Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Priorities in EU road safety Progress - Report and ranking of actions
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 17. 03. 2000 COM(2000) 125 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS PRIORITIES IN EU ROAD SAFETY PROGRESS REPORT AND RANKING OF ACTIONS COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS PRIORITIES IN EU ROAD SAFETY PROGRESS REPORT AND RANKING OF ACTIONS Executive Summary There is no room for complacency in road safety. Although the trend is towards fewer fatalities, the decline is levelling off and over 40 000 citizens of the EU continue to meet a premature death on our roads. This Communication takes us beyond the Action Programme of 1997-2001, which introduced € a socio-economic dimension to road safety with the ' 1 million principle' which for the first time sought to give an economic cost to a fatality and the associated injuries and damage. It takes up suggestions from the Council and the European Parliament to issue a progress report on the Action Programme. Also, as requested by the Parliament, it gives a ranking to future measures at the Community level, and it makes a Recommendation to decision makers at all levels, to give more weight to the fact that the cost of preventing accidents is generally much less than the economic cost of casualties and damage caused by them. The Action Programme 1997-2001 can be considered a successful on-going process. Annex 3 contains a detailed and systematic listing of measures passed or under consideration. Much has been achieved in the strategic fields of improving enforcement of traffic rules and regulations, raising public awareness of road safety, and the gathering and dissemination of information on safety issues. A multi-criteria analysis followed by a cost effective assessment of the actions listed in the Programme 1997-2001, has led to the definition of the following short and medium term priorities in road safety in the EU: • Continue to work with and develop the European New Car Assessment Programme, (EuroNCAP); • Campaigns and legislation on seat belts and child restraints; • Recommendation to the Member States on maximum blood/alcohol levels in traffic; • Legislation on speed limiters for light commercial vehicles; • Develop guidelines for 'Black Spot' management (places with a concentration of accidents) and the design of 'forgiving' roadsides (i. e. less likely to cause injury in the event of an accident); • Legislation on safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists. Beyond these key priorities this Communication lists a further 5 measures for which more research into cost effectiveness is desirable: medical standards for driving licences; standards 2 for driving tests; daytime running lights; effects of medicines on driver behaviour; post accident care. Three supporting measures also received a high priority: the CARE accident statistics data base; an integrated information system; and, research into vehicle standards and telematics. Finally, this Communication contains a Recommendation of the Commission encouraging governments, local and regional authorities of the Member States to establishing a practice of to increase investments in these calculating costs and effects of road safety measures, measures and to develop mechanisms that will enable the benefits of road safety measures to be felt more directly by those taking the decisions and bearing the costs of their implementation. 3 1. INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 1. The EU road safety situation 1. 2. The EU road safety programme 1997-2001 1. 3. Purpose of this Communication 2. ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE ACTION PROGRAMME SINCE APRIL 1997 2. 1. Scope 2. 2. Improving enforcement 2. 3. Raising public awareness 2. 4. Information gathering and dissemination 3. PRIORITIES OF THE EU ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMME 3. 1. Methodology 3. 2. Multi-criteria analysis 3. 3. Cost effectiveness assessment 3. 4. Summary of results 4. CONCLUSION 4. 1. Short/medium term EU Priorities 4. 2. Recommendation of the Commission Annex 1 : Road Accident Database Annex 2 : The costs of accidents Annex 3 : Achievements road safety programme 1997-2001 Annex 4 : Duration of effects of road safety measures 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 9 10 11 11 13 15 18 22 22 24 25 31 32 42 4 1. INTRODUCTION 1. 1. The EU road safety situation In April 1997 the Commission issued a Communication on Road Safety in the EU1 which included a programme of measures. In this Communication the road safety situation in the EU was addressed on the basis of the expected development of the total number of fatalities, under the scenario of a continuation of past trends. This would result for the 15 Member States in a reduction of total fatalities from 45,000 in 1995, to 38,000 in 2000, to 32,000 in 2005 and 27,000 in the year 2010. Annex 1 provides a number of statistics updated until 97/98 that inescapably lead to the following conclusions. – There have been large reductions in fatalities in the last decade. This is considered by most experts to be mainly due to : - safer cars - increased seat belt use - less drink/driving - traffic calming and speed reduction measures. However, the decreasing trend in fatalities seems to flatten out, so that it is likely that in the year 2000 more than 38,000 fatalities will occur. (Table 1 and 2). Also the other estimations made in 1997 for the later periods were apparently too optimistic. – Enormous differences still exist between Member States (Table 3) leading once more to the conclusion that there must be a large scope for improvement simply by applying best practice throughout the Union. – There is no room for complacency, not even in those Member States that have better overall statistics. Tables 4, 5 and 6 present the most vulnerable road users indicating possibilities for improvement by more targeted policies for these categories. Unfortunately, as many national authorities have experienced, measures that would reduce the enormous human misery behind these figures, such as better enforced blood alcohol limits, better speed management and more responsible advertisements still have to be defended against misplaced accusations of “limiting personal freedom”. Improving the trend towards a stronger reduction of fatalities is a responsibility of authorities at all levels, including the EU where the right frameworks should be set. 1 COM(97)131 final, 9. 4. 1997 5 1. 2. The EU road safety programme 1997-2001 As indicated, the second road safety programme entitled “Promoting Road Safety in the EU” set out a programme for the period 1997-2001 and identified more than 60 fields of action classified into 3 broad categories: 1) The gathering and dissemination of information on: - - - - - - the development of EU road safety campaigns; target fields; target groups; effective measures (including the potential benefits of measures that could be carried out and an assessment of the effectiveness of measures that had already been taken); the implementation and enforcement of legislation; the rapid transfer of information and best practice throughout Community. the 2) Initiating and supporting measures to avoid accidents with an emphasis on human factors and its interface with the traffic environment. These measures include legislation, pilot projects and campaigns in order to improve the awareness, skills or physical condition of the road user, and extended control procedures and technical measures aiming at the creation of a more fail-safe environment. 3) Initiating and supporting measures to reduce the consequences of accidents when they occur. In this field, protection of the road user by seatbelts, helmets and vehicles with a higher crashworthiness is envisaged, as well as proposals for the development of EU standards and guidelines for more “forgiving” infrastructure when accidents occur. In the programme, the introduction of the socio-economic dimension of road safety is seen as a key element of the strategy to accelerate improvements by using increasingly scarce public resources as effectively as possible. This strategy is based on the principle that the high costs of accidents (which were roughly estimated at 1 million per recorded fatality) should be fully taken into account in the safety policies of Member States (Annex 2). This measure reflects only the direct economic costs and the value of lost output of reported road accidents and their consequent casualties. It does not include an estimate for non-reported accidents or for the value of human life, which can be very significant. Indeed, some Member States include a valuation of human life in their national estimates, but others do not on the grounds that valuing life is not possible. Therefore, although the 1 million rule under- estimates the real costs of road accidents it provides an acceptable uniform minimum valuation. € € 6 When other Institutions debated the Commission Communication the need for selecting and/or ranking the proposed measures according to different criteria, including their cost effectiveness and/or casualty reduction value, was raised. The Council and Parliament have also invited the Commission to report regularly on the progress of the programme. 