-safety-strategies_en.pdf  

27 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
5.3.  Safer road infrastructure 

The infrastructure actions in the Policy orientations include the promotion of 
infrastructure safety management principles for projects receiving EU funding and 
promotion of the application of these principles on a voluntary basis beyond the Trans-
European Transport Network (TEN-T) motorways. 

  What has been done 

The  infrastructure  safety  management  principles  are  systematically  promoted  in  the 
preparation  of  operational  programmes  and  partnership 
agreement with Member States. The principles are also promoted 
in initiatives such as the best practice exchange between Member 
States in the High Level Group on Road Safety.  

In  order  to  establish  a  common  approach  and  application  of  the 
EU 
infrastructure  safety  management  principles  also  by 
international  actors,  the  Commission  has  exchanged  views  with 
the  development  banks  (notably  the  European  Investment  Bank 
and  the  European  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development). 
The European Investment Bank promotes the EU infrastructure safety principles as good 
practice  in  its  projects  beyond  the  Trans-European  Transport  Network  and  road  safety 
audits have been included in the majority of road projects approved since 2010.49 

The infrastructure 
safety 
management 
principles will be 
continuously 
promoted also 
beyond the TEN-T 
motorways. 

The  application  of  the  infrastructure  safety  management  principles  also  on  secondary 
roads  is  included  as  a  good  practice  example  in  the  working  paper50  on  national  road 
safety  strategies  and  action  plans  published  in  2014.  Best  practice  exchanges  are  also 
regularly  organised  in  the  Committees  on  infrastructure  safety  management  and  tunnel 
safety.  

In  2012  two  grant  projects  working  on  the  infrastructure  safety  management  principles 
were  concluded:  Pilot4Safety51  on,  for  example,  common  agreed  training  curricula  and 
tools for qualification of road safety personnel, and Whiteroads52 (concluded in 2012) on 
mapping of safe road stretches. A technical study on the comparative assessment of road 
tunnel risk analyses was done and circulated to the Member States in 2012. 

  What remains to be done 

The promotion of the infrastructure safety management principles and the tunnel safety 
principles will be an on-going task throughout the strategy period. 

Evaluations  of  Directive  2008/96/EC  on  road  infrastructure  safety  management  and  on 
Directive 2004/54/EC on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European 
Road Network are being finalised in 2015. 

5.4.  Safer vehicles 

The Policy orientations presented two actions for the safety of vehicles: proposals on 
active and passive vehicle safety, especially for motorcycles, and strengthened 
roadworthiness testing. 

49 European Investment Bank, The European Investment Bank and Road Safety, May 2014, 

http://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/road_safety_en.pdf  

50 High Level Group on Road Safety, Road safety planning: Good practice examples from national road safety 

strategies in the EU, Non-paper as food for thought and discussions, 13 October 2014 

51 Pilot4Safety, Pilot project for common EU Curriculum for Road Safety experts: training and application 
on Secondary Roads, 2010-2012, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/pilot4safety.pdf 
52 WHITEROADS, White spots in the Trans-European road network: a positive approach to road safety, 2010-

2012, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/whiteroads.pdf 

28 

 
 
                                                 
 
  What has been done 

The  vehicle  type  approval  legislation  has  been  revised  for  safety 
requirements  of  two-  and  three-wheel  vehicles,  which  for  example 
mandates the fitting of advance braking systems (combined braking 
or ABS) to motorcycles (Regulation 168/2013).53 

The motorcycle 
type approval 
rules have been 
developed for 
improved safety. 

The new Roadworthiness Package54 (Directive 2014/45, Directive 2014/46 and Directive 
2014/47)  was  published  on  29  April  2014.  The  package  includes  updated  rules  for  the 
periodic  roadworthiness  testing  of  motorised  vehicles,  the  roadside 
inspections  of  commercial  vehicles  and  rules  for  the  follow-up 
procedure  in  case  of  a  failed  roadworthiness  test.  It  provides 
minimum safety standards for testing and for the inspectors. 

In  follow-up  to  the  roadworthiness  package,  a  feasibility  study  on  a 
Vehicle  Information  Platform  was  performed  in  2014.  The  study 
provides an overview of different vehicle registers and roadworthiness testing registers in 
the  Member  States  and  assesses  options  and  requirements  for  future  models  of  data 
exchange between such registers. 

New stronger 
roadworthiness 
testing rules 
have been 
adopted. 

Best practice guidelines on cargo securing (aspect to be controlled in roadside inspections 
of  commercial  vehicles)  were  established  by  an  Expert  Group  in  2014  and  published  on 
the Commission website.55 

There is also regular interaction with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 
(UNECE) in order to promote alignment of this international legislation on roadworthiness 
inspections with the more ambitious EU standards.56 

  What remains to be done 

The  roadworthiness  legislation  about  to  enter  into  force  will  be  closely  monitored 
together  with  the  Member  States'  implementation  and  enforcement  of  these  rules.  The 
deadline for transposition is May 2017; the date of application is May 2018. 

5.5.  Promote the use of modern technology to increase road safety 

The three specific actions relating to modern technology are assessments of new 
cooperative systems for safety, evaluation of advanced driver assistance systems and the 
continued deployment of the eCall. 

  What has been done 

Road safety aspects of cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-
ITS)  are  discussed  within  the  recently  set-up  the  C-ITS  platform 
which  brings  together  stakeholders,  experts  and  policy-makers  with 
the  aim  to  find  solutions  on  issues  hampering  the  coordinated 
deployment  of  cooperative  ITS  across  the  EU.  The  Commission  has 

Cooperative ITS 
for road safety is 
under 
discussion; much 
work yet to be 
done.  

53 Regulation 168/2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and 

quadricycles, 15 January 2013; http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive/legislation/motorbikes-
trikes-quads/index_en.htm  

54 Commission press release, Tougher vehicle testing rules to save lives, 30 April 2014, 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/events-archive/2012_07_13_press_release_en.htm 

55 Commission report, European best practices guidelines on cargo securing for road transport, 8 May 2014, 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/vehicles/doc/cargo_securing_guidelines_2014.pdf  

56 United Nations Economic Commission For Europe, Agreement Concerning The Adoption Of Uniform Conditions 

For Periodical Technical Inspections Of Wheeled Vehicles And The Reciprocal Recognition Of Such 
Inspections, 13 November 1997 

29 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
also  contributed  with  road  safety  aspects  to  the  EU-funded  iMobility  forum57  on  ITS 
development, and funded the iMobility Support project which aimed at raising awareness 
among the general public regarding safety-related ITS applications.  

In  follow-up  to  Directive  2010/40/EU  on  deployment  of  Intelligent  Transport  Systems 
(ITS)  in  road  transport,  Commission  Delegated  Regulations  No  885/2013  and  886/2013 
respectively  on  the  provision  of  information  services  for  safe  and  secure  parking  places 
for trucks and commercial vehicles and on the provision of road safety-related minimum 
universal information free of charge to users have been adopted. 

Progress  has  been  made  in  the  implementing  measures  of  the 
General  Safety  Regulation,  regarding  measures  such  as  Electronic 
Stability  Control,  Advanced  Emergency  Brake  Systems,  Lane 
Departure  Warning  Systems,  Tyre  Pressure  Monitoring  Systems, 
seat  belt  reminders  for  cars,  etc.58  Vehicle  electric  safety  provisions 
have  been  adopted.59  Additional  studies  on  the  road  safety  benefits 
of  wider  deployment  of  these  advanced  driver  assistance  systems 
were  carried  out  in  2013-2014  and  the  results  summarised  in  a  Commission  Staff 
Working Document60. A specific call for proposals covering automated road transport has 
been introduced in the draft 2016/2017 Horizon 2020 Work Programme which will cover 
in particular safety and end-user acceptance aspects of road automation in the transition 
towards  its  implementation  and  information  and  communications  technology  aspects 
relating to automation infrastructure. 

Analysis has 
been done on a 
set of advanced 
driver assistance 
systems. 

In  June  2013,  the  Commission  adopted  two  proposals  that  complete  the  Commission 
strategy on 112 eCall. The first  concerned the deployment  of the interoperable  EU-wide 
eCall  in  the  Public  Safety  Answering  Points,  in  accordance  with  the  specifications  laid 
down  by  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  305/2013  adopted  under  Directive  2010/40/EU. 
The Decision aims to make the public infrastructure fit for eCall by 1 
October 2017. It was adopted in May 201461. 

The  second  proposal  under  the  framework  provided  by  Directive 
2007/46/EC  (type-approval  regulation)  to  mandate  eCall  in  all  new 
passenger  cars  and  light  goods  vehicles  went  through  the  final 
stages  of  adoption  at  the  time  of  this  evaluation.  The  co-legislators 
agreed to have mandatory fitting of the eCall device in these categories of vehicles by 1 
March 2018.  

The development 
and wider 
deployment of 
eCall is on-
going. 

  What remains to be done 

The  Commision  Delegated  Regulation  of  18  December  2014  supplementing  Directive 
2010/40/EU with regard to the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services 
is currently in the last step of procedure before coming into force.  

There  is  still  work  to  be  done  in  the  field  of  cooperative  ITS  and  new  technologies  for 
safety. This is a dynamic area with quick technologic development and further studies or 
evolution of technical standards could become necessary between now and 2020. 

Development  of  new  advanced  driver  assistance  systems  can  generate  the  need  for 
further  assessments  on  EU  level.62  The  current  review  of  the  General  Safety  Regulation 

57 www.imobilitysupport.eu, under the 7th Framework Programme 
58 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/documents/regulations/regulation-2009-661_en.htm  
59 Regulation (EU) 407/2011 on vehicle electric safety 
60 Commission Staff Working Document: on the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the European 

Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of vehicle technologies to 
improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297 final, 3 October 2014 

61 Decision No 585/2014/EU on the deployment of the interoperable EU-wide eCall service, Brussels, 15 May 

2014 

62 http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/9323 

30 

 
 
                                                 
 
and  the  Pedestrian  Safety  Regulation  are  expected  to  result  in  the  preparation  of  a 
Communication  in  2015  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  identifying  a 
range of further possible measures on vehicle safety regulations. 

The  eCall  legislation  has  to  be  implemented  by  Member  States  and  car  manufacturers. 
The  Commission  is  obliged  to  report  within  three  years  after  the  date  of  application  on 
whether the scope of the Regulation should be extended to other categories of vehicles, 
such  as  powered  two-wheelers,  heavy  goods  vehicles,  busses  and  coaches,  and 
agricultural tractors. 

In addition, the Regulation requests the Commission to assess the need of requirements 
for  an  interoperable,  standardised,  secure  and  open-access  platform.  If  appropriate  and 
no later than two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall 
adopt a legislative initiative based on those requirements.  

5.6. 

Improve emergency and post-injuries services 

The Policy orientations stated that, in collaboration with Member States and other actors 
involved  in  road  safety,  the  Commission  should  propose  the  setting-up  of  a  global 
strategy  of  action  on  road  injuries  and  first  aid.  The  Policy  orientations63  and  the 
subsequent  2001  Transport  White  Paper64  also  envisaged  the  adoption  of  a 
complementing EU target for the reduction of serious road traffic injuries. 

  What has been done 

The Council agreed in its Conclusions in December 201065 to the principle of establishing 
a  specific  quantitative  target  for  the  reduction  of  the  number  of  injured  people  in  due 
time. The European Parliament in 2011 called for an EU-level target for 40% reduction in 
the  number  of  people  suffering  critical  injuries  from  2010  to  2020.66  Several  Member 
States have national targets on the reduction of serious road traffic injuries.67 

In  2013,  a  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  presented  the 
prerequisites  for  adoption  of  an  aspirational  injury  target.  Two 
conditions were seen as necessary to be fulfilled before setting a 
target:  identification  of  a  common  EU  definition  of  serious  road 
traffic  injury  and  agreed  methodologies  for  comparable  and 
reliable data reporting from Member States.68 

Definition and 
methodology on 
serious road injuries 
is in place: 
prerequisites for 
setting a strategic 
target are fulfilled.  

These  prerequisites  for  target-setting  are  now  fulfilled.  An 
external study by a contracted road safety expert69 on options for 
the definition of serious road traffic injury was completed in 2012. Discussions were then 
held  with  the  Member  State  representatives  in  the  High  Level  Group  on  Road  Safety, 
discussing  the  external  expert  report  and  lessons  learned  in  various  Member  States.  A 
common  EU  definition  of  "serious  road  traffic  injury"  for  data  reporting  to  the  CARE 
database  was  finally  identified  by  the  High  Level  Group  in  2013.  The  definition  is  not 
formally adopted or legally binding on Member States; the Member States send the data 

63 Commission Communication, Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-

2020, COM(2010)389 final, 20 July 2010, p.5 

64 Commission White Paper, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and 

resource efficient transport system, COM(2011)144 final, Brussels, 28 March 2011 

65 Council conclusions on road safety, 3052th Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council meeting, 

Brussels, 2–3 December 2010 

66 European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on European road safety 2011-2020 (2010/2235(INI)) 
67 For a list of Member States' national serious injury targets, see Annex 7. 
68 Commission Staff Working Document, On the implementation of objective 6 of the European Commission’s 
policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – First milestone towards an injury strategy, SWD(2013) 94 
final, Brussels, 19 March 2013 

69 Jeanne Breen, High-level consultation on the development of the injuries strategy: Working document for the 

meeting of the High Level Group on road safety, 27 June 2012 

31 

 
 
                                                 
 
under the new definition on a voluntary basis for the  sake of achieving comparable and 
reliable EU-wide data on the seriously injured. 

The  methodology  for  reporting  this  data  was  then  developed  together  with  Member 
States  in  the  High  Level  Group  on  Road  Safety  and  in  the  CARE  Expert  Group  during 
2013. Study visits and workshops for the new data collection methods were organised to 
familiarise the Member State authorities with the new methodology. 

Member  States  have  collected  the  first  data  under  the  new  common  definition  during 
2014  and  the  first  comparable  and  reliable  EU  data  will  be  available  in  2015.  Some 
Member  States  will  need  to  phase  in  the  new  methodology  over  time  and  will  in  the 
meantime  use  a  correction  coefficient  to  be  able  to  report  data  adapted  to  the  new 
common EU definition. A similar phase-in period was necessary when the Member States 
adapted to the common definition of road fatality, now in use by all 28 Member States. 

The new data is expected to provide a clearer picture of the serious injury problem in the 
EU.  Studies  on  potential  causalities  of  the  serious  injury  crashes  would  also  contribute 
required  information  to  enable  identification  of  effective  actions  for  the  next  steps  of 
work in this focus area. 

The Commission has also provided grants to some European projects working on aspects 
of serious road traffic injuries: REHABIL-AID70, LIVE71. MERCURIO72, RASIF73. 

  What remains to be done 

A target on the serious road traffic injuries remains to be set.  

Analysis  of  possible  actions  specifically  targeting  these  injuries  is  yet  to  be  made: 
preparations are under way for a study on this.  

5.7.  Protect vulnerable road users 

The Policy orientations identify four action areas: technical standards for the protection of 
vulnerable  road  users;  regulating  vehicle  inspections  for  powered  two-wheelers; 
encouraging  safe  infrastructure  for  pedestrians  and  cyclists  and  contributing  to 
information to and dialogue with road users. 

  What has been done 

The  Commission  has  co-funded  research  projects  such  as 
VRUITS74 under FP7 on providing recommendations regarding ITS 
applications  for  the  improvement  of  the  safety  and  mobility  for 
vulnerable  road  users.  The  VRUITS  project  is  still  on-going.  A 
more  specific  study  assessing  ITS  applications  with  a  safety 
impact  for  vulnerable  road  users  was  completed  and  published  in 
201175.  An  independent  study  was  also  carried  out  in  2014  to 
identify the benefits and feasibility of a range of new technologies 

Projects and 
studies on 
technical standards 
benefitting 
vulnerable road 
user safety have 
been completed. 

70 REHABIL-AID: REducing the HArm and the Burden of Injuries and human Loss caused by road traffic 
crashes and Addressing Injury Demands through effective interventions, http://rehabil-aid.seyp.teicrete.gr/  
71 LIVE project: Tools to injury prevention, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/live.pdf  
72 MERCURIO: A European analysis of the road injuries management system with regard to the social and 
economic impact of emergency and post-injuries services on national finances and households, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/mercurio.pdf 

73 RASIF: Road Accident Serious Injures in Florence, 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/rasif.pdf 

74 VRUITS: Improving Safety and Mobility of Vulnerable Road Users Through ITS Applications, 

http://www.vruits.eu/   

75 RappTrans et al, ITS Action Plan: Safety and comfort of the Vulnerable Road User,   
Amsterdam, 20 May 2011  

32 

 
 
                                                 
 
for the protection of vulnerable road users.76 

A  study  on  blind-spot  mirrors  was  launched  in  201177,  providing  inputs  to  the 
Commission Report on the implementation of Directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of 
mirrors  to  heavy  goods  vehicles  registered  in  the  Community78.  The  Report  concluded 
that  the  Directive  had  been  successfully  implemented  by  EU  Member  States  and  that 
blind  spot  mirrors  had  contributed  to  the  decreased  number  of  vulnerable  road  users 
killed in a collision with a heavy goods vehicle between 2001 and 2009. 

Studies  of  relevant  technologies  have  been  completed  and  the  results  summarised  in  a 
staff  working  document  in  2014.79  This  information  is  used  as  inputs  in  the  on-going 
review  of  Regulation  661/2009  concerning  type-approval  requirements  for  the  general 
safety of motor vehicles80 

Regarding  the  technical  vehicle  inspections,  the  roadworthiness 
package  adopted  in  2014  (Directive  2014/45,  Directive  2014/46 
and  Directive  2014/47)  opens  for  EU-wide  mandatory  periodic 
roadworthiness  inspections  of  motorcycles  above  125  ccm  over 
time. The roadworthiness package enters into force in May 2018.  

EU rules on 
mandatory 
roadworthiness 
testing of 
motorcycles have 
been adopted. 

The Commission launched in December 2013 the so called Urban Mobility Package81. The 
package  consists  of  a  Commission  Communication  and  four  technical  Commission  Staff 
Working Documents on different aspects of sustainable urban mobility 
planning.  One  major  focus  area  in  the  package  is  road  safety  as  an 
integral  aspect  of  urban  planning.82  This  is  especially  relevant  for  the 
safety  of  vulnerable  road  users  who  are  most  exposed  to  risk  inside 
urban areas.  

Urban mobility 
package 
promotes safe 
infrastructure 
for pedestrians 
and cyclists. 

An  advisory  group  of  distinguished  road  safety  experts  has  been 
established  to  investigate  how  the  urban  road  safety  issues  can  be 
taken forward in follow-up to the Urban Mobility Package. The advisory group will launch 
guidelines  to  help  urban  authorities  apply  the  recommended  integration  of  road  safety 
into the sustainable urban mobility plans.  

The  Commission  also  co-funded  some  more  general  European  projects  on  motorcycle 
safety: Rider Scan83 and MOSAFIM84; and on cycling safety: BIKEPAL85 and SAFECYCLE86. 
A  study  on  the  specific  road  safety  challenges  for  elderly  road  users  was  launched  in 
2014,  with  results  expected  by  end  of  2015.  The  2014-15  Horizon  2020  work 
programme87 included a topic covering vulnerable road users and accidentology. Projects 
will  be  supported  covering  safety  aspects  for  cyclists  and  elderly  road  users  (both  as 

76 TRL, Benefit and feasibility of a range of new technologies and unregulated measures in the field of vehicle 

occupant safety and protection of vulnerable road users, March 2015 

77 Knight, I, A study of the implementation of directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of blind spot mirrors to 

HGVs, 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/retrofitting_mirrors.pdf  

78 Commission Report on the implementation of Directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy 

goods vehicles registered in the Community, COM(2012) 258 final, 4 June 2012 

79 Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the European 

Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of vehicle technologies to 
improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297, Brussels, 3 October 2014 

80 Regulation 661/2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their 

trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor 

81 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility/ump_en.htm  
82 Commission Staff Working Document, Targeted action on urban road safety, SWD(2013) 525, December 17 

2013 

83 RIDERSCAN: European scanning tour for motorcycle safety, http://www.fema-online.eu/riderscan/  
84 MOSAFIM: Motorcyclist road safety improvement through better performance of the protective equipment 

and first aid devices, http://www.mosafim.eu/  

85 BIKE PAL: Cyclist's best friend, http://etsc.eu/projects/bike-pal/  
86 SAFECYCLE: ICT applications for safe cycling in Europe, http://www.safecycle.eu/   
87 Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014-2015, 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-
transport_en.pdf 

33 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
drivers/riders and as pedestrians), an innovative decision support system for road safety 
strategy based on analysis of road causation factors, and accidentology research related 
specifically to vulnerable road users.  

For  the  action  "information  to  citizens",  the  Commission  has 
targeted  its  contributions  beyond  the  group  of  vulnerable  road 
users in a more general approach.  

Information  is  provided  to  citizens  through  communication  tools 
such  as  an  annual  scoreboard  brochure88  and  road  safety  status 
report  ("Vademecum")89,  a  continuously  updated  website90, 
newsletters91,  etc.  The  Commission  also  makes  road  safety  data 
and analysis available via the European Road Safety Observatory92.  

Safety information 
is provided to road 
users via several 
channels; this work 
will continue all 
strategy period. 

The  "Going  abroad"  web  page93  was  created  in  2013.  It  contains  information  on  traffic 
rules  related  to  the  eight  traffic  offences  under  the  scope  of  Directive  2011/82/EC  on 
cross-border  information  exchange  for  enforcement  of  traffic  rules,  covering  the  28 
Member States plus Switzerland, Norway and Liechtenstein. The objective was to provide 
easily  accessible  road  safety  information  to  all  EU  citizens.  The  webpage  which  is 
translated  into  all  EU  official  languages  became  very  popular  with  one  of  the  largest 
number  of  visits  on  the  website.  There  is  also  a  smart  phone  application  based  on  the 
information provided on this webpage which has been developed to allow wider use.  

Information  to  the  wider  road  safety  community  is  provided  through  the  web  platform 
European  Road  Safety  Charter94.  This  website  collects  best  practice  examples  and  road 
safety  action  proposals  from  its  more  than  2,000  member  organisations:  local 
authorities, voluntary organisations, companies and others. 

The road safety unit has run social media road safety weeks where the Commission social 
media  channels  have  been  dedicated  to  transmitting  road  safety  messages,  facts  and 
figures during one week every year.  

  What remains to be done 

A further study on motorcycle accident causation was launched in late 2014 and will run 
for three years, performing 500 accident in-depth investigations. 

The vulnerable road users are  victims in all types  of accidents and their safety depends 
not  only  on  the  targeted  action  for  pedestrians  and  cyclists  but  also  on  the  road  safety 
work  generally,  including  road  user  education,  enforcement  of  rules,  safety  of 
infrastructure and safety of vehicles. To meet this operational objective, vulnerable road 
users must therefore be taken into account horizontally in all EU actions. 

The work to encourage safe infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians is an on-going task 
which will run through the entire strategy period. 

Contributions to information to road users are also a continuous task: updates to website 
and information material will be done regularly.  

88 http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/road-safety-2013-pbMIAB14001/  
89 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/vademecum_2015.pdf  
90 http://ec.europa.eu/roadsafety  
91 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/publications/index_en.htm  
92 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/erso/index_en.htm  
93 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/going_abroad/index_en.htm 
94 http://www.erscharter.eu/  

34 

 
 
                                                 
 
5.8.  Other actions 

In  addition  to  the  actions  presented  under  the  seven  priority  areas,  the  Policy 
orientations also mentions other tools for the road safety work: cooperation for exchange 
of  best  road  safety  practices;  improved  data  collection  and  analysis;  monitoring  of 
implementation  of  the  road  safety  acquis;  and  common  principles  for  road  crash 
investigations. 

  What has been done 

The Commission organises regular meetings of the High Level Group on Road Safety as a 
cooperation  platform  among  Member  States  with  active  exchange  of  best  practices.  A 
working  paper  with  good  practice  examples  for  road  safety  planning  was  compiled  and 
published  in  201495.  Exchange  of  lessons  learned  is  also  continuously  on-going  in  the 
different Committees and Expert Groups.  

The  Commission  cooperates  closely  with  the  UN  level  working  groups  on  issues  of 
common  interest,  notably  on  the  international  agreements  on  safe  transportation  of 
dangerous goods. 