1. 3. Purpose of this Communication Firstly, this Communication takes up the suggestions of the Council and of the European Parliament, expressed both during the debate on this matter and on later occasions, to issue a progress report on the action programme presented in 1997. Secondly, as also requested by the European Parliament in its Resolution, this paper presents a ranking of the proposed measures. This ranking has been carried out on the basis of fatality reduction potential and the cost effectiveness of the actions, but also takes into account a number of other criteria that are more difficult to quantify such as European added value, political feasibility and social acceptance. Thirdly, as announced in the action programme of 1997, this Communication includes a recommendation for decision making at all levels in the field of road safety, which should give more emphasis to the high economic costs of road accidents in comparison to the costs of the remedial measures. Moreover mechanisms should be developed to bring the benefits of road safety measures closer to the decision-makers. 2. ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE ACTION PROGRAMME SINCE APRIL 1997 2. 1. Scope At the time of the publication of the action programme several actions were already on-going or about to start. It should be pointed out that the programme has worked as a catalyst for specific measures notably by bringing in the economic argument. Also the influence of the programme on other “non Union” actions should not be underestimated. Annex 3 contains a detailed and systematic listing of measures from the action programme which have been passed or are under consideration as well as some additional measures which although not featuring in the programme, have had an important influence on road safety. The following paragraphs give a summary description of only the most important activities at EU level since April 1997 in the strategic fields of improving enforcement, raising public awareness and information gathering and dissemination. 2. 2. Improving enforcement Since April 1997 the following actions of the programme in the field of legislation and enforcement have been taken 7 Legislative actions Regulation on the second generation of Council on 24. 9. 1998 (Reg. 2135/98/EC) tachographs. Formal adoption by the After completion of the technical provisions, this Regulation will introduce, from 2002, digital recording equipment for the registration of driving and rest times. This equipment will facilitate roadside checks and systematic controls at operator’s premises. Proposal for a Directive on the random roadside inspection for commercial vehicles that circulate on the roads of the European Community (Commission proposal COM(98)117 final of 11. 3. 1998) This proposal, when adopted, will establish a regime of roadside checks of commercial vehicles, whether or not they are registered in the EU, regarding their safety and environmental performance. Proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of examinations for safety advisors for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterways (Commission proposal COM(98)174 final of 19. 3. 1998) This proposal will complement (Directive 96/35/EC) by harmonising examination requirements. the current legislation on road safety advisers Proposal for a Directive relating to the front underrun protection of heavy motor vehicles (COM(99)32 final of 10. 2. 1999) This proposal defines technical standards for the type approval of this equipment with the aim of reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries in collisions between lorries and smaller vehicles. Driving disqualification On 18 June 1998, the 15 Member States signed a Convention which will give Union- wide effect to driving disqualifications. It covers disqualifications imposed for specific driving offences such as hit-and-run driving, driving under the influence of alcohol, or driving a vehicle faster than the permitted speed. It is based on the the state where the offence was committed notifies the driving principle that disqualification without delay to the central authorities of the state where the driver resides and that the latter acts upon this notification. 8 Alcohol Legislation as regards maximum blood alcohol level of drivers Since April 1997 another 4 Member States (Denmark, Spain, Austria and Germany) have adopted their legislation in order to lower the maximum permitted blood alcohol concentration (BAC) from 0. 8 mg/ml to 0. 5 mg/ml. This means that, at present, only 4 Member States (Ireland, Italy Luxembourg, and the UK) still maintain a legal limit greater than 0. 5 mg/ml. The Commission considers that the differences in limits in the EU undermine the credibility of the lower limits which themselves are based on recent research. Alcohol remains one of the major causes of accidents a fact emphasised once more by the European Parliament during its debate on the road safety programme 1997-2001. The Transport Committee of the new European Parliament has not confirmed the old Commission’s proposal (COM (88)707 and 640 final), to introduce a maximum BAC limit of 0. 5 mg/ml, and has reflect asked the Commission to make a new proposal which will better developments in this field during the past decade. However, the Commission recognises the principle of subsidiarity in this field and the fact that the majority of the Member States have already moved to 0,5 mg/ml or less. Therefore, instead of a new legislative proposal, the Commission intends to submit a recommendation to Member States emphasising in this context the need for more effective enforcement and international co-operation in prosecuting drink driver offenders as well as the adoption of 0,5 or even lower limits for certain categories. Drugs and medicines In view of the increasing concerns regarding accidents involving the use of medicines and illicit drugs, and in order to review the situation on such a complex issue, the High Level Group on Road Safety decided, at the end of 1997, to reactivate the Working Group on Alcohol, Drugs and Medicines and Driving. The Group was asked to identify best practices and formulate recommendations on measures that should be considered at the EU level. The results of this Working Group are expected to be available mid 2000. A research project (ROSITA) has been launched in the 4th framework programme on the development of a usable roadside test for drugs. The results of a study into the information provided to users of medicines in several Member States highlights the fact that there is still a lack of information concerning their effects on driving. 2. 3. Raising Public Awareness EuroNCAP In the Communication of 1997 the Commission announced its intention to support the setting up of a New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP) in order to create a market for safety by making available adequate consumer information about the passive (secondary) safety of cars. The EuroNCAP consortium now involves the European Commission, the UK, German, French, Swedish and Dutch Departments of Transport, the FIA/AIT and their touring clubs, and consumer organisations. Other Member States are preparing to participate soon. 9 EuroNCAP involves crash testing cars in frontal and side impacts plus an assessment of new car fronts as regards the risk to pedestrians and cyclists. The results of test programmes of seven different classes of car have been published so far. The Commission’s funding of EuroNCAP has enabled a more comprehensive test programme involving a larger selection of cars in each class than would otherwise have been the case. The EuroNCAP programme has had a significant influence on both the design of new cars and the installation of safety equipment in current car models to the benefit of car occupants. Most manufacturers are in direct communication with the programme’s co-ordinators in order to time product launches so as to ensure that the latest (and safest) model of car is crash tested. The programme has raised consumer awareness of safety considerably and this was reflected in the sales of some of the cars that had outstanding test performances. The Ten Seconds Campaign The European Commission was a major financial contributor to several publicity campaigns one of which was the “Ten seconds that can save your life” campaign which ran from April to October 1998. This Europe-wide campaign focussed on 4 simple actions – taking less than 10 seconds to perform – which could save someone’s life in an accident. The actions were: put on a seat belt; correctly adjust the seat and head restraint; stow loose luggage in the boot; fix children in a safety seat/harness. Anti Drink Drive videos The Commission funded the production of a number of videos, based on a Danish concept, which illustrated to young people the negative effects of alcohol on their ability to drive. These videos have been extensively shown in youth clubs etc. MTV videos The Commission has worked with the pop/rock music TV station MTV to produce three short videos aimed at young people on the themes of seat belt wearing and driving while under the influence on drink or drugs. The videos were screened on MTV's 4 European networks during the spring and summer of 1999. 2. 4. Information gathering and dissemination CARE database On the basis of Council Decision 93/704/EC a database has been created of all accident statistics, involving at least personal injury, as recorded by national police forces. This database has proven to be a reliable tool for analysing accidents with fatalities but as regards injuries there is still a problem with underreporting, which is influenced at a national level by different reporting practices, definitions of injury, and different legal requirements on the reporting of accidents involving injury. A progress report was submitted to the Council and the European Parliament in June 1997. The Council in its Resolution of 18 June 1997 included a paragraph inviting the Commission to continue the development of this European accident database. 10 The first phase of transformation rules to create more common variables from disparate national data has recently been incorporated into the Care system, which will significantly increase the possibilities for producing comparable road accident statistics. Within the Commission existing CARE data has already been used to support policy development. For example: – The age profile of fatalities and casualties in injury accidents of specific road user groups to support the discussion on maximum BAC limits. – The distribution of fatalities, in and outside urban areas, by light condition, and calendar month, to support assessment of the effect of changing Summer Time upon road accidents. – The involvement of heavy goods vehicles and other vehicles in tunnels (for the three Member States which record this information) to support an assessment of the current safety record of tunnels. – The involvement of heavy goods vehicles and buses in fatal accidents, to support an assessment of the contribution of large vehicles in accidents in relation to maximum BAC limits. – The incidence of fatal accidents involving fatigue, on the basis of data from 7 Member States who record this information. – The distribution of heavy goods vehicles in fatal accidents, by day of week, to support the assessment of the possible road safety effects of week-end bans. – The involvement of ‘defective tyres’ in fatal and non-fatal accidents to respond to enquiries from the tyre industry about the significance of tyre failure in road accidents. Day-Time Running Lights (DRL) There are many different views on this issue, and therefore research was commissioned from the Dutch road safety institute SWOV. Their report found a strong case for DRL on the basis of a positive cost benefit analysis. Because of the complexity of this issue it was agreed with the Member States to form an expert group to examine the issue of DRL in more detail. This group met within the High Level Group – Road Safety. Although there were some disagreements on details the High Level Group concluded that the time had come to actively promote DRL. 3. PRIORITIES OF THE EU ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMME 3. 1. Methodology In its road safety programme 1997-2001 the Commission identified a number of actions to be undertaken to improve road safety. This action programme was discussed by the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee and received comments from governmental and non-governmental experts. In this 11 process the identified actions were generally supported although a general desire for more concrete definitions and prioritisation was expressed. In the process of prioritisation, cost effectiveness analysis is considered by leading experts to be one of the key elements contributing to a “mature” approach to road safety, as a method of rational decision-making based on the best available evidence. A cost effectiveness analysis is an analysis in which the aim is to find the cheapest way of realising a certain policy objective. Cost effectiveness calculations can be placed in a wider social context by comparing the cost of the measure per saved € fatality with the benefits represented by one saved fatality (the “ 1 million Test”). Such a comparison turns the cost effectiveness analysis into a tool closer to cost benefit analysis which should help policy makers to set priorities in order to maximise efficiency in the use of public finances. As well as the cost-effectiveness of a measure, an important factor in the selection of actions should be the estimated potential number of casualties that will be saved. However, in the action programme of 1997 there are several measures that concern gathering and dissemination of information, or research. These are not specific road safety measures but are activities which generate information to both monitor and guide policy. They can only be ranked, rather subjectively, on the basis of their perceived benefit to road safety policymakers but are difficult to assess using cost effectiveness and/or casualty reduction potential as criteria. Furthermore, there are also a number of qualitative criteria such as social acceptability, the political context, and the effects on other policies that cannot be integrated into an economic analysis, but which nonetheless play an important role in prioritising actions. These criteria can only be applied in a more subjective assessment. A full cost effectiveness assessment is a complicated process because in many cases sufficient data is not available, requiring further study to be carried out. Therefore, taking into account the above mentioned subjective criteria, it was decided to be more pragmatic by carrying out the first ranking of the priorities in the EU road safety programme in two stages: • A qualitative prioritisation of the measures. In order to reduce its subjective aspects this strategic approach was carried out by means of a systematic multi- criteria analysis involving the opinions of road safety policy makers in the Member States. • This was followed by an estimation of the quantitative aspects of the actions that had received a high ranking in the first stage. In a number of specific cases this required a calculation of their casualty reduction potential and their cost effectiveness. 12 3. 2. Multi-criteria analysis In order to arrive at a strategic prioritisation of the action programme the Representatives of the Member States in the High Level Group on road safety together with a number of leading experts in Europe were asked to give for each proposed action in the programme a score from 1 to 5 for eight different criteria. The following criteria were selected on the basis of similar exercises in other policy fields (e. g. environment) where a strategic prioritisation was made before an economic analysis could be carried out: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. European added value: to what extent would implementing the measure at the EU level be consistent with the idea that the EU should establish policies only if this can be done more effectively than at the national or sub national level? Institutional commitment: to what extent does the measure build upon past and present resource commitments by relevant organisations at the European level (e. g. Member State governments, industry associations, pilot programme developers)? Social acceptance: to what extent is the measure viewed as legitimate by the majority of citizens in Member States? Political feasibility: to what extent can the measure easily be decided upon by political decision makers (at the EU, national, regional and local levels), given the possible pressures imposed on their decision making by a variety of organised lobby-groups? institutional implementation: Ease of to what extent can the measure’s implementation be effectively performed by the public agencies responsible for implementation given their present strategies and resources (e. g. resources for monitoring and enforcement)? Ease of target group implementation: to what extent can the target groups (e. g. car drivers, car manufacturers, schools, agencies responsible for granting drivers’ licences, etc. ) effectively implement the measures, given their present strategies and present resource constraints. Lack of negative external effects on third parties (e. g. some types of monitoring could be viewed as having an impact on privacy) from the implementation of other Independence of a measure’s impact in the case whereby implementing this complementary measures (except measure is a pre-condition to successfully implement other measures, thus this measure must be implemented prior to other measures, to make the latter effective). 