Best  practice  exchanges  among  stakeholders  are  organised  for 
example  via  the  European  Road  Safety  Charter96  and  in  open 
conferences  such  as  the  European  Road  Safety  Days97.  The 
Commission also supports cooperation projects, for example the 
European Youth Forum on Road Safety98. 

Promotion of good 
practices, 
monitoring of 
legislation and 
analysis of road 
safety are on-going 
tasks that will be 
carried out 
throughout the 
strategy period. 

third  countries, 

For exchange of experience and best practices between Member 
States  and 
the  Commission  promotes 
Twinnings99  and  TAIEX100  projects  to  facilitate  exchange  of 
expertise  in  the  form  of  study  visits,  workshops  and  training 
sessions.  The  Commission  also  contributes  with  technical  expertise  to  other  road  safety 
related projects in the EU neighbourhoods: for example the road safety working group of 
the  South  East  Europe  Transport  Observatory101,  the  Global  Road  Safety  Partnership 
project102  in  the  Middle  East  and  North  Africa,  and  the  EuroMed  regional  transport 
cooperation103.  

The Expert Group on the CARE database104 meets regularly for updates and improvement 
of road safety data. There is also a close cooperation with Eurostat and the Organisation 
of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD105) on road safety data collection. 

A set of common principles for in-depth road crash investigations was developed by the 
DaCoTA  research  project,  co-funded  by  the  EU.  The  project  resulted  in  a  published 
accident investigation methodology106. 

95 High Level Group on Road Safety, Road safety planning: Good practice examples from national road safety 

strategies in the EU, Non-paper as food for thought and discussions, 13 October 2014, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/national-road-safety-strategies_en.pdf 

96 http://www.erscharter.eu/ 
97 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/events-archive/2014_05_09_ersd_en.htm  
98 European Youth Forum on Road Safety: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/eyfrs/  
99 Twinnings: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/tenders/twinning/index_en.htm  
100 TAIEX: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/tenders/taiex/index_en.htm  
101 South East Europe Transport Observatory: http://www.seetoint.org/  
102 Global Road Safety Partnership: http://www.grsproadsafety.org/  
103 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/international/regional_cooperation/euromed_en.htm  
104 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics/index_en.htm  
105 The OECD International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD),  
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/irtadpublic/index.html  

106 DaCoTA: Road safety data, Collection, Transfer and Analysis, http://www.dacota-project.eu/   

35 

 
 
                                                 
The approach adopted in the Smart Green and Integrated Transport Challenge of Horizon 
2020107 is complementary to the aims of the Policy Orientations on Road Safety and will 
in itself be highly supportive to the policy through the innovation of research results that 
have been developed in this programme. 

In addition a theme dedicated to transport safety has been launched in the draft Horizon 
2020  Work  Programme  for  2016/2017  which  considers  protection  of  road  transport 
users,  infrastructure  innovation  to  increase  the  transport  system  safety  and  studies  the 
behaviour of transport users. 

  What remains to be done 

The  promotion,  analysis  and  monitoring  tasks  will  be  on-going  throughout  the  strategy 
period.  

Table 7: Summary of EU actions and outputs 2011-2014 

EU action 
Education/ training 
strategy 

Outputs by February 2015 
The Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences entered fully into 
force on 19 January 2013. 

In 2012, obligatory testing on the competence to drive in a safe, 
economically and environmentally friendly way for truck and bus 
drivers (category C and D) was introduced. 
Periodic training for the Certificate of Professional Competence has 
started in most Member States 
Directive 2015/413 on cross-border information exchange for the 
enforcement of road safety related traffic offences adopted on 11 
March 2015. 
Evaluation studies on speed limiters108 and alcohol interlocks109 
were completed in 2013.  
Enforcement planning discussed in road safety plan guidelines 
document published 2013. 
The infrastructure directive principles already apply mandatorily on 
TEN-T roads. 
No formal conditionality but strong encouragement of applying the 
principles beyond the TEN-T roads included in partnership 
agreements and operational programmes.  
Active promotion of the infrastructure safety management 
principles by the Commission in communication with stakeholders; 
Principle proposed as "best practice" in guidelines document 
published 2013 
Regulation (EU) 168/2013 on type approval for two-and three-
wheeled vehicles has been revised. 
Updated Directive on periodic roadworthiness testing, Directive on 
roadside checks on commercial vehicles and Directive amending 
the Directive on the registration documents for vehicles adopted on 
3 April 2014. 
Staff working document on the assessment of benefits of such 
systems was adopted on 3 October 2014110.A study on the benefits 
For road safety of Event Data Recorders was completed in 2014. 

Cross-border information 
exchange for enforcement 

Enforcement strategy 

Enforcement 
implementation plans 
EU funds conditional on 
infrastructure safety 
directive principles 

Infrastructure safety 
principles on inter-urban 
roads 

Encourage active/ passive 
safety for motorcycles 
Strengthening of 
roadworthiness test rules 

Assess safety benefits of 
cooperative systems 

Evaluate benefits of ADAS  Regulation (EU) 407/2011 on vehicle electric safety has been 

adopted. 
The implementing measures of the General Safety Regulation111: 

107 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/smart-green-and-integrated-transport 
108 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Ex-post evaluation of Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed 
limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community, as amended by Directive 
2002/85/EC, 9 August 2013, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/vehicles/speed_limitation_evaluation_en.pdf 

109 Ecorys/COWI, Study on the prevention of drink-driving by the use of alcohol interlock devices, 18 February 

2014, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/behavior/study_alcohol_interlock.pdf 
110 Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the European 

Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of vehicle technologies to 
improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297, Brussels, 3 October 2014 

36 

 
 
                                                 
EU action 

Accelerate eCall 
deployment 

Propose strategy on road 
injuries 
Technical standards for 
protection of vulnerable 
road users 
Vehicle inspections also 
for motorcycles 

Encourage safe 
cyclist/pedestrian 
infrastructure 

Contribute to better 
information to road users 

Outputs by February 2015 
Electronic Stability Control, Advanced Emergency Brake System, 
Lane Departure Warning, Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems etc., 
have been adopted. 
Decision No 585/2014/EU on the deployment of the interoperable 
EU-wide eCall service was adopted in May 2014. 
Proposal on mandatory fitting of eCall devices in passenger cars 
and light goods vehicles is being discussed. 
Common EU definition defined, methodology for data reporting 
agreed and first new data to be reported during first half of 2015 
Analysis of emergency brake systems/pedestrian detection in the 
Staff working document adopted on 3 October 2014112. 

Updated Directive on periodic roadworthiness testing adopted on 3 
April 2014, provides for technical inspections of motorcycles or 
measures to the same effect. 
Urban mobility package adopted on 17 December 2013 encourages 
urban authorities to ensure integrated road safety approach at all 
levels of sustainable urban mobility planning, with a focus on safe 
urban infrastructure for vulnerable road users. 

Regular publication of updated road safety facts and figures on the 
Commission road safety website ("European Road Safety 
Observatory"). 
Setting up of the Going Abroad function of the Commission road 
safety website in October 2013 with information about road safety 
related traffic rules. 
Launch of the Going Abroad information app in June 2014. 
Running the web-platform "European Road Safety Charter" 

6.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

6.1.  Relevance 

Questions: 

 

Is the strategic target on 50% reduction of road deaths still relevant and realistic 
with regard to the size and characteristics of road safety problems in the EU 
today? 

  Are the seven strategic objectives of the Policy orientations on road safety still 

relevant in relation to the current main road safety problems and challenges? 

  To what extent are the main EU initiatives for road safety still appropriate in order 

to address the main road safety problems and challenges? Are there any 
additional actions that could address the current problems and challenges of road 
safety? 

This  chapter  will  discuss  first  the  relevance  and  achievability  of  the  strategic  target  on 
road  deaths.  This  is  followed  by  a  discussion  on  the  relevance  of  the  seven  focus  areas 
and  the  16  actions  of  the  Policy  orientations.  The  target  areas  of  the  operational 
objectives are compared with the main current problems identified in Chapter 3.3 above, 
in order to check whether all main problem areas are addressed by the policy framework 
from 2010. 

111 Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning 

type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, 
components and separate technical units intended therefor 

112 Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the European 

Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of vehicle technologies to 
improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297, Brussels, 3 October 2014 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Target relevance 
The  first  question  is:  does  the  target  correspond  to  a  main  road 
safety problem? 

Looking  at  the  size  and  characteristics  of  road  safety  problems  in 
the EU today, as described in Chapter 3.3 above, road fatalities are 
still  a  significant  problem.  In  2014,  almost  25,700  people  were 
reported  to  have  been  killed  on  the  roads.  Road  deaths  remain  a 
substantial societal problem. 

The road fatality 
target addresses 
a substantial 
road safety 
problem. 

Nevertheless  it  is  questioned  whether  the  target  covers  all  main  road  safety  problems. 
While the fatalities are the most serious outcomes, they are not the only serious result of 
road traffic crashes. As was shown in Chapter 3.3 above, for every reported road death 
there  are  now  8-9  reported  serious  road  injuries  in  the  EU,  based  on  current  reporting 
methods. Since the number  of serious road traffic injuries does not 
decrease  as  quickly  as  the  number  of  road  deaths  it  could  be 
considered  that  the  current  target  and  actions  do  not  sufficiently 
address this problem. 

The current 
target does not 
address the 
yearly 220 000 
serious road 
traffic injuries. 

The  technical  study  identified  the  serious  injuries  as  an  important 
road safety problem not covered by the current road fatality target. 
The  technical  study  also  concluded  that  intermediate  outcome 
targets were missing. 113 

Several  of  the  respondents  in  the  consultation  of  stakeholders,  including  researchers, 
road  safety  organisations  and  the  European  road  traffic  victims'  organisation,  requested 
an additional EU-level target on seriously injured.114 

In order to have the same target decrease rate per year as with a 50% target over ten 
years' time, a target for the shorter period 2015-2020 needs to be set at -35%.  

Finally,  setting  strategic  targets  for  road  safety  performance  is  considered  an 
international best practice.115 The mid-term evaluation of the EU road 
safety  action  programme  for  2001-2010  found  that  the  ambitious 
strategic  target  was  one  of  the  main  EU  added  values  of  that 
programme,  noting  that  "target  setting  is  a  valuable  mean  to  get 
traffic safety on the political agenda and to monitor the progress that 
is made."116 A similar conclusion about the importance of the strategic 
target  2001-2010  was  drawn  in  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  road  safety  action 
programme.117 

Target-setting 
is generally 
considered a 
useful tool. 

Member  States  are  not  bound  by  the  EU-level  target.  Still,  many  Member  States  have 
endorsed  the  EU  strategic  target  and  incorporated  it  into  their  national  road  safety 
strategies  –  at  least  nine  Member  States  have  adopted  the  EU  strategic  target  directly 
into  their  own  national  frameworks;  at  least  eleven  other  have  adopted  similar 
quantitative strategic targets. This indicates that the majority of Member States consider 
target setting to be a useful tool. 

113   Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-

2020, 12 February 2015, pp. 58, 66, 79 

114    See Annex 6, Report from the stakeholder workshop 17 November 2014 
115  International Organisation for Standardisation, Road traffic safety (RTS) management systems — 

Requirements with guidance for use, ISO 39001:2012(E); World Health Organisation, Global status report 
on road safety 2013, p.27; Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy 
Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020, 12 February 2015, p.61 

116  ECORYS/SWOV, Impact Assessment Road Safety Action Programme, Assessment for mid-term review, 

Final Report, April 2005, p.49 

117   Transport & Mobility Leuven, Final Report – Volume 1, Ex-post evaluation of the RSAP, 23 December 2009 

38 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
Table  8:  Strategic  road  safety  targets  in  national  road  safety  plans  submitted  to  the  European 
Commission 

Member State 
Austria118 
Belgium119 
Bulgaria120 
Croatia121 
Cyprus122 
Czech Republic123 
Denmark124 
Estonia125 
Finland126 
Germany127 
Greece128 
Hungary129 
Ireland130 
Lithuania131 

Netherlands132 

Portugal133 

Poland134 
Slovakia135 
Spain136 
Sweden137 

Strategic target 
-50%, 2011-2020 
Maximum 620 deaths per year by 2015 and 420 in 2020 
-50%, 2011-2020 
-50%, 2011-2020 
-50%, 2011-2020 
-60%, 2009-2020 
No more than 120 deaths in 2020 
By 2015, no more than 75 road deaths in one year 
No more than 100 annual traffic fatalities by 2025 
-40%, 2011-2020 
-50%, 2011-2020 
-50%, 2011-2020 
No more than 124 deaths in 2020 
To be among the 10 Member States with fewest road deaths, or 
no more than 60 road deaths per million inhabitants, 2011-2017 
In 2020, traffic accidents should cause no more than 500 fatalities 
and 12,250 injuries 
Reach 62 deaths per million inhabitants in 2015, the equivalent to 
a 32% decrease compared to 2006 
-50%, 2011-2020 
-50%, 2011-2020 
-50%, 2011-2020 
-50%, 2007-2020 

In the stakeholder consultation workshop, one of the most frequently repeated messages 
from  the  participants  to  the  Commission  was  that  the  strategic  target  to  reduce  road 
fatalities  was  considered  a  success  and  a  useful  tool  for  mobilisation  of  road  safety 
actions  on  national  and  local  level.138  Also  the  technical  study  found  that  the  strategic 
fatality target is relevant.139 

Target achievability 
The target is to halve road deaths by 2020, compared to the 2010 level. This means that 
the aim is to have no more than 15,750 road deaths in the EU during 2020. 

118  Austria, Austrian Road Safety Programme 2011-2020 
119   http://eurorap.org/partner-countries/belgium/ 
120  Bulgaria, National strategy for improving road safety in Bulgaria for the period 2011–2020 
121  Croatia, National Road Safety Programme Of The Republic Of Croatia 2011-2020 
122  Cyprus, 2012-2020 Strategic Road Safety Plan for Cyprus – Final Report 
123  Czech Republic, National road safety strategy 2011-2020 and National plan for the implementation of 

regulations 

124  Denmark, Every accident is one too many – a shared responsibility. Danish Road Safety Commission 

National Action Plan 2013-2020 

125  Estonia, Estonian National Road Safety Programme 2003–2015 
126  http://www.intermin.fi/en/security/public_order_and_security/traffic_safety 
127  Germany, Road Safety Programme 2011 
128  Greece, Strategic Plan for the improvement of road safety in Greece, 2011-2020 
129  Hungary, Road safety action programme 2011–2013 
130  Ireland, Road safety strategy 2013-2020 
131  Lithuania, National road safety development programme for 2011-2017 
132  Netherlands, Road Safety Strategic Plan 2008-2020 
133  Portugal, National road safety strategy 2008-2015 
134  Poland, National road safety programme 2013-2020 
135  Slovakia, Road safety enhancement strategy in the Slovak Republic in the years 2011 to 2020 
136  Spain, Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 
137  http://www.trafikverket.se/en/startpage/Operations/Operations-road/Road-safety/ 
138 See Annex 6, Report from stakeholder consultations 
139 Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020, 

12 February 2015, p.79 

39 

 
 
 
                                                 
The target of halving EU road deaths by 2020 was adopted as an aspirational, strategic 
target.  It  was  not  primarily  based  on  empirical  analysis  or  modelling  of  road  fatality 
trends and potential impact of interventions but identified as a tool to bring attention to 
the road safety problem and mobilise the Member States for a common cause. The Policy 
orientations  concludes  that  to  reach  the  target,  actions  on  both  EU  and  Member  State 
level  are  required,  even  if  Member  States  are  not  bound  by  the  target  but  only 
encouraged to support and contribute to it. 

If all Member States were to reach the road fatality rate of the best performing country in 
2010  (28  deaths/million  inhabitants),  the  target  would  be  reached  with  some  margin, 
even taking the expected population increase into account. This is not an easy challenge: 
in 2010 only 12 countries had reached the level of the best performing country in 2000 
and  in  the  period  2000-2010  there  was  a  decrease  of  only  43%,  which  is  however  a 
significant improvement considering the large number of lives saved. 

The  annual  reduction  rate  so  far  has  not  been  quite  as  high  as 
required for the target to be reached. In order to decrease 50% over a 
ten  years  period,  an  average  annual  decrease  of  6.7%  is  needed.  In 
the  time  period  from  2010  to  2014,  there  was  an  18.4%  decrease  or 
an annual average decrease of 5%. 

If the average 
reduction pace 
2010-2014 
continues, the 
target will not 
be reached. 

The  six  largest  Member  States140,  together  accounting  for  65%  of  all  road  deaths, 
decreased  their  fatalities  by  17%  from  2010  to  2014,  slightly  less  than  the  EU  average 
decrease by 18.4%. The best performing Member States seem however to have reached 
a safety level where further progress is  more difficult to achieve without innovative new 
safety measures. 

Figure 3: Development over time  

31500 

30700 

28100 

26000 

25700 

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

15,750 

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

In Figure 4, the  red line shows actual  fatality numbers whereas the blue line shows  the 
theoretical decrease in order to achieve the target for 2020. 

If the average reduction pace for the EU28 remains the same for the rest of the period, 
the final outcome would only be around 40%. However, the development over these four 
years  has  not  been  uniform.  There  were  two  years  with  lower  than  required  reduction 
and two years with a higher than required reduction; it is therefore difficult to predict the 
continued development. 

Since  the  total  improvement  has  not  been  quite  in  line  with  the  target,  an  annual 
average decrease of 7.8% is now needed from 2015 to 2020. 

140 Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom 

40 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 9: Target development and actual development 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

31500 

29400 

27400 

25600 

23900 

22300 

20800 

19400 

18000 

16900 

15750 

-6.7% 

-6.7% 

-6.7% 

-6.7% 

-6.7% 

-6.7% 

-6.7% 

-6.7% 

-6.7% 

-6.7% 

31500 

30700 

 28100 

26000 

25700 

-3% 

  -9% 

-8% 

 -1% 

23700 

21800 

20100 

18600 

17100 

15750 

-7.8% 

-7.8% 

-7.8% 

-7.8% 

-7.8% 

-7.8% 

Target 
number 
Target 
decrease 
Actual 
number 
Actual 
decrease 
New target 
number 
New target 
decrease 

The trend so far is not necessarily the best indicator for predicting the final results. The 
actions  on  Member  State  level  can  be  expected  to  have  a  major  impact  on  the  final 
outcome numbers, since road safety is a shared competence and a large part of all road 
safety actions are taken on local or national level. The EU legislation can only be effective 
if it is properly implemented and enforced. It is therefore clear that, in order to reach the 
target,  road  safety  work  will  be  needed  on  EU,  national  and local level  over  the  coming 
years.  

Some  of  the  EU  initiatives  from  the  last  strategy  period  and  from  the  beginning  of  this 
period  are  expected  to  have  an  effect  in  the  coming  years.  Examples  are  the  full 
application  of  Directive  2011/82/EC  on  cross-border  exchange  of  information  for 
enforcement addressing dangerous road user behaviours by non-resident drivers and the 
roadworthiness  rules  for  more  thorough  and  more  regular  technical  inspections  of 
vehicles as from 2018. 70% of the total tube length of all long TEN-T tunnels is still to be 
refurbished141  in  line  with  Directive  2004/54/EC  on  tunnel  safety,  with  a  deadline  in 
2019.  Actions  with  long  take-up  times,  such  as  new  type  approval  rules  and  raised 
minimum  standards  for  driver  licencing  are  also  expected  to  start  giving  results  in  the 
coming years.  

On the other hand, there are also external factors to take into account, which might need 
being compensated for by additional road safety efforts. 

For example, an increasing total EU population will have an impact 
on  the  total  number  of  road  deaths.  If  the  total  population 
increases, the total number of road deaths will also increase if road 
safety risks are not mitigated.  

The last decade, the EU experienced an average population growth 
of 0.28% per year. With a similar growth in the period 2015-2020, 
the  average  fatality  rate  must  go  down  to  31  deaths  per  million 
inhabitants  in  order  for  the  target  level  of  no  more  than  15,750 
road deaths in 2020 to be reached.  

The target is seen 
as challenging but 
not impossible to 
reach: continued 
and possibly 
additional efforts 
will be needed the 
coming years. 

Stronger economic development over the next few years could cause a slow-down in the 
decrease  of  road  deaths  in  the  short-term,  according  to  the  research.142  A  higher 
occurrence  of  extreme  weather  situations  as  a  result  of  climate  change  could  cause 
difficulties  in  traffic,  possibly leading  to  higher  road  risks.143  These  external  aspects  will 
be further discussed more in detail in Chapter 6.4 below. 

141  ICF/TRT, Study on the implementation and effects of Directive 2004/54/EC on minimum safety 
requirements for road tunnels in the trans-European road network, 21 February 2015, p.16 

142  International Transport Forum, IRTAD Research Report, Road safety and economic development, 2015 
143  Swov Fact Sheet, The influence of weather on road safety, Leidschendam, 2012 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The technical study made the assessment that the strategic target is challenging but that 
it  could  still  be  reached,  if  additional  action  is  taken  in  the  coming  years.  The  study 
concluded  that  it  is  the  actions  at  national  level,  particularly  enforcement  of  key  road 
safety rules, and on speeding in particular, which can have quick enough results for the 
2020 target to be met.144  

The views among the stakeholders consulted in November 2014 differed on the chances 
of the target being met.145 Some stakeholders had doubts about the target being 
realistic.146 Others had a more optimistic view with the caveat that more efforts were 
likely needed.147 Most consulted stakeholders did not voice any opinion on the outlook for 
the target. 

Relevance of actions/operational objectives  
The  problem  analysis  in  Chapter  3.3  identified  a  number  of  current  main  road  safety 
concerns. 

The  seven  operational  objectives  of  the  Policy  orientations  all 
address either the overarching problems of fatal and serious crashes 
or the specific problem areas or main victim groups. 

All actions are 
targeting 
problems that 
are still relevant 

The  actions  linked  to  education  and  training  of  road  users  and  the 
actions  for  enforcement  of  traffic  rules  aim  to  create  safer  vehicle  drivers,  thereby 
reducing the number of serious crashes affecting all categories  of  road users.  Education 
and training of road users targets the young and novice drivers in particular. 

The  actions  for  safer  infrastructure  target  both  motorways  (legislation)  and  other  road 
types (soft measures) where the target victim groups on the motorways are primarily the 
vehicle occupants and inside urban areas primarily the vulnerable road users. 

The actions within the focus area "safer vehicles" target the passive and active safety of 
vehicles in order to prevent crashes – especially crashes linked to technical failure - and 
to  reduce  the  severity  of  crash  outcomes.  The  prevention  of  crashes  benefits  all  road 
users whereas, apart from the pedestrian safety legislation148, the vehicle passive safety 
measures primarily address the safety of vehicle occupants. The modern technology such 
as  advanced  driver  assistance  systems  may  benefit  all  road  user  categories  whereas 
eCall is directly targeting car occupants. 

Actions  related  to  serious  road  injuries  will  benefit  all  road  users  but  to  a  larger  extent 
the vulnerable road users, the elderly and road users in urban areas. 

The  actions  under  the  heading  "safety  of  vulnerable  road  users" 
address  the  pedestrians,  cyclists  and  motorcyclists  but  also  in  a 
wider sense also the total number of serious crashes.  

All  main  problems 
in  2014  are  covered  by  an 
objective/action  except  the  gender  aspect  which  is  only  indirectly 
addressed through the work to reduce all fatal and serious crashes.  

identified 

The current 
framework 
addresses all 
identified 
problems except 
the gender 
aspect 

Studies on possible additional actions to address the gender aspect of road safety  could 
therefore be considered. Any additional actions to address the current safety issues and 

144  Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-

2020, 12 February 2015, p.78 

145  See Annex 6, Report from the stakeholder workshop 17 November 2014 
146   Comments by e.g. DE, HU, Continental. 
147   Comments by e.g. Federation of European Motorcyclists Association and the European Transport Safety 

Council 

148 Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of 

pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, amending Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing Directives 
2003/102/EC and 2005/66/EC, 14 January 2009 

42 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
complement  the  on-going  initiatives  would  require  proper  impact  assessments  before 
concrete proposals are presented. 

The  technical  study  made  the  assessment  that  the  seven  operational  objectives  of  the 
Policy  orientations  remain  relevant  compared  to  the  current  main  road  safety  problems 
but that a greater focus on the motorised road users was needed, given these make up 
the majority of deaths. The study found that several of the operational objectives overlap 
and that a review of the structure  of the targets could be made with a view of merging 
objective  4  (safer  vehicles)  and  objective  5  (increased  use  of  modern  safety 
technologies) for clarity and a more holistic, focused approach.149 

The  respondents  in  the  stakeholder  consultation  considered  the  seven  objectives  of  the 
Policy orientations to be still relevant. 

6.2.  Effectiveness 

Questions:  

  To what extent have the EU initiatives contributed to the decrease in the number 
of road fatalities (in total and for different road user groups, e.g. pedestrians, car 
drivers, motorcyclists, young road users, elderly, professional drivers) during the 
period under analysis? 

  What external factors have hindered or helped the achievement of objectives? 

  What unintended positive and negative effects, if any, have been produced? 

Most road safety actions on EU level have relatively long lead times. The technical study 
concluded  that  it's  primarily  the  key  actions  taken  in  the  previous  decade  which  will 
contribute  to  the  2020  target.  The  study  made  the  assessment  that  few  actions  taken 
since 2011 are likely to have a major impact on the total number of road fatalities yet.150 

This  chapter  therefore  covers  two  main  aspects:  first  a  more  general  discussion  on 
impacts  covering  also  impacts  resulting  from  the  road  safety  actions  during  the  last 
decade and then the short-term results and outputs from the actions taken since 2011. 

The overall road safety impact 
The main performance indicator for road safety impact is the progress towards reaching 
the 2020 strategic target of halving the number of road deaths. 

As  described  in  Chapter  3.3  above,  the  total  number  of  EU  road  deaths  decreased  by 
18.4% from the baseline year 2010 to 2014.  

In  the  discussion  below  it  is  shown  that  the  decreasing  differences  between  Member 
States can be seen as an indicator of EU road safety work being effective. The extent of 
this effectiveness cannot be measured. To pinpoint the exact extent of EU contribution to 
the  road  safety  outcomes  for  specific  categories  of  road  user  types,  road  types,  age 
groups or causal factors is also not possible. 

  Comparison over time 

The number of road deaths has decreased since 1991, both in total for the  28 countries 
presently  Members  of  the  Union  and  in  the  15  countries  acceding  before  2000.  The 
decrease rate is significantly higher after 2001.  

149 Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020, 

12 February 2015, p.44 and p.67 

150 Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020, 

12 February 2015, p.78 

43 

 
 
                                                 
In  the  decade  1991-2000,  the  total  number  of  road  deaths  decreased  by  25%  for  the 
EU28 and by 26% for the EU15. In the decade following the adoption of the first EU road 
safety action plan, the road fatality reduction was 47% for the EU28 
and 43% for the EU15. The improvement after 2001 could partly be 
explained  by  the  effects  of  the  EU's  common  road  safety  work  and 
the  setting  of  an  ambitious  common  EU  target.  It  could  to  some 
degree  also  be  linked  to  the  increasing  traffic  and  subsequent 
increase  of  road  deaths  during  the  1990s,  following  the  opening  of 
borders in central Europe. 

Road deaths 
have decreased 
more quickly 
since 2001 when 
the first EU 
target was set. 

  Results per Member State 

When  looking  at  the  effects  in  different  Member  States,  the  difference  in  road  fatality 
rates  is  decreasing  over  time.  In  2014  the  average  of  the  highest 
three fatality rates was down to 3.4 times the average of the three 
lowest  EU  fatality  rates.  This  could  be  seen  as  an  indicator  of  EU 
actions having effect. 

The differences 
between Member 
States are 
decreasing 

EU  actions  are  to  some  degree  aimed  more  towards  the  countries 
with  highest  road  fatality  rates,  for  example  by  raising  minimum 
standards for vehicle testing, infrastructure safety or driver licence trainings and exams. 
These EU actions primarily affect the Member States with low road safety levels. The best 
performing countries already have the higher standards in place. 

The  decreasing  differences  are  also  linked  to  the  fact  that  the  traditionally  best 
performing  road  safety  countries  have  experienced  a  slower  decrease  rate  over  the  last 
years. These countries have already reached a very low road fatality rate and now find it 
difficult to progress further. In the meantime, the Member States with high fatality rates 
are catching up towards the EU average. 

  Development following EU accession  

When  looking  at  development  over  time  for  different  Member 
States, there seems to be a significant pattern. Except for Malta151, 
the Member States acceding after 2001 all report a steep reduction 
in  the  number  of  road  deaths  a  few  years  after  the  accession.  The 
countries  that  became  Member  States  in  2004  went  from  fatality 
rates  of  100-250  deaths  per  million  inhabitants  to  rates  of  50-100 
deaths  per  million  inhabitants  in  only  ten  years  following  their 
accession (see Figure 5). 

The Member 
States joining in 
2004 went from 
fatality rates of 
100-250 to rates 
of 50-100 in only 
ten years after 
accession. 

In many of these countries, the number of road deaths was still increasing in 2001. Yet, 
the  ten  Member  States  joining  the  EU  in  2004  managed  to  achieve  the  same  average 
reduction  rate  as  the  old  Member  States  with  55%  fewer  road  deaths  for  the  period 
2001-2014. 

151 Malta is here dealt with separately: they have a small population and few road deaths and therefore have a 

different pattern of fluctuations over time than the larger Member States. 

44 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Member states joining in 2004, development over time 

250

200

150

100

50

0

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Estonia

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Slovakia

Slovenia

Bulgaria  and  Romania  follow  the  same  pattern:  for  the  longer  time  frame  2001-2014 
they  had  only  a  30%  reduction  of  the  number  of  road  deaths  as  compared  to  the  55% 
decrease in the EU15. Since 2010 they have however caught up and for the period 2010-
2014 Bulgaria and Romania achieved the same decrease rate as EU average, 18%. 

Figure 5: Member States joining in 2007, development over time 

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Romania

Bulgaria

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Croatia  joined  the  EU  in  2013  and  subsequently  reported  one  of  the  best  percentage 
changes  among  all  EU  Member  States  from  2013-2014  with  -15%  road  deaths  in  one 
single year. 

This could be seen as an indication of EU membership having positive road safety effects. 
It is a contrary result to the prediction in the mid-term evaluation of the EU road safety 
framework  2003-2010  that  the  Member  States  joining  after  2004  would  only  achieve 
minimal progress, based on their poor development up to that date.152  

152 ECORYS/SWOV, Impact Assessment Road Safety Action Programme, Assessment for mid-term review, Final 

Report, April 2005 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  result  instead  supports  the  findings  by  a  Spanish  research  team  who  published  in 
2013  an  econometric  analysis  of  the  effect  of  EU  road  safety  policy  on  domestic  road 
mortality rates in the EU-27. They found that countries with high road fatality rates, even 
if  they  are  geographically,  politically,  socially  and  economically  distant  from  the 
traditionally strong road safety countries, have started to adapt more quickly since their 
accession to the EU, with a positive influence on domestic road safety.153 The explanation 
according  to  this  research  is  that  the  ambitious  EU  road  safety  acquis  contributes  to 
concrete results in the Member States acceding to the Union. 

  EU results in international comparison 

In  global  comparison,  the  EU  has  a  unique  position  when  it  comes  to 
road  safety.  The  Member  States  report  a  continuous  decrease  of  the 
number  of  road  deaths,  contrary  to  the  trend  in  most  low-  and  middle 
income regions.  

EU is the 
safest region 
world-wide. 

The total EU fatality rate is also  lower than in any other region in the world.  In the EU, 
the  fatality  rate  in  2012154  was  56  deaths  per  million  inhabitants,  compared  to  103 
deaths  per  million  for  the  entire  European  region  and  161  deaths  per  million  in  the 
American region. The highest regional fatality rate is found in the African region with 241 
deaths per million inhabitants (Figure 7).  

The total number of road traffic deaths globally is around 1.24 million per year. Of these, 
only around 26,000 are in the EU.155 

Figure 6: Road fatality rates in the world regions 2012 (deaths per million inhabitants)156 

241 

213 

185 

185 

161 

103 

56 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Looking at country level, only five non-EU countries reported road fatality rates below the 
EU  average  of  56  deaths  per  million  inhabitants  in  2012157:  Iceland,  Norway,  Israel, 
Japan and Switzerland. 

153 José I. Castillo-Manzano, Mercedes Castro-Nuño and Xavier Fageda, Journal of European Public Policy: Could 
being in the European Union save lives? An econometric analysis of the Common Road Safety Policy for the 
EU-27, 2013, pp 14-15 
154 Most recent global figures. 
155 World Health Organisation, Global status report on road safety 2013, p.6 
156 World Health Organisation, Global status report on road safety 2013, p.6 

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 7: Lowest road fatality rates outside EU in 2012 (deaths per million inhabitants)158 

56 

41 

43 

28 

29 

33 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Iceland

Norway

Israel

Japan

Switzerland EU average

Of  these  five  non-EU  countries,  Norway  and  Iceland  also  have  lower  number  of  road 
fatalities  per  billion  vehicle  kilometres  than  the  EU  average  whereas  Israel  and 
Switzerland  report  a  level  around  EU  average  and  Japan  a  higher  level.159  Norway  and 
Iceland  are  members  of  the  European  Economic  Area  and  as  such  apply  most  EU 
legislation in the road transport area. 

  Road user types 

The  EU  initiatives  constitute  a  mix  of  activities  covering  road  user  behaviours, 
infrastructure aspects and the safety of vehicles. The aim is to improve safety for all road 
user categories, inside and outside of vehicles. 

Yet,  the  results  over  time  differ  between  the  road  user  groups.  The  total  change  2010-
2013  is  -22%  car  occupant  fatalities  and  -17%  motorcyclist  fatalities  but  only  -11% 
pedestrian fatalities and -3% cyclist fatalities.  

The low performance recorded in the last two groups could be attributed to the increased 
number  of  cyclists160  and  pedestrians  following  the  general  trend  of  shift  to  sustainable 
transport  modes  and/or  an  increased  use  of  distracting  devices  such  as  smartphones 
among pedestrians. The difference in development could however also indicate that road 
safety actions with an impact after 2010 have been more successful on safety measures 
for car occupants and motorcycle riders than for the vulnerable road users.  

157 International Transport Forum, IRTAD Road Safety Annual Report 2014, OECD/ITF 2014, p.22-23; 2012 

figures are the most recent available for all OECD countries at this date. 

158 International Transport Forum, IRTAD Road Safety Annual Report 2014, OECD/ITF 2014, p.22-23 
159 International Transport Forum, IRTAD Road Safety Annual Report 2014, OECD/ITF 2014, p.24 
160 Based on the very limited data available from Member States, ECF finds that cycling at national level has 
seen a moderate increase over the past few years with high increase in several big cities: European 
Cyclists' Federation, National cycling mode share/ km cycled, 3 March 2015 

47 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Figure 8: Fatality percentage change 2010-2013 for different road user groups 

Car occupants

Motorcyclists

Pedestrians

Cyclists

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

-20%

-25%

This  could  in  turn  be  interpreted  as  an  indication  of  higher 
effectiveness of measures to reduce severity of a crash for vehicle 
occupants/riders  (e.g.  seat  belts,  air  bags,  motorcycle  helmets 
and  protective  clothing)  as  compared  to  measures  aiming  to 
prevent crashes.  

It could also be considered an indication of higher effectiveness of 
measures  to  reduce  the  number  of  crashes  on  inter-urban  roads 
and motorways (with more  EU-level contribution) as compared to 
urban areas, where the majority of pedestrians and cyclists are. 

Different trends 
for different road 
user and road 
types do not give 
conclusive 
indication on the 
extent of 
effectiveness of 
EU actions. 

Finally,  the  EU  actions  specifically  targeting  pedestrians  and  cyclists  under  the  Policy 
orientations is not expected to have provided any additional impact yet (see Table 10). 

The finding is in line with the technical study conclusion that the focus should be more on 
preventing  fatal  outcomes  rather  than  preventing  crashes  in  general  and  that  vehicle 
design measures have been one of the most effective EU actions.161 

  Road types 

The number of road deaths on urban roads decreased by 18% and the fatalities on inter-
urban roads went down by 19%. The improvement on the motorways is smaller with only 
a 4% reduction from 2010 to 2013. 

The  different  evolution  of  urban  and  motorway  road  deaths  could  be  interpreted  as  an 
indication  that  road  safety  is  in  this  case  not  an  effect  of  EU  actions,  considering  that 
there  is  more  extensive  EU  legislation  on  motorway  safety  than  on  urban  area  road 
safety, the latter primarily falling under Member State's competence and responsibility.  

More likely is however that the motorways have already reached a very safe level – only 
7% of all fatalities – as an effect of the specific road design characteristics of these roads 
and  possibly  also  of  the  EU  safety  management  legislation.  The  scope  for  further 
improvement  on  motorways  is  therefore  more  limited  than  for  urban  areas  and  inter-
urban roads which can be made substantially safer. 

161 Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020, 

12 February 2015, p 46 

48 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
  Age groups 

The  average  improvement  for  the  different  age  groups  differs  substantially.  The  best 
improvement during this time period is for the young road users, 24 years and younger. 
The fatalities in the age group 25-49 years old decreased just above EU average between 
2010  and  2013.  The  fatalities  among  those  aged  50  or  more  however  saw  only  a 
moderate improvement. 

Figure 9: Fatality percentage change 2010-2013 per age group 

<15

15-24

25-49

50-64

>=65

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

-20%

-25%

-30%

This  is  partly  explained  by  the  increase  in  the  total  number  of  elderly  in  EU  over  these 
years. Whereas the total EU population increased by 0.39% between 2010 and 2013, the 
number  of  people  aged  65  or  more  increased  by  4.4%.  The  number  of  people  aged  24 
years or less decreased by 1.8% in the same time. 

Taking  the  population  change  into  account,  the  road  crash  risk  for  the  elderly  has 
therefore decreased: the fatality rate was higher in  2010 (77 deaths per million elderly) 
than  in  2013  (71  deaths  per  million  elderly).  However,  the  fatality  decrease  for  those 
aged 15-24 decreased much more, from 102 deaths per million in 2013 to 76 deaths per 
million young people in 2013.  

EU interventions the last decade have been targeted more towards 
the young and novice drivers. For example, Directive 2006/126/EC 
on driving licences162 addresses the training and testing of younger 
drivers  and  regulates  young  peoples'  access  to  the  heaviest 
motorcycles. 

Different trends 
for different age 
groups are a 
possible effect of 
EU actions 
targeted at young 
drivers. 

There are no EU interventions as directly aimed at the safety of the 
elderly  road  users.  Elderly  are  also  more  present  in  urban  traffic, 
which is primarily dealt with on local and national level. A study on road safety for elderly 
is presently on-going with expected results in late 2015. 

  Gender 

There  is  no  reduction  of  the  gender  gap  over  time.  There  have  also  been  no  EU-level 
actions addressing the gender-related road safety patterns. 

162 Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving 

licences 

49 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
  Serious injuries 

The question of prevention of crashes versus severity of crash outcomes can be checked 
by comparing the evolution of the total number of road crashes with the evolution of the 
more serious crash outcomes.  

Figure 10: Evolution of different types of road crash outcomes 2010-2013 

Fatalities

Serious injuries

All accidents

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

-20%

Over time, the number of road fatalities has decreased twice as fast 
as  the  total  number  of  reported  crashes:  17.5%  compared  to  9% 
decrease between 2010 and 2013.  

The number of road fatalities also decreased more than the number 
of serious road injuries (decreasing by 13%) as shown in Figure 11. 
This  indicates  that  road  safety  actions  until  today  have  been  more 
effective  in  addressing  road  fatalities  than  serious  road  traffic 
injuries  and  that  the  actions  for  preventing  road  deaths  are  not 
necessarily effective also on the serious injury problem. 

The actions for 
preventing road 
deaths seem not 
to have been 
effective in 
preventing also 
serious road 
injuries. 

A  study  to  explore  in  further  detail  the  factors  contributing  to  serious  injury  crashes  is 
planned to be launched in 2015. 

  Causal factors 

Among the causal factors discussed in Chapter 3.3, the speeding on motorways and the 
seat belt use rates were assessed to have improved whereas the speeding in urban areas 
and the drink-driving rates showed no clear improvement. 

The  EU  has  taken  action  on  enforcement  by  the  adoption  of  Directive  2011/82/EC  on 
cross-border  exchange  of  information  for  enforcement.  This  Directive  addresses 
speeding,  drink  driving  and  failure  to  wear  a  seatbelt  together  with  a  number  of  other 
dangerous traffic offences. Directive 2011/82/EC can be expected to start having impact 
within  the  next  few  years  but  does  not  explain  the  different  trends  for  these  causal 
factors in the evaluated time period. 

Speeding  on  motorways  is  addressed  by  EU  action  by  the  legal 
requirement of speed limitation devices in buses and trucks163. These 
speed  limitation  devices  only  have  effect  on  high-speed  roads  and 
have no impact on road safety inside urban areas.  

The  use  of  seat  belts  is  addressed  on  EU  level  in  the  form  of 
Directive  91/671/EEC164  and  the  following  amendments  of  this 
Directive. Since 2006, wearing seatbelts is compulsory in all vehicles throughout the EU. 

EU actions may 
partly explain 
the different 
developments 
for different 
dangerous road 
user behaviours. 

163 Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of 

motor vehicles in the Community, 2 March 1992; applicable on all trucks and buses since 2007 

164 Council Directive 91/671/EEC relating to the compulsory use of safety belts and child-restraint systems in 

vehicles, 31 December 1991 

50 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  Commission  has  recently  performed  studies  on  the  effects  of  alcohol  interlocks  for 
road  safety.  There  are  EU-level  strategies  aimed  specifically  at  alcohol  use165  and  drug 
use166. 

These examples of EU actions could be possible parts of the explanation to the difference 
in outcomes for these causal factors. 

The  technical  study  made  the  assessment  that  EU  actions  are  likely  to  have  had  an 
impact  on  reduction  of  the  number  of  deaths  and  serious  injuries  and  in  particular  the 
measures addressing vehicle safety and vehicle safety design.167  

All  consulted  stakeholders  replied  that  EU  actions  have  had  positive  road  safety  effects, 
noting however that the EU road safety initiatives were not the only explanatory factor to 
the reduced number of road deaths and that all EU actions were not necessarily seen as 
equally effective.168 

EU-level outputs under the Policy Orientations 
The EU work since 2011 was already outlined in Chapter 5 above. They are summarised 
here in an overview of identifiable results and achievements to date. 

Table 10: Summary of EU outputs and achievements 2011-2014 

EU inputs/outputs by February 2015 
Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences 
entered fully into force on 19 January 2013. 

Obligatory testing on the competence to 
drive in a safe, economically and 
environmentally friendly way for truck and 
bus drivers. 
Periodic training for the Certificate of 
Professional Competence started in most 
Member States 
Directive 2015/413 on cross-border 
information exchange for the enforcement of 
road safety related traffic offences adopted. 

Evaluation studies on speed limiters170 and 
alcohol interlocks171 completed in 2013.  
Enforcement planning discussed in road 
safety plan guidelines document 2013. 
The infrastructure directive principles already 
apply mandatorily on TEN-T roads. No formal 
conditionality but strong encouragement of 

Achievements by 2015 
Raised minimum standards for driver training and 
testing: minimum standards for driving examiners 
in all Member States as from on 19 January 2013. 
Progressive access of young people to the heaviest 
motorcycles in all Member States as from 19 
January 2013. 
Raised minimum standards for driver training and 
testing: more thorough testing of heavy vehicle 
drivers as from 1 January 2014169. 

Raised minimum standards for training of 
professional drivers 

Non-resident drivers can be penalised for 
dangerous road traffic offences as from 6 May 2015 
in all Member States except Denmark, Ireland and 
the UK where the Directive is to be transposed at 
the latest by 6 May 2017. 
Studies completed and used as input into on-going 
review of the General Safety Regulation 661/2009.  
No concrete result identified yet. 

EU-funded TEN-T road projects are managed in line 
with the infrastructure safety principles.  At least 
one road infrastructure safety management 

165 Communication from the Commission, An EU strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol related 
harm, COM/2006/0625 final, Brussels, 24 October 2006; Action Plan on Youth Drinking and on Heavy 
Episodic Drinking (Binge Drinking) (2014-2016) Endorsed by the Committee on National Alcohol Policy and 
Action (CNAPA), 16 September 2014 

166 Council Recommendation, EU Drugs Strategy 2013-20, (2012/C 402/01), Brussels, 29 December 2012; 
Council Notice, EU Action plan on drugs 2013-2016, (2013/C 351/01), Brussels, 30 November 2013 

167 Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020, 

12 February 2015, p.46 

168 See Annex 6: Summary of stakeholder consultations workshop. 
169 Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences 
170 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Ex-post evaluation of Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed 
limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community, as amended by Directive 
2002/85/EC, 9 August 2013 

171 Ecorys/COWI, Study on the prevention of drink-driving by the use of alcohol interlock devices, 18 February 

2014  

51 

 
 
                                                 
EU inputs/outputs by February 2015 
applying the principles beyond the TEN-T 
roads.  

Active promotion of the infrastructure safety 
management principles. Principle proposed 
as "best practice" in guidelines document 
published 2013. 
Regulation (EU) 168/2013 on type approval 
for two-and three-wheeled vehicles has been 
revised. 
Updated Directive on periodic roadworthiness 
testing, roadside checks on commercial 
vehicles on registration documents for 
vehicles adopted on 3 April 2014. 

Staff working document on the assessment 
of benefits of cooperative systems was 
adopted on 3 October 2014175.A study on the 
benefits for road safety of Event Data 
Recorders was completed in 2014. 
Regulation (EU) 407/2011 on vehicle electric 
safety has been adopted. 
The implementing measures of the General 
Safety Regulation176 have been adopted. 

Decision No 585/2014/EU on the deployment 
of the interoperable EU-wide eCall service 
was adopted in May 2014. Proposal on 
mandatory fitting of eCall devices in 
passenger cars and light goods vehicles 
being discussed. 
Common EU definition defined, methodology 
for data reporting agreed and first new data 
to be reported during first half of 2015 
Analysis of emergency brake 
systems/pedestrian detection in the Staff 
working document adopted on 3 October 
2014177. 
Updated Directive on periodic roadworthiness 
testing adopted on 3 April 2014, provides for 
technical inspections of motorcycles or 
measures to the same effect. 

Achievements by 2015 
procedure is also applied beyond the TEN-T road 
network in at least two thirds of the Member 
States.172 
At least one road infrastructure safety management 
procedure is applied beyond the TEN-T road 
network in at least two thirds of the Member 
States. 
More safety measures such as ABS in all new 
motorcycles as from 1 January 2016.  

More thorough and efficient checking of vehicles in 
all Member States as from 20 May 2018. (five of 
the Member States173 already had the highest 
standards of roadworthiness testing before the 
adoption of the roadworthiness package)174 
Information contributed as input into on-going 
review of the General Safety Regulation 661/2009. 

Harmonised rules on vehicle electric safety apply in 
all Member States as from 4 December 2012 
All new cars equipped with Electronic Stability 
Control and Tyre Pressure Monitoring System since 
1 November 2011.  

All new heavy goods and passenger vehicles 
equipped with Lane Departure Warning and 
Advanced Emergency Braking since 1 November 
2011 
Public infrastructure for eCall to be ready no later 
than 1 October 2017. 

New data arrival enables cost-benefit analysis on 
serious road injuries for possible future measures to 
reduce severity of crash outcomes. 
Information contributed for the on-going review of 
the General Safety Regulation 661/2009. 

Motorcycles to undergo periodic technical 
inspections in all178 Member States as from 20 May 
2018. 

172 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Study on the effectiveness and on the improvement of the EU legislative 

framework on road infrastructure safety management (Directive 2008/96/EC), 5 December 2014, p.26 and 
p.49 

173 DE, SE, BE, LUX, FI 
174 Commission Staff Working Document: Impact assessment on the Roadworthiness package, SWD(2012)206 

final 2, Brussels, 13 July 2012 

175 Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the European 

Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of vehicle technologies to 
improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297, Brussels, 3 October 2014 

176 Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning 

type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, 
components and separate technical units intended therefor 

177 Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the European 

Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of vehicle technologies to 
improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297, Brussels, 3 October 2014 

178 Member States can decide not to implement this rule only if they undertake other actions rendering similar 

results for safety of motorcyclists 

52 

 
 
 
                                                 
EU inputs/outputs by February 2015 
EU recommendations on road safety in 
sustainable urban mobility planning ("Urban 
mobility package") adopted on 17 December 
2013. 
Regular publication of updated road safety 
facts and figures on the Commission road 
safety website. 
Setting up of the Going Abroad website with 
information about road safety related traffic 
rules. 
Launch of the Going Abroad information app 
in June 2014. 