13 The responses and comments received made clear that this exercise was complicated and it led to a more explicit definition of some of the listed actions in the programme as regards: – The level at which the action should be initiated (EU, national, local) – The kind of action that is envisaged (legal, study, exchange of information, campaigns) The calculation of the ranking of the actions on the basis of the replies received was carried out with different weighing factors for the above criteria in order to test the sensitivity of the model. It appeared that the outcome was not influenced in a major way by these variations. In order to distinguish priorities for action at the Community level from actions that were deemed to be more useful at national or local level it was decided to make two separate calculations. In a first calculation the criterion “European Added Value” is given a weighting of 50% of the total while all other criteria are equally weighted in the remaining 50%. In a second calculation the European Added Value criterion is not taken into account. The results of this exercise are presented in clusters of related actions in the following table. Top priority at Community level (50% weight for “European added value” in the assessment) – Crashworthiness of vehicles2 (e. g. EuroNCAP; “friendly” design of motor vehicles; safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists and front underrun protection) – Use of seat belts and child restraints; Use of motorcycle/cycle crash helmets – EU road safety monitoring system; CARE database; CARE plus; Info system on national implementation of measures; Info system on research: Integrated info system 2 Those actions having been given the highest priority within the clusters and which have been the subject of a further cost effectiveness analyses are shown in bold. 14 High priority at Community level (50% weight for “European added value” in the assessment) – Speed limiters for heavy vehicles (evaluation), Variable speed messages; Speed limiters for lighter vehicles – On-trip information RDS-traffic management channel; Emergency call systems; Automatic incident detection and emergency management – Alcohol; Drugs/medicines – Medical requirements for driving licences; Testing for driving licences; Disqualification of drivers – Daytime running lights Additional high priorities for action at national/local “European added value” in the assessment) level (no weight for – Improved advertising – Post accident care – Forgiving roadside design; Black spot management (including safety audits of infrastructure, speed management of infrastructure) 3. 3. Cost effectiveness assessment Scope For cost effectiveness assessments of actions in the field of road safety, monetary valuations have to be carried out measured in casualties avoided. Firstly the scope of a potential measure must be defined. Actions on a European level can have a Europe-wide application, such as vehicle type approval measures. However, it is also possible that an action will only apply to selected Member States e. g. targeted campaigns. At the local level the assessment of specific infrastructure improvements can even be calculated per separate measure (e. g. per km of road or per roundabout). 15 Casualty reduction potential Once the scope of a measure is defined then the basis for the calculation of its effectiveness can be its casualty reduction potential. The casualty reduction potential of most actions in road safety on a European scale has to be based on statistical analysis, assuming that a number of casualties would not have occurred if a certain contributing factor (e. g. alcohol, lack of seat belt wearing, poor infrastructure) had not been present. The examination of trends in road accident data before and after the introduction of a road safety measure is the usual starting point for analysis. As agreed under 3. 1. the casualty reduction potential of a measure is itself also a criterion for prioritisation and also serves as basis for the calculation of the effectiveness of a measure. However, for reasons of underreporting of injuries in statistics the potential of measures in the following will be expressed in the number of fatalities that can be avoided. For the purpose of this global assessment it is assumed that there is a rather constant relation between fatalities, serious injuries, light injuries and damage. Effectiveness The assessment of effectiveness in terms of saved fatalities is in some cases extremely difficult, especially when the actions aim at producing a attitudinal change in road users which may or may not lead to behavioural change. infrastructure improvements will, In order to calculate the effect of a measure, a quantitative and a qualitative correction factor should be applied to its fatality reduction potential. The fatality reduction potential of a measure would be the result of such a measure if there was 100% coverage of the target group (quantitative) and 100% compliance of those that are covered (qualitative). This means that the effectiveness of a measure can be calculated as the product of its fatality reduction potential and the two factors that indicate the degree of coverage and compliance of the measure. For the different kind of measures these two factors should be estimated as precisely as possible, and it is clear that they will differ considerably. For instance, a European wide range of potential for budgetary reasons, have a low percentage of coverage/implementation but the compliance will be near to 100% as road users will normally not have the option of avoiding using these improvements. The degree of coverage of vehicle improvements depends on the number of vehicles affected by a measure (type approval legislation may make something compulsory only for certain new vehicles) and the compliance will be very high. On the contrary, legislative behavioural measures can have 100% implementation if such a measure affects all road users, but relatively low compliance when this measure is not accepted by the public or not sufficiently enforced. In this context, for the calculation of cost effectiveness of enforcement or campaigns, the quantitative factor coverage should be seen as the proportion of people reached, whilst the compliance stands for the proportion of these people that actually changed their behaviour as a result of such an action. 16 Costs The calculation of costs is in many cases complex, because some costs are not easily estimated, especially when a particular action generates or reduces external environmental or congestion costs, and also because there could be influences on other policies that generate costs or benefits. An additional complication in a cost effectiveness analysis when applied on an EU scale is the variation in costs of complementary measures from one country to another as a result of varying purchasing power parity. Only global estimations on the basis of averages and applying conversion factors are possible. Finally, the costs attributed to actions should include all costs made by public or private bodies as the benefits are also calculated on the basis of the full social effects of avoided casualties and material damage. Time reference to make the cost-effectiveness ratios of different In order safety measures comparable, it is necessary to relate both the number of prevented accidents, damage and casualties, and the costs of implementing the measure to a certain time frame. This need arises because the relationship between costs and the duration of effects varies considerably between safety measures. The duration of the effects of various measures as estimated in the PROMISING project is reflected in Annex 4. In order to compare costs of safety measures, the easiest method is to convert them to annual costs as the benefits (e. g. lives saved) are normally also calculated on a yearly basis. Simply dividing the investment costs by the number of years that a safety measure has effect is the easiest method. However, in order to take into account normal interest rates on investments it is, especially for measures that have effects over many years, more correct to convert investment costs to constant annual costs, which, if paid throughout the period it applies to, have the original investment cost as its present value. As an example, if a measure has its effect over a period of 15 years and the interest rate is 5% then the annual cost are the investment costs divided by 10. 