Running the web-platform "European Road 
Safety Charter" 

Achievements by 2015 
No concrete result identified yet. 

Safety information is accessible to road users: The 
European Commission website has more than 2 
million page views per year. 
Safety information is accessible to road users: more 
than 225 000 page views of the Commission Going 
Abroad website during 2014. 
Safety information is accessible to road users: more 
than 73 000 downloads of the Going Abroad app by 
February 2015. 
Safety information is accessible to road users: The 
"European Road Safety Charter" has around 42,000 
visits per year. The Charter has 2973 members of 
which 1557 new members joining between 2010 
and 2015. 

What external factors have hindered or helped? 
Road safety in Europe depends on both EU actions and Member States' actions. The bulk 
of  the  everyday  work  on  EU  Member  State  level  and  the  actions  on  local  and  national 
level  have  a  large  impact  on  the  total  road  safety  results.  The  EU  legislation  can  only 
have effect if it is properly implemented and enforced by Member States. At the time of 
this  evaluation,  in  total  34  infringement  procedures  where  on-going  against  Member 
States  because  of  non-transposition  of  EU  road  safety  directives,  notably  regarding  the 
rules  on  driving  licences  and  cross-border  enforcement.  13  of  these  infringement 
procedures  were  scheduled  for  closure  by  end  of  June.  The  detailed  level  of 
implementation and the extent of road users' respect for the rules could however not be 
measured in this evaluation.  

In addition to the road safety actions by the Commission, the  Member States and other 
road  safety  partners,  other  external  factors  could  also  possibly  have  an  impact  on  the 
number of road deaths. Three main such factors were identified by the technical study179 
and  will  be  discussed  in  further  detail  below.  Other  potential  minor  contributing  factors 
will not be covered in this analysis. 

  The financial crisis 

It is broadly recognised that economic growth affects mobility patterns and therefore the 
traffic flows as well as young drivers' possibility to access motor vehicles. This can in turn 
have an impact on the total road safety situation.  

The  traffic  flows,  measured  in  estimated  vehicle  kilometres,  have  decreased  somewhat 
since  2010.  Eurostat  reports  a  3%  decrease  of  the  annual  road  freight  transport.  The 
reported  differences  between  Member  States  are  however  huge,  ranging  from  40% 
increase in Lithuania and Romania to 30% decrease in Greece and Cyprus.180 

When breaking down the data on road freight in vehicle kilometres on national level, no 
clear correlation pattern could be found. In three out of ten sample cases the traffic flow 
and the road fatality trend coincides for the years 2010-2013. In the other seven cases, 
the  development  of  road  fatalities  follows  the  traffic  flow  developments  for  some  of  the 
measured years but not for others (see Annex 3). 

179   Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-

2020, 12 February 2015, pp 21-23 

180   Eurostat: Annual road freight transport by type of operation and type of transport (1 000 t, Mio Tkm, Mio 

Veh-km), query on 27 January 2015 

53 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  technical  study  found  that  declines  in  road  deaths  between  2007  and  2010 
(particularly  for  those  younger  than  24  years)  for  the  EU  total  coincided  with  a  marked 
decline  in  GDP  growth.181  The  EU  total  GDP  decreased  by  0.8%  in  this  time  period 
whereas the road fatalities fell by 26%, a higher than average reduction rate. This is in 
line  with  a  large  recent  study  which  found  that  short-term  negative  GDP  development 
can  accelerate  road  safety  improvement182.  More  details  on  this  theoretical  correlation 
can be found in Chapter 6.4 below. 

However,  when  comparing  the  GDP  and  road  safety  development 
patterns  2010-2014  in  a  number  of  Member  State  cases,  no  such 
clear  pattern  could  be  found.  The  national  GDP  development  was 
cross-run  against  national  road  safety  figures  in  twenty  sample 
cases183  (see  Annex  2).  Some  Member  States,  for  example 
Denmark and Lithuania, had a growth in GDP and a decline in road 
death,  whereas  others  such  as  Greece  and  Spain  had  a  decline  in 
both  GDP  and  road  deaths.  Road  fatalities  decrease  both  in  the 
Member  States  where  GDP  was  mostly  decreasing  and  in  the 
Member States with GDP increase. 

Data for 2010-
2014 does not 
provide clear 
evidence for 
road safety 
effects being 
explained by 
economic 
developments. 

No  conclusion  can  therefore  be  drawn  on  the  extent  to  which  the  financial  situation 
influenced the road safety outcomes negatively or positively since 2010. 

  Ageing population 

A demographic change with the elderly age group slowly becoming a larger share of the 
total  population  at  the  same  time  as  the  young  share  of  the 
population stagnates could have both positive and negative effects.  

Risk taking behaviours are most common within the group of young 
road  users,  who  are  also  the  most  over-represented  age  group 
among  road  fatalities.  When  the  young  people's  share  of  the  total 
population  goes  down,  the  total  number  of  road  deaths  caused  by 
risk-taking behaviours could be assumed to decrease.  

The change in 
shares of age 
groups is likely 
to small to 
explain the road 
death reduction 
2010-2013. 

The group of people aged 65 years or more is less likely to risk-taking behaviour on the 
roads. They may experience new difficulties such as slower reactions or reduced eyesight 
with time; on the other hand they have long experience as drivers. The main effect of the 
ageing society is likely linked to the elderly road users' fragility as victims in road traffic 
crashes. The elderly body is more likely to sustain serious or fatal injuries in the event of 
a  crash.184  The  ageing  society  could  therefore  also  cause  an  increase  in  road  fatalities 
because of an increased average vulnerability of the population. 

The  number  of  young  people  in  the  EU  decreased  by  1.8%  from  2010  to  2013,  likely  a 
too  small change to  be expected to have  major impact on the  road safety  results these 
years. The number of elderly however increased by 4.4% over the same time and could 
possibly  be  assumed  to  have  a  small  effect  on  the  road  safety  outcomes  although 
additional analysis would be needed to determine to what extent and in which direction. 

181   Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-

2020, 12 February 2015, p.21 

182   International Transport Forum, IRTAD Research Report, Road safety and economic development, 2015 
183   The Member States with the five highest and the five lowest fatality rates in 2014 and the Member States 

with the five highest and the five lowest percentage change in road fatalities from 2010 to 2014. The 2014 
GDP was not available for Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and Sweden at the time of the evaluation; 
only figures for 2010-2013 used in these cases. 

184 DaCoTA, Older Drivers, Deliverable 4.8k of the EC FP7 project DaCoTA, 2012, p.22 

54 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
  Climate change 

The weather has a documented influence on road safety, and can affect both crash rate 
and  the  exposure  to  traffic  hazards.  Weather  conditions  can  have  both  positive  and 
negative  effects  on  road  safety.  The  weather  related  problems  differ  widely  between 
countries  depending  on  for  example  climate  zones  and  topography.  For  example,  in 
countries where winters are usually snowy, vehicles and drivers are more often equipped 
to cope with snow on the roads. The climate change is expected to cause more frequent 
extreme weather. 

A  literature  review  was  made  on  previously  studied  correlations  between  weather 
conditions and road safety effects. Many weather conditions may have an influence: fog, 
snow and black ice, low sun, hard wind and high temperatures all have different kinds of 
effects  on  road  traffic.  For  example,  in  warm  weather,  the  number  of  crashes  and  the 
injury severity in reported crashes increases. The most credible reason is that the type of 
weather  influences  the  choice  of  transport  modes.  More  motorcyclists,  cyclists  and 
pedestrians are present in traffic when the weather is good.185  

Most of the studies on weather and road safety focus on rainfall. 
The  literature  indicates  that  there  is  a  correlation  between 
rainfall  and  an  increased  amount  of  crashes.  The  risk  of  a  road 
crash is assessed to be twice as high in rain than on dry  roads, 
linked to decreased visibility and slippery road surface.  

Data for 2010-2014 
does not provide 
clear evidence for 
road safety effects 
being explained by 
extreme weather 
conditions 

For  the  period  2010-2014,  it  has  not  been  possible  to  make  a 
detailed analysis of the potential impact of weather conditions. The weather data is only 
significant  on  local  level  and  for  narrowly  defined  time  periods.  Therefore,  instead  of  a 
large  scale  analysis,  a  specific  case  study  was  made.  Two  sample  cases  of  extreme 
rainfall  were  identified  in  the  European  Climate  Assessment  Dataset186:  Poland  in  July 
2011  and  Austria  in  July  2012.  The  road  fatality  number  in  these  two  cases  was 
compared  with  the  road  fatalities  in  July  in  other  years  to  see  whether  the  extreme 
rainfall had caused any big change in fatal road crashes (see Annex 4).  

No clear result could be found: the rainy July months in Austria and Poland have neither 
the  highest  nor  the  lowest  fatality  numbers.  Instead,  the  road  fatality  levels  in  July  for 
different years coincide more clearly with the road fatality levels for the complete  years 
in these two countries.  

No  conclusion  can  therefore  be  drawn  on  the  extent  to  which  the  weather  conditions 
influenced  the  road  safety  outcomes  negatively  or  positively  since  2010.  In  future 
evaluations of a longer time span this issue might be studied further by analysing more 
detailed local data disaggregated per road user group. 

Unintended positive or negative effects  
Most  respondents  in  the  stakeholder  consultation  did  not  identify  any  unintended 
effects.187  

A  positive  side-effect  mentioned  by  several  stakeholders  was  the  synergies  and  added 
value  thanks  to  the  interaction  between  Member  States.188  The  interaction  and  best-
practice exchange within the UN was also considered to lead to an overall more uniform 
approach  to  road  safety  matters  and  an  increased  interest  in  road  safety  discussions 
among  national  stakeholders.  An  example  is  the  Safe  System  approach  and  target-
setting,  which  are  not  mandatory  but  are  anyway  being  picked  up  by  an  increasing 

185 Swov Fact Sheet, The influence of weather on road safety, Leidschendam, 2012 p.1 
186 Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), European Climate Assessment Dataset: Days with heavy 

precipitation: 10mm or more, http://eca.knmi.nl/; Query on 11 March 2015 

187 See Annex 6: Report from the stakeholder workshop 17 November 2014 
188 Comment by e.g DE, HU, the European Conference of Transport Research Institutes 

55 

 
 
                                                 
 
number  of  Member  States.  These  perceptions  seem  to  be  in  line  with  the  finding  that 
road safety differences between Member States are decreasing. 

One  stakeholder  mentioned  that  a  negative  side-effect  of  EU  road  safety  policy  was  a 
sense of "legislation fatigue" among Member States.189 The perception was that Member 
States are being less receptive to new and important legislative proposals for road safety 
now because they consider that the number of proposals during the last couple of years 
was already quite large. 

The European Federation of Motorcycle Associations considers that the current system for 
regarding motorcyclist training and motorcycle driving licences creates unwanted barriers 
to  motorcycling,  unnecessarily  discouraging  people  from  getting  a  motorcycle  licence. 
The European Federation of Motorcycle Associations  also disagrees with the EU policy of 
gradual  access  to  the  heavier  bikes,  which  they  consider  have  no  safety  benefit.190 
However,  the  risk  of  serious  road  crashes  is  particularly  high  for  novice  riders  younger 
than 24 years on heavy motorcycles. 

These  potential  draw-backs  could  be  further  studied  in  future  evaluations  of  Directive 
2006/126 on driving licences and in the ex-post evaluation of the Policy orientations. 

In  theory,  other  potential  indirect  effects  could  be  expected  on  economy,  environment 
and the public health sector. These have not been possible to be measured: it is too early 
to  expect  this  kind  of  unintended  effect  from  the  EU  actions  2010-2014.  The  possible 
links are only discussed here in general terms, providing a basis for future evaluations. 

Since a large part  of those who die  on the  roads are young people, road traffic crashes 
result in a notable loss of human capital. Improved road safety reduces the loss of work 
force  and  releases  valuable  resources  especially  in  the  health  sector.  The  cost  of  road 
traffic crashes in terms of healthcare, rehabilitation, social security and material damages 
are substantial; every avoided serious crash could be considered a public saving. This is 
further discussed also in Chapter 6.3 below. 

Road safety actions on e.g. vehicle safety design and requirements for safety equipment 
can  also  have  economic  effects  on  households  if  cars  become  more  expensive  or  new 
safety regulations require purchases of new safety equipment for the car, the bike or the 
motorcycle. More strict training requirements can increase the cost of obtaining a driving 
licence.  Increased  requirements  for  periodic  roadworthiness  testing  of  cars  and 
motorcycles create an added cost for both households and companies. 

Increased  demands  on  safety  equipment  for  trucks  and  on  more  training  for  heavy 
vehicle  drivers  also  creates  operation  and  investment  costs  for  companies  in  the  road 
transport sector. At the same time, reduced congestion caused by accidents and reduced 
risk of road crashes increase the efficiency of the road transport sector. Better safety can 
also  lead  to  lower  insurance  costs.  The  focus  on  developing  safer  vehicles  and  new 
cooperative  information  systems  stimulates  innovation  by  vehicle  manufacturers  and 
transport management system developers, which in turn supports economic growth.  

There  could  also  be  environmental  side  effects  of  general  road  safety  improvements. 
Lower  speed  following  improved  traffic  rule  enforcement  and  better  design  of 
infrastructure  leads  to  more  optimal  fuel  consumption  and  lower  emissions.  Fewer  road 
traffic  crashes  contributes  to  less  road  congestion191  with  positive  impact  on  emissions, 
fuel consumption and noise pollution. More on this is discussed in Chapter 6.4 below. 

189 Comment by the European Conference of Transport Research Institutes 
190  Annex 6, Report from the stakeholder workshop 17 November 2014 

191 For example: ECORYS/SWOV, Impact Assessment Road Safety Action Programme, Assessment for mid-term 

review, Final Report, April 2005, p.61 

56 

 
 
                                                 
 
6.3.  Efficiency 

Questions: 

  Were the (expected) effects obtained at a reasonable cost? 

  Could the same results have been achieved at a lower cost by other initiatives? 

This  chapter  has  three  parts.  First  the  overall savings  from  improved  road  safety  in  the 
wider  sense  are  assessed  (all  road  deaths  and  serious  road  traffic  injuries  in  the  EU). 
Then  the  overall  costs  for  this  improved  road  safety  are  estimated  (road  safety 
expenditure in the EU and the Member States). Finally, there is a presentation of specific 
costs  for  implementing  the  Policy  orientation  actions  under  the  Commission  budget  line 
dedicated to this particular policy framework. 

Target/impact – overall savings 
To  put  a  monetary  value  on  a  lost  life  is  ethically  questionable.  Still,  for  statistical 
purposes it can be necessary to make an estimate on average costs of road fatalities and 
serious road injuries.  

The  basis  for  estimating  the  average  costs  in  this  evaluation  is  the  assessed  value  of 
statistical  life.  The  EU  average  value  of  statistical  life  is  estimated  to  be  €1.7  million  in 
the  latest  Update  of  the  Handbook  on  External  Costs  of  Transport.192  The  value  of 
statistical  life  corresponds  to  the  expected  costs  for  the  road  crash  victim  and  the 
relatives  and  friends  of  that  person.  To  this  is  added  the  external  costs  of  a  fatal  crash 
(output loss, material costs, police and medical costs, etc.). These are assessed to be on 
average 10% of the value of statistical life.  

Based on this model, the cost of one fatality is estimated to an average €1.87 million per 
road fatality.  

The estimated average statistical monetary value of a serious road traffic injury is set at 
13% of the fatality cost.  

These  statistical  costs  of  fatalities  and  serious  injuries  have  then  been  refined  by 
calculating the different purchasing power and public cost levels in different EU Member 
States to identify country-specific statistical cost assessments (Table 11). 

192 Ricardo-AEA, Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport, Report for the European Commission 

DG MOVE, 8 January 2014 

57 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 11: Average social costs at market prices (PPP) in euro, 2010193 

Using this calculation method, cost savings can be analysed from 2010-2013. The cost of 
all fatal road traffic crashes in 2010 amounted to €55 billion. That is the amount the EU 
spends  in  one  year  on  the  entire  budget  heading  Sustainable  growth:  natural  resources 
(environment, agriculture and fishing).194  

In 2014, the cost of all fatal road traffic crashes amounts to €46 billion, a 17% decrease 
compared to the baseline year. The number of fatalities decreases slightly more than the 
estimated  costs  over  this  time  period  since  the  decrease  of  fatalities  has  been  uneven 
among Member States.  

The cost of all reported serious road traffic injuries in 2010 amounted to €61 billion and 
to €54 billion in 2014. This is an 11% decrease of the costs.  

For the total number of fatal and serious road injuries, the yearly 
statistical costs are therefore €17.5 billion lower today than four 
years ago. 

Table  12  shows  the  estimated  statistical  costs  per  year  and  the 
cost  reduction over time. However, it should be noted that for  a 

The annual 
statistical costs for 
fatalities and serious 
road injuries are 
€17.5 billion lower 
today than four 
years ago. 

193 Ricardo-AEA, Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport, Report for the European Commission 

DG MOVE, 8 January 2014 

194 General Budget of the European Union for the Financial Year 2014, Official Journal of the European Union, 

volume 57, 20 February 2014, p10 

58 

 
 
 
                                                 
proper  cost-benefit  analysis,  the  annual  costs  should  not  only  be  compared  to  previous 
years  but  to  a  scenario  without  any  road  safety  actions  at  all.  A  useful  and  accurate 
estimate of such a counter-factual scenario was not possible to make in this evaluation. 

Table 12 Statistical costs of road deaths and serious injuries 2010-2014 (billion €) 

Year 

2010 

2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 

Costs for 
fatalities and 
seriously injured 

€116, 5 billion 

€116 billion 
€107, 6 billion 
€99,6 billion 
€99 billion 

Reduction from 
previous year 

Reduction from 
2010 

- 
€0,5 billion 
€8,4 billion 
€8 billion 
€0,6 billion 

- 
€0,5 billion 
€8,9 billion 
€16,9 billion 
€17,5 billion 

Finally,  the  technical  study  concluded  that  the  "benefit-to-cost  assessment  may  not 
always  the  best  tool  to  determine  priorities  for  resource  allocation  and  harmonisation. 
Measures which prevent the largest number of road deaths and serious injuries may have 
a lower benefit-to-cost ratio than measures with higher benefit-to-cost ratio addressing a 
smaller number".195 

Target/impact – overall EU-wide spending 
The overall impacts on road safety 2010-2014 are assumed to be the result primarily of 
the EU actions during last decade together with Member State actions since 2010. 

The  costs  at  EU  level  are  very  low  compared  to  the  Member  States'  costs  for 
implementation of road safety actions. The main costs for Member States are related to 
safety  investment  in  infrastructure  and  to  implementation  of  regulations,  enforcement 
and education actions.196 

There are great variations in terms of road safety expenditure across the Member States. 
A  general  estimation  of  expenditure  on  road  safety  is  hard  to  achieve.  Among  the 
reasons are that road safety expenditure is not always clearly earmarked as such but can 
be  embedded  into  total  project  or  policy  costs.  Road  safety  actions  are  carried  out  by 
several  different  responsible  authorities  and  expenditures  therefore  come  from  several 
budget  lines  (e.g.  road  infrastructure  maintenance,  police  enforcement  actions, 
information campaigns) on several levels.  

Organisation  of  the  work  also  differs  between  Member  States  with  different  degree  of 
centralisation and allocation of responsibility and budgets for e.g. local, sub-national and 
national  level.  Expenditure  includes  both  running  operational  costs  and  investments  in 
new  initiatives.  Member  States  do  not  report  on  their  levels  of  road  safety  spending  to 
the Commission. 

A review of information published by Member States yielded no comparable or complete 
information on their spending on road safety.  

The  literature  review  identified  a  study  by  the  World  Health  Organisation  from  2009 
which concluded that Member States spend very different amounts on implementing road 
safety strategies; on average 8.5 euros per person per year. However, these figures are 
based  on  samples  from  only  eight  countries.197  The  European  Transport  Safety  Council 

195 Jeanne Breen, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020, 

12 February 2015, p.6 

196 ECORYS/SWOV, Impact Assessment Road Safety Action Programme, Assessment for mid-term review, Final 

Report, April 2005, p.63-64 

197 World Health Organisation, European status report on road safety: Towards safer roads and healthier 

transport choices, Copenhagen, 2009  

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
did  a  similar  study  in  2012  based  on  questionnaires  to  Member  States.  They  received 
replies from only four countries, reporting assessments ranging from 0.04 to 8 euros per 
capita and year.198 

Departing  from  the  World  Health  Organisation  findings,  a  very 
rough  estimate  could  be  made.  With  an  average  of  8.5  euros  per 
capita,  the  total  EU  expenditure  per  year  would  be  at  least  €4.3 
billion  for  the  28  Member  States  or  €17.2  billion  for  the  entire 
period  2011-2014.  This  figure  is  neither  specific  nor  reliable  but 
provides a rough assumption. 

The total annual 
EU road safety 
expenditure is 
assessed to be at 
least €4.3 billion 
for the 28 
Member States. 

Road safety investments are not only necessary to further reduce costs and the number 
of  road  deaths  but  also  to  keep  the  number  of  deaths  and  injuries  down.  A  substantial 
part of the road safety costs are for the never-ending tasks such as enforcement of rules, 
maintenance and inspections of the roads and education of the road users. 

Costs  for  implementation  of  EU  legislation  generally  differ  somewhat  between  Member 
States  since  some  Member  States  already  have  the  higher  standards  in  place  for  e.g. 
roadworthiness  testing  or  professional  drivers'  training.  Others  will  have  higher 
investment costs for adapting to the common EU minimum requirements. Costs can also 
differ between Member States because of the length of the road network or the level of 
ambition in road safety work. 

These  investments  also  contribute  to  other  objectives  such  as  reduction  of  congestion, 
smooth  and  efficient  mobility  facilitating  jobs  and  growth,  and  environmental  objectives 
e.g.  via  roadworthiness  testing  of  emissions  levels  or  eco-driving  in  driving  licence 
trainings. 

Costs for actions/operational objectives  
The  Commission  General  budget  addresses  road  safety  primarily  within  budget  item 
060205:  "Support  activities  to  the  European  transport  policy  and  passenger  rights 
including communication activities".199  

This is the budget line for expenses linked to the follow-up of the Policy orientations and 
therefore  the  budget  relevant  for  this  part  of  the  evaluation.  It  covers  funding  for 
projects, impact assessments, studies, implementation aspects of legislation, support for 
knowledge and data systems such as the CARE database and the European Road Safety 
Observatory.  

The  average  spending  on  road  safety  actions  within  this  budget  item  has  been 
approximately €3.55 million per year since 2011. 

For the specific actions since 2011, some costs are also expected for the Member States, 
the industry or citizens.  

A  summary  of  identified  cost  assessments  is  found  in  Table  13,  together  with  a 
qualitative  analysis  of  possible  cost  savings  by  using  other  EU  measures  to  reach  the 
same result. A discussion on the possible results of using only national measures follows 
in Chapter 6.5. 

198 European Transport Safety Council, A Challenging Start towards the EU 2020 Road Safety Target, 6th Road 

Safety PIN Report, June 2012 

199 General Budget of the European Union for the Financial Year 2014, Official Journal of the European Union, 
volume 57, 20 February 2014, p. II/337 

60 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table 13: Assessment of EU action costs 2011-2014 

EU inputs/outputs 
by February 2015 

The Directive 
2006/126/EC on 
driving licences 
entered fully into 
force on 19 
January 2013. 

Achievements by 2015 

Cost of output/ 
implementation 

Raised minimum 
standards for driver 
training and testing: 
minimum standards for 
driving examiners in all 
Member States as from on 
19 January 2013. 

Cost not identified: 
possible increase in costs 
for citizens and drivers as 
a result of more thorough 
testing. 

Progressive access of 
young people to the 
heaviest motorcycles in all 
Member States as from 19 
January 2013. 

Cost not identified:  
possible increase in costs 
for citizens and drivers as 
a result of more thorough 
testing/training 

In 2012, 
obligatory testing 
on the competence 
to drive in a safe, 
economically and 
environmentally 
friendly way was 
introduced.200 
Periodic training 
for the Certificate 
of Professional 
Competence has 
started in most 
Member States 

Raised minimum 
standards for driver 
training and testing: more 
thorough testing of heavy 
vehicle drivers as from 1 
January 2014. 