4 (and not by 15). In Annex 4 a complete table with conversion coefficients is listed. Presentation of results The way the cost effectiveness of a road safety measure is presented can vary depending on the stakeholder to which this assessment is addressed. A consumer that buys a safety device or spends extra money for a safer car probably is most interested in the percentage risk reduction he or she pays for. In contrast, local authorities that invest in road improvement schemes or in a targeted campaign wants to see how many fatalities and associated injuries and damage are avoided as a result of this investment. 17 For the purpose of policy decisions at the national or EU-level such as prioritisation, the cost effectiveness of a measure can be expressed as the cost per saved fatality as an “inverted” cost effectiveness ratio which makes comparison with the 1 million threshold easier. € This leads to the following basic formula: Cost effectiveness = -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fatality reduction potential x Coverage x Compliance Costs of the measure Using this methodology the cost effectiveness assessment of specific actions that were given a high priority in the multi-criteria analysis of paragraph 3. 2 was carried out. Although this communication principally deals with prioritisation of actions at EU level, for the measures that received a high ranking to be carried out on national or local level a global cost effectiveness estimation was also made. These measures, when cost effective, should be the subject of Community activity in the field of exchange of best practice, and development of guidelines. 3. 4. Summary of results – Crashworthiness test (EuroNCAP) • Type of action: consumer information at EU-level (continuation) • Scope: car occupants and (to a lesser extent) vulnerable road users • Main assumptions: – Brings forward the benefits of new legislation by 5 years and raises level of protection for car occupants. – Costs of testing and publication paid by EU Commission, automobile clubs, consumer organisations and several Member States; costs of vehicle improvements ultimately borne by the consumer (these costs are not included as they are not based on legislation but on market forces). • Fatality reduction potential: 2000 yearly • Cost per avoided fatality: € 2000 – 4000 18 – Safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists • Type of action: type approval legislation (exclusive EU competence) • Scope: all new vehicles • Main assumptions: – Estimation of number of pedestrians/cyclists that would have survived an accident in case of a friendlier vehicle front (controversial results in different analysis) – Cost for manufacturers to change design/production (these figures have to be included as they will be based on compulsory legislation and are highly controversial). (and ultimately consumers) • Fatality reduction potential: 650 - 2200 yearly • Cost per avoided fatality: € 140 000 – 3 million – Use or seat belts and child restraints • Type of action: EU wide campaign such as the ‘10 seconds that can save your life’ campaign combined with updating EU-legislation; Updating of legislation; Introduction of audible seat belt devices. • Scope: all citizens of EU • Main assumptions: compliance by target group (with a variation from 2 to 10%) depends on the intensity of the campaign (active, passive, indirect) • Fatality reduction potential: 8000 yearly at full compliance • Fatality reduction potential of campaigns + updated legislation : 800 • Cost per avoided fatality: » € 50. 000 NB : no research exists on the effects of information campaigns on road safety. 19 – Speed limiters for lighter vehicles • Type of action: type approval and (possible) in-use legislation • Scope: all new vehicles 3,5 – 12 tonnes and also limited retrofitting • Main assumptions: extrapolation of detailed Dutch study • Fatality reduction potential: 50 - 200 yearly • Cost per avoided fatality: € 0 –100. 000 NB : the additional environmental benefits largely compensate costs for user and society. – Alcohol (legislation and enforcement actions) • Type of action: – at local national level: enforcement of legislation – at EU-level : Recommendation concerning BAC limits, exchange of info on best enforcement strategies, campaigns • Scope: all road users but particular attention to (young) male car drivers • Main assumptions: – Based on available evidence it is assumed that a 10% overall reduction of alcohol related accidents can be obtained by a package of measures based upon lower, more uniform limits. Great variations between Member States. – Costs of increased enforcement and campaigns will vary considerably depending on current practice and tradition in Member States. • Fatality reduction potential of the actions: 1000 (about 10000 victims yearly are caused by alcohol) • Cost per avoided fatality : € 100 000 - 1 000 000 20 – Day-time running lights • Type of action: different options: – automatic switch; – in use regulation – compulsory type approval • Scope: all motor vehicles • Main assumptions: – extra fuel consumption 0,5 – 1,5% – neutral effect for two wheel vehicles (still under discussion) – extrapolation of accident developments in countries where the policy is implemented • Fatality reduction potential: 900 - 2000 yearly • Cost per avoided fatality: € 500 000 – 2 000 000 NB : extra research is needed to arrive at more accurate estimations. – “Forgiving” road side design • Type of action: guidelines on EU-level and infrastructure investments at local level • Scope: wide range of measures such as: eliminating unnecessary obstacles, moving obstacles away from roadside, better adopted guard rails • Main assumptions: unforgiving road side is a contributing factor in many solo accidents caused by inappropriate speed, alcohol or fatigue • Fatality reduction potential: 1000 - 2000 yearly for a large package of measures • Fatality reduction potential for individual projects in most cases < 1 • Cost per avoided fatality: € 100 000 – 300 000 (national/local level) 21 – “Black spot” management (includes safety audit, infrastructure speed management, urban safety management) • Type of action: guidelines on EU-level and infrastructure investments at local level. • Scope: wide range of measures varying from retro reflecting road studs, warning panels, safety barriers to improvement in road markings and signs • Main assumptions: extrapolation of UK and Spanish applications • Fatality reduction potential: high for target groups (overall potential in EU: 2000 – 4000 yearly) • Cost per avoided fatality: € 50 000 – 200 000 (national/local level) Certain measures such as research programmes or supporting actions such as CARE were not the subject of Cost Effectiveness assessments because of their indirect benefits on road safety whilst others (e. g. driver training programmes, post accident care) could not be assessed at this stage because of a lack of comparable and reliable data. 4. CONCLUSION 4. 1. Short/medium term EU Priorities The summary of results presented in 3. 4 above sets out for each of the eight priority road safety measures, identified by road safety experts in the multi-criteria analysis, an assessment of the main components of their cost effectiveness. It was decided to narrow this list down to six short to medium term EU priorities taking into account the following criteria • the scores of experts in the multi-criteria analysis, • the estimated fatality reduction effect of each measure, • and the estimated cost effectiveness of each measure. The following table provides a relative ranking for each of these criteria for each of the selected priority road safety measures. In terms of the multi-criteria analysis the six measures have been ranked according to whether they were considered to be top priority (1) or medium priority (2). But in terms of fatality reduction and cost effectiveness each measure has been ranked in order from (1) to (6). It is clear on this basis that the EuroNCAP programme which has done so much to reduce the severity of injury in accidents in recent years is still regarded as the most significant road safety action to improve road safety in the future, but all other priority measures provide the impetus required to significantly improve road safety in the EU in the short to medium term. 22 1) EuroNCAP continuation with the publication of ratings 2) Seat belts and child campaigns and legislation restraints 3) Alcohol Recommendation, campaigns and information on enforcement 4) Speed limiters for light legislation vehicles 5) Black spot management and forgiving roadside design developing guidelines 6) Safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists Type approval and (possible) in use legislation * MC : Multi Criteria analysis * FRP : Fatality Reduction potential * CE : Cost effectiveness MC* FR* CE* 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 6 5 4 1 3 5 2 4 6 The next 5 measures are also priorities but more research is needed to assess their cost-effectiveness (the prioritisation is based only on a multi-criteria analysis): 1) Medical standards for driving licences 2) Testing for driving licences 3) Daytime running lights 4) Effect of medicines on driver behaviour 5) Post accident care The following 3 priorities are supporting measures that have received a high priority ranking in the multi-criteria analysis but for which a fatality reduction potential is difficult to define: 1) CARE database 2) Integrated information system 3) Research into vehicle standards and telematics 23 4. 2. Recommendation of the Commission The use of cost effectiveness, or in a later stage cost-benefit, calculations to support road safety should be encouraged at all levels. The tentative calculations made for the purpose of this report demonstrate in many cases that investment in road safety is a first class investment in welfare and well being. The paradox is that a calculation on a higher level (EU, Member State) is on the one hand easier because costs and benefits can be allocated to the same stakeholder (the EU/society) but on the other hand is highly complicated because of the global estimations of the effects. Research is needed in order to facilitate application of cost-effectiveness on all levels. Finally, it should be emphasised that the distance between the decision-maker that has to pay the costs and the one that profits from the increased safety is probably one of the main reason for the slow progress in road safety. In cases where the consumer himself benefits (e. g. airbags), there is less need to legislate but only to inform him of the safety benefits, whilst for more altruistic measures (no bull bars), legislation seems to be inevitable. It seems appropriate in these circumstances to think about the development of alternative incentives such as tax discount, lower insurance schemes, that could accelerate the investments in safety at all levels. Given the above, the Commission issues the following Recommendation : Recommendation of the Commission The Commission, Having regard to the number of casualties, injuries and damage caused by road accidents, Having regard the persistent underestimation of the economic consequences of these accidents when general political priorities are set, Encourages Member States, regional and local authorities to establish a practice of calculating the costs and effects of road safety measures and where appropriate comparing these with the costs of avoided accidents, Invites Member States, regional and local authorities – to increase investment in road safety projects, as these investments are economically highly justified, – to develop mechanisms that will enable the benefits of road safety measures to be felt more directly by those taking the decisions and bearing the costs of their implementation. 24 ANNEX 1 European Commission Transport Directorate General Unit for safety, technology and environment • CARE 25 Road Accident Statistics Table 1 : Number of persons killed* 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1. 873 1. 671 1. 660 1. 692 1. 449 1. 356 1. 364 1. 300 606 577 559 546 582 514 489 489 11. 300 10. 631 9. 949 9. 814 9. 457 8. 758 8. 549 7. 792 2. 112 2. 158 2. 159 2. 253 2. 411 2. 058 2. 199 2. 226 8. 836 7. 818 6. 376 5. 614 5. 750 5. 481 5. 605 5. 747 10. 483 9. 900 9. 867 9. 019 8. 891 8. 541 8. 444 8. 918 445 415 431 404 437 453 472 462 8. 104 8. 051 7. 178 7. 089 7. 012 6. 676 6. 712 6. 590 83 69 78 65 70 71 60 57 1. 281 1. 253 1. 235 1. 298 1. 334 1. 180 1. 163 1. 066 1. 551 1. 403 1. 283 1. 338 1. 210 1. 027 1. 105 963 3. 218 3. 084 2. 700 2. 504 2. 711 2. 730 2. 521 2. 425 632 745 601 759 484 632 480 589 441 572 404 537 438 541 397 540 4. 753 4. 379 3. 957 3. 807 3. 765 3. 740 3. 743 3. 581 B DK D GR E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EUR 15 56. 022 52. 769 48. 549 46. 512 46. 092 43. 526 43. 404 42. 553 1991: INDEX 100 100 94 87 83 82 78 77 76 Trends on previous year - -5,8% -8,0% -4,2% -0,9% -5,6% -0,3% -2,0% * 1. Persons killed are all persons killed within 30 days from the day of the accident. For Member States not using this definition, corrective factors were applied - (Gr: 1,18 up to 1995 - F: 1,09 up to 1993 and 1,057 after 1994 - I: 1,078 - P: 1,3) 2. Figures in Italic are based on estimated trends Sources : CARE - National sources 26 Road Accident Statistics Table 2 : Trends in the number of persons killed * 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 B DK D GR E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EUR 15 * 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 89 95 94 102 88 94 93 99 83 98 90 96 95 102 92 94 89 92 88 102 72 94 97 89 94 96 83 84 77 85 83 87 90 90 87 107 64 86 91 87 78 77 96 84 114 65 85 98 87 84 101 104 86 78 76 79 80 83 78 84 70 77 79 82 72 85 78 97 62 81 102 82 86 92 66 85 64 72 79 78 73 81 76 104 63 81 106 83 72 91 71 78 69 73 79 77 69 81 69 105 65 85 104 81 69 83 62 75 63 72 75 76 1. 2. Persons killed are all persons killed within 30 days from the day of the accident. For Member States not using this definition, corrective factors were applied - (Gr: 1,18 up to 1995 - F: 1,09 up to 1993 and 1,057 after 1994 - I: 1,078 - P: 1,3) Figures in Italic are based on estimated trends Diagram 1 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 EUR 15 EUROPE (15) 1991 100 1992 94 1993 87 1994 83 1995 82 1996 78 1997 77 1998 76 27 Road Accident Statistics Table 3 : Number of persons killed* per million inhabitants 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 B DK D GR E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK 188 118 142 207 227 184 126 143 216 85 200 326 126 87 82 167 112 132 210 201 173 117 142 177 83 178 313 120 88 76 165 108 123 209 163 172 121 126 197 81 161 274 96 73 68 168 105 121 216 143 156 113 124 162 85 167 253 95 67 65 143 112 116 231 147 153 122 122 172 86 151 273 86 65 64 134 98 107 197 140 147 125 116 172 76 128 275 79 61 64 134 93 104 210 143 144 129 117 143 75 137 254 85 61 64 EUR 15 153 144 132 126 124 117 116 Sources : CARE - National sources * 1. 2. Persons killed are all persons killed within 30 days from the day of the accident. For Member States not using this definition, corrective factors were applied - (Gr: 1,18 up to 1995 - F: 1,09 up to 1993 and 1,057 after 1994 - I: 1,078 - P: 1,3) Figures in Italic are based on estimated trends 28 Road Accident Statistics Diagram 2 : Number of persons killed* per million inhabitants 300 270 240 210 180 150 120 90 60 30 0 S 61 UK NL FIN DK D EUR 15 I IRL B A E L F GR P 64 75 85 93 104 116 117 129 134 137 143 143 144 210 254 * Person killed are all persons killed within 30 days from the day of the accident. For Member States not using this definition, corrective factors were applied - (Gr: 1,18 up to 1995 - F: 1,09 up to 1993 and 1,057 after 1994 - I: 1,078 - P: 1,3) Sources : CARE - National sources 29 Road Accident Statistics Table 4 : Children (age less than 10) fatalities* B DK D GR* E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EUR 15 1996 26 15 216 37 102 243 12 91 2 22 29 78 17 11 109 1. 010 Table 5 : Pedestrians fatalities B DK D GR* E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EUR 15 1996 154 68 1. 178 481 960 1. 043 114 987 9 103 157 624 70 74 1. 039 7. 061 Table 6 : Cyclists fatalities B DK D GR* E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK EUR 15 1996 120 88 594 34 102 317 21 414 1 233 73 75 46 49 208 2. 375 Sources : CARE - National sources * Persons killed are all persons killed within 30 days from the day of the accident. For Member States not using this definition corrective factors were applied - (Gr: 1,18 up to 1995 - F: 1,09 up to 1993 and 1,057 after 1994 - I: 1,078 - P: 1,3) 2. GR: Data available for 1995 30 The costs of accidents ANNEX 2 The introduction by the Commission of the “1 million ECU test” in the road safety programme 1997-2001 has generated a lot of discussion and therefore it should be emphasised once more that it is calculated as the reported economic costs of all types of road accidents (fatalities, injuries, damage only) divided by the total number of fatalities. At the time of the publication of the report in 1997, this total of hard costs was estimated to be roughly 45 billion ECU whilst the number of fatalities in the EU in 1995 was approximately 45,000. The latest, more precise, estimations of socio-economic costs of road accidents in the EU, including value of human life and unreported accidents on the basis of the statistics of 1995, were made by the ETSC and are reflected in table 1. Applying the same calculation as before would lead to dividing the total reported “economic” costs of 52 billion (the grey area) by 45,000 resulting in an adjusted value of 1,15 million in 1999. € € Table 1: Socio-economic costs of road accidents in the EU (billion € ) Economic costs Value of human life Total socio- economic costs Fatalities Serious injuries - reported - non-reported Slight injuries - reported - non reported Damage-only accidents - reported - non-reported