Cost not identified: 
possible increase in costs 
for companies and drivers 
as a result of more 
thorough testing. 

Raised minimum 
standards for training of 
professional drivers 

Cost not identified: 
possible increase in costs 
for companies and drivers 
as a result of more 
thorough training. 

Directive 
2015/413 on 
cross-border 
information 
exchange for the 
enforcement of 
road safety related 
traffic offences 
adopted on 11 
March 2015. 

Non-resident drivers can 
be penalised for dangerous 
road traffic offences as 
from 6 May 2015 in all 
Member States except 
Denmark, Ireland and the 
UK where the Directive is 
to be transposed at the 
latest by 6 May 2017. 

Evaluation studies 
on speed 
limiters202 and 

Studies completed and 
used as input into on-
going review of the 

The total costs for the EU 
were globally assessed at 
€5-10 million plus an 
annual cost of €5-6.5 
million for added 
operational costs for 
enforcement201; the costs 
are to some degree 
covered by the increased 
amount of fines expected 
to be paid by the offending 
drivers. 
No implementation cost; 
cost of studies €124 616 
and €250 000 respectively. 

Alternative 
options: other 
tools 
EU-level 
intervention by 
non-binding 
action could 
have been done 
but would not 
have 
guaranteed an 
as broad 
uptake. 
Non-binding 
action would 
not have 
guaranteed an 
equal 
application of 
the rules across 
the EU. 
EU-level 
intervention by 
non-binding 
action would 
not have 
guaranteed an 
as broad 
uptake. 
EU-level 
intervention by 
non-binding 
action could 
have been done 
but would not 
have 
guaranteed an 
as broad 
uptake. 

EU-level 
intervention by 
non-binding 
action could 
have been done 
but would not 
have 
guaranteed as 
broad and quick 
uptake. 

Not applicable 

200 Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences 
201 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament 
and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety: full impact assessment, 
SEC(2008) 351/2, p.27 

202 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Ex-post evaluation of Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed 
limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community, as amended by Directive 
2002/85/EC, 9 August 2013, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/vehicles/speed_limitation_evaluation_en.pdf  

61 

 
 
 
                                                 
EU inputs/outputs 
by February 2015 

alcohol 
interlocks203 were 
completed in 
2013.  
Enforcement 
planning discussed 
in road safety plan 
guidelines 
document 
published 2013. 

The infrastructure 
directive principles 
already apply 
mandatorily on 
TEN-T roads. 

No formal 
conditionality but 
strong 
encouragement of 
applying the 
principles beyond 
the TEN-T roads 
included in 
partnership 
agreements and 
operational 
programmes.  
Active promotion 
of the 
infrastructure 
safety 
management 
principles by the 
Commission in 
communication 
with stakeholders. 
Regulation (EU) 
168/2013 on type 
approval for two-
and three-wheeled 
vehicles has been 
revised. 

Achievements by 2015 

Cost of output/ 
implementation 

General Safety Regulation 
661/2009.  

No concrete result 
identified yet. 

No cost expected 

EU-funded TEN-T road 
projects are managed in 
line with the infrastructure 
safety principles.  

At least one road 
infrastructure safety 
management procedure is 
also applied beyond the 
TEN-T road network in at 
least two thirds of the 
Member States204 

Member States do not 
report on costs and 
benefits of applying the 
road infrastructure safety 
management principles205, 
but rough average cost 
estimates are:  
Impact assessments, <1% 
of total project cost 
Audits, €8500/km road 
Inspections, €8700/km 
road 
Network safety 
management €230/km 
road206 

More safety measures 
such as ABS in all new 
motorcycles as from 1 
January 2016.  

ACEM assessment of cost 
of equipping one 
motorcycle with ABS: 
€230-530.207 

Possible higher costs for 
consumers when vehicles 
are fitted with more 
expensive equipment. 

Alternative 
options: other 
tools 

For harmonised 
format and 
minimum 
standards an 
EU-level 
discussion is 
required but not 
necessarily in 
binding format. 
For TEN-T 
roads: EU-level 
intervention by 
non-binding 
action could 
have been done 
but would not 
have 
guaranteed as 
broad and quick 
uptake. 

For application 
of the principles 
beyond the 
TEN-T roads: 
legislation could 
be an option for 
broader and 
more equal 
application 
across the EU 

EU-level 
intervention by 
non-binding 
action unlikely 
to achieve the 
same result. 

203 Ecorys/COWI, Study on the prevention of drink-driving by the use of alcohol interlock devices, 18 February 

2014, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/behavior/study_alcohol_interlock.pdf 

204 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Study on the effectiveness and on the improvement of the EU legislative 

framework on road infrastructure safety management (Directive 2008/96/EC), 5 December 2014, p.26 and 
p.49 

205 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Study on the effectiveness and on the improvement of the EU legislative 

framework on road infrastructure safety management (Directive 2008/96/EC), 5 December 2014, p.7 
206 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Study on the effectiveness and on the improvement of the EU legislative 
framework on road infrastructure safety management (Directive 2008/96/EC), 5 December 2014, p.53 
207 ACEM, Press release 28 February 2012, http://www.acem.eu/index.php/media-corner/press-releases/84-

motorcycle-industry-deplores-that-imco-impact-assessment-did-not-cast-any-light-on-the-effects-of-new-
motorcycle-legislation 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Alternative 
options: other 
tools 

EU-level 
intervention by 
non-binding 
action would 
not have 
guaranteed an 
as broad 
uptake. 

Not applicable 

EU-level 
intervention by 
non-binding 
action unlikely 
to achieve the 
same result. 
EU-level 
intervention by 
non-binding 
action unlikely 
to achieve the 
same result. 

EU inputs/outputs 
by February 2015 

Achievements by 2015 

Cost of output/ 
implementation 

More thorough and 
efficient checking of 
vehicles in all Member 
States as from 20 May 
2018. 

Implementation by 
Member States: 
approximately €3347 
million.208  

Possible higher costs for 
consumers and companies 
when vehicles require 
more frequent and 
thorough testing. 

Information contributed as 
input into on-going review 
of the General Safety 
Regulation 661/2009. 

Cost not identified for the 
possible future revisions of 
the General Safety 
Regulation. 

Cost of EDR study: €99 
750 

Cost not identified. 

Costs identified in impact 
assessment Annex II 
tables 1 and 3 
SEC(2008)1908, €2600 for 
heavy vehicles and €1290 
for light vehicles (when 
previously not fitted), 
possible higher costs for 
consumers and companies 
when vehicles are fitted 
with more expensive 
equipment.210 

Harmonised rules on 
vehicle electric safety 
apply in all Member States 
as from 4 December 2012 

All new cars equipped with 
Electronic Stability Control 
and Tyre Pressure 
Monitoring System since 1 
November 2014, was 
phased in over 2-3 years. 
All new heavy goods and 
passenger vehicles 
equipped with Lane 
Departure Warning and 
Advanced Emergency 
Braking, phased in as from 
1 November 2013 to 1 
November 2015.  
Public infrastructure for 
eCall to be ready no later 
than 1 October 2017. 

Updated Directives 
on periodic 
roadworthiness 
testing, roadside 
checks on 
commercial 
vehicles and 
registration 
documents for 
vehicles adopted 
on 3 April 2014. 
Staff working 
document adopted 
on 3 October 
2014209.A study on 
Event Data 
Recorders was 
completed in 
2014. 
Regulation (EU) 
407/2011 on 
vehicle electric 
safety has been 
adopted. 

Implementing 
measures of the 
General Safety 
Regulation have 
been adopted. 

Decision No 
585/2014/EU on 
the deployment of 
the interoperable 
EU-wide eCall 
service was 
adopted in May 
2014. Proposal on 
mandatory fitting 
of eCall in cars 

Costs for Member States to 
upgrade their public 
emergency call 
infrastructure (extent of 
costs not identified). 

Unsatisfactory 
results with 
only non-
binding rules.  

Possible higher costs for 
consumers and companies 
when vehicles are fitted 
with more expensive 

208 Commission Staff Working Document: Impact assessment on the Roadworthiness package, SWD(2012)206 

final 2, Brussels, 13 July 2012 

209 Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the European 

Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of vehicle technologies to 
improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297, Brussels, 3 October 2014 

210 Between 1993 and 2011, the Commission published the annual "Report on car prices within the European 

Union" ("Car Price Report"). This report has however been discontinued and an overview of the 
development of vehicle prices in the EU since 2011 is not available at the time of this evaluation. In the last 
decade, vehicle prices generally decreased; for example 2009-2010 the real car prices (adjusted for 
inflation) decreased EU-wide by 2.5%: Commission Car price report 2011, 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/motor_vehicles/prices/archive.html  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EU inputs/outputs 
by February 2015 

and light goods 
vehicles is 
discussed. 
Common EU 
definition defined, 
methodology for 
data reporting 
agreed and first 
new data to be 
reported during 
first half of 2015 

Analysis of 
emergency brake 
systems/pedestria
n detection in the 
Staff working 
document adopted 
on 3 October 
2014211. 
Updated Directive 
on periodic 
roadworthiness 
testing adopted on 
3 April 2014, 
provides for 
technical 
inspections of 
motorcycles. 
Recommendations 
on road safety in 
sustainable urban 
mobility planning 
adopted on 17 
December 2013. 

Regular 
publication of 
updated road 
safety facts and 
figures on the 
Commission road 
safety website. 
Setting up of the 
Going Abroad 
website. 

Achievements by 2015 

Cost of output/ 
implementation 

equipment. 

New data arrival enables 
cost-benefit analysis on 
serious road injuries for 
possible future measures 
to reduce severity of crash 
outcomes. 

Cost not identified: 
Member State may have 
administrative costs for 
transforming the data 
collection process. 

Information contributed 
for the on-going review of 
the General Safety 
Regulation 661/2009. 

Motorcycles to undergo 
periodic technical 
inspections in all212 
Member States as from 20 
May 2018. 

No concrete result 
identified yet. 

Safety information is 
accessible to road users: 
The European Commission 
website has more than 2 
million page views per 
year. 

Safety information is 
accessible to road users: 
more than 225 000 page 
views of the Commission 
Going Abroad website 
during 2014. 

Cost not identified: 
possible future higher 
costs for consumers and 
companies if vehicles are 
fitted with more expensive 
equipment. 

Cost not identified: 
possible higher costs for 
consumers in the Member 
States where motorcycles 
require more frequent and 
thorough testing following 
the new legislation. 

Cost not identified: 
local authorities may have 
future costs for 
implementing the 
sustainable urban mobility 
plans, including 
development of safe 
infrastructure for 
vulnerable road users. 
Approximately €260 000 
for 2011-2014.  

No costs for Member 
States, citizens or 
companies. 

Costs are part of the 
overall website 
management costs 
mentioned above. 

No costs for Member 
States, citizens or 
companies. 
€132,000 for developing 
the app. 

Alternative 
options: other 
tools 

Legislative 
action could 
have been 
considered but 
would have 
taken longer 
and would not 
necessarily 
have yielded 
better result. 
Not applicable 

EU-level 
intervention by 
non-binding 
action would 
not have 
guaranteed an 
as broad 
uptake. 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Launch of the 
Going Abroad 

Safety information is 
accessible to road users: 

211 Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the European 

Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of vehicle technologies to 
improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297, Brussels, 3 October 2014 

212 Member States can decide not to implement this rule only if they undertake other actions rendering similar 

results for safety of motorcyclists 

64 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
EU inputs/outputs 
by February 2015 

information app in 
June 2014. 

Running the web-
platform 
"European Road 
Safety Charter" 

Achievements by 2015 

Cost of output/ 
implementation 

Alternative 
options: other 
tools 

more than 73 000 
downloads of the Going 
Abroad app by February 
2015. 

Safety information is 
accessible to road users: 
The "European Road 
Safety Charter" has 
around 42,000 visits per 
year.  

No costs for Member 
States, citizens or 
companies. 

€899 500 for 2013-2015. 

Not applicable 

No costs for Member 
States, citizens or 
companies. 

In  addition  to  the  specific  Policy  orientations  budget,  transport  safety  issues  are 
mentioned  as  one  of  the  objectives  for  budget  item  06020103  under  the  Connecting 
Europe  Facility:  "Optimising  the  integration  and  interconnection  of  transport  modes  and 
enhancing  the  interoperability,  safety  and  security  of  transport"213  and  for  budget  item 
08020304 under Horizon 2020: "Achieving a European transport system that is resource-
efficient,  environmentally  friendly,  safe  and  seamless"214.  Other  EU  funds  can  also  have 
road safety effects, for example grants from the European Regional Development Fund or 
the Cohesion Fund to road infrastructure projects. 

6.4.  Coherence 

Question: 

  Do the EU road safety policy objectives contradict or complement other EU policy 

objectives (e.g. environmental, social or economic)? 

The road safety target of halving the number of road deaths and the road safety actions 
that  have  been  described  above  have  been  matched  against  key  policy  objectives  in 
other EU policy areas. A literature review was done on the possible correlations between 
the road safety objectives and EU economic, social and environmental objectives.  

While  no  direct  contradictions  were  found,  some  potential  indirect  inconsistencies  could 
be identified, as discussed below. 

Economic policy objectives 
In  the  area  of  economic  policy,  the  Commission  has  a  clear  commitment  to  economic 
growth and development. 

There  has  been  a  positive  correlation  between  the  long-term  economic  growth  in  EU 
Member States and the improved road safety215. The mechanisms involved include better 
maintained  roads,  safer  vehicles  and  more  investments  in  road  user  education  and 
enforcement of the traffic rules.  

However, in the short term, economic development can  also work the other way  round. 
Recent  studies  have  shown  that,  other  things  being  equal,  an 
annual  decrease  of  GDP  per  capita  seems  to  lead  to  an  annual 

Economic growth 
does not always 
result in better 
road safety in the 
short term. 

213 General Budget of the European Union for the Financial Year 2014, Official Journal of the European Union, 

volume 57, 20 February 2014, p. II/332 

214 General Budget of the European Union for the Financial Year 2014, Official Journal of the European Union, 

volume 57, 20 February 2014, p. II/416 

215  Yannis et.al., Effect on GDP changes on road traffic fatalities, Safety Science 63, 2014, p. 47 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
decrease  in  mortality  rates.216  The  main  explanation  for  the  negative  relation  between 
economy and road safety is the reduction of traffic in recession years. Other likely factors 
involved  are  reduction  of  speed  (mainly  because  of  increased  fuel  prices)  and  reduction 
in risky behaviours as young people will have less access to cars.217 

One study concludes that "Overall, it is expected that, although traffic fatality trends will 
continue  to  decrease  over  time,  as  the  overall  level  of  prosperity  of  European  countries 
and  the  road  safety  awareness,  culture  and  policy  efforts  increase,  at  periods  of 
economic  recession  there  may  be  important  road  safety  additional  ‘‘benefits’’".218  This 
means that, on average, good economic development leads to road safety improvement 
but short-term economic recession can lead to even larger road safety gains. 

It could therefore be the case that, in the short-term, the EU policy objective of economic 
growth  may  be  in  contradiction  to  the  target  of  increased  road  safety,  even  though 
economic growth is conducive to improved road safety on the long term. 

Improved  road  safety  leads  to  cost  savings,  releasing  funds  that  could  instead  be  used 
for  investments  in  jobs  and  growth.  The  World  Health  Organisation  estimates  that  the 
road traffic crashes in the EU generate costs of 1-2% of annual EU GDP per year.219 With 
calculations  based  on  the  estimated  average  statistical  value  of  life  (see  Chapter  6.3.1 
above),  the  25,700  road  deaths  in  2014 in  the  EU  resulted  in  an  estimated  cost  of  €46 
billion. In addition, the costs of the 220,000 serious road traffic injuries amount to almost 
€54 billion every year.220  

There  is  therefore  a  complex  relation  between  economic  development  and  road  safety 
but  mainly  a  clear  complementarity  between  the  economic  and  the  road  safety 
objectives. 

Environmental policy objectives 
EU  environmental  policy  includes  objectives  relating  to  reduced  fuel  consumption  and 
lower  greenhouse  gas  emissions.221  The  Commission  also  aims  to  prevent  and  reduce 
harmful effects of environmental noise.222 

The level of exhaust emissions (mainly carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons 
and particulate matters) and the level of fuel consumption are closely  related to vehicle 
speed.223  Emission  levels  and  fuel  consumption  are  generally  at  the  lowest  around 
medium speeds (40-90km/h according to the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and 
Development,  OECD224).  Reducing  higher  speed  leads  to  reduced  fuel  consumption.  A 

216  International Transport Forum, IRTAD Research Report, Road safety and economic development, 2015, p. 

14; Yannis et.al., Effect on GDP changes on road traffic fatalities, Safety Science 63 (2014), p. 47 
217  International Transport Forum, IRTAD Research Report, Road safety and economic development, 2015 
218  Yannis et.al., Effect on GDP changes on road traffic fatalities, Safety Science 63 (2014), p. 49 
219  World Health Organisation, World report on road traffic injury prevention, 2004; World Health Organisation, 

European facts and global status report on road safety 2013, p.2 

220  Ricardo-AEA, Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport, Report for the European Commission 

DG MOVE, 8 January 2014 

221   E.g. Commission White Paper, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and 

resource efficient transport system, COM(2011)144 final, Brussels, 28 March 2011; Commission 
Communication, Energy 2020: A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy, COM/2010/0639 
final, 10 November 2010; Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 April 2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community's 
integrated approach to reduce CO 2 emissions from light-duty vehicles, 5 June 2009; European Council 
Conclusions on 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework, 23 October 2014 

222   Directive 2002/49/EC on the assessment and management of environmental noise, 25 June 2002 
223  OECD, Speed Management, 2006, p. 31; p.43; DaCoTA, Integration of road safety in other policy areas: 
synergies and conflicts, 2013, p.6; Juha Luoma and Michael Sivak, Interactions of Environmental and 
Safety Measures for Sustainable Road Transport, January 2011, Report no UMTRI-2011-3, The University 
of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, p.15 

224  OECD, Speed Management, 2006, p.43; also Juha Luoma and Michael Sivak, Interactions of Environmental 

and Safety Measures for Sustainable Road Transport, January 2011, Report no UMTRI-2011-3, The 
University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, p.15 

66 

 
 
                                                 
reduction  from  110  km/h  to  90  km/h  was  found  to  lead  to  a  23%  decrease  in  fuel 
consumption.225 

Speed  is  also  an  important  determinant  in  road  safety.  OECD  found  that  speed  is 
generally  one  of  the  top  three  road  safety  problems  in  their  member  countries,  a 
contributing  and  aggravating  factor  in  about  one  third  of  accidents.226  In  general,  the 
number and severity of road traffic accidents rise as speed increases.227 

For speeds above 90 km/h there is therefore a clear synergy between the environmental 
objectives and the road safety objectives.228 

At  low  speeds  under  30  km/h,  however,  the  risk  of  serious  road  crashes  is  drastically 
reduced  and  the  noise  levels  decrease  but  the  green-house  gas  emissions  and  the  fuel 
consumption  are  high229,  at  least  with  traditional  combustion  engines.  CO  and  CO2 
emissions in terms of g/km travelled are highest at very low travel speeds (15 km/h or 
less)  with  these  vehicles.  This  potential  contradiction  could  be  reduced  with  the  shift  to 
more sustainable urban transport, in line with EU objectives.230 

Also driving style has an impact on road safety, fuel consumptions 
and  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  OECD  found  that  an  aggressive 
driving  style  usually  leads  to  approximately  30%  increase  in  fuel 
consumption.231 
in  Directive 
2006/126/EC  on  driving  licences232  and  Directive  2003/59/EC 
qualifications and training of professional drivers233, is therefore an 
example of an action leading to fulfilment of both road safety and 
environmental policy objectives. 

Eco-driving, 

promoted 

as 

Environment and 
road safety policy 
objectives are 
mostly 
complementary to 
each other. 

Finally,  the  modal  shift  from  road  transport  to  more  eco-friendly  transport  modes  is 
expected to have positive effects also on safety: lower vehicle exposure on roads leading 
to less crash risk.234 

The  possible  exception  is  the  shift  from  cars  to  bicycles  in  urban  areas.235  Cyclists  face 
higher  risk  of  fatal  or  serious  road  injuries  than  car  occupants.  The  European  Transport 
Safety  Council  has  estimated  that  cycling  and  walking  have  on  average  a  7  to  9  times 
higher  fatality  risk  per  distance  travelled  than  car  travel.236  However,  other  researchers 
conclude  that  the  number  of  fatal  road  crashes  involving  cyclists  will  depend  on  who 
makes  the  switch:  if  young  car  drivers  switched  to  a  bicycle,  it  would  decrease  the 

225  OECD, Speed Management, 2006, p.44 
226  OECD, Speed Management, 2006, p.31 
227  OECD, Speed Management, 2006, p.35 
228  DaCoTA, Integration of road safety in other policy areas: synergies and conflicts, 2013, P.6. 
229  OECD, Speed Management, 2006, p.43-44; Juha Luoma and Michael Sivak, Interactions of Environmental 

and Safety Measures for Sustainable Road Transport, January 2011, Report no UMTRI-2011-3, The 
University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, p.15 

230   Commission White Paper, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and 
resource efficient transport system, COM(2011)144 final, Brussels, 28 March 2011; Commission 
Communication, A European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles, COM(2010)186 final, 28 April 
2010 

231  OECD, Speed Management, 2006, p.43-44 
232  Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences (Recast), Brussels, 20 December 2006, Annex II, Art. 8.4 and 

9.3.2 

233  Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for 

the carriage of goods or passengers, Brussels 15 July 2003: Annex 1, Section 1, Article 1.3  

234  Juha Luoma and Michael Sivak, Interactions of Environmental and Safety Measures for Sustainable Road 
Transport, January 2011, Report no UMTRI-2011-3, The University of Michigan, Transportation Research 
Institute, p.7 

235  Juha Luoma and Michael Sivak, Interactions of Environmental and Safety Measures for Sustainable Road 
Transport, January 2011, Report no UMTRI-2011-3, The University of Michigan, Transportation Research 
Institute, p.21; DaCoTA, Integration of road safety in other policy areas: synergies and conflicts, 2013, 
p.12 

236  European Transport Safety Council, Transport safety performance in the EU: A statistical overview, 2003, 

p.7 

67 

 
 
                                                 
number  of  fatal  accidents  whereas  the  opposite  was  found  to  be  true  for  elderly  car 
drivers.237  The  risk  can  also  be  mitigated  with  targeted  action  to  increase  safety  for 
cyclists. 

There  are  therefore  indicators  to  show  that,  while  the  environmental  and  road  safety 
policy  objectives  are  often  complementary  to  each  other,  there  are  some  areas  where 
they might be in contradiction unless actions are taken to reduce the risks. 

Social and health policy objectives 
Within  the  public  health  area,  the  EU  has  adopted  a  strategy  on  alcohol  abuse.  One  of 
the main priorities of the strategy is to "reduce injuries and deaths from alcohol related 
road traffic accidents".238 One of the operational objectives of the EU-level action plan is 
to "reduce alcohol related traffic accidents".239 

There  is  also  a  strategy  against  drug  abuse  for  the  time  period  2013-2020.240  The 
strategy  targets  drug  use  generally  with  no  specific  mention  of  drug  driving.  The  drug 
strategy  is  accompanied  by  a  specific  action  plan  with  reduced 
number of drug-driving incidents clearly mentioned as a goal.241 

Estimates  are  difficult  to  make  since  data  is  not  collected  in  a 
comparable  and  complete  manner  but  a  rough  assessment  is  that 
alcohol  is  a  contributing  factor  in  approximately  25%  percent  of  all 
fatal  road  traffic  crashes242;  drugs  cause  a  much  smaller  share  of 
fatal  crashes  but  is  also  considered  an  upcoming  problem243.  The 
efforts to reduce alcohol and drug abuse will therefore also benefit EU road safety. 

Health policy 
objectives on 
alcohol and drugs 
support the road 
safety objectives. 

Finally,  the  legislation  on  qualifications  and  training  of  professional  drivers  has  been 
found  to  contribute  not  only  to  road  safety  but  also  to  some  degree  to  making  the 
profession as such more attractive thanks to the link with other schooling.244 

6.5.  EU Added Value 

Questions:  

  To what extent could the results brought about by the EU actions have been 

achieved by Member States at national and/or regional level? Would it have been 
possible to achieve the same results without the EU intervention? 