Total reported Total unreported TOTAL 21 16 3 12 52 7 4 37 48 100 29 23 50 39 10 17 52 104 10 62 58 162 this figure is also a clear underestimation of the real costs because of However, underreporting of non-fatal accidents. € 1 million should only be seen as an indicative value that cannot be contested as too high and 1 million Test” is maintained for the purpose of promoting EU road safety. € therefore the “ 31 Achievements road safety programme 1997-2001 ANNEX 3 Subject Key provisions Status/timing Recommendation on the application of the test € 1 million The explanatory memo- randum will contain an evaluation of the costs and benefits of applying this test throughout the Community The subject of this Communication Field I: Information gathering and dissemination A. Integrated EU info system EU road safety monitoring (system) CARE database CARE plus Exposure data In depth data Ad hoc surveys Quick indicator Regular up to date publication of the overall EU accident figures compared to predicted trend Community accident data-base on the basis of disaggregated data collected by Member States On-going Evaluation of first three years (in COM (97) 238 final of 26/5/97) Evaluation on-going. Homogenisation of accident data within the CARE database On-going Integration of traffic data to complement accident data for better analysis Paper prepared by ETSC Spring 1998. Work on-going Specific data collection on accident scenes for more detailed information and better analysis On-going STAIRS, final report produced, Accident causation, (EACS) report produced by ACEA. MAIDS report produced by ACEM Surveys aiming at better quantitative and qualitative assessments of specific measures Recent trends in provisional data on fatalities (restricted publication) Delayed On-going 32 Communication strategies Road safety indicators at EU level EU information system with guidelines on signing Integrated EU information system B. Additional activities in the field of information Sartre survey II European seminar held in Luxembourg 26-27 Nov. 1997 Delayed Delayed Extended feasibility study, September 1999 Sartre II project completed January 1999 and extended to the Central European countries Exchange of experiences in most effective communication strategies Measuring instruments that can be used to assess the results of separate road safety actions (e. g. the success of enforcement) Documentary file on best practice in enforcement policy for road signs and signals and infrastructure design The key issue for real efficiency of road safety efforts is accessibility of information at all levels. An independent EU information system built around the CARE database should be the basis for this. Large survey collecting car drivers attributes and reported behaviour in 13 EU countries (all Member States except DK and L). Analysis of the results followed by in-depth analysis of selected topics. International police co- operation Setting up a network between traffic police forces and enforcement authorities e. g. in the field of driving licences and tachographs Three co-ordination meetings held and co-operation measures on alcohol enforcement actions undertaken (TISPOL) ESCAPE project: Enhanced Safety coming from Appropriate Police Enforcement. Results mid 2000 33 Independent accident investigation Cost benefit analysis of road traffic safety measures Field II: Accident avoidance Starting discussion on desirability of independent accident investigation bodies in road traffic (analogous to air traffic accident investigation) Not yet a priority for the road sector. Concentrating on the maritime and aviation sectors A systematic forecast and review of the costs and benefits of various road traffic safety measures PROMISING report (4FP) published mid 1999 ongoing action in 5th framework programme is foreseen Subject Key provisions Status/timing A. Direct influence on user 1 Driving licence (skills and behaviour) Application of Dir. 91/439/EEC Art. 12. 3 Creating a network between Member States for international management of licences Delayed Art 10 Decision on equivalencies of categories February 2000 – Microchips on driving licences Report on possible contents of future micro-chips on driving licences Feasibility study, November 1999 – Testing for driving licences – Annex III (medical requirements) Evaluation of existing differences in application of Annex II by Member States Adaptation to medical and technical progress by Committee Proposals in 2000 Studies into eyesight standards on-going – Art. 11 of Dir. 91/439/EEC Harmonisation of optional sub- Proposal by end 99 categories Adoption for February 2000 Study into post licensing measures for novice drivers, November 1999 Convention adopted end 1998 – Licensing of novice drivers – Disqualification Improved methods/policies for the safety of novice drivers (follow up WP2 of High Level Group) Mutual recognition of disqualification by a Member State different from the Member State of normal residence 34 – Periodicity of medical checks for professional and elderly drivers Harmonisation needed in light of mutual recognition and for road safety reasons Study results July 1999. Proposal for end 99, adoption February 2000 2. Physical condition – Alcohol Harmonised maximum allowed BAC level at 0. 5‰ for road users Promote the use of analysis of expired air as a measurement of intoxication COM (88)707 final (still on the table of the Council) will be replaced by a Recommendation to the Member States Reactivation of expert Group. Report November 1999 Re-integration of drivers who had been banned because of alcohol abuse Reactivation of expert Group Report November 1999 – Drugs/medicines Develop methodologies for roadside checks ROSITA and CERTIFIED Studies launched Warning labels on medicines – Fatigue Effective control of drivers’ hours for professional drivers – Automatic systems to monitor drivers’ condition In-built systems in cars that can assess the physical condition of the driver (fatigue, alcohol or drug influence) and the driver’s compliance with traffic rules and which can initiate warning systems or devices that prevent driving Reactivation of High Level Group Regulation on the second generation of tachographs 2135/98/EC adopted 24. 9. 1998 complementary technical specifications delayed until March 2000. Updating of Directive 88/599 is foreseen Research on-going 1st and 2nd call in 5FP 35 3. Awareness Making the public more aware of risks Addressing high risk groups with EU wide information campaigns Increasing the attractiveness of travel by safer means Promotion of a shift from car driving to the use of public transport and/or cycling and walking that would have significant results for road safety 1997 International Conference Traffic Safety on Two Continents, Lisbon, 22 September 1997 the Young European (Car) Driver campaign. 1997 various YES conferences to inform opinion leaders among young people 1998 the 10 Seconds campaign. 1998 International festival of Road Safety Films, Lille, 1-3 April 1999 the European Young (motorbike) Rider campaign Throughout summer 1999. Three road safety video clips screened on MTV. Communication 'Developing the Citizen’s Network' published 10/7/1998. COM (1998) 431 final. 'Benchmarking' to allow local authorities to compare their transport systems. Pilot project 1998-1999, full scale initiative 2000. Creation of web site www. eltis. org Change advertising philosophies Adoption of a code of conduct in advertising stimulating advertising that promotes road safety Study into the feasibility of a prize for advertising which promotes road safety. Final report published mid 1999. Accident recorders in motor vehicles Trial project in Austria and Germany targeted at young drivers Accident recorders register essential crash data and facilitate enormously post- accident analysis (which have become more difficult with the advent of ABS systems). The presence of recorders leads to a considerable reduction of accidents as drivers are more careful. 36 Allocation of the real cost of insurance in proportion to the risk In the Green Paper on Fair and Efficient Pricing, it was recognised that : Green Paper 1996 White Paper 1998 Report on 'options for charging users directly for transport infrastructure operation costs', September 1999. Work on going Detailed model under development - insurance premiums does not cover the whole cost of accidents and their consequences - individual premiums are not in proportion to the potential risk of road users Development of : -a car safety declaration model; a car safety information model for consumers; and, a model for basing car tax on socio- economic costs for traffic accidents and toxic emissions Traffic Safety Model (4th framework programme) B. Environment of user Speed limiters for heavy vehicles Compulsory installing and use of speed limiters Evaluation of impact of Directives 92/6 and 92/24 Report delayed in order to take into account the latest experiences of member states Speed limiters for other categories of vehicles Extension to all vehicles above 3. 5 tonnes This issue is covered in this Communication Variable speed limiters for all vehicles On-trip information (Radio Data Systems, Traffic Message Channel (RDS-TMC)) Installation of information systems; EU-wide installation needed MASTER Managing Speeds on European Roads. Completed Being widely implemented Weather-Related Traffic Management Installation of local monitoring and driver information systems Being implemented in D and F. Exchange of information, pilot projects Variable speed messages on motorways and on car instrument panels Information to the driver in order to adapt speed to circumstances Exchange of information, pilot project TROPIC completed Spring 1999 Intelligent accelerator pedal A device that generates more resistance in the accelerator pedal if a decrease of speed is needed In pilot phase. Possibility for introduction in series through legislation. Should be assessed. National trails on- going 37 Adaptive cruise control Automatic adaptation of speed as a function of the distance from the next vehicle Vision enhancement Equipment of vehicles with UV-headlamps, infra-red detectors or radar systems Obstacle detection systems Driving aid systems that warn driver of obstacles (e. g. vulnerable road users) In test phase for buses. Implementation of this available technology for other vehicles should be considered 1999 onwards Prototypes being tested Actions to be decided on the basis of further assessment which will examine the effects of UV headlamps on safety GADGET project: Guarding Automobile Drivers through Guidance Education and Technology. Final results presented mid 1999 Improved visibility of vulnerable road users Implementation of a code of practice for the use of luminous or reflecting clothes in traffic Means and knowledge available. Development of standards to be examined. Daytime running lights Headlights during daytime to increase visibility for. motorbikes. other vehicles Report carried out into fatality reduction by SWOV, and review of existing research, spring 1999. Report produced on fuel consumption effects, November 1999. The majority of the High Level Group agreed that DRL should be actively promoted. Therefore need to consider implementation Roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles Regular inspection of motor vehicles as regards safety provisions such as brakes, tyres and lights Proposal for a Directive on random roadside checks. (COM (98)117 final of 11/3/1998) Harmonisation of exami- nations for safety advisers for transport of dangerous goods Appointment in the companies of key persons to oversee all activities related to the transport of dangerous goods Directive (COM (98)174 final of 19/3/1998) Common position 29 March 1999. Adoption spring 2000 38 Traffic management Defining road network hierarchy; segregating vulnerable road users where needed ARROWS project: Advanced Research on Road Workzone Safety Standards in Europe, completed INTERSAFE. Presentation of a technical guide to road safety for interurban roads. Madrid March 1998 Not yet implemented Following several major accidents the Commission, assisted by expert groups, will prepare recommendations Project started in Jan. 1997. Final report scheduled for year 2000 Safety impact assessment The impact on road safety should, like the environmental impact, be systematically assessed at the decision stage for infrastructure Tunnel Safety DUMAS (4th framework programme) Development and assessment of urban safety management strategies; validation in field studies throughout the EU Field III: Reduction of consequences of accidents Subject Key provisions Status/timing Use of seat belts and child restraints Increased restraint use to 95% would reduce 7,000 EU deaths annually. 1998 'Ten Seconds' campaign. MTV videos. Commission report COM(96) 244 indicates that the implementation of Directive 91/671/EEC in wearing seat belts is completed. Increasing the use should be subject to enforcement/education Directives 96/36, 37 and 38/EEC requires the mandatory fitting of seat belts to all seats of new minibuses and coaches built after October 1999. An updating of Directive 91/671/EEC is considered. Directive 2000/3/EC introduces the requirement for three-point safety belts in the central rear seat of M1 vehicles, and for child restraint systems (seats), as provided for by UN-ECE Regulation No 44 (Geneva). 39 Cycle & motorcycle crash helmet use Crash helmets reduce head injuries for this group by 50% Promotion of helmet wearing will be a spin off effect of the European Young Riders Campaign 40 Crashworthiness of vehicles Cars Buses ADRIA (4th framework programme) Compatibility (4th framework programme) “Friendly” design of motor vehicles Crashworthiness minimum standards for new cars are introduced for the first time at EU level as from 1998 by type approval Directives on side impact and frontal impact. However, there are still considerable differences between cars from the same classes as regards crash- worthiness. The Communication on type approval for buses (Com (97) 276), includes standards for roll-over, and evacuation procedures. Design of an advanced, biofedelic crash dummy for injury assessment in frontal test conditions Research project aimed at providing design recommendations to improve crash compatibility between passenger cars Cars and heavy vehicles should be so designed that in case of accident the damage to the other (more vulnerable) party is minimised Research by EEVC in preparation for the amendment of Directives 96/27/EC (“side impact”) and 96/79/EC (“frontal impact”) in order, inter alia, to broaden their scope of application, amend certain assessment criteria and increase the collision speed. Final report: February 2000 EuroNCAP (on going) The Communication is under consideration by the Council and the Parliament. ECBOS project in the 5th FP will examine crash tests and other safety issues Project started in Feb. 1997. Final report June. 1999 Project started in April 1997. Final reports summer 1999. – Development of compatibility standards and test procedures (studies on going) – Proposal for Type approval Directive on safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists (2000) – Energy-absorbing front under-run protection for lorries - research started in 1995 should lead to proposals for design parameters in 2000. 41 – Closed side guards for lorries (Proposal for legislation amending Directive 89/297/EC including changing optional towards mandatory fitting (delayed) – Proposal for a Directive for front under-run protection for heavy vehicles (COM(99)32) A conference was held by the ETSC and a study into crash barriers and motorcyclists launched SAFESTAR Safety standards for road side design and redesign. Completed “Forgiving” roadside design Crash barriers legs are extremely dangerous for motorcyclists “Black spots” should be identified and corrected Automatic Incident Detection (AID) and Emergency Management Emergency call system Installation of intelligent traffic surveillance systems Technology ready for implementation Exchange of information Satellite Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in combination with Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM) Field trials undertaken in Member States. Results to be disseminated for further application Post-accident care – first aid – roadside emergency care – trauma centres Support of Commission to establish : – Best practice guidelines – Exchange of information Development of in-car emergency warning systems – Research 42 ANNEX 4 Duration of effects of road safety measures. Category of safety measure Typical duration of safety effects (service life) Land use planning; new residential areas 25-40 years Road pricing; fuel or vehicle taxation systems 1-3 years for use of existing motor vehicles, 10-15 years through vehicle purchasing decisions Changing the modal split of travel Contemporaneous effect only Major road investment projects (new roads) 25-40 years Minor road investment projects 15-25 years Traffic control by means of highway signs 10-15 years Traffic control by means of road markings 1-10 years Upgrading road maintenance 1 year Vehicle safety regulations (for new vehicles) 10-15 years Driver education and training (new drivers) 1-3 years Training of children 1-3 years Public information campaigns Effect only during campaign, or a short time after Conventional police enforcement Effect only when operated, or a short time after Automated police enforcement Effect only when operated, or a short time after 43 Conversion from investment costs to annual costs (coefficients by which the investment costs should be divided) Duration 40 years 25 years 15 years 10 years 5 years 3 years Interest rate 5% Interest rate 4% Interest rate 3% 17,2 14,1 10,4 7,7 4,3 2,7 19,8 15,6 11,1 8,1 4,5 2,8 23,1 17,4 11,9 8,5 4,6 2,8 44