Several of the actions under the EU Policy orientations could in principle have been done 
also on Member States level but would then have been unlikely to have EU-wide benefits.  

For  example,  information  to  citizens,  national  decisions  to  upgrade  the  minimum 
standards on roadworthiness testing or evaluation on in-vehicle safety systems can also 
be done by Member States themselves.  However, if relying only on the Member States, 

237  Jeroen Johan de Hartog, Hanna Boogaard, Hans Nijland, and Gerard Hoek, Do the Health Benefits of 

Cycling Outweigh the Risks? from Environmental Health Perspectives, volume 118, number 8, August 2010, 
p.1112 

238 Communication from the Commission, An EU strategy to support Member States in reducing alcohol related 

harm, COM/2006/0625 final, Brussels, 24 October 2006 

239 Action Plan on Youth Drinking and on Heavy Episodic Drinking (Binge Drinking) (2014-2016) endorsed by 

the Committee on National Alcohol Policy and Action (CNAPA), 16 September 2014 

240 Council Recommendation, EU Drugs Strategy 2013-20, (2012/C 402/01), Brussels, 29 December 2012 
241 Council Notice, EU Action plan on drugs 2013-2016, (2013/C 351/01), Brussels, 30 November 2013 
242 Ecorys/COWI, Study on the prevention of drink-driving by the use of alcohol interlock devices, 18 February 

2014, p.34 

243 Druid project, Final Report: Work performed, main results and recommendations, 1 August 2012, p.80 
244 Panteia and Transport Mobility Leuven, Ex-post evaluation study report: Study on the effectiveness and 
improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of professional drivers, 13 October 2014 

68 

 
 
                                                 
 
there would be no guarantee of an equally broad reach of the outputs or an equal access 
for EU citizens to the road safety benefits.  

Whereas  some  Member  States  already  performed  such  actions  or  applied  higher  safety 
standards than those prescribed by the EU legislation, other Member States would likely 
not have developed the same level of safety in the same time span without the EU input. 
Differences  between  Member  States  would  therefore  likely  have 
remained larger without EU intervention. 

In  other  cases,  for  example  the  Directive  2015/413  on  cross-
border  enforcement,  the  alternative  solution  to  EU  action  would 
have been a large number of cumbersome bilateral agreements.  

Setting  of  technical  standards  especially  on  e-Call  or  type 
approval can only be done on EU level in order to support a well-
functioning single market. 

Many actions under 
the Policy 
orientations could 
also have been 
undertaken by the 
Member States but 
without the EU-wide 
reach of road safety 
benefits. 

As discussed in Chapter 6.2 above, the EU acquis and road safety policy as a whole has 
also  worked  as  a  driver  for  enhanced  road  safety  in  new  Member  States  following 
accession; this is a clear added value of EU road safety work which could not be achieved 
by other means. 

Table 14 summarises more detailed comments on possible options for alternative actions 
on Member States' level. 

Table 14: Assessment of alternatives to EU intervention 

EU inputs/outputs by 
February 2015 
The Directive 
2006/126/EC on 
driving licences entered 
fully into force on 19 
January 2013. 

In 2012, obligatory 
testing on the 
competence to drive in 
a safe, economically 
and environmentally 
friendly way for truck 
and bus drivers was 
introduced. 
Periodic training for the 
Certificate of 
Professional 
Competence has 
started in most 
Member States 
Directive 2015/413 on 
cross-border 
information exchange 
for the enforcement of 
road safety related 
traffic offences adopted 
on 11 March 2015. 

Achievements by 2015 

Raised minimum standards for 
driver training and testing: 
minimum standards for driving 
examiners in all Member States 
as from on 19 January 2013. 
Progressive access of young 
people to the heaviest 
motorcycles in all Member States 
as from 19 January 2013. 
Raised minimum standards for 
driver training and testing: more 
thorough testing of heavy vehicle 
drivers as from 1 January 
2014245. 

Alternative options: no 
EU intervention 
A harmonised standard across all 
Member States could not have been 
guaranteed without EU-level 
intervention. 

A harmonised standard across all 
Member States could not have been 
guaranteed without EU-level 
intervention. 
A harmonised standard across all 
Member States could not have been 
guaranteed without EU-level 
intervention. 

Raised minimum standards for 
training of professional drivers 

A harmonised standard across all 
Member States could not have been 
guaranteed without EU-level 
intervention. 

Non-resident drivers can be 
penalised for dangerous road 
traffic offences as from 6 May 
2015 in all Member States 
except Denmark, Ireland and the 
UK where the Directive is to be 
transposed at the latest by 6 
May 2017. 

An information exchange system 
including all Member States could 
have been achieved without EU-level 
intervention through a large number 
of bilateral agreements. 

245 Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EU inputs/outputs by 
February 2015 
Evaluation studies on 
speed limiters246 and 
alcohol interlocks247 
completed in 2013.  
Enforcement planning 
discussed in road 
safety plan guidelines 
document published 
2013. 
The infrastructure 
directive principles 
already apply 
mandatorily on TEN-T 
roads. No formal 
conditionality but 
strong encouragement 
of applying the 
principles beyond the 
TEN-T roads.  
Regulation (EU) 
168/2013 on type 
approval for two-and 
three-wheeled vehicles 
has been revised. 

Updated Directives on 
periodic roadworthiness 
testing, roadside 
checks on commercial 
vehicles and 
registration documents 
for vehicles adopted on 
3 April 2014. 
Staff working 
document adopted on 3 
October 2014251.A 
study Event Data 
Recorders was 
completed in 2014. 
Regulation (EU) 
407/2011 on vehicle 
electric safety has been 
adopted. 
The implementing 
measures of the 
General Safety 
Regulation have been 
adopted. 

Achievements by 2015 

Studies completed and used as 
input into on-going review of the 
General Safety Regulation 
661/2009.  
No concrete result identified yet. 

EU-funded TEN-T road projects 
are managed in line with the 
infrastructure safety principles.  

At least one road infrastructure 
safety management procedure is 
also applied beyond the TEN-T 
road network in at least two 
thirds of the Member States248 

More safety measures such as 
ABS in all new motorcycles as 
from 1 January 2016.  

More thorough and efficient 
checking of vehicles in all 
Member States as from 20 May 
2018. (five of the Member 
States249 already had the highest 
standards of roadworthiness 
testing before the adoption of 
the roadworthiness package)250 
Information contributed as input 
into on-going review of the 
General Safety Regulation 
661/2009. 

Alternative options: no 
EU intervention 
The studies could have been carried 
out by Member States if any Member 
State would be willing to take on the 
cost for an EU-wide analysis 
Enforcement implementation plans 
can be done individually by Member 
States; for harmonised format and 
minimum standards an EU-level 
discussion is required. 
It is possible that fewer Member 
States would apply these principles if 
they would not be actively promoted 
by the EU. 

A harmonised standard across all 
Member States unlikely without EU-
level intervention; type approval 
legislation cannot be efficiently 
managed at Member State level with 
equal benefits for the internal market. 
Considering the wide differences 
between Member States before 
adoption of the new rules, a 
harmonised standard across all 
Member States not likely without EU-
level intervention. 

The study could have been carried 
out by Member States if any Member 
State would be willing to take on the 
cost for an EU-wide analysis 

Harmonised rules on vehicle 
electric safety apply in all 
Member States as from 4 
December 2012 
All new cars equipped with 
Electronic Stability Control and 
Tyre Pressure Monitoring System 
since 1 November 2011. All new 
heavy goods and passenger 

Type approval legislation cannot be 
efficiently managed at Member State 
level with equal benefits for the 
internal market. 
Type approval legislation cannot be 
efficiently managed at Member State 
level with equal benefits for the 
internal market. 

246 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Ex-post evaluation of Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed 
limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community, as amended by Directive 
2002/85/EC, 9 August 2013, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/vehicles/speed_limitation_evaluation_en.pdf 

247 Ecorys/COWI, Study on the prevention of drink-driving by the use of alcohol interlock devices, 18 February 

2014, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/behavior/study_alcohol_interlock.pdf 

248 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Study on the effectiveness and on the improvement of the EU legislative 

framework on road infrastructure safety management (Directive 2008/96/EC), 5 December 2014, p.26 and 
p.49 

249 DE, SE, BE, LUX, FI 
250 Commission Staff Working Document: Impact assessment on the Roadworthiness package, SWD(2012)206 

final 2, Brussels, 13 July 2012 

251 Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the European 

Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of vehicle technologies to 
improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297, Brussels, 3 October 2014 

70 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
EU inputs/outputs by 
February 2015 

Achievements by 2015 

Alternative options: no 
EU intervention 

vehicles equipped with Lane 
Departure Warning and 
Advanced Emergency Braking 
since 1 November 2011 
Public infrastructure for eCall to 
be ready no later than 1 October 
2017. 

Harmonised standard across all 
Member States did not happen 
without EU-level intervention. 

Decision on the 
deployment of the 
interoperable EU-wide 
eCall service was 
adopted in May 2014. 
Proposal on mandatory 
fitting of eCall devices 
in passenger cars and 
light goods vehicles is 
being discussed. 
Common EU definition 
defined, methodology 
for data reporting 
agreed and first new 
data to be reported 
during first half of 2015 
Analysis of emergency 
brake 
systems/pedestrian 
detection in the Staff 
working document 
adopted on 3 October 
2014252. 

Updated Directive on 
periodic roadworthiness 
testing adopted on 3 
April 2014, provides for 
technical inspections of 
motorcycles. 

Recommendations on 
road safety in 
sustainable urban 
mobility planning 
adopted on 17 
December 2013. 
Regular publication of 
updated road safety 
facts and figures on the 
Commission road 
safety website. 
Setting up of the Going 
Abroad website. 

New data arrival enables cost-
benefit analysis on serious road 
injuries for possible future 
measures to reduce severity of 
crash outcomes. 

Information contributed for the 
on-going review of the General 
Safety Regulation 661/2009. 

Motorcycles to undergo periodic 
technical inspections in all253 
Member States as from 20 May 
2018. 

No concrete result identified yet. 

Safety information is accessible 
to road users: more than 2 
million page views per year. 

Safety information is accessible 
to road users: more than 225 
000 page views during 2014. 

Member States unlikely to have 
adopted a common definition and 
data reporting system without EU 
intervention. 

The study could have been carried 
out by Member States if any Member 
State would be willing perform an EU-
wide analysis. 

Type approval legislation cannot be 
efficiently managed at Member State 
level with equal benefits for the 
internal market. 
Considering the wide differences 
between Member States before 
adoption of the new rules, a 
harmonised standard across all 
Member States not likely without EU-
level intervention. 

EU-level intervention likely to yield 
larger uptake of the sustainable 
urban mobility planning principles 
compared to scenario with no EU 
intervention. 

Unlikely to have same outreach if not 
hosted by the European Commission. 
Commission owns and manages the 
CARE database providing the figures 
that are published. 
Unlikely to have been created as EU-
level tool by Member States; unlikely 
to have same outreach across all EU 
if not promoted by the European 
Commission. 
Unlikely to have been created as EU-
level tool by Member States; unlikely 
to have same outreach across all EU 
if not promoted by the Commission. 

Launch of the Going 
Abroad information app 
in June 2014. 

Safety information is accessible 
to road users: more than 73 000 
downloads of the Going Abroad 
app by February 2015. 

252 Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the European 

Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of vehicle technologies to 
improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297, Brussels, 3 October 2014 

253 Member States can decide not to implement this rule only if they undertake other actions rendering similar 

results for safety of motorcyclists 

71 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
EU inputs/outputs by 
February 2015 
Running the web-
platform "European 
Road Safety Charter". 

Achievements by 2015 

Safety information is accessible 
to road users: The "European 
Road Safety Charter" has around 
42,000 visits per year. 

Alternative options: no 
EU intervention 
Unlikely to have same outreach if not 
hosted by the European Commission. 

7.  CONCLUSIONS 

The  number  of  road  fatalities  is  decreasing  in  the  EU.  The  number  of  road  deaths 
dropped  by  18.4%  from  2010  to  2014.  The  differences  between  Member  States  are 
decreasing over time. 

The  best  improvement  is  observed  for  those  younger  than  25  years  and  for  the 
motorised  road  users.  However,  the  majority  of  those  killed  on  the  roads  are  car 
occupants and motorcycle riders and the young remain heavily over-represented among 
crash victims. The young people, the car drivers and the motorcyclists therefore required 
continued attention. 

The  improvement  is  much  more  limited  for  the  vulnerable  road  users  (pedestrians  and 
cyclists) and for the elderly road users (older than 65 years). The fatality rates for these 
groups  are  not  decreasing  as  fast,  indicating  that  vulnerable  road  user  safety  needs 
further consideration. 

Serious  road  traffic  injuries  are  not  decreasing  as  quickly  as  fatalities.  The  number  of 
serious injuries on the roads each year is substantial: there are 8 to 9 people reported to 
be  seriously  injured  for  every  reported  road  death254.  The  EU  has  currently  no  strategic 
target for the reduction of serious road traffic injuries. 

 

Implementation of actions: taking stock 

Work  is  well  under  way  within  all  the  seven  focus  areas  and  several  main  milestones 
have  already  been  completed.  Two  important  legislative  packages  have  been  concluded 
on  roadworthiness  testing  and  on  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  road  traffic  rules; 
revisions  of  the  vehicle  approval  legislation  have  also  been  completed  and  further 
revisions are ongoing, notably on the General Safety Regulation.  

Actions remain to be carried out especially in the area of cooperative intelligent transport 
systems  and  advanced  driver  assistance  technologies.  The  development  of  eCall 
continues.  There is still much scope for further work on the serious road traffic injuries, 
including identification of possible actions that could contribute to reducing the number of 
serious injuries.  

Reviews  of  the  infrastructure  safety  management  rules  and  the  rules  on  initial 
qualification  and  periodic  training  of  professional  drivers  are  on-going.  Monitoring  and 
follow-up  of  the  legislation  currently  in  place,  analysis  of  road  safety  trends  and 
contribution of road safety information to citizens are tasks that will continue throughout 
the strategy period. 

  Relevance of policy framework 

The  policy  framework  remains  relevant.  The  strategic  target,  the  focus  areas  and  the 
specific actions address the main road safety problems. In order to achieve the target, a 
complete  and  holistic  framework  will  be  needed  also  for  the  coming  years,  addressing 
both motorised and vulnerable road users. 

254 Based on the old reporting system 

72 

 
 
 
                                                 
Serious road traffic injuries are addressed by the policy framework but not by a specific 
target.  The  target  on  fatalities  has  been  considered  a  useful  tool  by  all  stakeholders 
participating in the consultation. The decrease in serious road traffic injuries lags behind 
the fatality decrease. In order to better cover all serious road safety outcomes a specific 
serious injury target could complement the fatality target.  

If  a  serious  injury  target  would  be  set  with  the  same  level  of  ambition  as  the  fatality 
target  (a  50%  decrease  between  2010  and  2020),  the  target  level  would  be  a  35% 
decrease between 2015 and 2020.255 

The continued over-representation of men among road traffic victims is not addressed by 
the current policy framework. Therefore, it could be considered to add a gender aspect in 
future road safety policy frameworks. 

  Prognosis for the strategic fatality target 

For the remainder of the strategy period, an annual average decrease of 7.8% is needed 
in order for the strategic target of 50% between 2010 and 2020 to be reached. This is a 
challenging but not impossible ambition. 

In  order  to  strengthen  the  chances  of  reaching  the  target,  additional  efforts  will  be 
needed. Measures to improve the safety for the vulnerable road users seem to be needed 
since the fatality rates for these groups decrease less than average.  

Implementation of the measures agreed and adopted at EU level is an essential element. 
The actions with quicker impact are most likely carried out on national level, for example 
enforcement of traffic rules and especially targeting speeding offences. 

  Effectiveness of EU actions 

It  is  clear  that  the  EU  is  the  safest  region  world-wide,  that  the  differences  between 
Member States are decreasing over time, that new Member States usually make big road 
safety  progress  in  the  years  following  accession  and  that  the  average  fatality  decrease 
rate has speeded up since the adoption of the first EU-level strategic road safety target. 
Together, these facts indicate that the EU indeed has a significant effect on road safety. 

The different trends for specific indicators, for example age groups and causal factors can 
in some cases be interpreted as showing effects of individual EU actions; in other cases it 
is more difficult to draw any clear conclusions, for example from the different trends for 
different road user groups and road types. 

The exact extent of EU effects on road safety outcomes could not be measured; this was 
expected due to the complex road safety context. It is not possible to isolate the results 
of Member State actions from those of EU actions. 

Other external factors (financial crisis, demographic changes, climate change) have also 
been  investigated  but  could  not  be  shown  to  have  had  any  major  impact  on  the  road 
safety results in the period 2010-2014. 

  Efficiency of EU actions 

The  exact  costs  and  savings  could  not  be  measured  but  based  on  the  rough  estimates 
made, it is deduced that the annual cost savings from the road safety progress made so 
far have been much higher than the annual total expenditure on road safety actions. 

255 -35% in five years equals an annual decrease rate of 6.7%, same annual decrease as -50% in ten years. 

73 

 
 
                                                 
It is therefore  concluded that the results have been achieved at a  reasonable cost.  It is 
inferred  that  no  other  measures  would  have  been  likely  to  have  yielded  as  broad,  far-
reaching results with benefits for the entire EU. 

  Coherence of policy objectives 

The  road  safety  policy  objectives  are  well  in  line  with  most  of  the  other  main  policy 
objectives  investigated  such  as  environmental,  economic  and  social  policy  objectives. 
Only  three  possible  exceptions  to  the  general  complementarity  were  identified  which 
could however be resolved within the current policy. 

In the short term, there is a possibility that economic growth does not support a quicker 
road  fatality  reduction,  mostly  linked  to  increased  traffic  volumes  in  times  of  strong 
economic development, which would however be levelled out over time. 

Promoting  low-speed  zones  in  sensitive  areas  could  contradict  the  environmental 
objective  of  reducing  fuel  consumption  and  emissions  due  to  the  fact  that  low  speeds 
increase  road  safety  but  are  not  optimal  from  emissions  point  of  view.  A  shift  to  more 
sustainable urban transport could be a solution. 

There  could  also  be  increased  road  safety  risks  following  promotion  of  sustainable 
transport  modes  like  walking  and  cycling,  unless  measures  are  taken  to  ensure  safe 
mobility also for pedestrians and cyclists. 

  Added value of EU contribution 

An  assessment  was  made  of  possible  alternative  ways  to  reach  the  same  results;  it  is 
concluded  that  the  EU  actions  have  indeed  had  an  added  value,  especially  for  the 
Member  States  with  low  levels  of  road  safety  where  the  EU  actions  are  likely  to  have 
pushed developments more quickly than what would otherwise have been the case. 

74 

 
 
 
8.  LIST OF REFERENCES 

  Commission documents  

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Regulation 168/2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel 
vehicles and quadricycles, 15 January 2013 

Regulation (EU) 407/2011 on vehicle electric safety, 27 April 2011 

Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the 
protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, amending Directive 
2007/46/EC and repealing Directives 2003/102/EC and 2005/66/EC, 14 January 2009 

Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger 
cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO 2 emissions from 
light-duty vehicles, 23 April 2009 

Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general 
safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical 
units intended therefor, 13 July 2009 

Directive 2015/413 facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-
related traffic offences, 11 March 2015 

Directive 2014/47/EU on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of 
commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC, 3 April 
2014 

Directive 2014/45/EU on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their 
trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC, 3 April 2014 

Directive 2014/46/EU amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration 
documents for vehicles, 3 April 2014 

Directive 2012/36/EU amending Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences, 19 November 
2012 

Directive 2011/82/EU facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety 
related traffic offences, 25 October 2011 

Directive 2010/40/ on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport 
Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport, 
7 July 2010 

Directive 2009/40/EC on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers, 6 May 
2009 

Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management, 19 November 2008 

Framework Directive 2007/46/EC on vehicle approval, 9 October 2007 

Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences, 20 December 

Directive 2004/54/EC on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European 
Road Network, 29 April 2004 

75 

 
 
 
Directive 2003/59/EC 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, 15 July 2003 

Directive 2002/49/EC on the assessment and management of environmental noise, 25 
June 2002 

Directive 2000/30/EC on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of 
commercial vehicles circulating in the Community, 6 June 2000 

Decision No 585/2014/EU on the deployment of the interoperable EU-wide eCall service, 
15 May 2014 

Commission White Paper, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a 
competitive and resource efficient transport system, COM(2011)144 final, 28 March 2011 

Commission White Paper, European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, COM(2001) 
370 final, 12 September 2001 

Commission Communication, Energy 2020: A strategy for competitive, sustainable and 
secure energy, COM/2010/0639 final, 10 November 2010 

Commission Communication, Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations 
on road safety 2011-2020, COM(2010)389 final, 20 July 2010 

Commission Communication, A European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles, 
COM(2010)186 final, 28 April 2010 

Commission Communication, EUROPE 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and 
inclusive growth, COM(2010)2020 final, 3 March 2010 

Commission Communication - Action plan for the deployment of Intelligent Transport 
Systems in Europe, COM/2008/0886 final, 16 December 2008 

Commission Communication, European Road Safety Action Programme, Mid-Term 
Review, COM(2006) 74 final, 22 February 2006 

Commission Communication, An EU strategy to support Member States in reducing 
alcohol related harm, COM/2006/0625 final, 24 October 2006 

Commission Communication, European Road Safety Action Programme. Halving the 
number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility, 
COM(2003) 311 final, 2 June 2003 

Commission Report, European best practices guidelines on cargo securing for road 
transport, 8 May 2014 

Commission Report on the implementation of Directive 2003/59/EC relating to the initial 
qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of 
goods or passengers, COM(2012) 385 final, 12 July 2012 

Commission Report on the implementation of Directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of 
mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community, COM(2012) 258 final, 4 
June 2012 

European Commission, EU transport in figures, Statistical pocketbook 2014, 2014 

General Budget of the European Union for the Financial Year 2014, Official Journal of the 
European Union, volume 57, 20 February 2014 

76 

 
 
Commission Staff Working Document, On the implementation of objectives 4 and 5 of the 
European Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – deployment of 
vehicle technologies to improve road safety, SWD(2014) 297, 3 October 2014 

Commission Staff Working Document, On the implementation of objective 6 of the 
European Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 – First milestone 
towards an injury strategy, SWD(2013) 94 final, 19 March 2013 

Commission Staff Working Document, Targeted action on urban road safety, SWD(2013) 
525, December 17 2013 

Commission Staff Working Document, Final Report of Contributions to Impact 
Assessment of Policy Options to Improve the EU Systems of PTI and of Roadside Vehicle 
Testing, SWD(2012)206 final, 13 July 2012 

Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment. Accompanying document to 
the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on periodic roadworthiness 
tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC and 
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the technical roadside 
inspections of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and 
repealing Directive 2000/30/EC and Directive of the European Parliament and of the 
Council amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for 
vehicles, SWD(2012) 206 final, 13 July 2012 

Commission Staff Working Document, accompanying the Proposal for a Directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field 
of road safety: full impact assessment, SEC(2008) 351/2, 2008 

Commission Staff Working Document, European Road Safety Action Programme - Mid-
term Review, SEC(2006)221, 22 February 2006  

Commission Staff Working Document, Proposal for a Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on road infrastructure safety management: Full Impact 
Assessment, SEC(2006/1231), 5 October 2006 

Commission press release, Tougher vehicle testing rules to save lives, 30 April 2014 

European Commission: eCall: Frequently Asked Questions, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-
agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/eCall%20FAQ.pdf 

High Level Group on Road Safety, Road safety planning: Good practice examples from 
national road safety strategies in the EU, Non-paper as food for thought and discussions, 
13 October 2014  

Road Safety Planning, Good practice examples from national road safety strategies in the 
EU. Non-paper as food for thought and discussions, 13 October 2014 

Commission Car price report 2011, 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/motor_vehicles/prices/archive.html 

CARE Database:  
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics/index_en.htm  

Eurostat: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat  

  Council and Parliament documents 

Council Notice, EU Action plan on drugs 2013-2016, (2013/C 351/01), Brussels, 30 
November 2013  

77 

 
 
Council conclusions on road safety, 3052th Transport, Telecommunications and Energy 
Council meeting, Brussels, 2–3 December 2010 

Council Conclusions on the European Road Safety Action Programme, Transport, 
Telecommunications and Energy Council meeting, Luxembourg 5 June 2003 

Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC, OJ L 226, 
10.9.2003, p. 4-17 

Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, 
OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 57-65  

Council Recommendation, EU Drugs Strategy 2013-20, (2012/C 402/01), Brussels, 29 
December 2012  

Council Resolution on a Community programme of action on road safety, 21 June 1991 

European Council Conclusions on 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework, 23 October 
2014 

European Parliamentary Research Service, The Cost of Non-Europe in the Single Market 
in Transport and Tourism Europe: Road transport and railways, October 2014 

European Parliament, Resolution on the Commission White Paper ‘European transport 
policy for 2010: time to decide’, P5_TA(2003)0054, Strasbourg 12 February 2003 

European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on European road safety 2011-
2020 (2010/2235(INI))  

  Other sources  

Action Plan on Youth Drinking and on Heavy Episodic Drinking (Binge Drinking) (2014-
2016), endorsed by the Committee on National Alcohol Policy and Action (CNAPA), 16 
September 2014 

ASECAP, Key figures, 2014 

ASECAP, ASECAP in figures, 2011 

Breen, Jeanne, Road safety study for the interim evaluation of Policy Orientations on 
Road Safety 2011-2020, 12 February 2015, the report is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/study_final_report_february_2015_final.p
df; and 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/study_annexes_february_2015_final.pdf 

Breen, Jeanne, High-level consultation on the development of the injuries strategy: 
Working document for the meeting of the High Level Group on road safety, 27 June 2012 

COWI, Mid-term/Ex-post evaluation of road safety projects financed during the period 
1999-2004, August 2005 

COWI Proposal for Ex-post evaluation of some completed and on-going actions funded 
under the Road Safety Programme during the period 1999-2004, December 2004 

DaCoTA, Alcohol, Deliverable 4.8a of the EC FP7 project DaCoTA, 2012 

DaCoTA, Integration of Road Safety in Other Policy Areas: Synergies and Conflicts, 
Deliverable 4.8i of the EC FP7 project DaCoTA, 2012 

78 

 
 
DaCoTA, Older Drivers, Deliverable 4.8k of the EC FP7 project DaCoTA, 2012 

Druid project, Final Report: Work performed, main results and recommendations, 1 
August 2012 

ECORYS/COWI, Study on the prevention of drink-driving by the use of alcohol interlock 
devices, 18 February 2014,  

ECORYS/SWOV, Impact Assessment Road Safety Action Programme, Assessment for 
mid-term review, Final Report, April 2005 

European Cyclists' Federation, National cycling mode share/ km cycled, 3 March 2015 

European Investment Bank, The European Investment Bank and Road Safety, May 2014 

European Transport Safety Council, Ranking EU progress on car occupant safety, PIN 
Flash Report 27, April 2014 

European Transport Safety Council, Ranking EU progress on road safety, 8th Road Safety 
Performance Index Report, June 2014  

European Transport Safety Council, Risk on the Roads – A Male Problem?, PIN Flash 25, 
15 June 2013 

European Transport Safety Council, Back on track to reach the EU 2020 Road Safety 
Target?, 7th Road Safety PIN Report, June 2013  

European Transport Safety Council, 2010 Road Safety Target Outcome: 100,000 fewer 
deaths since 2001, 5th Road Safety PIN Report, June 2011  

European Transport Safety Council, A Challenging Start towards the EU 2020 Road Safety 
Target, 6th Road Safety PIN Report, June 2012 

European Transport Safety Council, Traffic Law Enforcement across the EU: Tackling the 
Three Main Killers on Europe’s Roads, 2011  

ICF/TRT, Study on the implementation and effects of Directive 2004/54/EC on minimum 
safety requirements for road tunnels in the trans-European road network: Draft final 
report, 21 February 2015 

International Organisation for Standardisation, Road traffic safety (RTS) management 
systems — Requirements with guidance for use, ISO 39001:2012(E), 2012 

International Transport Forum, IRTAD Research Report, Road safety and economic 
development, 2015 

International Transport Forum, IRTAD Road Safety Annual Report 2014  

Jeroen, Johan de Hartog; Boogaard, Hanna; Nijland, Hans, and Hoek, Gerard, Do the 
Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks? from Environmental Health Perspectives, 
volume 118, number 8, August 2010  

José I. Castillo-Manzano, Mercedes Castro-Nuño and Xavier Fageda, Journal of European 
Public Policy: Could being in the European Union save lives? An econometric analysis of 
the Common Road Safety Policy for the EU-27, 2013,  

Knight, I, A study of the implementation of directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of 
blind spot mirrors to HGVs, 2011,  

79 

 
 
Luoma, Juha and Sivak, Michael, Interactions of Environmental and Safety Measures for 
Sustainable Road Transport, January 2011, Report no UMTRI-2011-3, The University of 
Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, 3 January 2011 

OECD, Speed Management, 2006 

Panteia and Transport Mobility Leuven, Ex-post evaluation study report: Study on the 
effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of 
professional drivers, 13 October 2014 

RappTrans et al, ITS Action Plan: Safety and comfort of the Vulnerable Road User, 
Amsterdam, 20 May 2011,  

Ricardo-AEA, Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport, Report for the 
European Commission DG MOVE, 8 January 2014  

Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, European Climate Assessment Dataset, 
http://eca.knmi.nl/  

Transport & Mobility Leuven, Ex-post evaluation of Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation 
and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the 
Community, as amended by Directive 2002/85/EC, 9 August 2013,  

Transport & Mobility Leuven, Study on the effectiveness and on the improvement of the 
EU legislative framework on road infrastructure safety management (Directive 
2008/96/EC), 5 December 2014 

Transport & Mobility Leuven, Final Report – Volume 1 Ex-post evaluation of the RSAP, 23 
December 2009, Leuven 

Swov Fact Sheet, The influence of weather on road safety, Leidschendam, 2012  

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Agreement Concerning The Adoption Of 
Uniform Conditions For Periodical Technical Inspections Of Wheeled Vehicles And The 
Reciprocal Recognition Of Such Inspections, 13 November 1997 

World Health Organisation, Global status report on road safety 2013 

World Health Organisation, European status report on road safety: Towards safer roads 
and healthier transport choices, Copenhagen, 2009 

World Health Organisation, World report on road traffic injury prevention, 2004 

Yannis, Papadimitriou, Folla, Effect on GDP changes on road traffic fatalities, Safety 
Science 63 pp42-49, 2014 

80 

 
 
 
 
1.  ANNEX: ROAD SAFETY LEGISLATION IN PLACE 2010 

Legislation 

Target/objective 

Directive 2006/126/EC on driving 
licences (recast), OJ L 403, 
30.12.2006, p.18. 
Amended by 

  Commission Directive 

2009/113/EC 

  Commission Directive 

2011/94/EU  

Directive 2003/59/EC 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, OJ L 226, 10.9.2003, p.4. 
Amended by 

  Council Directive 2004/66/EC  
  Council Directive 2006/103/EC 
  Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008  
  Council Directive 2013/22/EU  
Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the 
installation and use of speed 
limitation devices for certain 
categories of motor vehicles in the 
Community, OJ L 57, 2.3.1992, p. 27. 
Amended by 

  Directive 2002/85/EC 

Directive 2004/54/EC on minimum 
safety requirements for tunnels in 
the trans-European road network, 
OJ L 201, 7.6.2004, p. 56. 
Amended by 

  Regulation (EC) No 596/2009  

Safer drivers 
(motorcycles, cars, 
light and heavy goods 
vehicles, buses, 
other). 

Safer driving by 
professional drivers of 
heavy goods vehicles 
and buses. 

Reduced speeding: 
safer driving of heavy 
goods vehicles and 
buses. 

Reduced risk of 
crashes and reduced 
severity of crash 
outcomes. 

Safer road tunnels on 
the TEN-T network. 

Safer roads on the 
TEN-T network 
(mandatory) and 
beyond (voluntary). 
Safer vehicles (cars, 
light and heavy goods 
vehicles, buses). 

Directive 2008/96/EC on road 
infrastructure safety management, 
OJ L 319, 29.11.2008, p.59. 

Directive 2009/40/EC on 
roadworthiness tests for motor 
vehicles and their trailers, OJ L 
141, 6.6.2009, p.12. Recast of 
Directive 96/96/EC. 
Amended by 

  Commission Directive 

2010/48/EU  

  Commission Recommendation 

2010/378/EU 

Date of 
transposition/application 
Application in phases; full 
application including the main 
novelties such as new driving 
licence model, new licence 
categories and minimum 
requirements on driving 
licence examiners since 19 
January 2013. 
The rules apply for bus 
drivers since 10 September 
2008 and for drivers of heavy 
goods vehicles since 10 
September 2009. 

Speed limitation devices had 
to be applied to category M3 
vehicles having maximum 
mass of more than 10 tonnes 
and category N3 vehicles 
from 1 January 1996. For the 
other vehicle categories, the 
speed limitation devices had 
to be applied from 1 January 
2007. 
30 April 2014: tunnels 
concerned have to meet the 
minimum safety technical 
requirements in Annex I of 
the Directive.    

30 April 2019: Some Member 
States with a high number of 
tunnels have 5 additional 
years to finish the 
refurbishment. 
The deadline for transposition 
was 19 December 2010. 

Directive 2009/40/EC: no 
transposition as it is a recast 
of Directive 96/96/EC which 
had to be transposed by 9 
March 1998. 

Commission Directive 
2010/48/EU: 31 December 
2011. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Legislation 

Target/objective 

Framework Directive 2007/46/EC 
on vehicle approval, OJ L 263, 
9.10.2007, p.1 and its particular acts 

Harmonised safety 
requirements for all 
cars, trucks and buses 
sold in the EU 

Directive 2000/30/EC on the 
technical roadside inspection of 
the roadworthiness of commercial 
vehicles circulating in the Community, 
OJ L 203, 10.8.2000, p.1. 
Amended by 

  Commission Directive 

2003/26/EC 

  Commission Directive 

2010/47/EU 

  Commission Recommendation 

2010/378/EU 

Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 
29 April 1999 on the registration 
documents for vehicles, OJ L 138, 
1.6.1999, p. 57.  
Amended by 

  Commission Directive 

2003/127/EC  

  Council Directive 2006/103/EC  

Council Directive 91/671/EEC 
relating to the compulsory use of 
safety belts and child-restraint 
systems in vehicles, OJ L 373, 
31.12.1991, p.26. 

Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 
concerning type-approval 
requirements for the general 
safety of motor vehicles, their 
trailers and systems, components and 
separate technical units intended 
therefor, OJ L 200, 31.7.2009, p. 1–24  

Directive 2002/24/EC relating to 
the type-approval of two or three-
wheel motor vehicles and repealing 
Council Directive 92/61/EEC, OJ L 124, 
9.5.2002, p. 1–44  
Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 on 
the type-approval of motor 
vehicles with regard to the 
protection of pedestrians and 
other vulnerable road users, 
amending Directive 2007/46/EC and 
repealing Directives 2003/102/EC and 
2005/66/EC, OJ L 35, 4.2.2009, p. 1–
31 
Directive 2007/38/EC on the 
retrofitting of mirrors to heavy 
goods vehicles registered in the 
Community, OJ L 184, 14.7.2007, 
p.25. 
Council Directive 89/459/EEC on 
the approximation of the laws of 
the Member States relating to the 

Safer vehicles (heavy 
goods vehicles, 
buses). 

Date of 
transposition/application 
Directive 2000/30/EC: 10 
August 2002. 

Commission Directive 
2003/26/EC: 1 January 2004. 

Commission Directive 
2010/47/EU: 1 January 2012. 

Harmonised set of 
content on vehicle 
registration 
documents. 

Transposed since 1 June 
2004. 

Safety of car 
occupants: reduced 
severity of crash 
outcomes. 

Safety of motor 
vehicles. 

The deadline for transposing 
of Directive 91/671/EEC into 
national law was 1 January 
1993; that of Directive 
2003/20/EC was 9 May 2006 

The framework applies from 
29 April 2009 with certain 
articles of the annexes 
applying at the latest from 
2014. Its particular acts 
cover 70 different vehicle 
areas. 
The Regulation applies from 1 
November 2011 with certain 
articles of the annexes 
applying from 2009, 2014 
and 2017 respectively. 

Safety of motorcycles 
and other two- and 
three-wheelers 

Directive 2002/24/EC: 
deadline for transposition was 
9 May 2003. 

Safety of vulnerable 
road users. 

The Regulation applies from 
24 November 2009. 

Reduced risk of 
crashes with heavy 
goods vehicles; 
increased safety of 
vulnerable road users. 
Safety of vehicles 
(cars); reduced risk of 
crashes. 

All vehicles concerned had to 
be retrofitted with the new 
mirrors by 31 March 2009. 

Implementation date 1 
January 1992. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Legislation 

Target/objective 

Date of 
transposition/application 

tread depth of tyres of certain 
categories of motor vehicles and their 
trailers, OJ L 226, 3.8.1989, p.4. 
Directive 2010/40/ on the 
framework for the deployment of 
Intelligent Transport Systems in 
the field of road transport and for 
interfaces with other modes of 
transport, 7 July 2010, OJ L 207, 
6.8.2010, p. 1–13 
Action  plan  for  the  deployment  of 
Intelligent  Transport  Systems  in 
Europe,  COM/2008/0886 
final,  16 
December 2008 

Directive 2010/35/EU on 
transportable pressure equipment 
and repealing Council Directives 
76/767/EEC, 84/525/EEC, 
84/526/EEC, 84/527/EEC and 
1999/36/EC, OJ L 165, 30.6.2010, p.1 
Directive 2008/68/EC on the 
inland transport of dangerous 
goods, OJ L 260, 30.9.2008, p.13. 
Council Directive 95/50/EC on 
uniform procedures for checks on 
the transport of dangerous goods 
by road, OJ L 249, 17.10.1995, p.35. 
Amended by 

  Directive 2001/26/EC of 7 May 
2001, OJ L 16, 23.6.2001, 
p.23. 

  Commission Directive 

2004/112/EC of 13 December 
2004, OJ L 367, 14.12.2004, 
p.23. 

  Directive 2008/54/EC of 17 

June 2008, OJ L 162, 
21.6.2008, p.11. 

Council Decision 93/704/EC on the 
creation of a Community database 
on road accidents, OJ L 329, 
30.12.1993, p.63–65 
Amended by 

  Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 

Specifications and 
standards for ITS road 
safety and security 
applications 

27 February 2012 

Actions for 
development and 
evaluation of 
cooperative systems, 
the open in-vehicle 
platform architecture, 
specifications for 
vehicle to 
infrastructure  and 
vehicle to vehicle 
communication, the 
promotion of 
advanced driver 
assistance systems, 
the 'Safe on-board 
human-machine 
interface, etc. 
Safer transport of 
dangerous goods: 
rules for the safety of 
transportable 
pressure equipment. 

2008-2014 (target dates for 
proposed actions) 

Date for transposition and 
implementation was 1 July 
2011.  

Safer transport of 
dangerous goods. 

Safer transport of 
dangerous goods. 

Directive 2008/68/EC was to 
be transposed by 1 July 
2009. 
The transposition deadline 
was 1 January 1997. 

Road safety data 
collection for better 
analysis and 
monitoring of results. 

The data has been submitted 
since 31 March 1994. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  ANNEX: ROAD FATALITY DEVELOPMENT AND THE CHANGE IN GDP (MILLION 

EURO PER YEAR) 2010-2014256 

1. Patterns among the five EU Member States with lowest road fatality rate in 2014  

In  four  of  these  cases,  the  GDP  has  increased  over  time  but  the  number  of  reported 
fatalities  fluctuates  with  no  clear  correlation  to  the  GDP  trend.  In  Spain  the  GDP 
decreased during the first three years and so did the number of road deaths. The fatality 
decrease slowed down somewhat in the same year the GDP began to increase. 

Sweden: GDP increase; Road fatalities increase, then 
decrease  

UK: GDP increase; Road fatalities increase, decrease, 
increase 

Netherlands: GDP increase; Road fatalities increase, 
then decrease  

Denmark: GDP increase; Road fatalities decrease, 
then increase 

Spain: GDP decrease, then increase; Road fatalities 
decrease 

256 GDP from Eurostat, road fatality numbers from the CARE database; GDP data for Estonia, Greece, Ireland, 

Lithuania and Sweden not yet reported for 2014 at the time of the evaluation. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2. Patterns among the five EU Member States with highest road fatality rate in 2014 

In  four  of  these  cases,  the  GDP  has  increased  over  time  and  the  road  fatalities 
decreased.  It  should  be  noted  that  Latvia  however  reports  an  increased  number  of 
fatalities in 2014. In Lithuania both GDP and road fatalities decreased over this period. 

Poland: GDP increase; Road fatalities decrease 

Romania: GDP increase; Road fatalities decrease 

Bulgaria: GDP increase; Road fatalities decrease  

Latvia: GDP increase; Road fatalities decrease, then 
increase 

Lithuania: GDP decrease; Road fatalities 
decrease 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Patterns among the five EU Member States with highest reduction of road fatalities 
2010-2014 

Road fatalities decrease both in the three countries where GDP is mostly decreasing and 
in the two countries with GDP increase. 

Greece: GDP decrease; Road fatalities decrease 

Portugal: GDP decrease, then increase; Road 
fatalities decrease 

Spain: GDP decrease, then increase; Road fatalities 
decrease 

Denmark: GDP increase; Road fatalities decrease, 
then increase 

Romania: GDP increase; Road fatalities decrease 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  Patterns  among  the  five  EU  Member  States  with  lowest  reduction  of  road  fatalities 
2010-2014. 

While  GDP  increases  in  all  these  five  countries  over  time,  the  road  fatality  trends 
fluctuate in different ways with no clear common pattern. 

Sweden: GDP increase; Road fatalities increase, then 
decrease  

UK: GDP increase; Road fatalities increase, decrease, 
increase 

Ireland: GDP increase; Road fatalities decrease, then 
increase 

Estonia: GDP increase; Road fatalities increase, then 
decrease 

Latvia: GDP increase; Road fatalities decrease, then 
increase 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  ANNEX:  ROAD  FATALITY  DEVELOPMENT  AND  THE  CHANGE  IN  ANNUAL  ROAD 

FREIGHT (VEHICLE KILOMETRES) 2010-2013257 

1. Patterns among the five EU Member States with highest reduction of road fatalities 
2010-2013 

Road fatalities decrease both in the countries where traffic flows are mostly decreasing 
and in the Member State countries with a traffic flow increase. 

Greece: Traffic flow decrease; Road fatalities 
decrease 

Portugal: Traffic flow decrease; Road fatalities 
decrease 

Spain: Traffic flow decrease; Road fatalities 
decrease 

Denmark: Traffic flow decrease; Road fatalities 
decrease 

Romania: Traffic flow decrease; Road fatalities 
decrease 

257 Traffic flow figures from Eurostat, road fatality numbers from the CARE database 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.  Patterns  among  the  five  EU  Member  States  with  lowest  reduction  of  road  fatalities 
2010-2013. 

Only in the UK does the change in traffic flows correlate with the change in road fatality 
numbers  for  all  three  years;  in  the  other  four  cases  the  fatalities  both  decrease  and 
increase in years with decreasing traffic flows. 

Sweden: Traffic flow decrease; Road fatalities 
decrease 

UK: Traffic flow decrease; Road fatalities decrease 

Ireland: Traffic flow decrease; Road fatalities decrease 

Estonia: Traffic flow decrease; Road fatalities decrease 

Latvia: Traffic flow decrease; Road fatalities decrease 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  ANNEX:  ROAD  FATALITY  DEVELOPMENT  AND  TWO  CASES  OF  EXTREME 

PRECIPITATION, 2010-2013258 

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

2010

2011

2012

2013

2010

2011

2012

2013

Austria 

Road deaths total

Road deaths in July

July 2012: extreme 
rainfall 

Poland 

Road deaths total

Road deaths in July

July 2011: extreme 
rainfall 

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

258 Weather data from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, European Climate Assessment Dataset; 

road fatality numbers from the CARE database 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.  ANNEX: SUMMARY OF THE TECHNICAL STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS 

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 

The strategy period coincides with particularly uncertain and uneven economic developments 
across EU 28 which inhibits meaningful predictions about the level of future fatal outcomes in road 
traffic crashes. A strong influence on trends in road deaths is being exerted by external factors and 
a significant slowing of annual progress below that needed to reach the 2020 target can be 
expected in the event of stronger economic development, sustained lower fuel prices and a less 
than urgent approach to new, appropriately targeted intervention at EU and national levels. These 
challenges, together with the preparation needed for post 2020 actions towards the 2050 goal 
require some strengthening of institutional delivery at EU level to ensure that every opportunity is 
explored to implement affordable, effective activity. 

Results Focus 

A sharp focus is needed to address road fatality reduction goals to ensure that interventions to 
improve road safety appropriately address these goals and targets. 

The casualty groups which determine future priorities to reduce targeted numbers of road deaths in 
EU countries are car occupants and powered two-wheeler users (non built-up areas) and 
pedestrians (built-up areas).  

The casualty groups which determine future priorities for reductions in the risk of road death 
(number of deaths per 100,000 of population) groups in EU countries are young novice drivers, 
powered two-wheeler users (non-built up areas) and pedestrians and cyclists (built-up areas).  

In most EU countries, road traffic injury is the 1st or 2nd cause of death for school age children and 
young people (5-24 age groups), and amongst the first three leading causes for 5-49 age groups 
(2010). An increasingly ageing society and the physical vulnerability of older road users also need 
more attention.  

The current focus on preventing and reducing the number of deaths via 2020 and 2050 targets 
now needs to be expanded to include serious injury. New focus on serious injury is warranted given 
its prevalence, the slower improvement achieved for serious injury as opposed to fatal injury and 
the opportunities presented by new reporting for MAIS >=3 serious injury expected in 2015. The 
main life-threatening injuries to be addressed are head and spinal injuries. The proposal for a 35% 
reduction in serious injuries by 2020 compared with 2014 seems an appropriate and challenging 
strategic target. 

It is suggested that the framework for the future development of Policy Orientations is provided by 
the evolving Road Injuries Strategy addressing both fatal and serious injuries. Consistent with good 
practice road safety management, future road safety strategy needs to establish a clear road 
safety performance framework with specific objectives to allow targeting and monitoring and 
evaluation 

The identified crash types which need to be addressed are head-on crashes, run-off-road crashes, 
intersection crashes and pedestrian and other vulnerable road user crashes. 

The key factors causally related to the risk and number of fatal (and serious) injuries are levels of 
speeding, drinking and driving, non-use of protective equipment, the safety quality of vehicles and 
roads, and emergency medical response.  

Consideration should be given to setting targets to 2020 to increase seat belt use and crash helmet 
use; reduce average speeds and speeding over the limit; reduce levels and drinking and driving 
and fatal injury outcomes; improving the safety quality of the new vehicle fleet through use of Euro 
NCAP star ratings or for the road infrastructure (at least for TEN-T) using road assessment 
programme ratings Euro RAP. 

The scope of Policy Orientations might be extended to include activity towards reducing work-
related road deaths and serious injuries.  

A road safety management capacity review is recommended to assist the development of a post-
2020 Towards Zero strategy, involving key Commission Directorates and road safety partners who 
can deliver road safety results.  

In view of the challenges to 2020 and beyond, road safety lead unit capacity needs strengthening 
in DG MOVE, particularly in the further development of its road safety strategy and coordination, 

91 

 
 
 
monitoring and evaluation functions, as well as in technical support for Safe System intervention.  

Coordination 

Some further expansion of inter-Directorate coordination is recommended to ensure multi-sectoral, 
day-to-day ownership of road safety goals, targets and strategy. It is recommended that DG MOVE 
creates at least one full-time staff position dedicated to coordinating the future development and 
implementation of Policy Orientations and post-2020 strategy. 

DG MOVE should consider setting up and chairing a Policy Orientations Steering Group (and 
subsequently a Towards Zero group) bringing together all Directorates with day-to-day 
responsibilities relating to road safety, including reporting to Directors. 

It is recommended that the Commission builds on this cooperation with the High Level Group 
towards further annual reporting of important road safety outcomes to allow closer monitoring and 
management of road safety strategy. 

Legislation 

Large scope exists for further legislation to address the road safety task to 2020, particularly within 
the framework of the General Safety Regulation, driver licensing and TEN-T initiatives. Suggestions 
for future priority initiatives have been outlined in previous sections.  

Guidance of impact assessments of road safety legislation needs to include common protocols for 
assessing costs and benefits and the use of updated annual values for the prevention of a fatality 
(See next section).  

Funding and Resource Allocation 

Despite the increasingly ambitious goals and targets sought, identified risks and demonstrated 
benefit to cost ratios of publicly acceptable measures, investment in preventing serious health loss 
in road crashes is not commensurate with the high socio-economic value of its prevention either at 
EU or national levels. 

It is recommended that Commission Directorates adopt the standard methodology for assessing 
the costs and benefits of road safety measures as presented in the updated handbook for the 
evaluation of external costs (2014), updated to reflect annual values for the prevention of a 
fatality. 

Determining priorities for resource allocation and harmonisation should not always relay upon cost-
benefit analysis, since measures which provide the largest number or road deaths and serious 
injuries many have a lower BCR than measures with higher BCRs which address a smaller number 
of casualties. 

Promotion  

Promote the Safe System goal and approach as the new safety culture, interim targets and the 
shared responsibility for reaching them in all communication activities including the European Road 
Safety Charter.  

Monitoring and Evaluation 

While information on traffic volume by road user type in several Member States is collected, traffic 
volume date is not available for EU 28. Traffic volume is an essential exposure indicator and this 
important data deficit needs to be addressed urgently by Member States, DG MOVE and Eurostat. 

Extension of the current EU road safety performance framework is recommended and suggestions 
are made for a range of indicators for adoption to 2020 and beyond. 

Annual reporting on EU road safety performance could be undertaken within the High Level Group 
on Road Safety and CARE expert groups.  

The European Road Safety Observatory is a valuable source of road safety information. Country 
profiles and other statistical information need to be updated annually. . 

The development of an EU-wide in-depth crash injury investigation system is recommended 

The European Road Safety Charter should be reviewed regularly to encourage high quality road 
safety contributions. 

Research and Development and Knowledge Transfer 

The EU plays a crucial role in research and development which has underpinned much of the 
successful life-saving intervention and tools implemented at EU level and in Member States. New 

92 

 
 
focus is needed on Safe System intervention and 2050 goals  

The knowledge transfer role is also vital and there is large scope for EU best practice guidance has 
emerged in the last 10 years.  

As recommended previously, the funding of Safe System demonstration projects in corridors, cities 
and areas is needed to accelerate knowledge transfer and to encourage roll out and inclusion of 
Safe System into the mainstream of road safety activity in EU 28.  

The European Road Safety Observatory is a valuable tool for policymakers and professional and 
web texts and other information should be regularly updated. 

INTERVENTIONS 

New, effective action is needed by the EU and Member States between now and 2020 towards 
achieving existing targets. In terms of meeting the 2020 target and encouraged by the EU 
institutions, national priorities should focus on making further progress in securing compliance with 
the key road safety rules. More or less immediate results can be achieved in the short-term 
through combined publicity and policy enforcement, particularly to address speeding. Suggestions 
are made here for priority EU intervention to 2020 and beyond for a wide range intervention in 
support of a Safe System approach to road safety. 

Planning, design, operation of road network 

Encourage knowledge transfer and the adoption of the Safe System approach to road safety 
engineering on TEN-T and the secondary network. 

Establish a safety performance framework for the TEN-T network, require measurement of safety 
indicators e.g. Euro RAP ratings and mean speed levels. 

Targets a percentage increase in Euro RAP star rating of TEN-T roads to 2020 and beyond.  

Update TEN-T guidelines to ensure that all EU-funded infrastructure conforms to EC Directives 
2004/54/EC and 2008/96. 

Set a maximum speed limit or lower of 120 km/h on TEN-T roads. 

Promote and fund Safe Corridor and Safe City/Safe Town projects on the TEN-T and secondary 
network comprising road safety engineering and multi-sectoral intervention to intervention to 
achieve results and develop road safety management capacity. 

Enforcement of key road safety rules 

Set up/support annual surveys of levels of compliance with speed limits, excess alcohol legislation 
and levels of front and rear seat belt use and report on findings.  

Set targets to 2020 at EU and national levels for improved compliance with speed limits, excess 
alcohol limits and seat belt use legislation and request annual reporting by the High Level Group on 
Road Safety and CARE.  

Provide new guidance on best practice enforcement of key road safety rules. 

Promote and fund enforcement activity and other intervention in Safe Corridor and Safe City/Safe 
Town projects on the TEN-T and secondary network. 

Mandate EU fitment of speed assistance systems and seat belt reminders in all seating positions in 
all motor vehicles at the earliest opportunity and take a variety of actions in the short-term to 
encourage the fitment and use of alcolocks e.g. in cross-border enforcement and in best practice 
guidance on their use in alcohol user rehabilitation. 

Vehicle and equipment safety standards 

Ensure that EU vehicle safety standards need to provide a high level of protection. 

Propose a range of new EU vehicle safety legislation to reduce the number and risk of serious and 
fatal injury including the following priorities: Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) in 
cars, Speed Assist (advisory and voluntary systems); seat belt reminders for front and rear seat 
passengers; fitment of adaptive restraints in cars, protection of far-side car occupants in side 
impacts; improved heavy goods vehicle front end design to protect other users, rear underrun 
protection and side underrun protection; and lane keeping assist. 

Promote and fund a Euro SHARP consumer information programme on powered two- wheeler use 
crash helmets in cooperation with the UK SHARP programme. 

Monitor the usage levels of helmets by powered two wheeler riders and cyclists across the EU and 

93 

 
 
promote/propose mandatory cycle helmet use legislation for school-aged children across the EU 
and target increased levels of use; establish a European cycle helmet consumer information 
programme. 

Promote zero-rated Value Added Tax for cyclist and motorcyclist helmets.  

Revise EC Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement to include road safety, alongside existing 
provisions covering environmental and social aspects. 

Invite the High Level Group on Road Safety to consider national incentives to fast-track proven 
technologies via procurement, safe travel policies, and tax and insurance incentives.  

Through the EU Health and Safety at Work agency, devise safe travel policies for the European 
Commission as well as promoting take up of ISO 39001 on road safety management systems for 
organisations.  

 Driver and rider standards 

Review Directive 2006/126/EC towards the introduction of a package of effective Graduated Driver 
Licensing measures for car drivers and powered two-wheeler riders. 

Review Directive 2003/59/EC with a view to introducing new provisions/guidance on demonstrably 
effective training schemes for professional drivers.  

Post-impact care 

Commission a study to review the scope of post impact care in reducing deaths and serious injuries 
in road collisions. 

Include first responder training in commercial and public transport driver training and emergency 
services personnel. 

Monitor and rank annually through EU databases the role of road traffic injury as cause of death 
and disability compared with other mortality and morbidity. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
6.  ANNEX: REPORT FROM THE STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP 17 NOVEMBER 2014 

MEETING REPORT 

Workshop in preparation of the interim evaluation of the 
Policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 

Brussels, 17 November 2014 

1.  Introduction 

This stakeholder workshop was organised in preparation of the interim evaluation of the 
Policy  orientations  on  road  safety  2011-2020.  The  aim  was  to  gather  inputs  and  to  get 
stakeholder opinions on a few questions linked to the evaluation. 

Szabolcs  Schmidt,  Head  of  Unit,  DG  MOVE  Road  Safety  Unit,  introduced  the  topic  and 
presented the planned process of an interim evaluation. A technical support study will be 
done  by  external  road  safety  expert  Ms  Jeanne  Breen.  This  study  and  the  outcomes  of 
the  stakeholder  workshop  will  inform  the  Commission  interim  evaluation  which  is 
expected to be ready by second quarter of 2015. The final report will be published on the 
Commission website for transparency. 

2.  First discussion: looking back 

The  first  part  of  the  workshop  discussed  the  opinions  and  views  of  stakeholders  on  the 
road  safety  impact  of  the  Commission  in  the  first  part  of  the  strategy  period:  Did  they 
consider  the  concept  helpful  to  bring  the  EU  as  a  whole  forward  and  were  the  tools 
appropriate and the decisions made on the right level to be most efficient? 

Participants were overall very positive and the consensus among those who took the floor 
was that the Commission had indeed been successful and added value; the same results 
would not have been achieved with only national level initiatives. It was stressed that the 
EU target had been important in encouraging and boosting national initiatives.  

Best-practice  sharing  and  creating  platforms  for  experts;  product  safety  directives  and 
type approval; technical harmonisation and standards and the cross-border enforcement 
directive  were  mentioned  as  strong  points,  helping  Member  States,  citizens  and 
companies. The importance of EU boosting national efforts or international platforms was 
noted. 

Looking back, some participants would have preferred a fully-fledged action plan instead 
of the strategic policy framework provided in the Policy orientations. 

The  road  safety  improvement  since  2011  was  described  as  stronger  for  car  drivers  and 
passengers whereas several participants noted that the performance for vulnerable road 
users  including  motorcycle  riders  was  more  disappointing.  Increases  in  cycling  in  some 
Member States had also presented safety challenges. 

A  key  factor  noted  for  road  traffic  crashes  was  road  user  behaviour:  especially  the 
responsibility of drivers of motorised vehicles.  

Several  participants  stressed  the  shared  responsibility  between  different  DGs  and  the 
difficulties for them to lobby both on DG MOVE and DG ENTR259 for vehicle safety issues, 

259 Now DG GROW 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
for  example.  It  was  suggested  that  the  Commission  has  not  yet  explored  the  full 
potential of horizontal synergies and links between different policy areas. 

3.  Second discussion: looking forwards 

The  second  part  of  the  workshop  was  future-oriented,  asking  for  inputs  on  whether  the 
Commission might need to adjust its priorities, targets or set of measures to improve the 
chances of reaching the 2020 target. 

The  focus  of  participants  was  on  the  one  hand  on  the  road  user  perspective:  asking  for 
strengthened  focus  on  life-long  education  and  training,  including  possibly  first-aid 
training, plus enforcement of rules; on the other hand on technical developments such as 
infrastructure improvement, ITS, active safety, distraction issues, emergency care issues 
etc.  

Speed  was  proposed  as  a  priority  issue  to  be  dealt  with,  as  was  drink-driving,  drug-
driving,  seat  belt  use  and  driver  telephone  use.  Speed  was  especially  discussed  with 
regard  to  urban  areas  and  low-speed  zones  where  meeting  participants  suggested  that 
more  enforcement  was  needed  to  improve  respect  of  speed  limits;  Intelligent  Speed 
Adaptation systems could also be of help in those areas. 

For  technical  issues,  both  setting  of  standards  and  raising  standards  was  requested. 
Some  organisations preferred that Member States incentivise the introduction of vehicle 
safety technologies in a non-binding way. Design of trucks (both passive and active) was 
discussed  as  an  area  with  further  potential,  complementing  the  work  on  active  safety 
technologies  and  road  user  behaviours.  Extending  safety  rules  to  the  back  seat  –  e.g. 
seat belt reminders – was another proposal. Fast-tracking the introduction of new safety 
technologies through procurement was mentioned. 

It was noted that several EU measures introduced in the previous decade would have an 
impact on 2010-2020 outcomes, whereas measures introduced since 2011 might take a 
while to reveal their impact. 

A  framework  taking  into  account  the  ageing  society,  urbanisation,  the  need  for  green 
modal shift including specific actions for safer cycling, and the roll-out of new technology 
for safety was requested.  

The  large  potential  to  integrate  road  safety  into  urban  mobility  plans  was  highlighted. 
Scoreboarding and monitoring of results, not least in connection with urban mobility and 
sustainable urban mobility plans, was encouraged. 

As a working method, the evidence-based approach was called for and more analysis of 
factors contributing to road crashes and their outcomes. Future demographics also posed 
new challenges. 

An additional target on serious injuries was strongly supported and encouraged by many 
stakeholders. Some participants proposed a target level of 35% from now to 2020 which 
they believed to be challenging and achievable. The setting of a serious injury target was 
called  "an  important  milestone  for  the  years  to  come".  Other  participants  stressed  the 
additional  need  for  careful  research  and  analysis  in  order  to  empirically  identify  truly 
effective  countermeasures.  It  was  discussed  whether  an  empirically  derived  target  (as 
opposed to a strategic target) was at all possible at the moment. 

4.  Conclusions and final words 

The Commission thanked all participants and noted the broad support and scope for EU-
wide inputs and the continuing need to provide added value over and above what could 
be  achieved  by  Member  States.  The  Commission  noted  that  there  had  been  useful 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
discussion of EU targets, the need to improve vulnerable road user safety,  the scope for 
product  safety  standards  and  legislative  activity,  education  and  enforcement  initiatives 
and knowledge transfer on best practice.  

Participants  were  invited  to  submit  fact-reports,  data  and  additional  analysis  they  have 
and  they  were  given  the  opportunity  to  submit  written  contributions  with  more  detailed 
answers  to  the  questions  in  the  discussion  paper  before  the  deadline  of  28  November 
2014. 

97 

 
 
 
 
Written contributions to the stakeholder consultations - summary of inputs 

15  stakeholders  submitted  written  contributions  in  connection  to  the  workshop  held  on 
17  November  2014.  Of  these,  five  came  from  Member  States  and  ten  came  from 
organisations, industry and road user groups with an interest in road safety. 

The respondents replied to eight specific questions. 

1.  Do you believe that EU level initiatives have contributed to the decreased 
number  of  road  fatalities  during  the  last  couple  of  years?  In  what  areas 
do  you  consider  EU  actions  for  road  safety  to  have  been  most  efficient 
and successful? 

The  answers  received  were  all  positive,  with  the 
one  exception  of  the  Federation  of  European 
Motorcyclist  Associations  (FEMA)  who  replied  that 
for  motorcyclists,  EU 
initiatives  have  not 
contributed  to  a  notable  decrease.  All  other 
that  EU 
stakeholders  confirmed 
initiatives  have 
safety 
improvements 

their  belief 

contributed 

road 

to 

is 

clear 

"It 
that  EU 
initiatives  have  positively 
contributed 
the 
decreased  number  of  road 
fatalities  during 
last 
couple of years." 

the 

to 

ASECAP 

It  was  noted  that  the  EU  road  safety  initiatives 
were  of  course  not  the  only  explanatory  factor  to  the  reduced  number  of  road 
deaths. 

2.  Do  you  see  any  unintended  positive  or  negative  effects  produced  by 

Commission road safety initiatives – if so, what? 

Most respondents did not identify any unintended effects.  

Some positive side-effects mentioned were: synergies and added value thanks to 
the interaction between Member States; a more  uniform approach to road safety 
matters  and  increased  interest  in  road  safety  discussions  among  national 
stakeholders. 

Some  negative  side-effects  mentioned  were:  the 
"legislation  fatigue"  among  Member  States  and  a 
negative  effect  on  road  safety  for  motorcyclists 
caused by the third driving licence directive shifting 
focus from training to testing of motorcycle riders. 

legislation 
"Too  much 
the 
in 
creates  resistance 
participating countries." 

ECTRI 

3.  Do you believe the same  results could  have been achieved easier  or  at  a 
lower  cost  in  other  ways  (e.g.  by  soft  measures  instead  of  legislation  or 
vice-versa)? 
Those who replied to this question all agreed that the same results could not have 
been achieved with only soft measures instead of legislation; with the exception of 
Austria  who  stressed  that  it  is  difficult  to  be  certain  of  the  effects  of  any  single 
initiative  and  therefore  impossible  to  estimate  the  cost-benefit  ratio  of  soft 
measures compared to legislative measures. 

4.  Do  you  believe  the  same  results  could  have  been  achieved  by  Member 
States at national and/or regional level without the EU interventions? 

Finland  and  Germany  assumed  the  same  results 
could  perhaps  have  been  achieved  also  by 
national 
European 
initiatives. 
Conference  of  Transport  Research  Institutes 
(ECTRI)  makes  the  distinction  between  the  best 

level 

The 

"The  EC  has  credibility  and 
authority  that  supports  the 
implementation  of  initiatives 
at national level." 

Road Safety Authority, 
Ireland 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
road safety performers, achieving their results before EU legislation, and Member 
States  with  poor  road  safety  performance  where  EU  initiatives  made  a  great 
impact.  

Other  respondents  did  not  believe  that  the  overall  results  would  have  been 
achieved with work only on the national level. 

5.  Do you believe the same or better results could have been achieved by an 
alternative  organisational  set-up  at  EU  level  (e.g.  a  separate  road  safety 
agency)? 

The  majority  of  respondents  did  not  believe  another  set-up  could  have  produced 
better  results.  Some  stakeholders  emphasised  that  the  influence  of  an  agency 
would not be as big as that of the Commission. Other stakeholders instead said a 
separate  road  agency  might  be  a  good  idea  for  knowledge  transfers,  bringing 
stakeholders together and improved harmonisation of standards.  

Stakeholders  also  proposed  that  better  results  could  be  achieved  with  better 
cooperation  and  closer  collaboration  among  Commission  units  and  Directorate-
Generals. 

6.  Do you consider the  strategic target on 50% reduction of road deaths to 
still be relevant and realistic with regard to the size and characteristics of 
road safety problems in the EU today? 

All  stakeholders  stressed  that  the  strategic  target  was 
relevant  and  important.  Some  had  doubts  that  it  was 
realistic, especially with regard to motorcyclists.  

Several of the respondents also mentioned the need for 
an additional target on seriously injured. 

"The EU target remains 
crucial,  as  is  action  to 
achieve it." 

ETSC 

7.  Do  you  consider  the  seven  strategic  objectives  of  the  Policy  orientations 
on  road  safety  still  relevant  in  relation  to  the  current  main  road  safety 
problems  and  challenges  –  should  anything  be  deleted  or  added  to  this 
list? 

All  respondents  considered  the  seven  objectives  of  the  Policy  orientations  to  be 
still  relevant,  with  a  reservation  by  FEMA  regarding  the  details  of  some  of  the 
existing objectives. 

Stakeholders  proposed  that  additions  could  be  made  to  the  policy  framework  to 
include  objectives  linked  to:  the  ageing  society,  new  vehicle  types  such  as  e-
bikes; work-related road safety; safety equipment and traffic safety management 
systems. Several stakeholders mentioned the  need to put more  emphasis on the 
safety  of  vulnerable  road  users  and  on  training,  education  and  enforcement  to 
better address road user behaviours. 

8.  Would  you  propose  any  additional,  realistic  measures  at  EU  level 
(respecting  the  subsidiarity  and  proportionality  principles  and  within  EU 
competence)  that  could  address  the  current/future  problems  and 
challenges  of  road  safety  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  2020  strategic 
target? 

For  improved  road  user  safety,  many  stakeholders  stressed  the  need  for  better 
road user training – high quality and cost effective training. This was proposed to 
be  combined  with  stepped-up  efforts  on  enforcement.  Several  stakeholders 
mentioned the specific challenge of distracted road users. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
safety, 

infrastructure 

For 
voiced 
disappointment  with  the  lack  of  progress  on  safer 
guardrails for motorcycles. Harmonised speed limits 
on  motorways  and  in  urban  areas  were  also 
proposed. 

FEMA 

"The  huge  amount  of 
unsafe  guardrails  still  in 
place  throughout  the  EU 
makes  clear  the  case  for 
EU-wide legislation." 

For  safer  vehicles,  the  Verband  der  TÜV  shared  a 
number 
strengthened 
roadworthiness  testing  in  the  EU.  Extending  legislation  for  mandatory  seat  belt 
reminders was mentioned. 

proposals 

for 

of 

FEMA 

The ITS area was emphasised by several stakeholders. Requests included: funding 
for  road  safety  technology  research;  legislative  measures  to  ensure  market 
penetration  of  technologies  with  proven  road  safety  effect  (i.e.  Automatic 
Emergency  Braking);  extended  focus  to  ITS  also  for  motorcycles;  and  making 
cooperative technologies an EU priority. 

Several  stakeholders  stressed  the  need  to  move  forwards  on  the  serious  injury 
initiative.  Austria  also  proposed  looking  into  best  practices  for  traffic  rules  in  the 
event of an emergency or a car breakdown on motorways. 

In  addition,  some  general  remarks  were  received.  The  evidence-based  approach  with 
cost-benefit  analyses  was  supported.  One  stakeholder  remarked  that  EU  legislative 
processes  are  today  too  slow  and  the  impact  of  legislation  comes  too  late.  Another 
stakeholder requested the Commission to prepare common calculation principles for cost 
of traffic deaths and serious injuries. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
List of participants in the stakeholder workshop, 17 November 2014 

NAME 

FIRST NAME 

ORGANISATION 

Aarse 

Adminaite 

Avenoso 

Basset 

Bramans 

Breen 

Burns 

Cobbaut 

Cré 

Delhaye 

Diez 

Ellul 

Fernández 

Goebelt 

Ishikiriyama 

Iwatani  

Jost 

Kato 

Kennedy 

Kuester 

Lacroix 

Lenz 

López Leza 

Maître 

Markmanrud 

Rob  

Dovile 

Antonio  

Ludovic 

Girts 

Jeanne 

Velma 

Johan 

Ivo  

Aline 

José 

Glen  

Eduard 

Richard 

Yusuke 

Satoru 

Graziella 

Masaya 

Alan 

Fabian 

Transport en Logistiek Nederland 

ETSC 

ETSC 

ACEM 

Permanent representation of Latvia 

Jeanne Breen Consulting 

Irish Road Safety Authority 

CITA 

POLIS 
Federation 
Associations 

of 

European 

Motorcyclists 

European Union Road Federation 

Malta Transport Centre 

CITA 

TÜV 

CLEPA  

CLEPA  

ETSC 

Toyota Boshoku Europe N.V.  

Nissan Technical Centre Europe 

European Cyclists’ Federation 

Jacqueline 

Deutscher Verkehrssicherheitsrat (DVR) 

Olivier  

Luisa  

Isabelle 

Martin 

Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile 

MOVING 

Fédération Nationale des Transports Routiers 

Nordic Logistics Association  

Martinez Sans  

Fuensanta  

ACEA  

Mersch 

Mousel 

Peeters 

Petó 

Purdie 

Radetzky 

Regenberg 

Rewell 

Rubika 

Saile 

Schulze 

Shovelton 

Sica 

Soenen 

Stacey 

Jeannot 

Federation of European Road Victims 

Thierry Henri   CLEPA 

Roger  

Gábor  

Ruth 

Robert  

Lynn 

Simon  

Iveta 

Dirk 

Horst 

Laser Europe 
Permanent  Representation  of  Hungary  to  the 
EU 

TISPOL 
Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and 
Technology 

Bosch 

Insure The Box Limited 

Permanent representation of Latvia 
Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr Logistik und 
Entsorgung  

FERSI 

Elizabeth  

Augusta 

Jan 

Department for Transport, UK 
International  Commission  for  Driver  Testing 
(CIECA) 

Transport en Logistiek Vlaanderen 

Stephen 

EuroRAP 

101 

 
 
 
Thiant 

Todts 

Townsend 

Trottein 

Van Mele  

Vansnick 

Willigers 

Alois 

William  

Ellen 

Robert  

Julie 

Mark 

Dolf  

Zakrzewska 

Aleksandra 

Insurance Europe 

Transport & Environment 

ETSC 

Laser Europe 

IRU 

Belgian Ministry of Transport and Mobility 

FEMA 
Bundesministerium  für  Verkehr  und  digitale 
Infrastruktur 

Schmidt 

Sanz Villegas 

Schäfer 

Lindahl 

Amrhar 

Szabolcs 

European Commission 

Mayté 

Annette 

Susanne 

Tarik 

European Commission 

European Commission 

European Commission 

European Commission 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.  ANNEX: NATIONAL TARGETS ON SERIOUS ROAD TRAFFIC INJURIES

260 

Member state 

Target level 

Target period 

Required 
percentage 
decrease from one 
year to next 
5.0% 

- 

2.2% 

- 

6.7% 

5.0% 

9.4% 

5.5% 

2010-2020 

- 

2010-2020 

- 

2010-2020 

2010-2020 

2013-2020 

2010-2015 

40% 

- 

20% 

- 

50% 

40% 

50% 

Average for 2013-
2015 to be 25% less 
than average for 
2008-2010 
25% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2010-2020 

2.8% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

30% 

2013-2020 

5.0% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

25% 

40% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

25% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2007-2020 

2010-2020 

2.2% 

5.0% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2007-2020 

- 

2.2% 

- 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

260  Based  on  National  Road  Safety  Strategies  and  similar  documents  as  sent  from  Member  States  to  the 

Commission in 2013-2014 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
M
I
0
4
1
5
2
4
6
E
N
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]